Linux-Advocacy Digest #475, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 15:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Dave Pitts)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Robert
Moir")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Bill Gates just cant win ("Robert Moir")
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=BFbest?= Linux for small system using only CLI? (cramkenn)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Peter Ammon)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:38:43 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 18:23:18 GMT, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
>
>> sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
>> running... yawn...
>
>No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing the
>same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
>both being played.
>
>Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
>at the same time.
That may or may not be. It all depends on how well Windows is
managing the device access. The problem with X & svgalib is
that you've got two things that think their are the device
manager both accessing the hardware.
Considering that the whole point of DirectX for games programmers
is to allow them to bit bang with reckless abandon, I wouldn't
necessarily expect two Direct3D games to play nice with each other.
DirectX trades robustness for speed.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:51:31 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:05:18 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>It was the 2 Mar 2000 06:03:29 GMT...
>...and Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>* Any word processor
>> >
>> >Lyx?
>>
>> No. Lyx is a front end to a professional typesetting/publishing application.
>
>I agree with you that there isn't a free glorified-typewriter word
>processor on Linux yet. But if one can have what you describe, i.e.
>professional typesetting with a nice front end, why bother with
>glorified typewriters at all?
Try embedding a spreadsheet in a LaTeX document. Or even try writing a macro
for LaTeX ( yeah, you can write macros, but the programming capabilities
of TeX are limited at best. ) Try making a flyer using TeX. Do you get
the picture? Try installing and using a new font (gasp)
Word processors are much more sophisticated
beasts than typewriters. And they do things that LaTeX cannot do well if at
all. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear such a silly comment
from you. Are you the real guy or a Warkus impersonator?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:34:42 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:22:27 +0100, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac, I've been
>> beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i experience none of
>> these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
>>
>> So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great with
>> different sets of applications/tasks.
>>
>> If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are not so
>> brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
>
>I didn't say that the Mac's multitasking doesn't suck, I said Win 9x's
>does. Happy now?
Sucks vs. mebbe sucks more, all in the context of users
that very likely don't care either way. Otherwise, they
would be running Linux or NT.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Dave Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:56:38 -0700
Hello:
In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
Think anybody ought to mention to them that links have
been around for MANY years in Unix systems? Think that
they'll try to patent the idea?
The press release URL for your amusment is:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/02-28w2k.asp
--
Dave Pitts PULLMAN: Travel and sleep in safety and comfort.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] My other RV IS a Pullman (Colorado Pine).
http://www.dknsolutions.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:58:34 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 18:08:29 GMT, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>Plain TeX for letters isn't a terribly good fit since you'll need
>to do much of the layout by hand.
There seems to be some confusion here -- he said TeX, not plain TeX.
TeX is a typesetting engine, plain TeX is what people often also call "TeX"
-- it's a set of commands / macros that act as an interface to the engine.
> For informal stuff it's probably
>ok, but for business stuff it'll get tedious pretty fast. Business
>letters are better suited to LaTeX, which comes with a very nice
>letter template that requires a minimum of extra typing beyond
>the actual text and addresses and so forth.
The right way to approach business letters would be to write the custom
template using plain TeX syntax which lets you control the physical
stuff, and using LaTeX as the front end.
I'd go further than just saying that LaTeX is a better choice for writing
letters -- I'd say plain is by and large obsolete, and it's only really
useful for low level stuff ( such as writing templates and macros )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:53:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:45:06 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 15:28:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:23:12 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>>They're good approximations, certainly. I've had some fairly impressive
>>disconnects occasionally.
>
>You'll occasionaly get some problems if your printer has a font installed and
>you've installed a screen font with the same name and different metrics.
>
>>Still, I'm not sure how much worse Ted is than anything else. I just took a
>
>The main problem with Linux apps is that you either can't (easily) add new
>fonts, or it doesn't print the right fonts reliably. Try adding some TrueType
>fonts and get them to display and print with Ted. This is not a problem
>with each and every app, it's a problem with the way UNIX works.
Actually this IS a problem with each and every app. As monsterous
as some apps are, a decent font rendering subsystem wouldn't be
that much more of a burden.
>
>>>You are deliberately trying to distort things by trying to push the (bogus)
>>>claim that other platforms don't do WYSIWYG, then holding up something that
>>>is not even close as an equal on the grounds that they are "all approximate".
>>
>>No, I'm just pointing out that WYSIWYG is a pretty ill-defined term at the
>>best of times, and it's hard to tell what exactly your expectations are that
>>aren't being met.
>
>The main problem is the fact that on Linux, writing a program that does
>something that should be easy -- display a font and print the same font --
>is actually quite hard. This in itself earns the OS an "F" for WYSIWYG. Sure
>there are applications that do a reasonable job at it ( Star, Applix ), but
>they need to provide their own font handling mechanisms to do it.
That's simply not relevant to the end user. If the OS and the
apps can manage, that's all the end user needs to know. It might
vex the proprietary code monkeys for awhile, but that's due
primarily to their lack of sharing. They foolishly insist on
obscuring code that has no real strategic value to them.
This is prime example of why 'compete always' is a foolish way
to do things. No one ever 'collaborates' unless a monopoly
forces them to.
Monopolies are too high a price to pay for standards.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:51:01 +0100
Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Mario Klebsch wrote:
>>
>> Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
>> >and girls.
>>
>> What the hell is GNU/Linux? YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution)?
>I think this /proves/ its a troll...
Hey, that are you thinking of me? This thread was about binary
compatibility and ABIs, so what does a specification like GNU/Linux
offer on this one? There probably are lots of GNU/Linux systems (i
also have one), but what do they offer for binary distributed
software other than the common interface of the linux kernel?
Calling all Linux based system GNU/Linux does not make them compatible
to each other.
BTW, Binaries are the only reason, why I am using Linux. If this does
not work reliable, and I can only run programs, where the source is
available, I would switch to one of the BSD variants immediately.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:43:56 +0100
Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In comp.os.linux.development.system Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Gregory Neil Bastow would say:
>:>Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
>:>and girls.
>: The observation that "Linux, the kernel" != "Linux, the system" was,
>: and is, a useful observation.
>Indeed. I think everyone but Mario had realised that since the outset of
>the thread. Hence my sarcasm.
I realized that, too! I never wrote smething else.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:08:03 -0600
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mbim$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
>
> > sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
> > running... yawn...
>
> No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing the
> same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
> both being played.
>
> Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
> at the same time.
That's an unfortunate failing in X, then.
With DirectX, when you blit or lock the hardware, you can (supposed to)
specify DDLOCK_WAIT (for DirectDraw, probably D3DLOCK_WAIT for D3D, etc) that
will lock the hardware for a given range of pixels when those pixels are
free.
If you have two program writing to the frame buffer, to the exact same
pixels, and they're programmed properly, you won't have a problem.
For DirectDraw, you would say (in Visual Basic, very similar in C++)
DDSSurface.Lock RECT, DDSurfaceDesc, DDLOCK_WAIT, 0
The DDLOCK_WAIT signifies to wait patiently for DirectDraw to return
a lock for that area (RECT). If another thread or application is accessing
that particular area, that line of code will freeze (sychronously) until
the lock is available.
Alternatively, you can just grab the lock without a wait, at which point
DX will throw and error which you will have to handle.
If an application isn't written properly (doesn't wait, or doesn't handle
the error) yes, it will crash. But Microsoft documents this clearly in
there DirectX SDK. Even I found it, and I know next to nothing about DirectX.
The works on the primary surface (primary video card memory) or on
back surfaces (for back buffering/blitting and tripple buffering) if you had
a multi-threaded application with each thread drawing different parts of the
scene.
Thus, DirectX handles multiple locking gracefully, thus allowing well written
applications to both draw to the screen at the same time.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:16:48 -0000
Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>
> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
>
The increasing strange arguements and twists and turns being taken by some
to explain why microsoft should of migrated a perfectly good working system
they brought from someone else before the time would be ripe for them to do
so speaks volumes for you and the other's professional expertise, or lack of
it, in networking and systems administration.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:12:02 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That may or may not be. It all depends on how well Windows is
> managing the device access. The problem with X & svgalib is
> that you've got two things that think their are the device
> manager both accessing the hardware.
>
> Considering that the whole point of DirectX for games programmers
> is to allow them to bit bang with reckless abandon, I wouldn't
> necessarily expect two Direct3D games to play nice with each other.
> DirectX trades robustness for speed.
Actually, it handles it very well. If you attempt to grab a lock on
an area of the video memory that another application currently has a lock
on, your program will error.
There are two ways of handling this:
1.) You can specify in your code to wait for the lock to be available
2.) You can attempt to grab the lock and handle the error if it fails
(and try again, or just skip that frame or something)
Windows will not crash, nor will DirectX. If you happened to not do either
1 or 2, your program will crash.
Fortunately, MS has documented this well in their SDKs and all these examples
show method 1 and briefly mention 2, but claim it's the riskier way of doing
things (and it is).
I can show you sample code, if you'd like.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:18:20 -0000
Meethune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>
> BTW am I being too paranoid by thinking that regardless, I will
> be getting mail saying how I am a MS basher, linux lover, beos
> bigot, etc. ?
>
Get back to alt.mozart.advocacy you classical music zealot you ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:20:11 -0000
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> But I'll admit, it's nice to have "focus follows mouse".
> Especially if new windows tend to pop up in quasi-random spots -- and
> in Microsoft, it seems these new windows almost always take
> the focus, which means I'm working away in a document, fire up another
> tool (and the tools take several seconds to invoke, especially with
> the splash screens), type some more and
> then find I'm typing in the wrong window. Growl.
Yes that is annoying. I'm trying to remember what it came with.. Think it
might of been the "intellimouse" software but they did have a lil tool
around to change this behaviour.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:21:21 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mb1u$508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Can't quite tell which parts are satire and which are serious.
>
> I've heard reasonably good things about W2K's reliability as well, and
> hope those things prove to be correct, but I still won't purchase or
> recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
> unethical and/or criminal behavior (including but not limited to
> subverting formerly open standards such as Kerberos).
How exactly have they subverted Kerberos? Please document.
Here are some more fact-based papers:
(URLs wrapped for readability)
Windows 2000 RSVP Kerberos User Auth. Interoperability
===========
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/howitworks/
communications/trafficmgmt/rsvp.asp
Step-by-Step Guide to Kerberos 5 (krb5 1.0) Interoperability
===========
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/planning/
security/kerbsteps.asp
Windows 2000 Kerberos Interoperability
===========
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/bulletins/
kerberos.asp
Windows 2000 Kerberos Interoperability
===========
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/howitworks/
security/kerbint.asp
Windows 2000 Interoperability with UNIX
===========
(using Windows2000 Pro as a kerberos client to a UNIX
KDC)
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/professional/
solutions/unix.asp
There are many more articles, but this will get you
started towards the truth.
Go to www.microsoft.com/windows/server and do a search
for "kerberos" and you will see 4 pages of 30 results
each about Kerberos, Public key infrastructure and
security implementations in Windows2000.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:28:10 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
> >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
> >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
> >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
> >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
> >Then
>
> That's interesting.
>
> The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
> advertising that capability. Neither has the version
> that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
Yes, both of them have.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
default.asp
(URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
32 processors
> Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
> done on 4-cpu boxes.
What? Man, do you even try to review your statements for
truth before you state them?
That's completely wrong. The Compaq Proliant 8500 has
8 processors.
12 Compaq Proliant 8500s, 96 processors total.
What's 96/12? Yes, that's right. 8.
> A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
> really prove anything.
Heh... man, you guys really are something. I bet you
watch X files because "it's so real life".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: cramkenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=BFbest?= Linux for small system using only CLI?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:32:35 -0700
Will Ganz wrote:
>
> I just picked up a Compaq Deskpro 575 and want to install Linux on it.
> It is a Pent75/16mgRam/400HD/NIC. Yeah, I know but for $45 you can't
> get too picky about not having a CD. Want to load a Linux distro and
> put bash, Perl, apache, and gcc on it.
>
> Got my SCSI ZIP plugged into it so that I can transfer files to it
> under Win3.1 Just got DragonLinux, looplinux, and muLinux.
>
> Which would be the best pick for a CLI linux on such a setup? You can
> email me directly if you think that your answer would be flame bait.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Will
Try the Slackware ZipSlack Distribution. Zipslack is a nice Small
Distro, that can actually run from a zip disk without a problem. The
files can simply be copied to a disk as well. It is ideal for small CD
less systems, and if you want a reasonable Linux distro that can easily
be run from any DOS machine with a Zip drive without having to
reconfigure the system. Ideal for windows only computer labs.
Start at http://www.slackware.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:29:54 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
That's a load of crap and you know it.
Coming from a guy who can't do 96/12 and who doesn't even
know the basic specs of the product, I find it hard to
believe anything you claim is even remotely clost to the
truth...
> I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
> install a new Linux kernel.
Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:32:30 -0600
"Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:i%yv4.5269$O5.150890@stones...
> The increasing strange arguements and twists and turns being
> taken by some to explain why microsoft should of migrated a
> perfectly good working system they brought from someone else
> before the time would be ripe for them to do so speaks volumes
> for you and the other's professional expertise, or lack of
> it, in networking and systems administration.
But it's not a perfectly working system, that's what I'm
trying to say, and either you guys aren't listening, or
it's easier to just not face the truth.
The support costs to keep that thing bandaided must cost
MS a fortune. If not for the marketing motives, they
will have to convert it to SOMETHING, SOON so they
can stop the seive that is hotmail.com
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:34:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>
> Yes, both of them have.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> default.asp
>
> (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
>
> Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
>
> Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
Can someone explain how they do this?? I thought that a 32 bit OS on a
32 bit chip was limited to 32 bit addresses which corresponds to 2^32 =
4.3 billion bytes, or 4 gigs of RAM. How can Windows 2000 address more
than this?
-Peter
--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:21:38 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:16:48 -0000, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
>> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>>
>> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
>>
>
>The increasing strange arguements and twists and turns being taken by some
>to explain why microsoft should of migrated a perfectly good working system
>they brought from someone else before the time would be ripe for them to do
>so speaks volumes for you and the other's professional expertise, or lack of
>it, in networking and systems administration.
Except MS just isn't anyone. They're trying to sell the rest of
us the kind of software that they are unwilling or unable to
successufully deploy themselves.
They won't eat their own dog food.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:37:21 -0600
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, both of them have.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> > default.asp
> >
> > (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
> >
> > Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
> >
> > Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
>
> Can someone explain how they do this?? I thought that a 32 bit OS on a
> 32 bit chip was limited to 32 bit addresses which corresponds to 2^32 =
> 4.3 billion bytes, or 4 gigs of RAM. How can Windows 2000 address more
> than this?
I believe it's with the new memory extensions that Intel
provided. I believe that memory is now addressed with 36-bits.
I'm pretty sure it's something like that, can someone provide
a more definitive statement on it?
NTFS, however has been able to address 2 exabytes since NT4.0,
I'm not sure how they do that, though.
I remember a Linvocate not believing me, saying it couldn't
be done on 32-bit (since ext2 is limited to 2GB files), but
files in NTFS can be as large as 2 Terrabytes (I believe, I'll
have to review, that's just off the top of my head).
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
