Linux-Advocacy Digest #490, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Bill Gates just cant win ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:00:12 GMT
In article <89n6cb$v66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89ml58$5b1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:22:27 +0100, Lars Träger <Fam.Traeger@t-
> > online.de> 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.
> >
> > GACK! NT also sucks. Try to get an NT to display more than 16 colors
> > for its icons when it is in 256 color mode. Bottom line is, you
can't.
>
> By the way, there is an option for this in Properties-FX.
>
> Also, most people are using True Color or 16-bit color these days as
video
> cards can support these modes easily with full acceleration.
>
> So, NT can display more than 16 colors in icons.
Not in 256 color mode. MOST people in this company are NOT using true
color mode unless they want low resolution. See, a big business buys
just what it needs. I have three machines and none have better than 256
color at the resolutions I have to use them at.
So, yes NT can display more than 16 colors for icons, BUT NOT IN 256
COLOR MODE. Sheesh!
> > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.
>
> Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> performance.
>
> Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do
you want
> to know what scored highest? 2000.
>
> Second? NT.
>
> Last? 9x.
Well I have 95, 98, and NT. Which scores slowest in realworld? NT. Next
95. The fastest is 98 because I hardly do anything with that sucker.
> > I
> > have an NT, 98, and 95 system side-by-side here at work. NT is the
> > slowest hands down (they are all 400 Mhz systems). Talking to one of
> > our guru's here, he 'splained that it has to do with the drivers -
they
> > are much more complex on NT than they are on 95. As a result they
are
> > slower.
>
> That's a load of crap.
Oh. I guess I should believe you than my two lying eyes.
> NT's drivers *are* more complex than 95, that is true. But if you
actually
> measure performance, NT will beat 9x hands down given the proper
amount of
> memory... usually 64MB or over.
If you set the conditions right and you make sure it never has to swap
memory and you do this and that and whatever it will run faster. Sorry,
my world doesn't revolve around "if's and but's". I'm based in reality,
not benchmarks.
> How much memory are you using, anyway?
64 MB.
> > There are days when my system is literally crawling and all I have
open
> > are 5 apps and several directories. Hell, I've had 10 apps open on
my
> > Mac and have NEVER witnessed the kind of sluggishness I've seen in
NT.
>
> Again, how much memory are you using? Did you check the performance
monitor
> in NT? Is your system even configured correctly?
Yes.
>I doubt it, given your "expert's" false information.
First, we are an international corporation that sells systems that run
NT to other major international corporations. These systems, for the
most part, have to run 24 hours a day.
I think my expert's information is probably a whole lot more
trustworthy than yours. And from what I have seen, has been pretty much
on the mark.
> > My manager is hyped up on W2K based on, literally, the hype. "If
they
> > can do this... if they can do that..." I have something novel to
> > propose. Why doesn't MS sit down and for ONE year spend all of its
time
> > and effort on fixing the bugs and security leaks in the software
they
> > have already published. It starting to get to the point where you
know
> > they are lying because their mouths are open...
>
> So far, people are quite impressed with 2000... I've been scanning
the 2000
> groups, and yes, while there are installation problems with drivers,
people
> who have supported systems are quite surprised and happy that 2000
really is
> the OS that they have hoped it would be. Check it out yourself.
If it is better than NT, then I hope we will switch to it. However, I
don't see that happening until AT LEAST next year. Most likely it will
be 2002 before we have everyone on 2000.
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 03:11:43 +1000
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000,
> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
> >Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
> >
>
> Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
It didn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:06:06 GMT
In article <89odj2$ouj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 3-3-00, 2:07:26 AM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding
Re:
> Giving up on NT:
>
> > > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.
>
> > Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> > performance.
>
> > Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do
> you want
> > to know what scored highest? 2000.
>
> > Second? NT.
>
> > Last? 9x.
>
> Oh Sure. That's why Windows2000 has the highest system requirements -
> because it's the fastest OS.
>
> Well, I know that once you have enough memory [64+ MB], NT is faster
than
> 9x. 2K is no different. Is 2K faster than NT, I don't know, maybe...
Now,
> with 32 MB, 9x will be faster than NT/2K.
Well, I DO have 64 MB and it still pauses intermittently when I am
typing. I never saw that with 95.
I know that with 64 MB in NT and 32 MB in 95, 95 is faster. The only
problem is the 3-5 day crash (we leave our systems running overnight).
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: 3 Mar 2000 11:23:38 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OS. The reason why MS thinks it is so innovative is because they are so
>> ignorant about every other OS in the world.
>>
>
>Actually, Microsoft is very proficient and knowledgeable in the workings
>of UNIX. UNIX is used at Microsoft for simulating all possible hardware
>configurations for testing WIN98, NT, W2K.
Then why do they keep re-inventing it badly and incompatibly?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:31:55 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 16:33:51 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2000 02:10:20 GMT,
> Michael Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Programmer writes a program, and does the "Right Thing," using
>> sizeof(time_t) anywhere he has to know the actual size of the type.
>
>And then he does the wrong thing:
>
>> The program he's writing needs to keep some data on disk, which is not
>> at all an uncommon request. He's choosen to keep them in binary
>> files, to save storage space. Thus, he's got some structure
>
>> Now, time_t gets promoted to 64 bits, and he goes to read his data
>> back from his disk file.
>
>And he did another wrong thing: not using a magic numer and/or a
>version in his data headers, not to mention noting down the
>structure there.
I would say that the wrong thing is writing raw structures to disk. If you do
that, you should also provide routines for exporting the data to some external
form and importing from that form.
For example, the typhoon database management system writes raw C structures to
disk. The structures are generated from a database description language which
also generates a binary file that describes the layout of the database. Tools
are provided which will dump the database to a text form. Thus to convert data
from a 32 bit time_t, you would first dump it, then modify the declaration in
the description language, compile that to create a new binary description and
then run the import tool to regenerate the binary database with the new struct
layout. Then recompile the software to use the new struct declarations.
I don't think that the failure to add a magic number in the data header is
outright wrong. There could be versioning information that is kept elsewhere.
You wouldn't want to put a version into every copy of a database record; that
sort of information belongs in the description of the database itself.
For example, if you are writing a filesystem, you will probably stick version
info into the superblock, not waste space by putting it into each inode, or
directory entry or other object. The version is only interesting when the
system is being mounted.
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:37:38 -0600
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:39:24 -0800, Meethune
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :I'm not a *vocate of anykind but I got this email and thought it
> :was damn funny.
> :
> :This cracked up several of us at the office
> :
> :The classically minded among us may have noticed a new TV ad for
> :Microsoft's Internet Explorer e-mail program whish uses the
> :musical theme of the "Confutatis Maledictis" from Mozart's
> :Requiem. "Where do you want to go today?" is the cheery line on
> :the screen. Meanwhile, the chorus sings "Confutatis maledictis,
> :flammis acribus addictis," This translates to "The damned and
> :accursed are convicted to the flames of hell."
> :
> :So where do you want to go today? :)
> :Remember, this is supposed to be FUNNY so treat it like humor
> :and not some MS swipe.
> :
> :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. ?
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> :The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
> MS official: Win2000 sales topping expectations
>
> REDMOND, Wash. -- Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) officials said that Windows
> 2000 has gotten off to a surprisingly good start. Windows marketing
> director Keith White said during a local media briefing here Thursday
> that the industrial-strength operating system exceeded the company's
> own expectations by racking up more than 500,000 unit sales to small
> and medium businesses and to individual users in the U.S. alone. In
> disclosing the figure, White noted that it does not take into account
> worldwide sales or those to large corporate accounts. -- Chris
> DeVoney, Sm@rt Reseller
>
> Actually... not only is he winning, but he's winning big.
$75 million return on a $2 billion dollar investment, not bad at all, right!
--
The always lovable, highly presentable, and quite dapper,
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:43:13 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 3 Mar 2000 16:11:40 GMT...
...and Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:35:33 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >It was the 2 Mar 2000 18:51:31 GMT...
>
> >Exporting a spreadsheet and inserting it in a document is no problem,
> >but that's not what you ask for. On the other hand, I don't see why a
> >document that's created in order to be print should be able to contain
> >a functional spreadsheet.
>
> I've had documents where this kind of thing is useful. An example would
> be a document that contains several accounting tables. The active data
> is not vital, but useful.
Right. I go so far to say that for this kind of thing, the ideal
solution does not yet exist. A complete platform for data
visualisation, application development, Web publishing etc. shoehorned
into a typewriter may be a jolly good interim solution, but I think in
this area, there is potential for a revolution.
If there was a way to do the kind of things one does with PHP3, SQL
databases and Web servers in a simpler way, with a WYSIWYG
point-and-click interface, fully integrated, using nonbinary,
nonmonolithic document formats that can't be broken by twiddling a
single bit, extensible etc., with conversion for viewing and printout
integrated, that would be Godzilla.
> > "Active content" that is resolved upon
> >printout,
>
> What about viewing ? The problem with your TeX solution is that getting
> a preview is inconvenient at best, especially for the less advanced
> users.
There is clearly a need for LaTeX environments that are orders of
magnitude better integrated than what we've got today (AUCTeX mode,
LyX), especially with respect to viewing.
> >It's Turing-complete. I've written LaTeX macros, and frankly, it's not
> >rocket science.
>
> Sure, but it's hardly the worlds nicest language.
That's right :)
> >> Try making a flyer using TeX.
> >
> >That's not what LaTeX is for. But that's not what a word processor is
> >for, either. It's a DTP job.
>
> A word processor does come closer than LaTeX though. You could make
> something that looked OK with little effort using a word processor.
Surely. That's because most word processors today contain some
half-hearted DTP extension. The DTP software I know (MS Publisher) is
better than a word processor for almost any task, but it lacks the
features it would need for treatment of large amounts of text.
Blue sky:
I'd like to see a structural-markup DTP application some day. Usually,
a well-formed typographical document, whatever it is, flyer, newspaper
or book, consists of a hierarchy of boxes that inherit properties from
their enclosing boxes (classes and derived classes!). Then there are
very high-level typographical laws, that is, baseline grids, cell
grids, all kinds of visual psychology rules etc.; the enforcement of
those depends currently on the mind of the man with the mouse alone.
Exciting things can and will happen in this area. I intend to work on
this kind of issues once I've got my computer science diploma in my
pocket :)
> >> Do you get
> >> the picture? Try installing and using a new font (gasp)
> >
> >About as hard as installing any kind of new LaTeX package.
>
> Which is not that easy.
There should be a script to do it. Usually, it requires five steps:
- unpack
- run .ins file through LaTeX the appropriate number of times
- create a directory in the TeX tree
- copy stuff there
- run "texconfig rehash"
Nothing too difficult. Could be done with a GUI. Again, huge potential
for improvement here.
mawa
--
Recently on a Liberian bulk freighter:
-- Any cargo to declare, Captain?
-- Um... 280.000 metric tonnes of McSundae.
-- Thanks. Please proceed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 17:58:13 GMT
In article <89oifl$la6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On the other hand, in capitalism, the means of production are
>: owned by a small subset (class) of the population, the capital-
>: ists
>
>I should point out that in at least one of the countries where
>capitalism is most developed (the U.S.), most capital is actually
>owned by institutional investors (i.e., mutual funds), which in turn
>are owned primarily by pension plans, which are owned by employees.
>So in a very roundabout way, workers do own an extremely large portion
>of the society's total capital.
That would seem to be factually incorrect:
>From _The New Field Guide to the U.S. Economy_, by Nancy Folbre
and The Center for Popular Economics; The New Press, N.Y., 1995,
ISBN 1-56584-153-0 --
Share of total value of family-owned assets in 1989
The richest 1% of families held:
45% of all nonresidential real estate
62% of all business assets
49% of all publicly held stock
78% of all bonds
The richest 10% of families held:
80% of all nonresidential real estate
91% of all business assets
85% of all stocks
94% of all bonds
>One significant problem - and this is a problem with democracy as well
>- is that the many layers of indirection between the masses who
>supposedly hold the power, and the decisionmakers who supposedly
>represent them, allow for a signficant conflict of interest to
>develop between them, and, therefore, for decisions to be made at the
>highest levels which benefit those at those levels, but to the
>detriment of those who are *supposed* to be in control.
Yes -- who gets nominated and elected depends almost entirely
on who gets the most campaign funding, the most support from
the large propaganda mills (e.g., the Heritage Foundation --
favorite of Bill Gates), and the most backing from the press.
All of these are controlled by wealthy people, who thus mostly
determine who controls the government. That's why the Repub-
licans (who exist solely to make gov't serve the wealthy few
and rob everyone else) are almost all bitterly opposed to
campaign finance reform, while the Democrats (who do serve the
people's interests to a degree) favor it.
>: who seize for their own benefit a large portion of the
>: value of the goods and services that are produced by the rest
>: of the population, the workers.
>
>Owners don't seize anything (at least if the rules are correctly
>functioning); they negotiate contracts with workers, suppliers, and
>customers to which all parties freely and voluntarily agree.
This is one of the major lies of libertarianism/laissez-faire
capitalism/conservatism. In fact, workers are forced to accept
the terms dictated by employers, because the alternative is
*death*, for them and their families; if they don't get money,
they can't survive. Wealthy owners (employers) are under no
such pressure.
"How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the
rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the
streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!"
-- Anatole France
>This breaks down if a single entity (or oligopoly) owns enough of an
>important commodity, such as land or oil or operating systems, to make
>others dependent upon it.
>
>A key issue that defines much of the difference between socialists and
>libertarians is that the former believe that capitalism inherently
>leads to such a situation, whereas the latter believe that in the
>absence of coercion or fraud, no such monopoly can possibly develop,
>much less sustain itself over time.
The wealthy few, as a class, *do* own most of the land,
means of production, etc. They got it by stealing much of
the value produced by the workers, by charging high interest
on loans of money that the workers need (the value of which
money the workers themselves produced, and now have to rent
back!), by buying up homes and raising the rents, by selling
fraudulently shoddy, dangerous, or addictive products, by
cutting manufacturing costs by polluting the environment,
and many other means that are generally ignored by libertar-
ians when they assure themselves that their worldview is
accurate.
All of these ways that wealth inequality comes about under
capitalism do involve coercion and/or fraud, but libertar-
ianism opposes legislation to prevent them. It gives lip
service to preventing some of them by means of informing
the public (which mostly fails because the public is too
busy working for survival to pay attention, and the media
that would inform them are controlled by the wealthy), and
instituting lawsuits (which fails because it takes so long
that the harm is already done, if the victims can are even
able to get up enough money to begin the process).
The coercion always exists, because the workers need to
survive. This always happens under capitalism, unless it
is tightly regulated to prevent it, as in a social democracy
system (which is certainly not laissez-faire).
>: This seizure of wealth is
>: called exploitation; it's the reason why, in the US for
>: example, the wealthiest 10% of the population own 90% of
>: everything, and the poorest 90% own 10%. Thus the average
>: member of the wealthy 10% owns 81 times as much as the average
>: member of the non-wealthy 90%.
>
>Your critique of capitalism loses credibility from this point forward.
See the reference above.
I used to be a libertarian, too; I know where the bodies are
buried. 8^)
>I am a defender of liberty, not necessarily "capitalism" (a term
>which, like "Christianity," has been so abused as to be devoid of any
>precise meaning that all sides can agree on).
>
>If "capitalism" were as bad as its critics claim, I would oppose it
>too.
It is, and you should (unregulated -- laissez-faire -- capi-
talism, at least). Regulated to prevent its harming people,
and accompanied by redistribution of wealth via strongly
graduated taxation, capitalism -- with it's top-down control
-- has the benefit of allowing great agility in the allocation
of resources and utilization of new ideas in the design and
manufacturing of products.
>But what you are describing and condemning is the result of freely
>entered agreements made without coercion among responsible adults and
>entities.
The certainty of death resulting from having no money is one
of the most powerful forms of coercion.
>What you'd replace it with is a coercive state which would
>disallow agreements you don't agree with (which isn't that different
>than what we have now, but I digress).
What I'd replace it with is an economy that works for all
the people, not just a few. A first approximation is that
adults who are able to work effectively and who do so would
all get paid the same base rate per hour, multiplied by
a motivating factor between 1 and 30 that would depend on
the time they've taken to get an education, their ability
to come up with good ideas and implement them, to organize,
etc. The value of this multiplier might be determined by
a combination of democratic legislation and capitalist
methods (fiat from above, competition, etc.).
>I much prefer liberty.
>
>But since you see capitalism as anti-liberty, and that seems to be one
>major reason why you oppose it, I do think we have some common ground
>in spite of coming from nearly diametrically opposing positions.
>
>I think we both want to maximize liberty, but disagree as how best to
>do so.
>
>Is that a fair analysis?
Yes, at a certain very high level of abstraction. But liberty
can't be divorced from the need to survive.
>BTW, I do appreciate your work in exposing frauds and bigots on this
>group, and agree with much of the rest of what you have to say, except
>on this particular subject and a few others that aren't terribly
>on-topic here anyway.
Thanks (I think 8^).
Please explore the resources linked from this website,
especially the books mentioned at the end. This is the
information that woke me up from believing in the narrow
axiomatic (but false to reality) libertarian thought system.
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
We need a humanistic economic system and society; they go
together. The social basis is perhaps more fundamental;
see _The Chalice and the Blade_.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:46:21 GMT
In article <89ok4j$5f4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The criticism regarding Win9x's poor multitasking is met head on
with
> > a irrelevant counter charge the Mac's multitasking is worse. That
>
> Irrelevant ? The original claim was that Win9x is a poor multimedia OS
> because apparently when running QT, the downloads seem to suffer,
implying
> that it is bad because is multitasking ability was bad and stating
that
> MacOS was better at multimedia for that.
Okay, so someone claims a real-life example. They indicate that Win9x
handled it less ably than MacOS.
> This I disagree because it's one app [I didn't make the test and took
the
> original post at face value].
But it is a real world example. Something people would normally do. You
can disagree with it, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
> As I said, I don't have those issues with Windows Media Player, I can
> download stuff, move files, even listen to MP3, encode .MP3/.MPG
files,
> while watching TV, and compress/move files and the multimedia is not
> perturbed.
What dream system do YOU have?
> I can listen to MP3 and burn CDs. I can run media player/winamp while
> encoding .MPG or .MP3 files, or anything that strikes my fancy, on
> background/foreground, whatever, it works.
>
> System: Celeron 400 / 256MB / Windows98SE.
Oh, well you see most people (ok, at least I do) only have 32 MB in
their Macs. I suspect that if they bump it up to 256MB, they would also
see the same improvements. But I forget, you have to listen to music
and watch tv at the same time.
> See, many _different_ multimedia activities against of the one QT
example,
> which made me believe that QT wasn't optimised for the Windows
platform.
> [You are, of course, aware that even in a PMT OS, you can set
priorities for
> apps, maybe QT has a high priority, I don't know, but if degrades
download
> performance, it's doing something weird, that's for sure]
Sheesh. QT is sold to commercial software vendors for use in their
systems. Do you seriously think they would use something that wasn't
optimized for Windows?
> > charge doesn't make win9x a good multimedia OS.
>
> Well, IMO, it's better than the MacOS, since the original claim was
that the
> MacOS was a better multimedia OS because QT worked better in it than
in
> Windows9x. Multimedia doesn't start and stop at QT. Sorry.
Got firewire on your system yet? I'm downloading digital video from my
camcorder, are you? How does it work? Very well. Better than I had
truly expected (and I expected a lot!).
> If I want to use many applications [other than QT] at the same time,
it will
> be better because Windows has a better multitasking
Actually, so does the MacOS, only it is called COOPERATIVE multitasking
(CMT). What you MEAN to say is that Win95/98/NT/2000 has PREEMPTIVE
multitasking (PMT). PMT is not better than CMT. It is merely different.
Actually, PMT requires a lot more code than CMT (since CMT is in
essence a single thread, it is virtually impossible to enter a deadlock
situation).
> > I haven't seem anyone claim the Mac is better at multitasking, I
have
> > seen people excuse Win9x's poor showing by blaming the applications
>
> Poor showing, it's just one example !
>
> > while crediting what the Mac can accomplish by praising the
> > applications. A good pre-emtive multitasking OS would preempt a
> > poorly coded application and So the excuses people offer for
Windows9x
>
> Even if the application is given ultra high priority ? You are sure
that
> poorly coded application won't degrade the performance of an
NT/Linux/UNIX
> system ? Really, really sure ?
"I don't want HIGH priority for this task, I want ULTRA HIGH!" What the
hell is ULTRA HIGH? Sadly, Windows doesn't let you specify absolutes,
just "relatives". Setting priorities in Windows is a crock.
> > shows even it's advocates recognize (if not admit) Win9x is
seriously
> > flawed.
>
> Windows is not as bad as people claim it to be, well, not IME, anyway.
Nor is the MacOS.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
