Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: where's the linux performance? (pip)
Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there (pip)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("spicerun")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (pip)
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* ("~¿~")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux disgusts me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Users...Why? (mlw)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 23:55:45 +0200
Chad Everett wrote:
> On 9 May 2001 20:05:12 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:56:06 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is
>>>> >> false. He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed tat birds do not nurse their young. Yopu are wrong, and
>>>> you
>>>
>>>So, birds have nipples now, eh?
>>
>>Aaron, you are aware that there are mammals without nipples, right?
>>The echidna, for instance.
>>
>>Having nipples is *not* a requirement to be a mammal.
>>
>>--
>>Roberto Alsina
>
> I think it would be more fun if we could now argue about the color
> of shit as previously suggested. Roberto says there is white colored
> shit. I say he's full of it......discuss.
>
>
I simply d not know why you and Aaron the Kook are banging on Roberto.
He was one of the few in this discussion who was level-headed and did not
tell any BS.
And yes, there is white colored shit. Ever seen the color of birds shit?
Chad, your last posts where nearly as bad as Aaron´s stuff.
And Aaron is so bad, he is already way off the scale.
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:12:52 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9db00s$rbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Windows does support network printers, actually. What you seem to want
> > > to do with ftp is a little awkward in Windows.
> >
> > I know that, but in the real world, the computer you're on may have no
> > access to the printer yo want to use.
>
> In the real world, the computer you are on may not have
> GhostScript installed, either.
>
If you are producing Postcript files, you'd better have a Postscript
interpreter, either in software (Ghostscript) or hardware (a postscript
printer)
> Life is full of these little problems.
>
They shouldnt be.
> > > But I don't see why you have asked to be told how Windows console apps
> > > print *without GDI*. Why is this interesting to you?
> >
> > Because you can't extract a device independent file format through the use
> > of GDI calls, which is unfortunate since there is a suitable one in
> > existewnce (Windows metafile).
>
> I think Windows is really geared to a slightly more
> sophisticated sort of installation. If you can't get
> up to Lan Manager levels of service,Windows may
> not be the best choice for you.
>
> I don't think any of this affects the point I was
> trying to make, though. Windows, Microsoft's
> fervent hopes aside, isn't the best tool for
> every possible role. It dominates the business
> desktop because it's the best tool to build apps
> for that desktop.
>
Windows dominstaes the market because of Microsoft's anti-competitve
practices.
> The GDI solves the problems that *those* apps
> need to solve. But those apps don't need to do
> what you are describing. A large part of the
> user base would have difficulty *understanding*
> what you are trying to accomplish.
>
> They would do it by passing the Word document
> to the user who would print it, and not understand
> why that isn't the same thing.
>
> [snip]
> > > Then I don't quite see why we must eschew the GDI. :/
> >
> > Pain in the neck for things that don't need to use it.
>
> I could say that of PostScript, couldn't I?
>
> Is it your view that GDI is worse? That GDI
> is too hard to program for?
>
> You may be right- I don't know enough PostScript
> to say. But if that is what you mean to say you
> are obscuring it by your approach to it.
>
> [snip]
> > >> It is as portable as you can get with graphics.
> > >
> > > Which is to say, not very.
> >
> > As good as it gets, though
>
> One might prefer .GIF, actually. :D
>
> It may not be very good, but it's surely
> more portable.
PDF?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:15:36 +0100
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> I've heard some other rumors of office specific caching that goes on
> >> once you've installed office, but I've never seen them confirmed.
> >
> > That's because they are not true.
>
> But they are. Look more closely what is loaded on startup *after* you
> installed Office. Also look how much RAM is used (mind you, even if you
> don´t have any intention of starting any office-app)
What? You can disable the FastStart et al in the registry or through the
startup folder even!
I just don't buy this for a second.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,dc.org.linux-users
Subject: Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:20:46 +0100
Counts wrote:
>
> I installed everything successfully (Slackware 4.1), recompiled a kernel,
> rebooted, everything worked as expected. Then, not long afterwards on
> another reboot, LILO just hangs. I have to boot using a floppy now. Any
> suggestions on how to fix this?
>
> Should I uninstall LILO and then re-install?
No, LILO prints LILO on the screen to indicate each stage of startup,
therefore LIL actually gives you the error message that you should be
able to find in the LILO documentation.
As the other poster suggests it could be a BIOS problem - so maybe you
could locate /boot in your first primary partition.
Also I have heard good things about the GRUB bootloader.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:20:43 GMT
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid the discussion is becoming pointless. You're
> speaking of archaic Pascal, I'm speaking of Borland's Object
> Pascal, such as used in Delphi and Kylix. Like discussing
> the merits of C having in mind the pre-ANSI C on one side,
> and C++ on the other side. What you say makes sense in your
> frame, what I say makes sense in mine.
you said it not i. in a discussion of C, why do you bring up C++?
they are certainly related, but not the same. similarly when you say
"pascal" how can we guess that you don't mean standard pascal but some
other animal entirely?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:47:16 -0500
In article <xSfK6.28000$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chronos Tachyon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KNode could still use rule-based filtering and a proper killfile but is
> otherwise a very nice newsreader.
Try Pan...(I use pan-0.9.6). I think it is pretty decent with its
filtering and killfile ability. In fact, contrary to recommendations on
this group, I've killfiled (or "bozoied the author" in pan's language) 98%
of the Wintrolls in this group and invoked the 'bozo's rule' which is to
pitch all "Bozoied Authors' into /dev/null). I've gotta tell you, the IQ
points in this group have risen dramtically since I don't see those
mindless troll ramblings anymore.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:27:58 +0100
spicerun wrote:
>
> In article <xSfK6.28000$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chronos Tachyon"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > KNode could still use rule-based filtering and a proper killfile but is
> > otherwise a very nice newsreader.
>
> Try Pan...(I use pan-0.9.6). I think it is pretty decent with its
> filtering and killfile ability. In fact, contrary to recommendations on
> this group, I've killfiled (or "bozoied the author" in pan's language) 98%
> of the Wintrolls in this group and invoked the 'bozo's rule' which is to
> pitch all "Bozoied Authors' into /dev/null). I've gotta tell you, the IQ
> points in this group have risen dramtically since I don't see those
> mindless troll ramblings anymore.
Pan is very good but a bit on the unstable side. It is the closet thing
I have seen to a *really* good gui newsreader.
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:14:52 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Talk to Terry Porter.
>
> He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
> denies all of these problems.
>
> BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
> aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
>
> Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
> have a How-To for just about everything.
By the way, this is quite typical of you, flatso. Jump on the
bandwagon of some troll without ever checking the facts. While many
Linux distributions have not come with the greatest of fonts in the past
and did not support anti-alias fonts, Redhat 7.1, which the poster was
referring to, does indeed come with support for anti-alias fonts and
100dpi. Check your facts before jumping on the bandwagon.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:02:21 +0000
In article <hR2J6.25070$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pookoopookoo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't there a place to download the binaries precompiled (I'm sure there
> is)? I've never compiled anything in my life =) I think if I had to
> recompile my kernel, I would go into coronary arrest.
Yes. Take a look at http://www.winehq.org/download.shtml. Also take a
look at http://www.codeweavers.com/wine. But because Wine is still in
development, debug is usually enabled. Without debug enabled, it's hard
to report bugs. Compiling is easy:
tar zxvf wine.rpm
cd wine (may be followed by a version number or date)
./configure
make
make install
It's not as nerve racking as compiling a kernel (which really is quite
simple anyway). If you make a mistake, your system will still work fine.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:31:48 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 12:38:05 +0100, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <9dauui$qd2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >> No, I didn't, because you spouted pretty much nothing but gibberish
until
> >> the end where you gained a little more of a clue.
> >
> >Show me where I spouted gibberish. I didn't.
> >
>
> With Word you have to boot your computer, click on the start button,
select Word,
> start typing, finish typing, pull down the file menu, select print, click
OK
> on the print dialog, and wait for your printouts to complete.
control + esc -> r -> "winword" -> type -> control + p -> tap return ->
done.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:49:42 GMT
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson posted:
> >Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
> >edit.com - DOH!
>
> Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>
> >WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text
> >based interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any
> >size you can imagine are right there on your desktop?
>
> A computer *is* fundamentally a text-based interface. Sometimes
> you just don't want the extra abstraction layers getting in your
> way. Using a lower level of abstraction can be more efficient.
But less functional.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:49:11 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af8daf2$0$41631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 22:42:33 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Text base applications would adjust automatically, it's those
> applications
> > > that makes assumtions about screen size (Edit.com, as you mention) that
> > > can't be resized.
> >
> > The applications you refer to as "text based" don't adjust, they just
> > have no idea how big the screen is in the first place bacuse they just
> > write lines of text to stdout.
> >
> > The ones like edit.com are the ones that ought to adust. Hey, I fully
> > understand why old DOS apps don't adjust, I just do not get why they
> > ship old DOS apps with NT or why even new console apps don't seem to
> > know about resizeable windows.
>
> Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run edit.com - DOH!
>
> WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
> interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you can
> imagine are right there on your desktop?
Perhaps he's so used to Unix where the GUI is so ugly and worthless
that the only way to get something done is from the CLI.
As for anti-aliased fonts in *nix? Perhaps in 20 more years =)
-c
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:17:17 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> What, in your view, is an API then?
>
> In Win32 an API?
> Is POSIX?
> Is the Macintosh Toolbox?
>
> Why are thse APIs and that int 21h
> foolishness not an API?
int 21h is not an API, it is a low-level DOS interrupt routine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:19:29 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 21:14:52 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Talk to Terry Porter.
>>
>> He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
>> denies all of these problems.
>>
>> BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
>> aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
>>
>> Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
>> have a How-To for just about everything.
>
>By the way, this is quite typical of you, flatso. Jump on the
>bandwagon of some troll without ever checking the facts. While many
>Linux distributions have not come with the greatest of fonts in the past
>and did not support anti-alias fonts, Redhat 7.1, which the poster was
>referring to, does indeed come with support for anti-alias fonts and
>100dpi. Check your facts before jumping on the bandwagon.
>
>Gary
If you read the entire message, which you didn't, you will see that I
said the font can be changed. My point was with why it is not
standard, and why it is such a PITA to change, and why, if it is not
important is it more than likely the number one question asked in the
setup forums?
Only LILO and where is my CDROM questions seem to be close to "Why are
my fonts painful to look at".
And yes 100dpi fonts have been in distros for a long time. They should
be default.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 20:35:25 -0400
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 08:20:52 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What's not to love.
>
> That silly penguin logo. :-(
I am so sick of beige and corporate logos, a silly penguin is a refreshing
change.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:32:47 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dc5tf$kpd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <snip>
> >
> > This argument has gone sidewary from the origional and I'm about to try
> > to argue against stuff that I agree with. To set it back on track:
> >
> > The GDI and PS have various advantages and disadvantages, ie there is
> > nothing wrong with each per se.
> >
> > One problem with the GDI interface is that there is no way of extracting
> > an intermediate device independent file format and then later printing
> > that on an arbitraty windows machine with a printer. This is a shame
> > because a suitable file format exists (WMF) and IIRC windows machines are
> > capable of recieving remote GDI commands for printers because they are
> > able to use printers on remote computers with remote drivers.
>
> It's possible to do what you want programmically; I think
> you really mean you want a user interface to it.
>
> The main problem you get is that you have to settle
> for whatever fonts you can get at the other end,
> and this may throw your layout off.
>
> > Another disadvantage is the excessive complexity for applications that
> > want to do only very basic printing (however for complex stuff, this
> > becomes much less of an issue)
>
> It *is* harder to emit lines of plaintext in order
> using GDI, but it's not really rocket science.
>
> Considering the market Windows sells into,
> it's surely a worthwhile tradeoff.
>
> > The primary advantage with the GDI is that it is tied in to the windows
> > display model which makes WYSIWYG programs easier to write.
>
> The other advantage, already discussed, is that you can
> inquire about the particular printer you will be printing
> on. This is the bit that can't be made to work with
> the 'intermediate file' approach you want- even if the
> intermediate file is in WMF format.
>
> > The advantage of the UNIX print system[1] is that you can extract a
> > device independent file which you can print on any other UNIX system. The
> > disadvantage is that there is no direct link between X and PS making
> > WYSIWYG programming rather harder. However, these points are being
> > addresses and there are now toolkits to address this functionality, but
> > they are not yet universal.
>
> I think that this audience of people who need this
> technique is rather small, even if you don't fuss over
> whether they count as "desktop users".
>
> > Another advatage of the UNIX print system is that it allows arbitrary
> > print filters to be put on the input and output of each print queue,
> > which I have found gives more flexibility than is avaliable under windows.
>
> What do you do with these print filters that you
> can't do with Windows?
>
>From Sun sysadmin vol.2 "Print filters are programs that convert the
content type of a file to a content type that is acceptable to the
destination printer. The LP print service uses filters to:
A. Convert a file from one data format to another so it can be printed
properly on a
specific type of printer.
B. Handle the special modes of printing, like two-sided printing,
landscape printing,
or draft- and letter-quality printing.
C. Detect printer faults and notify the LP print service of them so the
print service
can alert users and system administrators.
Not every print filter can perform all these tasks. Because each task is
printer-specific, the tasks can be implemented separately."
Epecially useful if you still have one of those old daisy wheel printers
and you want to change font wheels.
> > Also _basic_ printing from UNIX apps is easier---all you need is a
> > knowledge of printf() and about 6 different PS commands. To do basic
> > printing under Windows, rather more overhead is required.
>
> I agree. For comparison, to do elementary printing in
> Windows you need:
> CreateDC(), DeleteDC(),
> GetDeviceCaps(), SetMapMode(),
> BeginPage(), EndPage(),
> BeginDoc(), EndDoc(),
> CreateFont(), SelectObject(), DeleteObject()
> GetTextExtent32(), TextOut()
>
> 13 commands. You can emit text anywhere on
> the page and in any font with that much, but
> that's it; no graphics.
>
> > The final point is this:
> >
> > For a program which can generate screen graphics, print and make things
> > to embed in documents, you need to know GDI stuff (display and printing)
> > and OLE stuff, for embedding. Under UNIX, you need X for display and PS
> > for embedding and printing. Either way, you only get 2 out of 3 unified.
>
> I am certain that PS does *not* give you embedding, not
> if you mean anything like what OLE does.
>
> If you want to stick a WMF in another document, you
> don't need to use OLE to do it.
>
> > I think this just about sums it up.
> >
> > On a personal note, I prefer the UNIX way, because I do a lot of basic
> > printing. I also often generate images on faster computers and embed them
> > in to documents written on my computer, or print them from my computer.
>
> Sounds like you are writing a lot of simple, one-off
> software that prints simple stuff; not the kind of
> thing Windows was intended for.
>
> It's the kind of thing Unix is pretty good off.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:43:51 -0700
Greg Cox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
> > >> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
> > >> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
> > >> I make improvements to it.
> > >>
> > >No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
> > >they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
> >
> > Oh, really? Guffaw. Case closed. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> "Guffaw your way over to www.ford-diesel.com and look at the forums.
> Several people have had problems with Ford canceling their engine
> warrenty because of the installation of an exhaust brake.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well thats' Ford for you. I can't see buying anymore Fords... always
breaking... kinda like windows does.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:45:53 GMT
"Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.15635bb67857177c989694@news...
> > [...]
> > >> Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
> > >
> > >Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
> > >256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
> > >percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
> > >When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
> > >memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
> >
> > Holy christ! Talk about a fat bloated pig of a program! Did you say 5
> > percent CPU on a PII-450 when its *minimized*??? Ouch.
> >
> >
>
> No Max, I said LESS THAN 5 percent when running and minimized. But,
> just for you, I ran a more careful test. The result of that averaged
> about 2.2 percent CPU usage when minimized and playing a CD.
> Considering I'm using an old IDE based CD-ROM drive I think it's fine.
> Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your "Microsoft and all of
> its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced"
> attitude.
Media Player 7 is unusable on a P133 with 32M Ram for either CD
or mp3 playing while winamp works just fine. It works on a
P300 laptop with 128M, but I don't have anything in between to
try.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:49:03 GMT
You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the issues here, Max. In spite
of what you may have heard at the anti-MS choir practice, simply continuing
to offer an improved product, even in a monopoly setting is not illegal.
For the present case, the current trend is towards a vindication of
Microsoft in the DCCCOA because the DOJ case and the Jackson FOF failed to
show that Netscape was ever a genuine threat to Microsoft.
Now don't go on about the e-mails; it is not enough for Microsoft itself to
think that Netscape was a threat. The DOJ has to have shown that it
actually was, whether or not perceived as such by Microsoft. Judge Edwards
was pretty firm on that point in the hearings and the DOJ seemed to concede
the point at the end of the discussion. Bottom line: the DOJ loses the
appeal.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:49:30 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3af8daf2$0$41631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon, 7 May 2001 22:42:33 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Text base applications would adjust automatically, it's those
> > applications
> > > > that makes assumtions about screen size (Edit.com, as you mention) that
> > > > can't be resized.
> > >
> > > The applications you refer to as "text based" don't adjust, they just
> > > have no idea how big the screen is in the first place bacuse they just
> > > write lines of text to stdout.
> > >
> > > The ones like edit.com are the ones that ought to adust. Hey, I fully
> > > understand why old DOS apps don't adjust, I just do not get why they
> > > ship old DOS apps with NT or why even new console apps don't seem to
> > > know about resizeable windows.
> >
> > Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run edit.com - DOH!
> >
> > WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
> > interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you can
> > imagine are right there on your desktop?
>
> Perhaps he's so used to Unix where the GUI is so ugly and worthless
> that the only way to get something done is from the CLI.
>
> As for anti-aliased fonts in *nix? Perhaps in 20 more years =)
>
> -c
Already have anti-aliased fonts. Go buy a copy of Solaris 8 x86 and
you'll see what I mean.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
