Linux-Advocacy Digest #263, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Windows "speed" ("Chad Myers")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dying ("Chad Myers")
Re: Multitasking (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows "speed" (".")
Re: Multitasking (Craig Kelley)
Re: Multitasking (Craig Kelley)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: Multitasking ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:28:49 GMT
Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:07:51 -0500;
[...]
>Anything to avoid addressing the facts as posted.
You troll 'em, I address 'em.
>Rather like T Marx's claim that the "All Rights Reserved" in a
>copyright notice does not mean * All * rights, but merely all rights
>under Title 17.
No other rights can be reserved under copyright law besides those
enumerated in copyright law. This is a well known and well defended
fact, Roger.
>And cannot point to a single instance of it having
>been so interpreted by a court.
The actual argument was whether "All Rights Reserved" is a license. I
informed you, and the other readers, that it is not. It is, in fact, a
factual declaration that there is no license granted. This putative
license would be the only kind of license ever required or empowered by
copyright law, which is some ability to act as though one had one of the
rights enumerated in Title 17, the copyright law, namely copying.
The reason you were making this inexplicable claim that "All Rights
Reserved" is a license is that you supposed that it would support your
claim that one needs a license to use any copyrighted work. I've
explained on numerous occasions that except for very rare exceptions,
software is the only such work, with End User License Agreements (those
that are not the same as developer licenses, which is the root of the
Free Software movement, and a tautology in that there is, then, no
EULA). Tickets to performances do not count, and when you buy a record,
you buy the copy of the music, not just the "right to use" it.
So, now that we've worked that all out (again), is there anything you'd
like to *add*, this time, Roger? JS/PL?
>You were correct in your guess about "Pardon Me..."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:34:15 +1200
Don't you find it rather funny that Microsoft isn't using Outlook Express?
Matthew Gardiner
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > I just sent and email then just to check whether it was alright for me to
> > install Linux on more than one computer :)
>
> Here's the auto-reply I got:
>
> Precedence: bulk
> Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:43:45 -0700
> To: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Auto-acknowledgment, Piracy? (KMM186999C0KM)
> From: Microsoft Anti-Piracy Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Microsoft Anti-Piracy Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:quoted-printable
> X-Mailer: Kana 5.0
> X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> X-UIDL: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Microsoft Corporation thanks you for your recent correspondence to our
> Anti-Piracy team. As an international company that believes in
> appreciating and protecting intellectual property, Microsoft devotes
> substantial time and effort towards fighting software piracy, and we
> appreciate your shared interest in this cause.
>
> Our staff promptly handles questions or requests for information on
> software piracy. We actively pursue all reports on possible
> unauthorized copying and/or distribution of Microsoft software. Due to
> the sensitive legal nature of these matters, it is not be possible for
> us to provide feedback or updates about actions taken on your
> submission. However, we want you to know this in no way reduces the
> importance of your submission to us. We take these submissions very
> seriously and will investigate the situation and proceed with whatever
> action is deemed necessary. The final outcome of many such matters
> sent to us can be viewed via press releases located at
> www.microsoft.com/piracy. Visit this website to see other valuable
> Anti-Piracy information such as recognizing genuine Microsoft software,
> understanding Microsoft's licensing policies, and news about Microsoft's
> Anti-Piracy initiatives.
>
> Additional information -
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> Reporting Software Piracy to Microsoft within USA or Canada: Call
> 1-800-RU-LEGIT
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> Reporting Software Piracy to Microsoft outside of USA or Canada:
> Visit http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/piracy_out_us.asp for
> local telephone numbers
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> For information on recognizing genuine Microsoft software acquired with
> a new PC:
> Visit http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> Microsoft Authorized Distributors: Visit
> http://www.microsoft.com/directaccess.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> Microsoft Authorized OEM Distributors: Visit
> http://www.microsoft.com/oem/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> Listing of Microsoft volume licensing programs: Visit
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> Additional information about Anti-Piracy from the Business Software
> Alliance:
> Visit http://www.bsa.org.
>
> Once again, we thank you for your interest and participation in fighting
> software piracy!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Microsoft Corporation
> Anti-Piracy Team
>
> Note the www.bsa.org URL, too.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:21:26 GMT
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "David Rheaume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies* on
> >a P3/600. It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
>
> Since I do not use NT, but have many thousands of hours with Windows
> 3.1/9x/Me, I can tell you that if NT 4 is slower than consumer
> versions of Windows, David is the one using drugs.
You admitted you haven't ever used NT, so your comments beyond this
are irrelevant. This is a typically problem. People who never have
really used Windows except for the crappy Win9x line seem to brand
all Windows the same, which is purely ignorant.
NT is far faster for general usage and multitasking than the Win9x
line. It's far faster at data transfer including network. It's
far faster at just about everything except for certain games written
especially for the Win9x line (Quake3 comes to mind).
Case in point, I use Windows 2000 almost exclusively. I purchased
a bargain basement game the other day that didn't run well in
Win2K, so I booted into WinME to see if it was different. Long
story, but I also ended up needing to format a floppy for a WinME
startup disk for a friend, and I noticed the entire system slowed
while the format was taking place. I thought, "what a piece of
crap".
When you guys bash Windows, usually I assume that you are referring
to Win9x, which almost always earns its flames. However, to lump
NT/2K in with this is purely ignorant.
NT/2K do not have this floppy formating issue, nor any of the other
choppiness or slowness that Win9x has. I notice in WinME that my mouse
will sometimes shutter when moving it across the screen, seemingly
for no reason. Not so in WinNT/2K.
-c
> >
> >And if you install Win2000 on a P3/600, not only will it outperform Win98 &
> >Solaris, it'll also boot IP throughput by about 30% over any competing OS.
> >
> >Anyone who has gotten poor performance from either NT or Win2000 on a P3/600
> >is suffering from one of the two following reasons:
> >
> >1. Some component(s) of the hardware platform is not HCL compliant.
> >2. The installer/administrator is horribly ignorant of the OS and has
> >misconfigured it far outside the reasonable expectations.
> >
> >Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that Windows
> >(the NT kernel) is unreliable.
> >
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >> >
> >> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Barry Manilow wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > NT is
> >> > > > > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20%
> >slower
> >> > > > than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> >> > > > be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend
> >has
> >> > > > it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> >> > > > using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> >> > > > lumbering beast.
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Bob
> >> > > > Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> >> > > > today!
> >> > > > Why do you think you are being flamed?
> >> > > > [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> >> > > > [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> >> > > > [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> >> > > > [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> >> > > > [ ] Other (describe)
> >> > > > [ ] None of the above
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello Barry.
> >> >
> >> > Grey Cloud! Wassup my man? LTNS. :)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Been doing medical runs for an Alzheimers facility and med conferencing
> >> all day long.
> >> And I'm still up.
> >>
> >>
> >> > That's about what I've read in the microsoft performance
> >> > > ng.
> >> > > It just keeps getting slower by each release. Some say Solaris is
> >slow,
> >> > > but on my machine as compared to win98, its a lot faster than win98.
> >> > >
> >> > Yes it used to be, "Boot Windows, get a cup of coffee". But if this
> >> > trend keeps going, it'll be, "Boot Windows, go to Colombia."
> >> > --
> >>
> >> From a hardware perspective it'll probably take a Pentium IV to boot XP
> >> by the way the past trends have been.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Bob
> >> > Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> >> > today!
> >> > Why do you think you are being flamed?
> >> > [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> >> > [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> >> > [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> >> > [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> >> > [ ] Other (describe)
> >> > [ ] None of the above
> >>
> >> --
> >> V
>
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:24:14 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:03:07 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Black & white requires no backlight, gives longer battery life. I am
> >> not sure what "integrated Internet" is supposed to mean. Palm devices
> >> certainly have browsers and email and all that.
>
> > I mean that what little internet capabilities the Palm has, it's
> > an after thought and usually hacked together.
>
> How is the Palm's Internet capability "hacked together"? Please be
> specific, because I think you are making stuff up again.
Well, for one, it's an after thought. It seems that the only apps
that are internet aware are third party ones which each have their
own interface. There doesn't seem to be a consisent internet paradigm,
it appears like it was "hacked together" late in the game to try to
compete.
PocketPC, OTOH, seems to have Internet pervasive just like Windows
where every app uses a common Internet access method and many apps
are integrated with Internet Explorer.
> What about battery life? If you don't think that is important, I would
> have to say you probably haven't tried to actually use a PDA in real life.
Well, if all I need is very, very basic PDA functionality (calendar, todo,
and contacts) I'll use my phone which has about the same functionality as
a Palm device and it has a built in cell phone!
When I want a true hand-held computer with almost full desktop functionality
in my hand, I'll choose PocketPC. I don't need to pay way to much for a
black and white over-priced Rolodex.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:25:06 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 1 Apr 2001 04:51:57 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >: On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:39:22 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
> >: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> >: >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:45:16 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> No, SunOS was based on BSD, new versions of Solaris are SysV based.
> >: >
> >: >SunOS 4.x and earlier were based on BSD. SunOS 5.x is based on SysV.
> >: >Solaris is a complete environment OS plus GUI and applications. Solaris
> >: >1.x had SunOS 4.x underneath. Solaris 2.x and later have SunOS 5.x
> >: >underneath.
> >
> >: By SunOS, I don't mean "SunOS 5", and by Solaris, I don't mean "Sun OS 4".
> >: Sun did this funny thing with the names to confuse people, but it is not
> >: uncommon to use "SunOS" to specifically mean the older version (and Solaris
> >: to mean the new SysV version).
> >
> >This reminds me of the time I was explaining to a person
> >at work that Silicon Graphics Inc. is now officially
> >called "SGI".
> >
> >Me: Well, officially, they're called "SGI" now.
> >He: But SGI stands for Silicon Graphics Inc., right?
> >Me: Well, yes, but they're not officially called "Silicon Graphics"
> > anymore.
> >He: *blink-blink* *blank stare*
> >Me: Think of it in relationship to "IBM". Nobody calls them
> > "International Business Machines" anymore, unless they're
> > talking about ancient history.
> >He: I see. That is stupid.
> >Me: Hence the term, "marketdroids".
> >
> >I'm beginning to wonder if anything commercial is
> >capable of making sense these days. :-P
>
> Can you say "the artist formally known as 'Prince'"?
Actually, believe it or not, he's decided to be called
'Prince' once again.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:43:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 31 Mar 2001 20:46:00 GMT
<9a5fm8$qei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>: The Amiga was definitely an impressive machine -- and I still hear rumors
>: of it coming back. :-) (Maybe it's because Microsoft hasn't ported NT
>: to it yet...)
>
>Sadly, I've been reading about those same rumors since '94.
Yeah, I know.
>
>They never came to fruition, so I wouldn't get my
>hopes up if I were you. :-(
I'm not worried about it anymore. Linux is almost as fun now. :-)
If I get back into the video production market (as if I was even
in it to begin with!), I'd probably get a mid-grade video MPEG
encoder package of some sort and slap it on an SMP PC, then write
my own rendering package or use something like POVRAY.
As it is, I'm too busy doing other things (which make money :-) ).
But we'll see. Amiga was a good computer, but it took too long
to upgrade its resolution/hardware, and video cards on x86
boxes (and presumably Macs as well) had higher resolution
and more colors, albeit slower throughput.
I was considering an Amiga 3000UX at one point, but it was
too expensive. I now have an Amiga 3000 running Linux,
which is good enough -- although I rarely fire it up anymore.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 56d:02h:06m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:50:06 +1200
> NT is far faster for general usage and multitasking than the Win9x
> line. It's far faster at data transfer including network. It's
> far faster at just about everything except for certain games written
> especially for the Win9x line (Quake3 comes to mind).
Quake3 is written for OpenGL and Win32. It's not 'specifically designed' to
run fast on Win9x, it's more that NT is not designed to play games. Just
the fact that a crappy version of DirectX was added as an afterthought to
the third service pack and then never updated should have clued you in on
that one.
Just about every Windows game under the sun will run faster under 9x than
NT, as long as we're only talking about a single processor, because 9x has
to do bugger all (read: no) security checks while running software, whereas
NT actually has a [opinion snipped due to flammable nature] security
implementation.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: 01 Apr 2001 20:46:22 -0600
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> : The Amiga was definitely an impressive machine -- and I still hear rumors
> : of it coming back. :-) (Maybe it's because Microsoft hasn't ported NT
> : to it yet...)
>
> Sadly, I've been reading about those same rumors since '94.
>
> They never came to fruition, so I wouldn't get my
> hopes up if I were you. :-(
http://www.amiga.com/corporate/020601-mcewen.shtml
We should know in 2 weeks, to be exact.
This is their last chance to redeem themselves.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: 01 Apr 2001 20:51:49 -0600
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > : > Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
> >
> > : > >> >What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
> > : > >evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
> > : >
> > : > That doesn't make NT's multitasking any more acceptable, though, does
> > : > it?
> > : >
> > : It is not that good either. I know people who have used most OS's out
> > : there.
> >
> > : The best multitaskers:
> >
> > : 1. Amiga
> >
> > Yeah. Great. Multitasking without any sort
> > of reliable memory protection.
>
> True, this was a flaw but the OS was pretty stable. I know people who
> ran it for 11 years without even one crash. No OS is perfect! Can NT
> run 110 programs at once with 50 MHZ and 16 MB? Didn't think so.
> Then don't knock Amiga's multitasking.
Ah-hem. 11 years? I think not. None of my Amigas could run for a
*week* of heavy use without a crash (and I can't even remeber the last
time I had a kernel panic under Linux). Maybe OS 3.x is a lot more
stable, but it hasn't been out 11 years.
I'm wary of anyone compiling an "undisputable" list of the best
"multitasking" operating systems. Scheduling is a goal-oriented
task; some prefer low latency while others prefer better RAM
utilization; while others want complete foreground attention and still
others need real-time priority (ie, no scheduler at all).
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 05:22:13 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >Those who agree with you
> >because you sh*t on and waste time hating a corporation because it's
trendy?
>
> Its got nothing to do with trendy. So apparently, you are the one
> wasting time here.
I am fully aware that I am wasting time here. I'm just wondering if you
aware that you too are wasting time here.
> >> tell you that my reputation is far and away superior to either of
yours.
> >
> >It's oh so true. You're known for throwing blanket statements without
> >substantitaion.
>
> I'm known for expecting people to respond to my statements reasonably,
> and provide rational argument wherever possible. Why do *you* post?
For entertainment purposes. Why do you post ? What do you believe to be
accomplishing ?
> Just wasting time?
Of course. What do you really believe people do in *.advocacy forums ? Do
you really believe that people are accomplishing anything worthwhile here ?
> >How do you think that various people, including me are aware
> >of:
> >
> ><MAX> Because I Said So </MAX> ? :)
> >
> >You're not probably as infamous as Dave Tholen, but with a little more
> >work...
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Find me one person who would call me a net.kook, who
> isn't a net.kook!
Don't you just love recursive definitions.
net kook: noun. Someone calling T Max Devlin a net kook.
You hacked an Open Source Webopedia ? :)
> >> Not my fault.
> >
> >Aw c'mon, at least in a small part.
> >
> >Then again you still haven't enlightened me on how putting forth
> >unsubstanciated claims laced with deprecation and creative naming of the
> >object of contention is stating one's case moderately and accurately.
>
> Nor will I. Your mistake.
But. But. But. Weren't you the one lamenting the fact that no one was smart
enough on usenet to understand your sig, you're given the chance to remedy
to the situation and you play coy ?
> >Be nice, now Max, share what you know, I'm willing to learn what I don't.
>
> Oh, yeah, that's accurate and reasonable. Guffaw!
It's not my sig that reads:
" *** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
and who then complain when someone points out at the irony of it.
> (Sorry, that was just a little joke.)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:58:30 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:41:27 -0500, JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Speaking of multi-tasking, I read this thread yesterday and conducted a
> >little test on my Win2K system.
> >Ran a search for *.exe - then when the files found were up to 605 I
stopped
> >the search. Selected them all and pressed enter. Ended up with 186 open
> >programs without a hitch. I'm pretty sure the rest opened and closed
> >themselves as command line programs. The system is a dual 500 w/224mb
ram.
> >Your incredible Win2K multitasking ability may vary.
> >
>
> This is complete and utter Hogwash. First, if you think this is a valid
> test of multitasking, you need to educate yourself. Next, I did this
> on my Win2K system too. You forgot to mention that when certain *.exe
> files are executed, a dialog comes up stating that the application
> "can't be run in win32 mode". Launching of all other applications
The only time I have ever seen "can't be run in win32 mode" dialog box is
when I tried to run a 16 bit app. Since I installed on a newly created
partition, I didn't have any programs other than the ones I installed and
any thing that came with W2K.
Your right it doesn't show how well W2K multitasks but it does show you that
it doesn't have the limitations of Win9x.
BTW I only got about 30 programs on the task bar out of 383 *.exe's.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:07:13 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
>> >topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You stand
>> >convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
>>
>> Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
>
>So much for accuracy and moderation, wouldn't you think ?
Obviously not, or I wouldn't have said. Or perhaps I wasn't trying to
state a case, but merely observing how frivolous your comments are.
>> Ha!
>
>Indeed. And there goes your integrity...
Oh, yes, I know:
/Because Paul Says So!/
><SNIP> Some more of the same </SNIP>
>
>> >Umm. You did: "The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in
>> >the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC"
>>
>> The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority of
>> computers. Note your category error.
>
><MAX> Models number ? </MAX>
Model numbers. Not models number. That's not a category error, that's
a request for some substantiation of your argument. You don't expect me
to believe that I'm wrong simply on your say-so, do you?
>Don't sweat it by posting contrived handwaving.
Is that what that was? :-)
>It's for entertainment purposes only and to show how you use double
>standards.
Perhaps Mr. Franklin's real meaning, then, was that one cannot be both
perfectly accurate and perfectly moderate in dealing with every
statement nor every case. I doubt he was saying "one must always be
sure not to insult the boorish", as everyone around here seems to think
it means.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
