Linux-Advocacy Digest #491, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Ilja Booij)
Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Things I have noticed................ ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Netscape review. (spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 28 Nov 2000 11:10:45 +0000
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've the OS installed for about 24 hours now.
> How am I to test something other than look & feel in this time span?
Exactly. This is why your conclusion that Whistler was so `cool' is
so meaningless. That was what AK was parodying.
> Beside, as I'm using the desktop version, it's the most imporant part of the
> OS.
Agreed, at least for Whistler's prospective market, but the way it
looks has nothing to do with the way it performs.
> The underlying OS is very unfinished, of course, that is why it's a *beta*.
No, a Beta should have most of the functionality in place, but need
more thorough testing to assess stability and iron out bugs. What
you're describing is an Alpha.
> Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
Here's a few, off the top of my head: Broken HTML (created by
FrontPage) that can only be read by MS browsers; ActiveX; Java that
contains `features' that make it incompatible with standard JVM;
closed formats for Office documents that change whenever they have
been reverse-engineered. As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
market to enforce their own position.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:15:01 GMT
Where abouts did you rectum pluck that idea from? I used NT for one
example, I have used Windows 3.11/3.1, and yes, Windows 3.1/3.11 are
abosultely shyte. Howecer, 95/98 failed to load after installing the VIA
drivers included with the Pentium Socket 7 motherboard, and Windows 2000
Pro, stable yes, bega bloatware YES! you could say "get a bigger hard
disk", why should I? I have used Solaris 8 x86, with each release, it
becomes more feature rich, but not bloatware rich, maybe Microsoft could
learn a lesson or two from SUN.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I have used Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/98se/NT/2000, NT was the biggest joke
>
> of
>
>> them all, installed a driver and NT failed to load, resulting in a blue
>> screen memory dump, not very fault tollerant or reliable!
>
>
> Very iteresting that you consider 9x & 3.x line to be better than the NT
> line.
> I don't think that I've run into this arguement before.
> Even the linadvocates that claim that NT sucks almost unanimously agrees
> that it's much better than the 9x line.
> I don't have a super computer handy, so I can't calculate how much better NT
> is from 3.x, sorry.
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 28 Nov 2000 12:15:21 +0100
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
> > Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
> > I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
>
> It's Windon't. It'll never happen.
Why not?
One of the nice things of Linux (or other UNIX-es) is that you can
run without GUI. Many people like this and use it. Now, if MS
implements this in it's systems, is that bad? i wouldn't think so.
Note that i myself prefer using Linux above using Windows.
i don't like using Windows, but if it gets better i could be
tempted to use it again.
Ilja
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Netscape review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:20:07 +0200
Well, I've tried netscape. (6, windows version. On Whistler 2296 machine)
Just as a note, Whistler being a beta release of windows might skew the
results, but I don't think it would do such a degree as to nullify the
results that I post.
Even if you half the numbers I give, it's still *bad* for Netscape.
I really did hope it would be better than the 4.X version.
It is, btw. As a browser, that is.
I installed it, and watched as it install something called "take5
(apperantely real player, why they call it real5 is anybody's guess.) icon
on my desktop, a "Free AOL & Unlimited Internet" icon, and a RealPlayer
Basic (why would you need the "Take5" icon for.
The UI is nice, and it seems that N6 is now the leader in the standards
compliance, after two years of balantly ignoring them.
I liked the way the installer tried to make me agree to allow netscape to
send me spam.
I've to compliment Netscape on one personal matter, it finally has hebrew
support builtin. I've not checked it throughfully yet, but I fear that it's
a visual hebrew support, though, which isn't so good.
I'm certain that after a short period of time in which I'll re-learn how to
use netscape, I'll be able to use it to the level of efficency that I now
use IE. Something you couldn't say about netscape 4.
That being said, here is what I don't like it:
Netscape is still a RAM-Devouring *monster*.
Right now I've only one netscape browser window open.
I never opened anything but the browser windows, and only three of them at a
time, and that for a short time.
Peak memory usage: 33MB
Current memory usage: 25MB
It does *nothing*, just displaying www.yahoo.com
Launching composer.
(Why would I *want* My SideBar in composer?)
write some text, add a 2X2 table, write some text to each of the table's
cells.
Add a picture (apperantly ALT is now mandatory), remove a picture.
Change background color.
Change it again, remove the table.
Check the numbers, Netscape is currently holding 30 MB of my memory.
Close Composer, refuse to save the document I created.
Watching memory, not one *byte* has been released.
Launching adress book.
For some reason, it also launched instant messenger.
Netscape has captivated 32MB so far.
Close Instant Messenger
Go to adress book, define a news account.
And *still* the sidebar is following me.
I've disabled it in both browser & composer.
Disable sidebar.
Lauching composer to see if it remembers not to put the sidebar there.
It remembered, close composer.
34MB.
Click on new card on Adress Book, decide that I really don't want to put
anything there and cancel it.
Close adress book.
Launch mail.
It *still* can't figure out that I *don't* want the sidebar.
For some reason it display an ad where messages are previewed.
Try to figure out how to remove news server that I added in adress book.
Don't have time to figure it out, has to go.
Closed Netscape, would keep reviewing it later, as I've to go now.
Came back, opened linux, it goes to home page.
It *started* at 25MB, now it's 30MB, and I've done *nothing* with it.
Let's try the email that I've no time to test earlier.
(35MB and counting)
Okay, deleting a news server is on Edit>Mail/News Accounts setting.
Now setting up one with a real data.
A minor UI quibble, the wizard force you to use the mouse in order to move
forward, as opposed to pressing enter, and having it move to the next step
on its own.
I know that Netscape is supposed to be platform independent, so I'm rating
it as minor problem.
Wow, netscape is taking 37MB.
I clicked the New Message button, and Netscape reached 42MB
Correct me if I'm wrong, but win2k work fit in a 32MB Ram, Netscape appears
to be unable to.
Now close the new message and try to read newsgroups.
It works.
It's too bad that it's taking 55MB
On, no, I spole too soon, it's now 56MB.
Amazingly, it dropped down to 52MB, first time it did it in any noticable
degree.
And now it's back up 56MB
57MB now, and it finished loading the newsgroups.
Subscribe to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, go to the news account, go to the
newgroup, it ask for username, I give it. Password, I give it.
It's 58MB
Now it's downloading the first 500 headers.
And it's on 60MB
Let's view two messages, it represent > as think || for some reason.
And it is taking 62MB
It also doesn't thread messages, at least not by default, and I'm afraid to
find out how much memory it would take then.
64MB
Let's push the email program to the background and go to the browser, which
has pointed at http://home.netscape.com/?cp=hop11refresh all this while.
Let's us see how it handle the most IE-centric site in the web,
www.microsoft.com
Amazing, it dropped to 42MB *only*!
It won't go there.
Is MS down?
No, loading IE and going to http://www.microsoft.com/ result in good
results.
Refreshing just to make sure I've an updated copy, http://www.microsoft.com/
is working.
On netscape, I get the following error message: Title: "Alert" Message: "The
connection was refused when attempting to connect www.microsoft.com" (Oh,
and 44MB)
Did MS blocked their servers to non-IE clients? Or has netscape simply
refuse to go www.microsoft.com because it fill like it.
Anyone here that can add soething to this?
I assume that this is a standard error message, but exactly what it
indicates?
www.dell.com is working, so there is no reason to assume that netscape has
any problems with win2k servers.
I tried to go to http://www.microsoft.com/ again, and it gives me the same
error message, only clicking enter, esc, or the okay or close button doesn't
do anything.
The application has not crashed, is simply denying me the use of the
application, as I can't get pass the error dialog.
Terminate netscape.
I go little less than 70MB of memory released suddenly.
Restarting Netscape.
Waiting.
5 seconds, and no netscape.
10 seconds, and no netscape.
20 seconds, and there is netscape.
This isn't an old computer, P3-500 + 192+ Voodoo3
It should *work*
28MB
Trying www.microsoft.com again, no result.
www.hotmail.com works.
http://msdn.microsoft.com, amazingly enough, works.
It looks similar enough to the IE display, but no moving menus, okay, it's
no biggie, just convinence.
29MB
Conclustion: As a browser, netscape seem to be working well enough.
As an application, it appears to be as wasteful of resources as you can get.
As a note, using OE, I can get to 60MB+ of memory taken, but it's:
A> Not a consistent behaviour, by this I mean that I can see that OE took
60MB or more (peak mem usage), but I rarely see it actually *stays* that
way, the way netscape does.
And OE only does this when I'm accessing news groups with hundreds or tens
of thousands of messages stored locally.
Right now OE is consuming 13.5MB, and it peaked at 20MB.
IE sometimes take a lot of memory, but never 20MB+ on a single window!
When running OE & IE together, they rarely (if ever) both reach 60MB+ and
*stays* that way.
And it's almost always OE using newsgroups with lots of messages on them.
Nestcape: Two browser windows, one mailer window, one message window, 48
messages.
OE & IE: Two browser windows, OE, and a message window, 26 MB or so, that is
nearly *half* what netscape takes to do the same task.
I thought that gecko was supposed to be smaller and faster than Netscape
4.x.
Slight off topic to the netscape review, but relevent to this thread.
So far, I'ved installed very few applications, dailer, babylon, winzip,
winrar, & netscape 6 (which installed several more applications).
I didn't have a problem with any of them so far.
I'm still investigating the system, though, application testing is the next
step.
I thought to install Adaptec EZ CD Creator, but discovered that Whistler can
burn CDs on its own. :)
No, linadvocate, please jump up as tell me that Linux had it since 1023BC
and that windows sucks because it only got it now.
I'm waiting.
I was planning to use netscape 6 to post this, but apperantely it doesn't
suppose corss posting, it complains about being to post to only one server
at a time, yet I've only one NNTP server defined.
I now closed every netscape window that I can see, yet Netscape is still
working on my computer.
Right now it has a footprint of roughly 280K, I assume it's to fasten its
load, trying.
Nlo, whatever it leave itself in memory for, it's not speed, because there
isn't none.
When I want a program closed, I really shouldn't be ought to terminate it,
why does netscape insist on keeping itself resident in memory after it was
closed?
This is it for now I'm unistalling Netscape.
It's a nice browser, but if I can run 10 explorer windows and *still* not
take as near RAM as Netscape does.
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:29:01 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
> I'm trying to teach my fiancée, a blond, how to use Unix.
I suspect that as long as you have preinstalled the System, and that you have a
Desktop like KDE on it, that it will be easier to teach her than you think it
will be.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:25:56 GMT
Well, I have never had that problem with KDE2 and XServer 4.01, is it
me, or has the shyte just hit the fan?
kiwiunixman
Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
> I have a p3 500...128 meg ram...runs fine... at least it's GUI doesn't segfault as
> much as KDE or GNOME! haha.. :) oh brother.
>
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>
>> Spicerun, calm down, I think Ayende is a little excited because Windows
>> may actually reach the realiability of UNIX/Linux (which is very
>> unlikely due to its very poor design/achitecture), however, I don't
>> think it will happen. From the description, it seem like Whistler will
>> be mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega bloatware that will
>> require a 1Ghz processor and 512MB RAM just so that it can run a decent
>> level of responsiveness due to all the hairy-fairy addons a gizmo's
>> Microsoft has added to the OS (which most people don't really need).
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> spicerun wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I DON'T CARE!!!
>>>
>>> I will still continue to run my Linux System which has performed for me better
>>> than anything MS has ever done.
>>>
>>> <EOM>
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Soltysiak
> Comp Sci/Soft Eng
> ICQ: 3063118
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:33:56 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:05:25 GMT, Matthew Soltysiak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>
> [whistler will]
>
>
>>> require a 1Ghz processor and 512MB RAM just so that it can run a decent
>>> level of responsiveness due to all the hairy-fairy addons a gizmo's
>>> Microsoft has added to the OS (which most people don't really need).
>>
>
>> I have a p3 500...128 meg ram...runs fine...
>
>
> So...I guess you think that's a small machine? What was the man saying
> about bloatware?
Finally, someone actually looked at the question. I want an OS that has
a very small footprint (I don't really care about media players and
integrated web-browsers), say 200MB, small memory requirement, say,
around 32MB, if it was done to-day, I would be as happy as a clam.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:36:47 GMT
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
>
> > So, if the number of books available to help the masses is an indication
> > that the environment sucks, well, then Windows sucks big-time.
>
> Stuff and nonsense. Do you remember the halcyon days of pet rocks?
> And you had books galore about how to care for your pet rock?
> Did pet rocks suck? How, I ask you, how could a pet rock
> possibly suck? All right. So, pet rocks don't suck. You had
> books about pet rocks. You have books about Windoze. Therefore,
> Windoze does not suck either. Admire the logic of it. Thank you,
> thank you, thank you (please, stop pelting me with flowers).
A strong comparison could be made between Windows and pet rocks as far as
their respective usefulness is concerned...
PS: I'm lobbing tomatoes, not flowers...
--
Tom Wilson
Linux User
Windows NT User
Windows 95/98 User
For our CARNIVOROUS FBI friends:
Kill Gore, Kill Bush, Free McVeigh, Turner Diaries, Oswald, Long Live
Saddam, Bomb, Ammonium Nitrate, Revolution, Guns, Nuke Florida, Anthrax,
Samples, The Alien at Roswell, Kennedy, Ransom, Demands, The Drop, and
Hoffa got loose again! And, per request: Free Kevin!
PS: You've been screening this shit since the eighties. Have you caught
anybody yet?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:35:23 GMT
SO, conrade, by you so-called definition of an advanced OS, anything CLI
is shyte!, yeah right, how come SGI super computers run UNIX? Howcome
IBM's Deep Blue runs AIX (an IBM UNIX variant)? How come most financial
institutions (such as the National Bank of New Zealand) rely on UNIX?
because it has 30-35 years of proven reliability, NT4 was meant to be
the big UNIX busting OS....hello!....UNIX is still here.....stronger
than ever.
kiwiunixman
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> So, kiwiunixman, did you classify yourself as a "unixman" because you don't
> know how to use a mouse and are afraid of getting sticky fingers in GUI? Go
> away you pathetic worm troll
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> So, Matthew Soltysiak, you classify yourself as a Comp Sci/Soft Eng, did
>
> you
>
>> obtain this title because you could click on the start button and copy a
>> couple of files.....oooo big man! Wake up and smell the shyte, Windows is
>
> a
>
>> poorly designed operating system that will never reach the scalability
>> hights of what is achievable by UNIX, an example of this is the big push
>
> by
>
>> Intel to SUN Microsystems to ensure that the 64bit version of Solaris for
>> Intel is ready by the time Itanium is released, now, if Intel had
>
> confidence
>
>> in Microsoft, they would not of given a shyte if Solaris was not ready,
>
> but
>
>> because Intel wants to move into the enterprise area they needed a well
>> respected Operating System (which Windows is not one of them) to win
>> customers over (esp. UNIX admins previously stuck with expensive,
>
> propriety
>
>> hardware who wished to move to Intel based UNIX solutions).
>>
>> kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:41:27 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Well, I've tried netscape. (6, windows version. On Whistler 2296 machine)
> Just as a note, Whistler being a beta release of windows might skew the
> results, but I don't think it would do such a degree as to nullify the
> results that I post.
> Even if you half the numbers I give, it's still *bad* for Netscape.
I DON'T CARE!!!
I will still continue to run my Netscape 4.75 Browser on Linux which has
performed for me better than anything MS running Internet Exploder has ever
done. Once Mozilla comes out with a version with debugging turned off, I will
be switching to it as soon as it is available.
If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda, keep it off
the linux and mac newsgroups.
<EOM>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:41:47 GMT
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to teach my fiancée, a blond, how to use Unix.
>
> I suspect that as long as you have preinstalled the System, and that you
have a
> Desktop like KDE on it, that it will be easier to teach her than you think
it
> will be.
Bump that, if this girl wants to get hitched, she's gotta ADMINISTRATE! <G>
In addition to that, she has to memorize T-568A and B wiring.
PS: She's a bridal consultant and has had me coordinate several weddings
with her. Turn-A-Bout is fair play!
--
Tom Wilson
Linux User
Windows NT User
Windows 95/98 User
For our CARNIVOROUS FBI friends:
Kill Gore, Kill Bush, Free McVeigh, Turner Diaries, Oswald, Long Live
Saddam, Bomb, Ammonium Nitrate, Revolution, Guns, Nuke Florida, Anthrax,
Samples, The Alien at Roswell, Kennedy, Ransom, Demands, The Drop, and
Hoffa got loose again! And, per request: Free Kevin!
PS: You've been screening this shit since the eighties. Have you caught
anybody yet?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:43:05 GMT
From the delay (of 9 hours) I see no reply? could it be that the
fabulours conrade can't code for peanut's? and can't bare the thought of
raring his ugly head in this newsgroup?
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I DON'T CARE!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I will still continue to run my Linux System which has performed for
>>>>
>> me better
>>
>>>>> than anything MS has ever done.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so go away... why did you respond to this? Stupid linvocates..
>>>
>> whistler will
>>
>>>> continue windows domination over the world.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthew Soltysiak
>>>> Comp Sci/Soft Eng
>>>
>>> Whatever school you're studying at....I'd transfer out of, if I were you.
>>
>> whatever air you are breathing now, I'd switch to Carbon Monoxide if I were
>> you.
>
>
> Tell us, Conrad....how many operating systems have you ever written
> programs for?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:49:02 GMT
Bennetts family wrote:
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
>> You are thinking 9x line.
>> A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>
>
> That's right, NT came off OS/2 LAN Manager, IIRC.
>
> --Chris
I'd actually say it would be more like OS/2 Warp:
NTFS is a mutated version of HPFS,32 bit pre-emptive multi-tasking,
multi-processor capable, protected mem, all the qualities of OS/2 except
will alot more bugs, and yes, I use OS/2 Warp 4 for a
server/firewall/netgateway (got it free off APC CDROM (July edition)).
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:28:40 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91IU5.152$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not above admitting that they've made some drastic improvements. A lot
> of Windows' problems had to do with supporting the MS-DOS legacy and I'm
> sure it wasn't easy for them. I'm glad to see they've finally buried it.
> Their developer support is MUCH better too. Aside from its' occasional
> brain-farts, I rather like NT for casual desktop use. It sure as hell
beats
> 95/98 as a development platform.
>
> For heavy-duty, mission-critical stuff, though - MS just hasn't cut the
> mustard yet.
>
> When someone shows me an MS OS that doesn't inexplicably die after a week
of
> heavy server activity - Or an MS workstation that doesn't BSOD several
times
> a week - Or an MS OS that doesn't need restarted everytime an application
or
> component (other than a service release) is added or removed, I'll
consider
> it a serious OS. Until then I and the other "idiots" won't be overly
> impressed.
You want a heavy server that would run for a week? NT 4(!) can do it.
(Although, that is not my defination of server)
You want a workstation that doesn' crash several times a week? NT 4(!) can
do it.
The above only hold for properly configured one, of course.
Win2K Server and Pro respectebly are the things you want to get in order to
get more than what you ask for.
You don't *have* to reboot for every application install/removal (aside from
hotfixes or service packs), the setup program ask you this because of the
bad precendent of the 9x line.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:30:16 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5tIU5.157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad Rutherford
> > wrote:
> > > >how would you know?
> > >
> > > I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he said.
> > >
> > > It's nothing like :
> > >
> > > >
> > > >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > >
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > wa waaaaa.
> > >
> > >
> > > Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
> > > scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
> >
> > There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
> > You are thinking 9x line.
> > A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>
> That's true.
> The misconception comes from the fact that NT's CLI (cmd) is syntactically
> identical to DOS. (A major weakness, IMHO)
Why?
And if you don't like NT default CLI, get another?
There are plenty.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:32:57 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
> >
> > Aaron, get a life. The guy likes Whislter, so be it. Leave him alone.
In fact, i like
> > it too. My eng. buddies and I love it. Beats the hell outta Linux for
usability. Take a
> > look a KDE2, ultimate bug shit edition. GNOME, ultimate bloat-ware and
bug shit
> > edition. Both segfault quite frequently. So, what does this say about
Whislter?
>
> KDE and GNOME say nothing about Whistler.
Correct, but one has to wonder, due to Aaron's constant nagging about
Windows not getting features that Unix had ages ago (his words, or at least
his meaning), why did Unix & Linux, so far, have been unable to produce a
good GUI system.
Apple had it for how long, 17 years?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:00:02 GMT
<ZIP>
>
> Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
Proprietry HTML "enhancements"
Proprietry Windows only "enhancements" to JVM
Proprietry API's, compare that to the open standards in the case of motif
Proprietry Media Formats (ASF, WMF)
care to add?
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
