Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 21:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Anonymous Coward)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: A Trip to the Store (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A Trip to the Store (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Jack Troughton)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Stephen Harris)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Trip to the Store (Robert Canup)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Hobbyist)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:44:58 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I'm not the one trolling out a one-trick pony.
>
>What do you mean, "one-trick"? Did you not see my post about
>pcAnywhere crashing Windows 2000? FYI, there are 62998 other
>"tricks", although I haven't found them all yet.
FYI - Your "one trick" seems to be amatuerish Windows-bashing which
you misguidedly try to hide behind the shield of advocacy.
There is a failing of your cause however - In the case of SCSI support,
the pcAnywhere issue, and the 63K bug report; there has been
increased discussion and some debunking into th background
of these reports, and why they are not as cut and dried as
the media soundbites make them out to be. In fact, one could
see where there has been some benefit in the followup messages
to provide a greater understanding of the functionality and capabilty
of various Hardware and OS configurations.
>>>You are justifying this serious bug in
>>>Windows 2000 --
>>> -- by saying Linux --
>>> -- has the same problem too?
>>
>
>I see you have modified my question to suit your purposes.
The question stands as I quoted it above, you originally posed it to suit
your own purposes by trying to add information that is incidental and
irrelevant to the point being made.
>The original question was quite embarrassing to you Windows
>advocates, wasn't it? But I am not going to let you get away
>with it, so here it is once again, in its original form:
As an Anonymous Coward, I try to play an objective role, and not
take deliberate sides within a discussion. There is much that
can be gained from listening to good advocacy of Linux, Un*x,
BeOS, Macintosh, Windows and other Platforms, applications,
services and philosophies. But there is little to be gained from
obfuscation, and deliberate attempts to cloud the issues
behind inflammatory rhetoric. Even so, I will answer to your
question as you so choose, in the "original" manner and
style that it was posted:
> Have you no shame?
This was unneccessary... It comes across as a badly played
attempt to provoke an emotional response fronting as an
intellectual arguement. This is the tactic used to try and
throw the other debater off-balance when one feels thier
own position weakening.
> You are justifying this serious bug in Windows 2000
As referenced in my previous post, your own actions in
this regard have placed the severity of this bug into
much dispute; where even those OS advocates who
do not hold W2K in high regard would agree that it is
a common issue amongst chosen platforms.
>-- a product that corporations pay hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to Microsoft for -
An irrelevant point, as 1. those corporations are also
paying the cost of equipment, setup, installation, and
administration; all factors which would serve to
prevent the problem you try to claim as a bug.
And 2. your original argument, as the main topic of
this thread, did not attempt to associate pricing of
the platform with the setup issue. To do so now, you
would also have to include a scale of other (potentially
more expensive) OSes that are subject to the same
configuration changes. This would further cloud the
issue.
>- by saying Linux
>-- a FREE product
Also irrelevant, and inaccurate, if you are attempting to claim
that the same corporate entities you point to above would not
be paying a third party like Red Hat, VA Linux, or LinuxCare for
some of the deployment costs to get a "solid" Linux distribution.
Even if that is your claim, there is still the associated cost as above,
in equipment, setup, installation, and administration of the
installed systems. And any (Linux) sysadmin that would not
first take the hardware configuration into account when installing
any OS, would not be worth the salary the company would pay
him/her.
>-- has the same problem too?
AFAIK, every OS that can be installed on your
original configuration would be subject to the same problem
(and feel free to clarify otherwise).
[snipping some of my previous post here]
>Why don't you admit that the Windows boot loader really is
>lacking? Not only will Microsoft's boot loader not boot
>competing operating systems, their boot loader will not even
>boot their own operating systems!
Neither of those statments is true, nor will exaggerating the
issue make them so. I currently use the boot loader with
Windows 2000, Windows 98, and Mandrake 7.0; and I will
probably include BeOS soon.
>Not taking advantage of the SCSI id is only one of the problems
>with the Windows boot loader. For another problem, consider
>the fact that it is extremely hard to get their boot loader to
>boot Windows 98. If your hard disk already had Win98 on it when
>you installed Windows 2000 then you're OK, but installing
>Windows 98 on a hard disk that already has Windows 2000 is very
>hard.
I would tend to disagree... I have not myself done so with W2K,
but I have seen an install of Windows 98 after that of Windows NT
(SP6) that did successfully include itself into the NT boot loader.
>In my case Windows 98 is on my Jaz disk, yet, there is
>no easy way (almost impossible) to add an entry to boot.ini to
>boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk!
I thought that was what the scsi() entry was used for?
>I have researched this issue on Microsoft's website and I have
>come to the conclusion that their boot loader is brain-dead.
>To boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk, I apparently have to
>get the contents of the boot sector of the jaz disk and put it
>in a separate file etc. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
To say in the same breath that it makes no sense to you, therefore
it must be defective, seems like willful ignorance to me.
I do not intend that as a flame, I just think that perhaps
someone else here can offer an explanation. I would rather
understand why the boot loader works that way, and how
it's programmer may have been brain dead in designing it, than
to simply dismiss it because it works in a way that I do not
see a purpose for. Otherwise I might have to give up using
computers altogether.
>If you research these issues and compare with boot loaders of
>other operating systems you will come to the same conclusion:
>The Windows boot loader is brain-dead.
So you are claiming that all the other boot loaders would be
able to handle such a change to the SCSI configuration as
you applied?
>>>Do you realize decent enterprise operating systems such as
>>>Solaris don't have this problem?
>>
>>Others here have claimed it does... can you explain what
>>methods it uses to accomplish this? And how it would have
>>handled the install configuration that you had set up when
>>you installed Windows 2000?
>
>I have already explained what Windows 2000 could have done --
That is not the question I asked, but I may not have made that
clear enough. You claim that Solaris does not have this problem,
I stated that other posters here have contended that it would
have the same problem booting. I may be mistaken on that.
If so, could you please explain what method Solaris uses in
a default installation to avoid a boot problem when you have
changed the SCSI configuration that it initally was booted under?
>copy the SCSI miniport driver to the root directory and use
>this driver in the boot process.
IIRC there were some other issues with applying this method
by default.
>I have now manually setup
>Windows 2000 to boot like this. So Windows 2000 Setup program
>could easily have done this for me. Instead they made the Setup
>program brain-dead too.
I will apply the same comment as above; without a better understanding
of the design in this respect, I cannot agree that this is a clear
defect in the setup.
>(By the way, I found the Setup program will not use the scsi()
>syntax even if I turn on all drives when installing Windows
>2000.)
This was on a fresh installation I presume? And the setup did
not change the multi() parameter to scsi() in the boot.ini?
(I thought someone else here implied that it would).
Does it still work if you change the parameters after the initial install?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:59:00 +1000
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> Protection" does for me.
>
> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
> > there's no system files to protect.
>
> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
> system?
Because, <drumroll> drivers can crash OSes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:59:36 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 07:10:33 -0500, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Feb 2000 10:58:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>:That's in contrast to the anti-Linux propaganda spammers
>:like you, Jeff, who are proven liars -- for example, you
>:with your Phat Linux installation that you purposely rigged
>:to fail and then claimed that it proved that Linux was
>:totally useless for anyone.
>
>Yea... I guess I did. Damn me for buying semi-modern hardware and
>expecting Linux to support it. You got me Mark... I purposely used
>semi-modern devices like a USB mouse and a netcam. I purposely used a
Actually, USB mice are still in the minority. Webcams are
another matter but they're still not dominated by USB either.
Your protestations about 'semi-modern hardware' are actually
a sham.
Nevermind that the Win98 core installer doesn't even recognize
a USB mouse anyways...
>3 generation old video card (TNT1) which is "supported" by Linux and I
>purposely used the most popular sound card on the market (SB Live)
My TNT ran just find under Linux 6.x. My Voodoo2 did as well.
My Voodoo3 no problems.
As far as the Live goes, that might be a shame if any of you
jokers could articulate why it's not equivalent to an ESS1371
for your purposes.
[deletia]
Although, I imagine if I were interested in blowing $100 or
more on a soundcard alone, I would likely find that Creative's
Live source is more than adequate.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:04:55 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:15 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2000 00:30:33 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(c) There exists modern hardware that does not work with Windows.
>
>In the context of the discussion, the PC (x86 PC) based hardware market,
>Name some of that that doesn't work with Windows (any version)
>
>Try and wriggle by claiming subsets of Windows (NT, 2000, 3.1, whatever)
Many things USB won't work with NT5 yet. We had a whole thread
on this issue. Has logitech come around yet? Their USB 'netcam'
didn't work with NT5 last I checked while there are several others
that will work just fine with Linux.
Is there a USB stack for Win 3.1, otherwise all those nice mice
and webcams won't work with it?
NT has always had questionable SBLive drivers.
[deletia]
As long as there is a significant chance that some arbitrary
piece of hardware won't work with one of the current MS OSes
then the 'runs everything' benefit evaporates as the end user
is forced to expend the same effort ensuring compatibility with
NT that they might with Linux.
That's not even getting into power users that already incur that
overhead anyways so that they ensure that they don't get stuck
with crap hardware or crap drivers, even under Win98.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:49:18 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:38:24, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Todd wrote:
>
>> Wow... didn't know that. It'll make Matrix look a whole lot better.
>
>Oh yeah, I've seen our HDTV stuff in my company's digital cinema group... it's a
>pretty old set (in HDTV terms) but it still makes TV (even DVDs using SVHS) look
>like total crap.
I've only seen it once, but man, HDTV kicks ass.
Have you seen the report about the new technology from Texas
Instruments? I think it's a good time to buy TI stock; it scales from
TV sets to commercial cinemas, is cheap, and makes HDTV look bad. I
think the resolution is (currently; they're still in the development
phase) app. 6 million x 3.5 million pixels on the screen at 75 Hz
refresh rate. It was on TV the other night; judging from the report,
it's the shit, baby!:)
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Harris)
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:32:33 GMT
Mario Klebsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: That is easy to explain. When I write programs for e.g. Solaris 7, I
: can be shure to know a set of shared libraries, that will be available
: on the target system. And I can be sure, they have the correct ABI.
Ah - note you've locked it down to a version. Version 7. If you write
programs for RedHat 6.1 you can be sure they will always be there on a
RedHat 6.1 system.
Now, take the wider view - if you write a program for Solaris 2.6 then it
may have problems with Solaris 2.5.1 (eg internal regexp functions appeared
to have changed). Ok... that's going from "new" to "old". How about the
other way? Lotus Notes for Solaris 2.4 regularly crashes and dies on
Solaris 2.5.1 and even more so on Solaris 2.6
: When writing a Program for e.g. Linux 2.2.13, I cannot rely on
You are writing code to a kernel version? Sorry, the OS is bigger than
just the kernel. IBM, Oracle and other big guys all write to a specific
distribution, because that _does_ define what you require. Indeed, it's
a measure of success that programs do end up working with other distributions
(albeit unsupported).
: Since Solairs is an operating system, specifying its version does
: specify the version (and th4e interface) of all shared libraries,
Ah - so you do agree with my point. RedHat 6.1 is an OS. "Linux 2.2.13"
is a kernel. Code to a distribution, and you have the parallel environment.
Redhat, SUSE, Debian et al are *DIFFERENT* operating systems. They have a
hell of a lot in common and interoperability between them is surprisingly
good, but they _are_ different.
: So if Linux will not be an OS, there sould be at least a way to define
: the ABI of the linux versions, and the build process of the individual
These are called "Distributions".
Ugh, I think I've been trolled...
--
Stephen Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.spuddy.org/
The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.
* Meeeeow ! Call Spud the Cat on > 01708 442043 < for free Usenet access *
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:18:16 -0600
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's basically part of my argument. If the OS itself is faster, then it
> should be easy to see this on the same hardware. If you have to upgrade
_any_
> of the hardware at the same time to see this "faster" ability, then you've
just
> invalidated the comparison. Of course, if I add more RAM (faster CPU,
mobo,
> disk, etc) when I upgrade the OS, it's going to seem faster. That's sort
of a
> no brainer..
Ahh.. but the difference is that if you run the old OS on the same upgraded
computer, you'll still notice the speed difference. What we're talking
about is simply this. Given optimal memory and disk conditions, the new
version of the OS will be faster than the old one.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:21:20 -0600
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes wrote:
>
> > Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green
earth,
> > can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this
is a
> > problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written
and
> > crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
>
> The point is that no application should ever be able to take down the
entire OS.
PC Anywhere isn't just an application. It's an application and a kernel
mode device driver. A faulty device driver will crash any OS in existance.
> A crashing Xserver might be an inconvenience, but it's not going to take
down
> the OS, unless there's a bug in the OS itself. If my Xserver crashes, I
can
> also try to figure out what caused it, or run another Xserver that I know
is
> stable. On my boxes, I think I've crashed the Xserver a total of 8 or 9
> times... and that's over 6 years or so on Linux and solaris boxes. It's
always
> been either a known bug that I just needed to get a patch for, or was due
to my
> using an alpha or beta Xfree server.
Actually, since your XServer manipulates the video adapter, if it crashes,
it can leave the system in an unstable state. For instance, it could cause
the adapter to lock out the system bus.
------------------------------
From: Robert Canup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:53:13 -0600
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:56:32 -0600, Robert Canup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> :This is a copy of an email I sent to my brother.
> :
> :
> :2/19/2000
>
> <snip>
>
> Sure you did...
Yes, as a matter of fact I did.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:10:27 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 00:41:07 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:22:26 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
[deletia]
>>KDE and GNOME seem more geared toward the mildly computer literate
>>wanting to make a leap from Windows to Linux, but is too scared of
>>the command line.
>
>Quite frankly, people who aren't "mildly computer literate" are not even
>going to think of changing their OS.
>
>>It serves this demographic quite well, actually.
>
>Exactly. Linux has been consistently serving its demographic quite well
>which is why the user base is broadening. There's something of a feedback
>loop - the less geeky users push for less geeky stuff, and the less geeky
>stuff attracts more of the less geeky users.
>
>>However, the computer illiterate is not served well at all by these interface.
>
>They're not meant to be ( and they probably wont be for some time )
>
>>But you're still dealing with a limited demographic. These people that
>>are on mailing lists are still pretty computer literate, and therefore
>>aren't demanding the same things that an average joe user would require.
>
>The current model works quite well for the type of user that currently
>goes and buys a Linux box. The model will obviously evolve as the user
>base does.
>
>>I'm not sure how Linux/OSS is going to catch up in this respect,
>>as it has a long way to go to gain the knowledge and understanding
>>that these companies have obtained over many years.
>
>I'd guess that KDE and GNOME will need some sponsorship so they can
>do some serious usability testing. Just one possibility.
Actually there was a recent announcement about some notable
names in HID starting a project to put the Unix GUI's through
their paces and then publish findings.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:24:48 -0600
5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hkc4$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are overwritten
or
> > corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT apply. What DOES apply is
that
> > Symantec, in version 8 had code in their video takeover that performed
big
> > no-nos in the new W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their
> > symevnt libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND, they
did
> > patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
>
> A stable operating system does not allow a *driver* to break it utterly.
>
> See openbsd, openstep, VMS, MVS, and inferno/purgatory for details.
With the exception of inferno (which I know very little about). Bad drivers
can take down any of those OS's. Tell me, how exactly does the OS swap to
disk if the disk drivers crash?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:24:42 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when void would say:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>nospam> wrote:
>>
>>Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about helping
>>MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know the
>>definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
>
>NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
>Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
>throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
>environments and they will continue to do so.
. o O ( Whatever... )
At its base, NT is indeed a multiuser OS.
Unfortunately, the *operating environment,* aka "desktop," is a
distinctly single-user design, generally based on "The Previous
Version of Whatever Desktop Windows Does."
- Thus, Windows NT 3.5 was a multiuser OS where the desktop was based
on the single user Windows 3.1.
- Windows NT 4 was a multiuser OS where the desktop was based on
Windows 95.
- It rather looks like Windows 2000 will be a multiuser OS where the
desktop is based on Windows 98, perhaps with a few enhancements.
The common thread in all of these cases is that the system is a bit
schizophrenic:
--> The "server" part of the OS supports multiple users.
--> The "desktop" *may* support multiple users, but only serially
(e.g. - one at a time), and often not very well.
--
Why are people born? Why do they die? Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:27:35 -0500
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> "Hobbyist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who
> > > logged in hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the
> > > freakin DLLs.
> >
> > In this sited example. Doesn't the problem lie with MS Office, whose
> > DLL's are unnecessarily placed in the system directory ... 40MB of
> > DLL's and other files in a typical install BTW!
>
> First, yes, Microsoft Office97 had a ways to go with the multi-user thing.
>
> Secondly, Office2000 works much better.
>
> Thirdly, Office97 only installs 1-3 DLLs in the System32 folder for
> Office use.
Interesting. Not however, that 40MB of installation files
went into my system partition, most in the system32 folder.
Unnecessary AFAIC.
> If you have outdated control libraries or whatnot, it may update them,
> but as far as actually Office-only related DLLs, there's only a few.
The install was done in win2K.
> While there shouldn't be any at all (I agree), the few that are there
> are easily permissioned and protected from abuse/modification/tampering.
>
> -Chad
>
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:27:14 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
> But then you need to go back and compare the "new" system running the "old"
> OS.
And from every setup I've seen, 95 runs as fast as 98 on the same hardware. I
have one friend who upgraded to 98, and found it to be so much less stable that
he went back to 95 after a few weeks. Since he didn't need things like USB, and
he grabbed any 95 bugfixes he needed, it runs fine for him. He also says its
faster then 98 was. This is on a P2 class box with 64 Meg of RAM.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
#define QUESTION ((2b) || !(2b)) /* Shakespeare */
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:17:48 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:24:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hey there.
>
>I am on a mac; can your gui work on one? And what is it called?
If you want it to.
>
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> It was the Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:55:21 GMT...
>> ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of
>> > time before an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow
>> > neophytes to comfortably make use of it.
>>
>> We've got that GUI. Come and develop applications for it!
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:21:15 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:51:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LP writes:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>
>>> HDTV is 1920x1080.
>
>> And looks great sitting 1' infront of the screen?
>
>Irrelevant, given that HDTV isn't designed to be viewed from 1' in
>front of the screen. Why do you think television screens are so
>much larger than computer monitors? Do you sit 1' in front of a
Personally, I like the fact that I don't have to sit 2"
away from the TV when playing Soul Caliber...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
