Linux-Advocacy Digest #70, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Greg Cox)
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: Here's a switch for a change ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Here's a switch for a change ("Edward Rosten")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (GreyCloud)
Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer (Donn Miller)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-) (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 09:55:17 +0200
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3b20d83a$0$94306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3b204db4$0$214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:36:03 GMT, Christopher L. Estep
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Star Office? (Max, it's available for Windows (and it's still free),
> >> > >but can't compare feature-wise to Office 97, let alone either 2000
> >> > >*or* the just-released XP.)
> >> >
> >> > Name a feature that it lacks compared to Office 97.
> >>
> >> Can you embed a spreadsheet application within a word processing
> >> document all within a slide show presentation? Clicking on any section
> >> allows full power editing of that item within the native app.
> >
> > Hell, that's not just O97, that's Windows in general =)
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> Sorry, but StarOffice *can* do that. I just tried it a few weeks ago in
> response to that same argument from Erik Funkenbusch. Nice try though.
Can I view a SO document from the web browser?
I'm asking here. If you have Acrobat Reader installed, you can view PDF from
IE, same for Office, and a lot of other applications.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 00:04:06 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Jun 2001
> [snip]
> > >I
> > >understand that one could write a Java program that
> > >emits a DB/2 database file, but I don't see why you'd
> > >want to, or why using WFC would make that easier.
> >
> > Are you familiar with the phrase "turing complete"? One could write any
> > program to do anything.
>
> Yes, and I know what it means, too. It does not
> mean that you can write a program to do anything,
> but rather anything that a turing machine can do.
>
> Turing machines can't emit DB/2 databases.
>
> Java *can*, because it has capabilities that
> turing machines do not- the ability to do stream
> I/O, in particular.
>
> > Do you even HAVE a point, Dan? EVER?
>
> Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
> is IBM involved in WFC, really?
>
> [snip]
> > >So far you've claimed that MS partnered with others
> > >to produce MFC and WFC, but this hardly suggests that it would
> > >have been prohibitively difficult to do it themselves.
> >
> > No, the claim was that MS didn't actually author either MFC or WFC, but
> > paid others for them.
>
> That claim has not been made by anyone except
> you, so far. Care to substantiate it?
>
> I certainly won't take your word for it.
>
> > This clearly suggests they are incompetent at
> > writing software.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > >Who knows? MFC might have sucked less had MS done it
> > >entirely on their own. :D
> >
> > You would have to demonstrate how much it sucks first. Being an endless
> > task, you wouldn't have any opportunity for this imaginary "sucked less"
> > that "might" have happened. <*BIG STUPID GRIN*>
>
> No, no, it's not spelled "<*BIG STUPID GRIN*>"; it's spelled
> ":D".
>
> :D
>
> [snip]
> > >They cannot handle more than a small fraction
> > >of the applications.
> >
> > They cannot handle even the OS; they lifted most of what is touted as
> > "benefits of Windows" from others, as well.
>
> MS does their own implementations of these
> things, though. They seem to be able to handle
> that much.
>
> > What they did write is badly designed.
>
> I think MS's software is frequently well
> designed, and often better designed than the
> competition.
>
Well, I'm having to do a lot of work arounds with VC++6.0.
For some reason or other they've got the private sections of classes
screwed up.
I have to make a lot of private variables public because of this nasty
bug.
I feel that this compromises the idea of encapsulation and isolation.
Could this really be the cause of some of MS software failing??
Metrowerks C++ works real well and so does Gnu g++.
> They rarely get the implementation right on
> the first try; it's the good designs they use that
> allow them to overcome this in later
> revisions of their software.
>
> Comparing the Macintosh's journey to OS X
> and Window's journet to Windows 2000 is very
> instructive in this regard.
>
> [snip]
>
> Forgive me if I snipped most of your
> post, but it was just content-free flamage,
> and I have nothing entertaining to say about
> it.
--
V
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 00:06:07 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fr2mu$gnv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:mT6U6.68368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
> > > is IBM involved in WFC, really?
> >
> > I think the question is why, rather then how.
>
> My question is "how"; I'll ask why once
> I know how.
>
> [snip]
> > > I think MS's software is frequently well
> > > designed, and often better designed than the
> > > competition.
> > >
> > > They rarely get the implementation right on
> > > the first try; it's the good designs they use that
> > > allow them to overcome this in later
> > > revisions of their software.
> >
> > Okay, this is a rational explanation to MS' Ver 3.0 sympthom.
> > Scarry!
>
> I've heard it said that MS uses fresh-out-of-school
> grads for a lot of implementation work, but
> experienced developers for design.
>
> I dunno if this is true, but it explains a lot,
> if it is.
It's true. There was a Seattle Times article a couple of years ago that
mentioned the entry level salary of a MS programmer... $18k. But it
mentioned that they also get stock options. (A carrot!)
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:16:13 GMT
In article <9fsgr9$31c3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
>> Selling support contracts, CDs, even just books, is more than sufficient
>> to make developing an OS cost-effective. Developing an OS only takes
>> time the first time, and, no, it doesn't really take that much. Linux
>> advocates did it as a hobby, for example.
>
>Given that situation then, why can't Redhat et al make money.
>
RedHat is making money and turning a profit.
It's absolutely stupid to pretend their not.
>
>If company A is paying programmer A to develop their OS, they need to have a
>viable business model to recover the cost of programmer A. So far none of
>the linux companies have proved that their model is viable.
>
Then I guess this is why all of them are now out of business,
as predicted by the absolute dick heads at Microsoft last year.
If you go to a COMP USA, you will see that Linux distros
pretty well DOMINATE the OS isle.
>
>Microsoft make a profit regardless of whether their competitors have been
>cleared out.
>
>
It's also true MS is making a profit.
But it's also true that MS dominated by the
notion that closed source has a future.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:19:35 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fr2mu$gnv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:mT6U6.68368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
> > > > is IBM involved in WFC, really?
> > >
> > > I think the question is why, rather then how.
> >
> > My question is "how"; I'll ask why once
> > I know how.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > I think MS's software is frequently well
> > > > designed, and often better designed than the
> > > > competition.
> > > >
> > > > They rarely get the implementation right on
> > > > the first try; it's the good designs they use that
> > > > allow them to overcome this in later
> > > > revisions of their software.
> > >
> > > Okay, this is a rational explanation to MS' Ver 3.0 sympthom.
> > > Scarry!
> >
> > I've heard it said that MS uses fresh-out-of-school
> > grads for a lot of implementation work, but
> > experienced developers for design.
> >
> > I dunno if this is true, but it explains a lot,
> > if it is.
>
> It's true. There was a Seattle Times article a couple of years ago that
> mentioned the entry level salary of a MS programmer... $18k. But it
> mentioned that they also get stock options. (A carrot!)
>
This is pure BS. Microsoft is known to have low salaries (with stock
options) but nothing anywhere this low.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:10:07 +0200
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fsekj$30m2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > REG EXPORT /?
> > > REG IMPORT /?
> >
> > "Bad command or file name"
> >
>
> It's in the resource kit...
And on XP, I think on 2K too, can't be sure.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:16:19 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's true. There was a Seattle Times article a couple of years ago that
> mentioned the entry level salary of a MS programmer... $18k. But it
> mentioned that they also get stock options. (A carrot!)
Did they mention the salary of the same programmer several years later?
I understand that it's quite high.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:22:14 +0200
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fsg1c$314d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> To do a RegExp with VB Script, you simply do
>
> Set regEx = New RegExp ' Create a regular expression
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/vbscript/doc/vsobjRegExp.htm.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/vbscript/doc/vspropattern.htm
> shows the patterns that you can use to search.
>
> As you can see this is done without calling any COM objects, which would
> typically be done with a CreateObject first.
>
> What is the COM object you are referring to?
"To ensure that Visual Basic developers can use regular expressions, the
VBScript regular expression engine has been implemented as a COM "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/languages/clinic/scripting051099.asp
I'm not sure if there was first the VBS RegExp, or the COM, but it seems
that it's a COM object nonetheless.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:22:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In ashen ink the dread hand of Dan did inscribe:
> > Nothing. This is just typical knee-jerk reaction here. It's a
> > Microsoft innovation, so it's automatically suspect and evil.
>
> > Dan
>
> You are finaly learning. Microsoft _is_ evil and just plain wrong. Adding
> links to a page I have created is a violation of the Berne Convention
> (as soon as I create something it is automatically copywriten).
Copyrighted. :-)
It may not be a violation of copyright, but it is a violation of the web
page author's decision about what pages to link to. If I don't like
company so-and-so, but some word in my web site is automatically turned
into a link to that company, then my opinions, as expressed in my web
site, are violated.
It's similar to the objections people had to Third Voice, which, by the
way, has recently shut down public operations.
People will do research soon enough for how to detect the kinds of
browsers that add their own links ... and refuse to serve them pages.
The browser software shouldn't change pre-existing links, right? So
publish a web page that contains every word in your dictionary, and view
it through this new browser. Any word which as a result gets a link then
gets put in a list that your web server keeps. The server, whenever it
sees a word in a page it serves that's in that list, then turns it into
a null link.
It might even be useful to set up a service that publishes the current
link-list via ftp, and any Apache server could then get that list
whenever it's updated, and kill those links.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:23:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now if I'm the owner of a website and someone using M$ software comes
> > along and alters my site, I should think my lawyer is going to be
> > contacting someone about what unauthorized actions they have done. I
> > want to think I' see a legal issue here.
>
> Your site is not changed by this. Only the display of the page on the
> computer running XP has certain words underlined to create new links.
> Your page has not changed AT ALL.
I still don't like the idea of someone changing or adding to the content
of my page. Hyperlinks are part of the content.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:46:18 +0100
> I'd like to have been there and heard the manager try to explain that
> not only was his data permanently gone with no chance of compensation
> but he couldn't have a refund on the software because he agreed to the
> no-refunds
> clause in the EULA when he installed the product. - but he could have
> another copy of the same product in exchange.
I don't believe you can waive your right to a refund in the UK, but I
might be wrong here.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:47:26 +0100
> There is no such clause in the EULA, in fact MS offers a 30 day money
> back guarantee on retail software.
>
> Further, his data isn't gone. Just the OS is corrupted.
As your crowd loves saying, does Joe $ixpack care? No, if he can't get
his data for any reason then it is gone.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 00:49:48 -0700
Quantum Leaper wrote:
>
> "Craig Gullixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fo7lo$2eqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9CCT6.24791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
> Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Stephen Edwards wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> > >> > mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (drsquare) wrote in
> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> >
> > >> > >On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:34:09 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > >> > > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>F-117A A is a BOMBER, not a fighter.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >How is that relevant to the US inventing the stealth fighter?
> > >> >
> > >> > It isn't. And he's still wrong. The
> > >> > "F" denotes "Fighter".
> > >>
> > >> It's odd, but the F117 has no abilities to attack other aircraft at all
> > >> AFAIK, but it is designated as a fighter. Anyone know why that is?
> AFAIK
> > >> the Stealth bomber is the B1.
> > >>
> > >I believe it was developed as a fighter and support for the B2 bomber,
> but
> > >it current role is as bomber.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The stealth bomber is the B2.
>
> "B2 bomber" is what I said. F117 current role is a bomber, also, I guess
> I should have said 'light bomber'.
> >
> > The development of the F117 predates the B2 by at least a decade
> > [AFAIR, development of the technology dates to the late '60s, which,
> > AFAIK, even predates development on the B1]. My guess is that the Air
> > Force found it had a invisible plane about the size of a fighter so it
> > called it a fighter. The program was black black, with operational
>
> B1B - June 1985
> B2 - Decmeber 1983
> F117A - 1982
>
> I guess your right and the Air Force's web site is wrong? I don't know
> when the technology was developed, all I know is when it was deployed.
> Most of the technology is decades old, the Military nevers shows the
> people what they are doing right now but I would have thought you knew
> that....
>
> > aircraft flying around for more than a decade before a picture was
> > released. Speculation is that this aircraft was really the
> > hypothetical F19 and the name was changed to the F117 so that the
> > denials that there was never a F19 were true.
> >
> Most 'Skunk Works' projects fly for more than a decade before they are shown
> to the public.
>
>
How about the SR-75??
--
V
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 03:50:30 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> Too funny to bury in the earlier subthread on user mistakes:
>
> <http://www.novatech.co.uk/NOVATECH/SurveyOutcome.html>
>
> "We were surprised by the number of people who confessed to physically
> attacking their computers - 25 per cent. But looking at some of the
> answers, it's clear that in many cases people were actually frustrated
> at their own lack of know-how."
It doesn't mention how many people were physically attacked by their
computers.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:55:13 +0100
In article <9fr708$ilo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2001 16:21:34 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>
>>>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>I think it's more to do with the quality of lager in pubs around
>>>>>>>here - I
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lager? I thought you were talking about BEER, not that watery piss!
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you prefer?
>>>
>>>> BITTER.
>>>
>>>What *kind* of bitter, you simpleton.
>
>> Any.
>
> heineken?
>
I quite like Old Speckled Hen (it helps that they serve it in the student
bar :-) but about the best ones are the loacal brew you get served up in
the backwaters of Surrey.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:57:02 +0100
> Games were often better in those days - they had to have better gameplay
> to get people to keep using them as the graphics were often crap,
> unlike many modern games which are all multimedia and graphics with
> zero thought put into the things which make you want to keep playing
> them years later.
Definitely. Games these days lack thought and depth in general, since
they're chruned out by the bucketload.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-)
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:03:44 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:04:13 +0800, "Todd"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > But what if MS decides to add additional Win32 APIs to XP?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if MS decides to offer DirectX 10 to XP, but not to any other
> of
> > > there
> > > > > OSes?
> > > >
> > > > They will.
> > >
> > > No need to get to that.
> > > You seem to forget that XP has so many capabilities that 9x doesn't.
> > > Full unicode support. A file system that isn't based on some amazing
> feat of
> > > hacking that is based on some drawing by a collage dropout some twenty
> five
> > > years ago. Whole *slew* of visual API that can make a Mac OSX advocate
> > > droll.
> >
> > I wonder what these wonderful APIs are that are better than OSX? I've
> > seen the OSX in action on a Mac and pretty much like it. I haven't seen
> > XP in action so don't know.
>
> I understand that those APIs are the base for XP new UI, but still, their
> capabilities aren't taken to their fullest extent.
> www.stardock.com has a product WindowsXF (or something like that) that takes
> advantage of those APIs, you may want to check that out.
>
> I've seen screen shots of Aqua, it seems too bright to me to be comfortably
> used.
> But XP looked so too, but I got used to it very quickly.
> How is it in Aqua? Does the interface get in the way?
>
> > What is the practical system requirement to run XP? I've heard that OS
> > X should really have about 512Mb of ram to run great.
>
> Anything beyond 64MB is fine.
> Anything beyond 128MB is great.
> Beyond 256MB, you are wasting your money unless you've some spesific reason
> to want so much memory.
>
> OSX 512MB??? Ouch!
> Got any details?
The 512Mb requirement, after some more digging around, was needed for
those that like to do video editing and rendering. It figures as the
Sun Blade 100 can be stuffed with 2Gb of ram. The aqua interface seems
to give it a clear glassy look to it, but from what I could gather the
interface was more user definable than windows and was a way to
unclutter the desktop and make it less confusing. As these machines are
getting more storeage and more programs loaded on the hard drives it can
be tedious or aggravating to look for something you stored a week ago.
Jury is still out here on it.
--
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
******************************
