Linux-Advocacy Digest #206, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs ("Todd")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (mlw)
Re: KDE Whiners (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: The Windows guy. (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: The Windows guy. (mlw)
Re: You're not just Whistler, XP! (Merijn)
Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me (Darren Winsper)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Todd")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Merijn)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:08:57 +0800
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96gdti$dp3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Todd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : The 'market' will solve that. As oil prices rise (according to
> : supply/demand), alternative technologies will become more used, reducing
the
> : dependence on oil.
>
> A fun problem is that the alternative energy stuff doesn't work well for
> transportation except for sailing ships.
Not yet... no need to research alternative sources with such abundance of
raw materials left.
Again, once it becomes more and more expensive, scientists *will* come up
with other solutions.
-Todd
>
> --
> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:44 +0800
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Well, let me say that I agree with OP - Windows media
> player _is_ a nice piece of software - reliable, simple
> and usable. It is very - how can I phrase - Un-M$like.
> Credit to them.
Agree. What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger? I think MSN
messenger is a nice piece of work (not as many features as ICQ). Also,
NetMeeting is very useful at work. Both of those apps. are *very* nice
under Windows 2000. Not sure about under 9x.
> Does not made mp3 play lists (or it's not intuitive
> as I can't do it - while in Linux (xms - or something like that) it's
> a breeze)
Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is a
good example. But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
zillion programs for everything.
> Todd wrote:
> [snip]
> > Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
source
> > code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
>
> ARE YOU MAD?
>
> If you are saying that Linux code is bad then just ask
> yourself why it is more reliable?
I didn't say the code was 'bad', I said it looks like a hack. Check the
source yourself... it is amazing the thing *starts*.
Heh.
BTW, Linux *has* crashed on me or forced me to reboot... either way, that is
undesirable.
I use HP-UX at work, and that is a *ton* more reliable than Linux if you
want to compare Unixen.
> > > Also note that with
> > > all these undocumented APIs,
> >
> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since
the
> > codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
>
> ...fair challenge...
Yah... I've heard this cry from anti-MS advocates from a long while with no
proof... then they come up with APIs from some *book*... WELL, then it is
DOCUMENTED.
Heh.
Anyway, MS does acknowledge there *are* undocumented calls in Windows, but
they are undocumented so developers DO NOT USE them as they MAY CHANGE
without notice.
All OSes developed centrally have those.
> > > WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> > > hacks to the scheduler to make it better.
>
> I doubt it.
>
>
> > > But, I'd like to think of unix as
> > > the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
pretty
> > much,
> > > is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
> >
> > The reasons most people use personal computers.
>
> why am I agreeing with you?
> Yes - media is WHAT LINUX should kick arse at.
You are right... it should. What Linux needs is a DirectX - an API that
covers *all* types of media.
DirectX 8.0 is so easy to program 3D programs for - and the XBox will use it
too. Should be easy to get developers going.
Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting the
basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux as
well as Win32/DX for games and media!
I'm not saying standards like OpenGL suck. OpenGL has its purposes, but
cmon, DX is *designed* from the ground up to be an all encompassing MM API -
something that Linux *really* needs.
> > > Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
> >
> > Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
better,
> > but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
>
> Now a general Unix-Guru "typical" attitude rant:
hehe. Ok.
> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
> this.
Yup.
> M$ ideas are in **our** system - Gnome corba model was inspired DIRECTLY
> from
> the com object model.
>
> An idea - is an idea - steal the best, dump the rest. It's source
> matters not.
Agreed 100%.
> Many people are active in getting things improved and you may be
> surprised
> at their attitudes - have a listen:
>
> http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play.m3u?stream_id=314
>
> Some people want to do things "right", not just do things
> because M$ has done them a different way. This attitude SUCKS
> and we'll stick with a 25 year old lame way of working- the world has
> moved on.
> We now think about "users", not just people like us who
> don't mind lots of reading. "Users" use - most don't care - nor
> should they!
> And from the users perspective - it is junk. Does not matter
> how "clever" it _can_ be if you know what you are doing. It
> needs a good old shake up.
Agreed.
> Note that I am _not_ talking about the kernel (it is a marvel), just the
> unix way of programming support - which so needs the gnome solutions.
> Printing, communication, code-reuse - all the issues that Gnome
> addresses
> are crying out for people to develop. Look at all the fuss of Kylix
> (delphi
> on Linux) and then ask why? Gnome is my pet love - I think it will
> revolutionise the
> way Linux can reach people and Linux will spread and become a tool
> of enablement. Not just for us geeks.
>
>
> > > But, I try to
> > > call the shots as I see them. Windows Media Player may be bloated,
but
> > it's
> > > a damn good app for mpeg video.
> >
> > It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'. It has
a
> > ton of features...
>
> I don't think it's bloated - why? It plays my media and I don't need
> 10 million programs and converters. Converters are dynamic plug-ins
> so I don't worry about a huge program - only when I _need_ it.
Exactly.
> I feel much better now. After logging into a Sun with no BASH
> and a STUPID window manager, I just needed a Unix rant.
Heh. How do you feel about Solaris / FreeBSD / HP-UX?
I think they all are far better than Linux from a system design standpoint.
However, Linux has more backing from the community at large.
It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux... heck...
i'd like to do something like that...
-Todd
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:26:07 -0500
Todd wrote:
> > One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> hacks
> > to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.
>
> Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel source
> code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
Beg to differ, I realize you are trolling, but the Linux kernel sources are
pretty good. If you look at the Windows DDK sources, those are some nasty
hacks.
>
> > Also note that with
> > all these undocumented APIs,
>
> Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since the
> codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
This is pretty hard thing to find. There are several ways to use undocumented
stuff, know what the obfuscated name is in the .DLL and use LoadLibrary, link
with an import library, use the linker .def file, and others. Depending on what
various pieces WMP uses, M$ could easily claim it is some part of the "OS"
which must call these undocumented features as designed.
I you have "dumpbin" you can dump all the import references and look for
numerical names. I bet there are a few.
>
> > WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> > hacks to the scheduler to make it better.
>
> ? The scheduler is part of the OS... WMP plays better on Windows 2000. I
> think it is the OS, not the player. Besides, WMP is not the best media
> player for Windows anyway.
Windows NT/2K has a better interrupt performance than does Windows. You can be
sure that WMP uses some low-level hacks on Windows.
>
> > But, I'd like to think of unix as
> > the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> much,
> > is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
>
> The reasons most people use personal computers.
I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while they
think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they ever
do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.
>
> > Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
>
> Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things better,
> but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, what other reason does one need?
> > I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
> > be awesome MM platforms,
>
> *real soon now*
I would call Tivo an awesome MM system.
>
> > but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a
> > small, dark corner of my HD for those videos, games, and such.
>
> Videos, games, and such. Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a great
> many things.
Yea games, you know, toys.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:28:24 GMT
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:12:40 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Weird.... for me it looks like Ximian trus to sell a modified Gnome with
: some extra apps. Allways saw Gnome as the possible alternative to KDE in
: the distant future and not Ximian.
You're under no obligation to buy anything from Ximian. You can download
*everything* that goes onto their CDs from their FTP site. Yet, this still
seems to upset you somehow. Do you also get mad at RedHat for selling
CDs of their distribution? How about BSDI/Walnut Creek for having the
audacity to sell FreeBSD CD's?
: Chorus of whinning?? No.. just complaining about the methods used and with
: the desired result.
The KDE people act as if it was some sort of sneaky trick.. Sheesh. You
know, Cisco should stop advertising in Network World, since there might
be people who get the magazine looking for info on Juniper or Nortel.
Seeing a Cisco ad might make them upset. Sheesh. Grow up.
: Weird that gnomers talk about whining when they wihinned about licence
: issues for years.
Apples to apples, please? One issue has to do with some people getting
their shorts in a knot over someone's small, unobtrusive ad. The other
does with creating "free" software that *depends* on software that was
not even close to free.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
My account, My opinions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:20 GMT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:38:29 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: He is working on a Linux web server. He wants to do a global replace in VI. I
: tell him to use sed. He whines a bit, then tries it. I hear from his cube.
: "Sweet!"
Why bother leaving vi to do something that simple?
:%s/find-expression/replace-expression/g
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
My account, My opinions.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:35:47 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> > > One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> > hacks
> > > to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.
> >
> > Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
source
> > code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
>
> Beg to differ, I realize you are trolling, but the Linux kernel sources
are
> pretty good.
Hmmm... I guess we have different coding standards. I really do think they
look like hacks. I am looking at the source from RedHat 7.0... the kernel
source should be the same across distributions...
> If you look at the Windows DDK sources, those are some nasty
> hacks.
Really? I have the Enterprise MSDN edition, and have definitely done work
with the DDK. What driver source code are you referring to??
> >
> > > Also note that with
> > > all these undocumented APIs,
> >
> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since
the
> > codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
>
> This is pretty hard thing to find. There are several ways to use
undocumented
> stuff, know what the obfuscated name is in the .DLL and use LoadLibrary,
link
> with an import library, use the linker .def file, and others. Depending on
what
> various pieces WMP uses, M$ could easily claim it is some part of the "OS"
> which must call these undocumented features as designed.
Ok, so let me know some of the alleged undocumented API calls then...
> I you have "dumpbin" you can dump all the import references and look for
> numerical names. I bet there are a few.
Heh... I actually did that for MSN messenger cause I did have a feeling
there were some undocumented calls going on there... but I was wrong. I
checked about the first 20% before it got tiring... nothing out of the
ordinary.
> >
> > > WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> > > hacks to the scheduler to make it better.
> >
> > ? The scheduler is part of the OS... WMP plays better on Windows 2000.
I
> > think it is the OS, not the player. Besides, WMP is not the best media
> > player for Windows anyway.
>
> Windows NT/2K has a better interrupt performance than does Windows. You
can be
> sure that WMP uses some low-level hacks on Windows.
Again, WMP uses the *exact* same codebase for W2k that it does for 9x. The
MM timer on DX provides an excellent way of doing these types of things
without a hack... especially when not using the COOPERATIVE mode.
> > > But, I'd like to think of unix as
> > > the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
pretty
> > much,
> > > is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
> >
> > The reasons most people use personal computers.
>
> I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while they
> think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they
ever
> do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.
Heh. Taxes are once a year... Quicken is the best package for finance.
Email? Any computer can do that.
So, you have a platform (W2k) that can do everything, and Linux that can do
some things. What are you gonna boot?
> > > Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
> >
> > Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
better,
> > but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
>
> Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, what other reason does one need?
Monopolies are *never* illegal. Having a monopoly is fully legal.
Using it to penetrate markets using the monopoly is *only* illegal if 'harm
to the consumer' is done...
Personally, I *do* believe that MS operated poorly when it killed
Netscape... but I actually think it was a good service to the consumers
because NetScape sucked *sooooo* badly compared to IE... even when MS was
behind. IE was and is just technically better and sticks to the w3c web
standards *a lot* better.
I know Linux users don't think much of IE, but this is because they can't
run it. If they could, they would see that it ROCKS over Netscape any day.
I have found that IE crashes *a lot* under 9x, but extremely rarely under
w2k - in fact, it doesn't crash on me at all under w2k.
It is the crappy 9x OS.
I develop multi-lingual web sites for our company, and IE is by far the
better browser to code for. (Incidentally, Opera also follows the web
standards better than Netscape so this is not a purely pro IE rag, this is
anti Netscape).
> > > I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
> > > be awesome MM platforms,
> >
> > *real soon now*
>
> I would call Tivo an awesome MM system.
Hmmm... not familiar with Tivo. Any links so that I could check out the
specs.?
> > > but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a
> > > small, dark corner of my HD for those videos, games, and such.
> >
> > Videos, games, and such. Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a
great
> > many things.
>
> Yea games, you know, toys.
Yea, you know, the multi billion dollar industry.
-Todd
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:40:32 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6ECi6.2041$uY2.42076@news2-hme0...
> > At work our CD burner machine is setup to triple-boot
> > Win9x, WinNT and Linux.
> >
> > Under Win9x and WinNT it regularly fails due to buffer-underrun
> > errors yet in 6 months of regular use under linux has never had this
> > problem
>
> We've been over this before. The quality of your software has more to do
> with burning coasters than the OS. I have a very old Yamaha CDR-100 4x4
> with only a 512k buffer in it (shortly after this model they started coming
> with 1MB, and many today have 2 or more MB). I have never burned a coaster
> on NT, ever.
Maybe so, but at one company we had NT with a SCSI HP burner using Adaptec
burner software. It could burn 4 or 5 CDs in a row, then would blue screen on
the next leaving a coaster. We had to reboot every few CDs to avoid this.
Conversely, my system has the CDR hanging off an IDE bus, I have not made one
coaster yet.
The buffer size is only important if your system can not respond to interrupts
quickly enough. RAM is expensive, so for all these CDRs with huge buffers, just
so Windows can burn a CD, we users of real operating systems have to pay the
bill for your crappy OS.
When I finish burning a CD, I never see a buffer low point of less than 89%,
that means I could probably get away with only 25% of the total buffer space
and still never burn a coaster, even under heavy load.
So, I am paying much more than I should for RAM buffering I don't need, just
because Windows sucks and OEMs have to support it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Merijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're not just Whistler, XP!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:49:57 +0100
Windows XP = Windows Expired
Windows XP = Windows Crash Prone
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In alt.destroy.microsoft, Chris Ahlstrom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 05 Feb 2001 23:44:13 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Peter Hayes wrote:
> >>
> >> "Get Whistler, it'll fix all the problems of Win95/98/ME/NT4/Win2k. Really
> >> cool OS".
> >>
> >> > And, anyway, rumor says that Whistler personal will be only 50$ - 90$
> >> > (For comparison, ME (and 2K upgrade) is $169.99 )
> >
> >Man, Microsoft must be running out of creativity. They have given the
> >name "Windows XP" to Whistler, and "Office XP" to Office. Read here
> >what XP means:
> >
> >http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO57388_NLTam%2C00.html
> >
> >Sounds like the name of Speed Racer's new vehicle.
>
> It could be worse. They could have called it "The Mammoth OS".
>
> (If you recall, the Mammoth Car ultimately showed itself to be made
> out of gold purloined from a large robbery some time back. Hmm... :-) )
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "go Speed Racer, go!"
> EAC code #191 6d:02h:02m actually running Linux.
> Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:54:00 +0000
Todd wrote:
> The little that I did use Windows ME, I was much impressed over 98. (I
> didn't use 98 because it really was unstable to the point of being
> frustrating).
>
> ME was actually the first 9x platform that was *useable*. No, not perfect
> by any measure, but yes, useable.
You have painfully low standards. I was using WinME before I switched
to 2000 and the amount of problems I had were unbelievable. Oh, and I
don't care what people say, WMP 7 is amazingly crap. I can't believe MS
went the same way as Apple and Real on this one.
> However, since Windows 2000 smokes ME in almost every way, there is simply
> no need for me to run ME. hehe.
Same here, W2K is actually quite nice.
> Anyway, Windows 2000 with DX 8.0 runs all my games... no need for ME.
I installed DirectX8 and it broke Battle Isle 4, and since MS in their
infinite wisdom don't want you to go back to DirectX7 I had little
choice but to reinstall.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:58:21 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:6ECi6.2041$uY2.42076@news2-hme0...
> > > At work our CD burner machine is setup to triple-boot
> > > Win9x, WinNT and Linux.
> > >
> > > Under Win9x and WinNT it regularly fails due to buffer-underrun
> > > errors yet in 6 months of regular use under linux has never had this
> > > problem
> >
> > We've been over this before. The quality of your software has more to
do
> > with burning coasters than the OS. I have a very old Yamaha CDR-100 4x4
> > with only a 512k buffer in it (shortly after this model they started
coming
> > with 1MB, and many today have 2 or more MB). I have never burned a
coaster
> > on NT, ever.
>
> Maybe so, but at one company we had NT with a SCSI HP burner using Adaptec
> burner software. It could burn 4 or 5 CDs in a row, then would blue screen
on
> the next leaving a coaster. We had to reboot every few CDs to avoid this.
I work for HP. We have zillions of SCSI HP burners and IDE CD-RWs and such.
Never have we ever had NT bluescreen after 5 writes.
That is just plain BS from the linux advocates.
If you'd like me to prove it, why don't you we arrange a demonstration. If
I can burn more than 5 CDs in a row successfully under NT with an HP SCSI
CD-RW, you will agree to give me 10000 dollars. Otherwise, I will give you
10000 dollars.
This is with a standard HP system with a standard HP SCSI CD-RW running NT
SP6.
Will you accept my offer?
> Conversely, my system has the CDR hanging off an IDE bus, I have not made
one
> coaster yet.
>
> The buffer size is only important if your system can not respond to
interrupts
> quickly enough.
Well, duh. You need *some* buffer even if a few bytes.
> RAM is expensive
Are you *kidding*???
I just paid $140 for **128 MB** of LAPTOP memory.
Sheesh. And that is *retail* rates.
>, so for all these CDRs with huge buffers, just
> so Windows can burn a CD, we users of real operating systems have to pay
the
> bill for your crappy OS.
Having more ram is *better* for any OS because you could potentially make
use of this fact and use DMA instead of requiring massive interrupt usage
(which slows down any OS).
> When I finish burning a CD, I never see a buffer low point of less than
89%,
I burn CDs with W2k at 12x speed, and never get below 96% buffer usage
unless I am using WMP... still, it never goes below about 90%.
> that means I could probably get away with only 25% of the total buffer
space
> and still never burn a coaster, even under heavy load.
You could get away with it, but the more buffer space, the more reliable
your transfer under any OS...
Hypothetically, you could have a 1G buffer space, and the drive could do
error correction *before* burning and after transfering the data... that
would be ideal and limit CPU interaction and interrupt usage the most.
> So, I am paying much more than I should for RAM buffering I don't need,
just
> because Windows sucks and OEMs have to support it.
Nope. The amount of RAM you are talking about is probably 2 bucks for the
manufacturers (probably less), and the more buffer, the better.
-Todd
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Merijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:56:12 +0100
Macintosh already has 64 bits OS for some years!
Microsoft has always been a bit slow and running a few years behind.
Also see that article on zdnet or something.
Edward Rosten wrote:
> > 64 bits operating systems are extreme overkill (have you any idea how
> > big 2^64
> > is?) for anything but corporate databases... *large* corporate
> > databases.
>
> 32 bits are underkill. 64 bits is the next logical step.
>
> 2x as wide bus, 2x as much data per clock cycle.
>
> IA64 runs IA32 code like a P100, so they really, really need a 64 bit
> OS in order to run at a decent speed.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> > The only thing that makes 2^64 look anything but mind boggling huge is
> > MS's bloatwear. They'll need that address space just for their 3D
> > dancing paperclips.
> >
> >
> > P.S. 2^64 == 18,446,744,073,709,551,616
>
> Have you memorized that ;-)
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:59:29 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> pcAnywhere for Linux I'd probably never boot into Windows.
>> How about ssh + X11?
> He means something that runs on Linux that would allow him access
> to his Lose2K stuff.
You mean like VNC?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:02:14 +0800
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > The little that I did use Windows ME, I was much impressed over 98. (I
> > didn't use 98 because it really was unstable to the point of being
> > frustrating).
> >
> > ME was actually the first 9x platform that was *useable*. No, not
perfect
> > by any measure, but yes, useable.
>
> You have painfully low standards.
Note that I said ME was 'useable'... I didn't say it was a 'pleasure'.
> I was using WinME before I switched
> to 2000 and the amount of problems I had were unbelievable. Oh, and I
> don't care what people say, WMP 7 is amazingly crap.
Well, I've heard both sides to this from Windows users. I personally like
it and it runs very well with zero crashes so far... I use it for videos and
MP3s.
> I can't believe MS
> went the same way as Apple and Real on this one.
>
> > However, since Windows 2000 smokes ME in almost every way, there is
simply
> > no need for me to run ME. hehe.
>
> Same here, W2K is actually quite nice.
Yup.
> > Anyway, Windows 2000 with DX 8.0 runs all my games... no need for ME.
>
> I installed DirectX8 and it broke Battle Isle 4, and since MS in their
> infinite wisdom don't want you to go back to DirectX7 I had little
> choice but to reinstall.
Hmmm... no problems yet for me, but I never played the Battle Isle series
either. Mostly AOE, Tribes, Quake3, Unreal T., Earth 2150, and a few other
3D games... no probs.
But, as you noted, *anything* one installs should be uninstallable. It
should be the users choice.
-Todd
>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
