Linux-Advocacy Digest #377, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tom Wilson")
Attacked! BTWorm! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux ("mmnnoo")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("mmnnoo")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("JS PL")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matt McLeod)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: where's the linux performance? (r@p)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: where's the linux performance? (p@r)
Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux (p@r)
W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:11:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 8 May 2001
>I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM were
>developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do with
it.
That may be, but, to call that stuff COM's starting point may be stretching
it a bit considering how far it has evolved from that mess. Kind of like
terming primordial soup a human ancestor - Technically accurate but only in
the loosest sense.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Attacked! BTWorm!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:20:01 GMT
Saturday night I got attacked by a guy with a freaky
web page.
After I found out he had ftp, I saw his web page.
It said the same as this one.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18811.html
Welp!
Debian is appearently indigestible!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:40:27 GMT
This is too false even to be a random pack of lies.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Tennent"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> According to
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
>>
>> there is a white paper available that describes
>>
>> seven key benefits to OEMs that use Windows 2000 and the SAK 2.0
>> over similar Linux based solutions
>>
>> I've been unable to download anything usable. An empty boast perhaps?
>> Can anyone else get anything?
>>
>> Bob T.
> Yeah,
>
> I really like this one:
>
> "Clarity of Intellectual Property Ownership"
>
> Yep. It's clear alright, it's Microsofts IP. You just get to rent it for
> a bit. And how's this for a howler:
>
> "Supporting Kerberos Security
>
> Windows 2000 supports Kerberos security, a state-of-the-art user
> authentication. It is widely accepted that Microsoft has the current
> reference implementation of Kerberos in Windows 2000. Kerberos can be
> installed on Linux, but only as an extra feature. The fact that Kerberos
> is not a standard feature in Linux leads to versioning problems."
>
> Wait, it gets better:
>
> "Windows 2000 provides the best interoperability of any operating system
> available; over the past decade, Windows has led the way in providing
> integration with Netware, UNIX, Banyan Vines, and other operating
> systems. Because Windows has been designed to exist in mixed
> environments, customers have the assurance that server appliances that
> are powered by Windows can interconnect and interoperate with any common
> network environment"
>
> And now why would this be:
>
> "It is important to note that the vast majority of the anti-virus
> software
> available is Windows based, and therefore ready to run on Windows 2000
> server appliances. Linux-based NAS appliances simply do not have the
> vast base of robust and powerful anti-virus software that would be
> available with a Windows 2000 server appliance."
>
> This document is basically all the well known FUD by MS. Printing it
> would have been a waste of paper. Read it, it is a great laugh!
>
> Mart
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:42:55 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dc4rh$1ev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:nheK6.12794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9db8ge$klc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The question is where to position the tradeoff between a stable
> > > > system's need to control access to the hardware and DOS programs'
> > > > need to access hardware directly. Win9x doesn't bother trying.
> > > > DOSEMU tries but lets you override it with configuration settings.
> > >
> > > I think that they didn't want to let it happen, if you can open up
> > hardware
> > > access one way, you can open it in other ways too.
> > > How does linux handle it, btw?
> >
> > It provides bios emulation for normal system functions, but also allows
> > you to specify memory and port ranges that it can access directly so
> > dos device drivers or programs that talk directly to hardware can work.
> > That gives them the same opportunity to crash the system that they would
> > have under dos or win9x. I'm not sure if it provides any locking for
> > multiple instances or not - I doubt if it does.
>
> Actually, my question was how Linux deal with the security hole this
> creates.
> Since DOSEMU can give an application a direct hardware access, so can
other
> stuff, right?
>
> Off topic:
> I once tried to write directly to a floppy, and accidently initializing
it.
> (IE, threated it like an array and put 0 everywhere)
> The source code for the program was on this disk, and I never bothered to
> recreate it.
Good thing, too <g>
Seriously, that has got to be one of *nix's nicest features. The ability to
access ANY block device like a standard file cuts so many layers of
complexity out of low level device IO. Just try to write an FDISK-like
utility for Windows and one in UNIX. (I have, and the former isn't easy for
the 9x line. I had to resort to assembler and use some interrupt calls. NT
at least has some low level access stuff nestled in the API. They aren't all
that good, but they're there at least) With *nix, its as easy as opening a
file, seeking to an offset, doing a binary read or write, then closing it.
That simple.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:43:33 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is just true and while it
> >may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
> >way - the time has finally arrived.
>
> <insert cartoon of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown>
<g> Nice One!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:43:42 GMT
On Wed, 09 May 2001 21:55:56 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux, The Gimp, they all are perceived as the same.
Are you trying to argue that people can't distinguish between the OS
and an app if they come in the same box? Or that Linux would be
perceived as being higher quality if it came with fewer apps? Or what?
Oh, wait, lots of PC's come with Office installed. I guess faults in
Office will be blamed on Windows then.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:48:31 GMT
On Wed 09 May 2001 05:47, 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.
>
I've heard many people praising Pan recently, and I've been itching to try
it out when I get the chance.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:00:17 GMT
On Wed 09 May 2001 07:17, GreyCloud wrote:
> 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.
>
You're not on very solid ground here. As I recall, Linux syscalls are
called via int 80h. The DOS interrupt may be very low level and primitive
in comparison, but both are still APIs by definition.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:22:01 GMT
Using vmware is alot like that, except you need windows plus the $120 or
so vmware product.
In article <HEfK6.28541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Robert Kent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -cross posted to comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine-
>
> Microsoft should consider producing "Windows for Linux". It could be
> their own version of Wine, but it would be nearly 100% compatible with
> the latest version of Windows. Microsoft could require that users have a
> retail copy of Windows to make this work.
>
> It's a win-win situation. Linux users could run nearly all of the
> available Windows applications, and Microsoft would still make money
> selling Windows licenses.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 23:27:22 -0400
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:37:33 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12
> >> [...]
> >> >Yes, Win9x suck for everything. I couldn't imagine trying to do
> >> >anything like CD burning in Win9x, let alone try to get any decent
> >> >amount of work done.
> >> >
> >> >Win9x just suck.
> >
> >I run Windows 98 on one machine (rarely) and the apps crash less than the
> >apps on my Linux box. I can't remember the last time the Win98 OS
crashed,
>
> Hey...JS PL is a linux user...what linux distro and version are you
running?
The newest Mandrake. DL'ed over 56k. I might even buy it when it hits the
shelves in boxes. If it hasn't already.
> >then a gain, I touch the machine about once a month. Maybe some of that
> >Win2k reliability on the same network is rubbing off on it.
>
> My Windows 2K box never crashes anymore because I never turn it on
anymore.
> I see the same applies for your Windows 98 box. This is hilarious. Do
> you want to improve the reliability of your Windows box?: Don't use it.
> Perfect!
My Win2k box never crashes anyway. If your does you must have screwed
something up severely in the setup.
My Win98 box doesn't crash either, but it appears to be on and producing
light whenever I look over there at it.
> But you expect us to believe that ethernet magically allows Windows boxes
> to change each other's operation through some sort of Windows telepathy?
> Windows advocacy at its finest.
You mean Windows 2000 doesn't "project" reliability throughout the network?
Now I gotta figure out a different reason why Win98 never seems to crash, it
used to crash just being ON 24 hours. Maybe sombody's rebooting it when I'm
not looking. To tell you the truth I could care less if it crashes. All I
use mostly it for is to hold bulk backup files, it seems to perform that
task admirably, but if not, I can still get at them yanking out the HD.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt McLeod)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 10 May 2001 13:27:22 +1000
In article <9dc487$3rt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In alt.solaris.x86 Matt McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (What would I consider to be a good word processor? WordPerfect 5.x
>> on DOS or VMS or whatever -- just not the GUI versions, which sucked.)
>
>Check TeX now!!! Sure it will work for you and it is free.
I got in trouble for trying to use LaTeX here when I started a
few years ago. But with the changes coming up, it looks like
LaTeX and LyX will become our standard doc tools.
--
"Life. Loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."
-- Marvin
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:28:17 GMT
In article <5xlK6.13094$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> "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]
>
>
Hey, if Winamp works on your box where WMP7 doesn't then use Winamp. On
my box it doesn't make much of a difference so I can use either one. I
was originally responding to someone with a PIII-500 (I believe) with
mucho memory and complaining that WMP7 performance was so poor that he
had to kill the WMP7 process to change tracks. A PII-450 is not an
impressive box by today's standards and WMP7 under Win2k works perfectly
fine for me...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: r@p <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: 9 May 2001 19:53:42 -0700
I like both linux and freeBSD. But linux has more drivers for it.
for example, can one use a firewire haddisk on freeBSD?
Linux now supports more devices than even windoz. and Sun supports
Java on linux and one can get latest JDK's for linux, but have to
wait for a port to freeBSD.
I'd rather use freeBSD or linux any day for development over windoz
of course.
------------------------------
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 03:51:12 GMT
"Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> Hey, if Winamp works on your box where WMP7 doesn't then use Winamp. On
> my box it doesn't make much of a difference so I can use either one. I
> was originally responding to someone with a PIII-500 (I believe) with
> mucho memory and complaining that WMP7 performance was so poor that he
> had to kill the WMP7 process to change tracks. A PII-450 is not an
> impressive box by today's standards and WMP7 under Win2k works perfectly
> fine for me...
I'd guess that the real problem on a P500 lies elsewhere - like in the habit
of Windows program installers to hide the fact that they are installing
systray or background program that will forever thereafter steal RAM and
CPU cycles from you, often with no way to remove them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: p@r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: 9 May 2001 19:56:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg says...
> I would guess that the OS has little
>to nothing to do with the performance of a JVM, rather, the bulk of the
>responsibility squarely falls on the JVM implementor's shoulders.
>
Pretty much, except when it comes to issues such as threads. The VM
uses the threading mehanism on the OS. If that is broke the VM will
not behave well.
------------------------------
From: p@r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: 9 May 2001 20:08:28 -0700
In article <nBiK6.1191$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Flacco"
says...
>
>MS has been lying to its customers for so long it becomes second-nature, I
>suppose.
>
yes, but the bean counter managers who have no clue, they read this stuff
and believe it.
I just saw an ad from MS about windows XP, and one of the new features listed
is the ability for an authorized user on one computer to access another
computer over the internet.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 9 May 2001 22:58:13 -0500
Pretty much identical Dell servers, the Windows box having more drives
including one faster one (for the OS itself) - BUT the ENTIRE test data set
fits in memory on both machines so drives really don't make much difference.
Cutting to the chase:
IIS5: 8001
Tux2: 7500
That's only about 6.25% faster so I don't think anyone will declare IIS a
dominating winner but - it is ahead. The difference in drives could account
for the 6.25% difference easily.
SO - instead, lets call it about a draw.
Except... Windows can do so so so much more with a <sarcastic voice>cute
bloated memory and cpu hogging GUI that you can't get rid of and all this
extra bloated code plus a plain vannilla HTTP server that comes free with
every copy of Windows 2000</sarcastic voice> and yet it still runs every bit
as fast as the lean-machine linux kernel with it's specialty HTTP server
that we've not seen in the wild. Isn't that supposed to be impossible?
Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
(references:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q2/web99-20010416-00109.html
and
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.html)
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:02:07 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with. Simple.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:03:05 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 23:47:55
> >On 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>This is just true and while it
> >>may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
> >>way - the time has finally arrived.
> >
> ><insert cartoon of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown>
>
> ROTFLMAO!
Picture the look on Lucy's face when Charlie kicks the SHIT outta the ball.
That's the look I'll enjoy seeing on anti-MS people's face - if they have
the balls to admit it.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:06:08 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> 3
> >> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> > >"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > >>Sure I've seen the occasional box running DOS in a closet with a
unix
> >> > >>print
> >> > >>server client running on it here and there but... that hardly means
> >> MS-DOS
> >> > >>is alive and well.
> >> > >Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
> >> > >applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
> >> > >Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to
XP
> >> will
> >> > >not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
> >> > >
> >> > How about Windows Media Player 8?
> >>
> >> Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul,
there
> >> isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
> >> WMP7 is a bloody resource hog, slow, unresponsive, slow, and did I
mention
> >> slow?
> >> Start playing a CD, try changing tracks... On my system,
PIII-500+448MB, the
> >> easiest way to do it is to teminate WMP7, and start all over again! And
I
> >> won't start talking about how it does MP3...
> >> I got WinampLite, which does everything I want it to, does it fast,
> >> efficently, and reponsively.
> >> 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...
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ....and what kind of stats can you give us when you downloaded and ran
> WinAmp 8 ?
>
I doubt we'll know for at least a few more years until WinAmp reaches
version 8...
Meanwhile version 2.74 does uses between 14-20% on my PIII-800 running at
997 mhz and eats 8 megs of memory with 7 megs of virtual memory used. In
comparison WMP7 uses 10 megs of memory and 6 megs of virtual but never
exceeds about 8-12% cpu use even while displaying the cute graphics.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:08:11 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5xlK6.13094$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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.
Such utter crap. When playing a CD all WMP is doing is displaying some
graphics to let you know what track it's on - the CD is playing right into
the sound card and there is no load on the system. When I play a CD using
WMP I get between 1-3% CPU usage when maximized and between 0-1% when
minimized. It's different playing MP3's of course but then we have to decide
what bitrate MP3 and what speed CPU for a meaningful comparison.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:09:13 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
And you'll void your warranty. But a car isn't software and this software is
licensed not sold. Trying leasing that car and see what happens when you
decide to swap out the motor and change in the interior...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
