Linux-Advocacy Digest #527, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Things I have noticed................ ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:56:44 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
wrote:
> >Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:33:16
> > [...]
> >>When was it, exactly?
> >>Because prior to late 1998, Netscape *was* a monopoly in the browsers
> >>market.
> >
> >Well, they were the market leader, and had well over 50% of the market.
> >But that has nothing to do with being a monopoly. It is
> >anti-competitive behavior, not market share, which makes a monopoly.
> >
> >>MS didn't have a fighting chance in the browser market until IE4. And
the
> >>reason that I moved to IE wasn't because he was better, it was because
> >>Netscape was bloated and heavy and buggy.
> >>I don't think that I would've moved if they were of comparable quality.
> >
> >I'm not going to bother trying to convince you that your ability to
> >determine the quality of a piece of software is obviously flawed. I can
> >even agree with the sentiment that Netscape was (is) bloated, heavy, and
> >buggy. But the last version of IE which could avoid the same, and
> >worse, label was before version 3; since then, they've been equally fat
> >and stupid. IE just has the added disadvantage of being monopoly
> >crapware.
> >
> > [...]
> >>IE has a tendecy to take a 9x down with it when it die. (Not on NT,
usually.
> >>And 2000 & Whistler has an option to launch IE & Explorer as seperated
> >>processes, a little slower to launch {*mcuh* faster on Whistler, a
> >>difference of almost 2 seconds, but it's not fair comparing a
workstation to
> >>a server} but it increase system stability.)
> >>Netscape only takes itself down (usually, at least, there had been
> >>exceptions), but it takes as much time to load it as it takes to reboot
> >>windows.
> >
> >Hmmmm....
>
> If I could actually manage to *stop* win98 then that might seem
> like a sensible statement.
>
> Chad's not taken up my request to get Microsoft tech support to
> fix that, and Mike? seems to think its something to do with the
> machine's BIOS.
>
> Fyi I've rebooted Win98SE once today, and my wife has rebooted
> Win95 3 times. Each time took *far* more time than loading
> netscape.
I'm not aware of your computer's setting, but you might want to take a look
at Power Management.
Or call support and ask.
Or ask in a non-advocacy group.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:58:04 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <900vml$60h74$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
02:33:16
> >> [...]
> >> >When was it, exactly?
> >> >Because prior to late 1998, Netscape *was* a monopoly in the browsers
> >> >market.
> >>
> >> Well, they were the market leader, and had well over 50% of the market.
> >> But that has nothing to do with being a monopoly. It is
> >> anti-competitive behavior, not market share, which makes a monopoly.
> >
> >No, a monopoly is a monopoly whetever it abuse it power or not.
> >
> >> >MS didn't have a fighting chance in the browser market until IE4. And
the
> >> >reason that I moved to IE wasn't because he was better, it was because
> >> >Netscape was bloated and heavy and buggy.
> >> >I don't think that I would've moved if they were of comparable
quality.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to bother trying to convince you that your ability to
> >> determine the quality of a piece of software is obviously flawed. I
can
> >> even agree with the sentiment that Netscape was (is) bloated, heavy,
and
> >> buggy. But the last version of IE which could avoid the same, and
> >> worse, label was before version 3; since then, they've been equally fat
> >> and stupid. IE just has the added disadvantage of being monopoly
> >> crapware.
> >
> >Netscape 6 ate 65MB of my RAM in less than 30 Minutes of *very* light
> >operating. It only released them after I *terminated* it. Simply closing
the
> >program didn't work, it stayed in memory.
> >OE & IE has yet to take 65MB of my RAM from 30 minutes of heavy surfing.
> >OE occationally does this, but this is when handling tens or hundreds of
> >thousands of messages.
>
> What on earth do you mean by that? Are you doing mass emailing or
> something? That's a lot of messages or did you just mean headers?
Mass emailing someone is not a task I would give to OE.
I meant handling newsgroups with tens to hundreds of thousands messages
stored locally (both headers & message body)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:58:55 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
> >> >
> >> > According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters
in here,
> >> > it sucks.
> >> > Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove
in a
> >> > hurrican.
> >>
> >> I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
> >> for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy,
something
> >> not implemented, but usable).
> >> You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
> >> must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
> >
> >Is that why about all previous versions of Netscape about all Unices are
widely
> >regarded by Unix folks as unstable too? Windows Netscape has always been
the
> >flagship for obvious reasons.
>
> Those reasons being directly related to the monopoly of desktop
> OS space by microsoft. Says nothing about stability or quality,
> just monopoly.
You haven't answered Mike's question.
Why is Netscape's versions on Unix are widely regarded as unstable?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:10:43 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, kiwiunixman wrote:
> 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?
Okay - quick, let's get the OS history book out..., now,
okay I'm ready:
pl/9, flex (with gimix debugger), (what does VMS stand for
again?)
Mark
>
>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:15:55 +0000
In article <8vupqe$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Conrad yet ya fact right before releasing shyte into
>> this newsgroup.
>
>What dialect of english do you use?
>This isn't any that I've seen.
>
>
yits yenglish ya shyte ng argghhh
:)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:12:42 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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?
Sh*t - all this just for the OS. What happens when you try to
*do* something...
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:18:56 +0000
In article <8vvcd7$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> They said W2k was stable and it proved to NOT
>> be stable. They claim Whistler is stable but
>> they have done this before with W2k and NT
>> before it.
>
>Who proved it and how?
>
>
7,000 packages Ayende - how many with Whistler?
Or would you rather discuss the colour scheme?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:17:01 +0000
In article <8jJU5.160$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Wilson wrote:
>
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8vun8a$ei3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Why is an MS review in a Linux group???? <snip>
>>
>
>C'mon, give him a break!
>Microsoft improvements are so few and far between!
>There're probably posts just like this on alt.choirboy.buggery <g>
Ah, just after the NT Admin's uptime claim ;)
mark
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:10:21 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> <very large snip because Aaron doesn't understand the first thing about
> >> replying to posts or how to use usenet or even how to change underwear
more
> >> than monthly 100+ lines to write unrelated stupidity at the bottom - a
> >> typical @yahoo.com user, almost as bad as an aol.com user>
> >>
> >> > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be
as
> >> good
> >> > > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wow....look at this car
> >> >
> >> > It's great
> >> > It's fantastic.
> >> >
> >> > They painted it at the factory!!!!
> >> >
> >> > No, I don't know anything about whether the engine is any good,
> >> > or how it handles in turns....or even going in a straight line
> >> > down a highway at a mere 60 km/h (US 40 mph)...i only got to
> >> > drive it 5 feet forwards and back..
> >> >
> >> > Yeah...I know there's no locks on the doors...and you can't
> >> > roll up the windows...and...you know...it doesn't have any
> >> > rear view mirrors...or seat belts...and that hand-crank in
> >> > place of the usual steering wheel is gonna take some getting
> >> > used to...and...yeah, it's kinda strange how they put the
> >> > radio upside down mounted on the floor...it's got a really
> >> > leaky fuel system...but...it's got a custom paint job...and
> >> > when I crack up on the highway, and die in a ball of fire...
> >> > well, it's gonna look really cool!
> >> >
> >> > And...looking cool THAT's what's REALLY important...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here's a hint, Ayende....GROW THE FUCK UP
> >> > --
> >>
> >> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
> >>
> >> Hey, look at this car.
> >> Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all
over
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >I've done full-installs of Linux from various makers.
> >
> >ONE reboot, and the system is up and running...with ALL hardware drivers
> >installed, and ALL applications available immediately.
> >
> >
> >Getting the same hardware configuration to work on a Windows machine
takes
> >MANY reboots (1 for the sound card, one for the graphics card, one for
> >the monitor, one for the printer, one for the mouse, one for the scanner,
> >one for the network card, another for the network configuration.....
> >
> >And then...installing the software...
> >
> >Lets see...If you installed 1,500 apps on a windows machine....how long
> >would it take?
> >
> >A day? don't be foolish!
> >
> >2 weeks?
> >3 weeks?
> >
> >Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on a
windows box?
> >
> Exactly why my company uses pre-made images on CD. Problem now is that
> Microsoft want paying twice. One for the OEM version, then once
> for the CD.
1500 apps on one machine?
Assuming average install time of 5 minutes, that means about 5 days of just
sitting there 24 a day, just installing software.
If we assume 8 hour work days, it results in over two weeks.
No one install 1500 apps on a machine.
No one *need* 1500 apps on a machine.
> Now, we're about 150,000 people, what does that work out as?
Too much?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:20:30 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Vn%U5.25827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:900dr0$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they
> > make
> > > a change.
> >
> > I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 & 12MB
> > It's being used daily.
>
> Word 6? Hmm, hardly the first version of that product. Did you come
> to the party late or are you just conveniently forgetting the cycle
through
> the earlier versions - and the fact that for quite some time after Word97
> came out and was shipped bundled with a lot of new machines you had
> no way to access documents in that format?
To Word, yes.
I used a dos based Word Proccessor call Einstien until almost 1996.
It loaded of a 5-something inch floppy and had a white on blue color that
from took me a while to shake of in regard to word proccessor (my first
reaction to my first BSOD was "Who loaded Einstien?")
I've been loyal user to this application (and this version, for that matter)
for almost 6 years.
About the documents, I can read documents made in office 97 or 2000 with
Word 6.
File > Save As > Word 6.0
No problems there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:25:56 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>» Why not help people become literate, and then ditch the fluff. I could quite
>» easily see a "learning" shell to replace Explorer for users without
>» extensive experience, building them up to proficiency. Literate users could
>» then use a cleaned up, more functional shell.
>
>THAT!! .... I could deal with. Many sensibly designed apps have adopted
>this approach, ie, offering a novice interface as opposed to an advanced
>user interface.
>
>I'm annoyed by this damned wizard that I have to use to make a new
>dial-up connection. Anyone know how to bypass it.
>
>I don't use the recycle bin. I use <SHIFT><DEL>. This is as deliberate
>as it gets and still I'm getting this "are you sure ..." confirmation
>dialog. Anyone knows how to disable that as well?
www.debian.org - worked for me.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:21:23 +0000
In article <zmBU5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bennetts family wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8vthhl$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:gPlU5.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Fair enough.
>>
>>
>> Any idea why?
>
>Because I understand nerdboxen well enough to know that, unless I do
>something stupid like leaving a bootable CD in the drive between restarts, I
>doesn't do anything except pause for about 1/2 a second during the boot.
Restarting is a windows thing, Ayende, not a Linux thing. Linux
users do not need to keep restarting. The OS doesn't keep
stopping.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:30:13 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>[..]
>» Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not crash hot,
>» either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new paint job. And
>» that *matters*.
>
>You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
Er, like you've used Linux?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:29:42 +0000
In article <8vvcd6$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>
>> » Why not help people become literate, and then ditch the fluff. I could
>quite
>> » easily see a "learning" shell to replace Explorer for users without
>> » extensive experience, building them up to proficiency. Literate users
>could
>> » then use a cleaned up, more functional shell.
>>
>> THAT!! .... I could deal with. Many sensibly designed apps have adopted
>> this approach, ie, offering a novice interface as opposed to an advanced
>> user interface.
>
>Whistler would appeal to you then.
>It gives a newbie interface, misnamed as pro, and the classic windows shell.
>There will be others, of course.
>
>> I'm annoyed by this damned wizard that I have to use to make a new
>> dial-up connection. Anyone know how to bypass it.
>
>Try dialers, it's possible to create a DUN entry without using the wizard.
>
>> I don't use the recycle bin. I use <SHIFT><DEL>. This is as deliberate
>> as it gets and still I'm getting this "are you sure ..." confirmation
>> dialog. Anyone knows how to disable that as well?
>
>Go to Recycle bin properties, check "Don't store files in the recycle bin"
>Uncheck "Display confirmation"
>
>
>
This is probably the biggest single flaw in MS's desktop. Everything
you see _might_ have properties. You have to guess, there's no easy
way of knowing.
And in those properties, just _might_ be the major 10 clicks and
moves saver, which could just remove the pain of the massively
repetitive task which you're having to go through. Or maybe not.
When I was first playing with 8-bit machines, I had this idea
that somehow, a 'home' or 'personal' machine would help with the
kind of tasks that computers are good at. Microsoft seem to have
managed to create an OS which prevents computers from delivering
that single critical benefit. *reliably* doing the same thing,
over and over again.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:32:10 +0000
In article <9008a6$5qg6u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:rLGU5.140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vv5ba$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:LeCU5.34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> > > >
>> > > > [..]
>> > > > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
>> crash
>> > > hot,
>> > > > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
>> paint
>> > > job. And
>> > > > » that *matters*.
>> > > >
>> > > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
>and
>> > > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes,
>> and
>> > > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
>> >
>> > Well, they got it half right :)
>> >
>> > 2K is much more than simply a more stable version of NT4.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, have you had any video-related GPFs yet? If not, what
>> hardware are you using? (If you posted this previously, sorry. I sometimes
>> don't have time to closely follow threads)
>
>None, I don't have blue screens in Win2k that are not related to the screen
>saver.
>The only problem I've with win2k is that the display hanging if I run it for
>several days without cold reboot.
Ah, several days. And how many times have you said that it's stable?
This is ludicrous. Microsoft have managed to persuade these people
that 'display hanging' is not a problem on a graphical controlled
OS.
Amazing the power of monopoly marketing.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:32:57 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>[....]
>| I'll tell you why....
>| because EVERY DAMNED ENTRY WOULD SMOKE MICROSHAFT'S OWN VERSION!
>|
>|
>| And thus, Bill Gates would be forced to admit that the company
>| should REALLY be named MACRO-SHIT.
>
>You blow such hot air that it's not funny.
>
I thought it was very funny.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:34:51 +0000
In article <900tsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Palko wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bennetts family wrote:
>> >
>> > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> > >
>> > > [..]
>> > > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
>crash
>> > hot,
>> > > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
>paint
>> > job. And
>> > > » that *matters*.
>> > >
>> > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
>> >
>> > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4, and
>> > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes,
>and
>> > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
>>
>> I would hav ZERO problem with Windows...if someone would come up with
>> an implementation COMPLETELY FREE of development by Microsoft personnel.
>>
>> If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
>> API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
>> and pay the winner a prize
>
>Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
>ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
>implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
>checked up on it in a while).
Wine's problems in development all centre around the *fact* that
the win32 API is not really documented. It's at best partially
documented. What's more, a huge amount of apps do not restrict
themselves to this api, in particular microsoft's own. So your
statement is utterly misleading - there is not enough information
to replicate Windows published. If there were, Wine would have been
completed ages ago.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:46:41 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy wrote:
>>mlw wrote:
>>Stoning? What's wrong with crucifixion? Crucifixion's a doddle, you
>>know. Look, I'll supply the cross, you supply the nails (only one cross
>>each, please).
>
> Windows?
> - No, unix actually!
> Oh really, that's excellent!
> - Yes, Bill said I'd been a really good astroturfer and
> would be allowed to use unix from now on.
> That's wonderful!
> - Nah, only kidding, Windows please.
> Ah, okay <smiles>, one cross each, line on the left.
>
> Mark
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:35:34 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>»
>» "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>» news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>» > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>» >
>» > [..]
>» > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not crash
>» hot,
>» > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new paint
>» job. And
>» > » that *matters*.
>» >
>» > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
>»
>» Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4, and
>» Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes, and
>» the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
>
>You really should use it before saying even that. :=)
Like you did with Linux? pot/kettle/black
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
