In article <46aa297b$0$31728$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
says...
> And where you set the machine name and domain/workgroup is in the same
> place it always was?
> Setting up VPNs is in the same place in Vista as on XP?
Did you actually read my fucking post?
--
Conor
It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
to wait
Conor wrote:
> Trevor Best says...
>> Conor <conor.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No need to relearn everything with Windows. Windows didn't
>>> become what it is today by making massive changes.
>>
>> What??? I'll have a pint of what you had.
>
> Been using Windows for 17 years so I think I know what I'm on
> about.
Obviously you don't recognize what you are using. Some of us have
been using it for longer. By the simple expedient of sticking with
W98 we can avoid most of the problems.
There is also Linux available. Probably the best cure.
F'ups set to eliminate the excessive cross-posting.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
"Trevor Best" <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1185534087.456697.223540@l70g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
> <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
>> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market?
>> 0.7%!!
>> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>
> Do you have a source for that?
>
> I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
> suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>
"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:kYqdnRBNkMZK1DfbnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Trevor Best" <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:1185534087.456697.223540@l70g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
>> <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market?
>>> 0.7%!!
>>> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>>
>> Do you have a source for that?
>>
>> I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
>> suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>>
>
>
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>
> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from
> Vista. It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the
> desktop.
>
(If you click on the tiny graph icons, you get more info)
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:5gu5gsF3i427kU2@mid.individual.net...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
>> <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
>>> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
>>> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>
>> Do you have a source for that?
>
>> I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
>> suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>
> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
> hardware.
>
No Arnie, they are way too high.
Most Linux DVDs go into the garbage in a year or less.
Anyone care to dig up the browser stats for some non-computer web site?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:39:59 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <46a9e68d$0$3730$e4fe514c@dreader22.news.xs4all.nl >, maxx
>says...
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:30:17 +0100, Conor wrote:
>>
>> > Been using Windows for 17 years so I think I know what I'm on about.
>>
>> The number of years doesn't tell me anything. You might have been using
>> Windows simply for wordprocessing for 17 years. That makes you a
>> wordprocessing expert. Not a Windows expert...
>>
>Ok, fuckwit. I've been building PCs for 17 years.
>
>Better?
I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the user
environment hasn't changed substantially in MS' products
over that time period, at least until Win95 came along.
'Nix hasn't necessarily changed so much either, if you want
to dismiss the changes between each major revision as we'd
do with windows.
The bottom line is that *Joe Average* just uses the system,
it wouldn't necessarily matter that much what OS was
installed so long as it was PRE-Installed, had the various
drivers and software ready to use. Windows just happened to
get a head start and built up momentum first, but these are
still the early days of computing and the current
environment won't last forever. We see it already with
Vista, development is getting quite lengthly and cost rising
while consumers are lacking for any substantial improvements
beyond the areas we could call flaws that should've been
fixed in prior versions, like security holes.
>"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:5gu5gsF3i427kU2@mid.individual.net...
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
>>> <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
>>>> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>>
>>> Do you have a source for that?
>>
>>> I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
>>> suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>>
>> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
>> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
>> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
>> hardware.
>>
>No Arnie, they are way too high.
>Most Linux DVDs go into the garbage in a year or less.
>
>Anyone care to dig up the browser stats for some non-computer web site?
We might as well ignore any stats that can't claim a good
statistical representation of China. MS already found out
they had to practically give away windows to sell there.
Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
> > <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
> >> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
> >> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>
> > Do you have a source for that?
>
> > I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
> > suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>
> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
> hardware.
>
> Arno
So wot? I don't really see the point of this discussion. It's not a religion,
innit. I like to try LINUX because there are lots af free applications, but
that doesn't mean that I will drop Windows XP. I have used many OS in my
life, and I miss some of them. ECEX8, VMS, VME, UNIX, NOSBE, COS, CP/M, DOS
and Windows. I have a version of Ubuntu that you can run as an application
under Windows; probably not efficient, but good enough for what I want to do.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage johannes <johs@size-nospamme5742-fitter.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
>> > <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
>> >> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>>
>> > Do you have a source for that?
>>
>> > I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
>> > suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>>
>> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
>> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
>> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
>> hardware.
>>
>> Arno
> So wot? I don't really see the point of this discussion. It's not a religion,
> innit. I like to try LINUX because there are lots af free applications, but
> that doesn't mean that I will drop Windows XP. I have used many OS in my
> life, and I miss some of them. ECEX8, VMS, VME, UNIX, NOSBE, COS, CP/M, DOS
> and Windows. I have a version of Ubuntu that you can run as an application
> under Windows; probably not efficient, but good enough for what I want to do.
Just a comment that reminds people that Linux and Windows are different.
That's an interesting set of figures. They don't say *exactly* how they arrived
at them, but clicking "help" on that page pops up a window with a good part of
the story ...
This report lists the market share of the top operating systems
in use. This data is derived by aggregating the traffic across
our network of websites that use our service.
...
We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect
data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on
demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers.
The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls. The
information published is an aggregate of the data from this network
of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral
information is summarized on a monthly basis.
So, they're looking at browser traffic and deducing what OS was hosting the
browser used for each access.
This has a number of shortcomings, as a means of analysing OS popularity:
* Browsers often lie, in particular they often claim to be the most
"vanilla" browser available at the time in order not to be blocked
with a "this site works best using IE6 on XP" type error.
That will cause artificially high scores for IE6 on XP.
* Many computers aren't used for browsing. Linux is used in many server
applications and in 'appliance' PCs configured as firewalls,routers,
etc.. These won't show up in the stats at all.
* The stats are gleaned from visits to "our exclusive on demand network".
That the stats are gathered only from hits to one set of services must
skew the results. If the services in question are services that will
predominantly be of interest to Windows users one would expect the stats
to show a predominance of Windows PCs among the clients.
> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from
> Vista. It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the
> desktop.
I must say that I can do almost everything I need to with Linux. The things I
can't do are all cases in which a proprietary database is supplied with a
viewer program that only runs under Windows. One of these I can run acceptably
(though not perfectly) under Wine, another I cannot.
heh, Linux looks like a hobbyist OS compared to Windows. Mind ewe those
figures could have come from be the number of google searches for "BSOD" :-)
> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from
> Vista. It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the desktop.
Horses for courses I agree, I dual boot.
I expected more from Vista too, like maybe perhaps just a teensy bit
more backwards compatibility, the ability to actually play the DVDs it
purports to do so well (out of the box I mean, not after trawling the
web or spending more money).
A choice of skins for windows other than the standard vista (admittedly
a vast improvement over the XP lunar joke) and Windows Classic, which is
getting rather boring now since I ran lla my XP machines with that.
Oh yes you can do the latter, with shareware or giving Bill a few more
coffers that he doesn't really need over the top of what Vista cost
anyway (better learn Chinese and buy that version for $3)
Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage johannes <johs@size-nospamme5742-fitter.com> wrote:
>
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
> >> > <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
> >> >> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
> >>
> >> > Do you have a source for that?
> >>
> >> > I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
> >> > suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
> >>
> >> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
> >> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
> >> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
> >> hardware.
> >>
> >> Arno
>
> > So wot? I don't really see the point of this discussion. It's not a religion,
> > innit. I like to try LINUX because there are lots af free applications, but
> > that doesn't mean that I will drop Windows XP. I have used many OS in my
> > life, and I miss some of them. ECEX8, VMS, VME, UNIX, NOSBE, COS, CP/M, DOS
> > and Windows. I have a version of Ubuntu that you can run as an application
> > under Windows; probably not efficient, but good enough for what I want to do.
>
> Just a comment that reminds people that Linux and Windows are different.
>
> Arno
Daniel James wrote:
> This has a number of shortcomings, as a means of analysing OS popularity:
>
> * Browsers often lie, in particular they often claim to be the most
> "vanilla" browser available at the time in order not to be blocked
> with a "this site works best using IE6 on XP" type error.
>
> That will cause artificially high scores for IE6 on XP.
>
> * Many computers aren't used for browsing. Linux is used in many server
> applications and in 'appliance' PCs configured as firewalls,routers,
> etc.. These won't show up in the stats at all.
The site I referenced also states a much higher server market share than
for desktops (> 10 times higher).
> * The stats are gleaned from visits to "our exclusive on demand network".
> That the stats are gathered only from hits to one set of services must
> skew the results. If the services in question are services that will
> predominantly be of interest to Windows users one would expect the stats
> to show a predominance of Windows PCs among the clients.
Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)
In all seriousness though, some people may use the sites tested here as
their home page so it clocks a visit every time they start their
browser. Even if they tried to make some uniqueness, people have dynamic
IPs. Some people do visit some sites more than others, etc.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage johannes <johs@size-nospamme6354-fitter.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage johannes <johs@size-nospamme5742-fitter.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Arno Wagner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <googlegroups@besty.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
>> >> > <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Didn't you know that Linux has 0.7% of the worldwide desktop market? 0.7%!!
>> >> >> And that's after it doubling in the last 18 months.
>> >>
>> >> > Do you have a source for that?
>> >>
>> >> > I found this http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2005/08/04/market, which
>> >> > suggests 2.8% of desktop and 28.3% of server market.
>> >>
>> >> And these figures are likely too low, as not every copy of Linux is sold.
>> >> In addition the estimates how long a machine stays in use are vastly
>> >> different for Linux and Windows, with Linux running well on older
>> >> hardware.
>> >>
>> >> Arno
>>
>> > So wot? I don't really see the point of this discussion. It's not a religion,
>> > innit. I like to try LINUX because there are lots af free applications, but
>> > that doesn't mean that I will drop Windows XP. I have used many OS in my
>> > life, and I miss some of them. ECEX8, VMS, VME, UNIX, NOSBE, COS, CP/M, DOS
>> > and Windows. I have a version of Ubuntu that you can run as an application
>> > under Windows; probably not efficient, but good enough for what I want to do.
>>
>> Just a comment that reminds people that Linux and Windows are different.
>>
>> Arno
> Indeed, so you need both of them.
Depending on what you want to do, yes, that can happen. For me the
only thing I need Windows for is gaming, but that is a pretty important
aspect as I have ditched TV some years ago. For other people this will
be different.
Still, it is good to have both around and for Linux to become a
reasonable competitor that you do not need to justify using. Still
not quite there yet, unfortunately.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best <newsreply@besty.org.uk> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> This has a number of shortcomings, as a means of analysing OS popularity:
>>
>> * Browsers often lie, in particular they often claim to be the most
>> "vanilla" browser available at the time in order not to be blocked
>> with a "this site works best using IE6 on XP" type error.
>>
>> That will cause artificially high scores for IE6 on XP.
>>
>> * Many computers aren't used for browsing. Linux is used in many server
>> applications and in 'appliance' PCs configured as firewalls,routers,
>> etc.. These won't show up in the stats at all.
> The site I referenced also states a much higher server market share than
> for desktops (> 10 times higher).
>> * The stats are gleaned from visits to "our exclusive on demand network".
>> That the stats are gathered only from hits to one set of services must
>> skew the results. If the services in question are services that will
>> predominantly be of interest to Windows users one would expect the stats
>> to show a predominance of Windows PCs among the clients.
> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)
> In all seriousness though, some people may use the sites tested here as
> their home page so it clocks a visit every time they start their
> browser. Even if they tried to make some uniqueness, people have dynamic
> IPs. Some people do visit some sites more than others, etc.
Well, it is actually a very different question. The thing is that the
traditional metric (Copies sold - copies estimated not in use anymore)
does not hold for Linux. What about Linux on routers, NAS,
smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does it count or not? And how does it
count? Per suer? Per installation? Per CPU? You cannot really
put Windows onto these things, so is it fair if it counts?
On the other hand, for Vista, it seems that a lot of people have
actually gone back to XP, hoverver count as "copies sold". There
are no hard numbers anymore there as well. Vista is the first
time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from Redmont tries
to replace something that is adequate (XP). There are signs
of ''cheerleading'' from the MS headquaters, were they seem to
try to redefine reality in order to make Vista a success. Then
there is Dell with its continued XP offers (obviously direcly
in opposition to MS's wishes) and their Linux offers (which are
sort of a revolution and certainly also against MS's wishes).
Personally I have no intention to move to Vista. Especially as DX10
seems not to be nearly as hot with game developers as MS tries to
pretend it is. The current line seems to be ''yea, we are going to add
some DX10 eye-candy, but it will look good on DX9 as well'' and
anything else would be suicide anyways. I have not identified any
other reason to move to Vista yet, but that may be due to me using
Linux as my OS for everyday work.
What I actually think could be happening at the moment is the
commodization (sp?) of the mainstream OS, i.e. it turning
into something most people have and need, but at the same time
something that does not generate huge profits and does not
change a lot anymore. The main reasons for that would be that
most people are reasonably happy with XP and at the same time
there is really not much room for innovation anymore. Sure,
if MS wanted to make an actual server OS (no, they do not have
one now by all sane standards), then they would need to either
go the Apple way and become a part of the UNIX community
(emminently sensible move by Apple, although it cannot have
been easy to do) or innovate a lot. Hovever all this innovation
would be in areas that the mass-market customer does not care
about, because he does not understand it. And for the server
customers, there is Linux or x-BSD (also in the form of OS-X)
or commercial UNIX. No need at all to get something from MS.
And a bad track record by MS to keep you away.
Trevor Best wrote:
> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>
> heh, Linux looks like a hobbyist OS compared to Windows. Mind ewe those
> figures could have come from be the number of google searches for "BSOD"
> :-)
>
>> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from
>> Vista. It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the
>> desktop.
>
> Horses for courses I agree, I dual boot.
>
> I expected more from Vista too, like maybe perhaps just a teensy bit
> more backwards compatibility, the ability to actually play the DVDs it
> purports to do so well (out of the box I mean, not after trawling the
> web or spending more money).
>
> A choice of skins for windows other than the standard vista (admittedly
> a vast improvement over the XP lunar joke) and Windows Classic, which is
> getting rather boring now since I ran lla my XP machines with that.
>
> Oh yes you can do the latter, with shareware or giving Bill a few more
> coffers that he doesn't really need over the top of what Vista cost
> anyway (better learn Chinese and buy that version for $3)
>
Faster service, if you do it this way:
> http://www.inspirated.com/wordpress/...ized-on-linux/
In article <Xns997ACF14AB0FCYAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.38>, bealoid says...
> Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2114303fbc5df09c98a33c@news.individual.ne t:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Ok, fuckwit. I've been building PCs for 17 years.
> >
> > Better?
>
> Not really, if you can't get wifi working in Ubuntu.
>
Wifi works for a small number of cards but not the chipsets on the type
Joe Average is likely to pick up from Pissy World. Sure he could use
ndiswrapper but it's a bit of fucking about beyond Joe Averages level.
--
Conor
It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
to wait
In article <qs5la3t76iqgcrqg4g9jhjimelfs8ksv1d@4ax.com>, kony says...
> The bottom line is that *Joe Average* just uses the system,
> it wouldn't necessarily matter that much what OS was
> installed so long as it was PRE-Installed, had the various
> drivers and software ready to use.
Exactly. I've put Linux on laptops for a few people. With one, as long
as he could download porn, MP3's and sync with his iPod, he was happy
so I set it up to do that.
--
Conor
It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
to wait
In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
says...
> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)
Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.
--
Conor
It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
to wait
In article <kYqdnRBNkMZK1DfbnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com>, Synapse Syndrome
says...
> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from Vista.
> It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the desktop.
>
Apparently, a major Linux contributor thinks so as well mainly because
the kernel developers seem hell bent on putting in features to support
massive SMP and other corporate requirements.
I have a couple of VMs in VirtualBox under Linux and some under Virtual
PC 2007 in Windows. IMHO it's ok for a lot of things, but you (Oldtech
in particular) may be aware of a similar discussion in aolu vis-a-vis
"VMs vs Dual Boot" (well, 2 discussions since some idiot started a new
thread in answer to the original) where I don't think you're going to
get the best out a decent video card in a VM.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:10:20 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
>says...
>
>> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
>> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
>> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)
>
>Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
>long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
>weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.
IE's propensity to crash has a lot to do with whether the
particular 'sites you visit have coding errors, and/or
whether there are poorly written BHOs/etc malfunctioning.
Conor wrote:
> In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
> says...
>
>> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
>> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
>> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)
>
> Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
> long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
> weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.
Do you have an example URL that makes it (firefox) crash? Maybe a dodgy
add-in you have installed?
kony wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the user
> environment hasn't changed substantially in MS' products
> over that time period, at least until Win95 came along.
>
> 'Nix hasn't necessarily changed so much either, if you want
> to dismiss the changes between each major revision as we'd
> do with windows.
Windows didn't really exist in anything like its present form much
before W95. However Unix has been in full operation world wide
since about 1975. Both have changed to some degree, but Unix (and
its offshoots, such as Linux) far less.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns997ACF14AB0FCYAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.38>, bealoid says...
>> Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.2114303fbc5df09c98a33c@news.individual.ne t:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Ok, fuckwit. I've been building PCs for 17 years.
>> >
>> > Better?
>>
>> Not really, if you can't get wifi working in Ubuntu.
>>
> Wifi works for a small number of cards but not the chipsets on the type
> Joe Average is likely to pick up from Pissy World. Sure he could use
> ndiswrapper but it's a bit of fucking about beyond Joe Averages level.
This is one of the few remaining porblems when people put Linux
on their own machines, instead of buying machines with Linux
already installed. My guess is that this problem will go away
within the next few years, when people start to complain about
missing driver support. Also the ''driver in userspace'' model
(when it can do DMA) may solve this.
> I have a couple of VMs in VirtualBox under Linux and some under Virtual
> PC 2007 in Windows. IMHO it's ok for a lot of things, but you (Oldtech
> in particular) may be aware of a similar discussion in aolu vis-a-vis
> "VMs vs Dual Boot" (well, 2 discussions since some idiot started a new
> thread in answer to the original) where I don't think you're going to
> get the best out a decent video card in a VM.
I also find that interactive responsiveness unter VMware at
least is bad. My vserver also has notably worse commanline
responsiveness, but that ,ay in part be the netwrk latency, since
it is in another country.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <kYqdnRBNkMZK1DfbnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com>, Synapse Syndrome
> says...
>> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from Vista.
>> It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the desktop.
>>
> Apparently, a major Linux contributor thinks so as well mainly because
> the kernel developers seem hell bent on putting in features to support
> massive SMP and other corporate requirements.
I read that and I can say that this guy is not too technologically
competent. Most of his arguments cannot hold water.
All thers enterprise features do not make the kernel slower or more
sluggish. In particular movinf the scheduler to 1ms resolution (from
10ms) did help multimedia performance tremenduously.
However the kernel developers are unwilling to do some things. For
example if the buffer cache is in emergency flush-to-disk, then
everything else is slowed down or halts. This is the right thing to
do IMO, as evewn on the desktop data integrity is worth a lot more
than responsiveness.
In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
> it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
> Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
> fair if it counts?
MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
yes, I think it counts.
> Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
> Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).
Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.
> Then there is Dell with its continued XP offers (obviously direcly
> in opposition to MS's wishes) and their Linux offers (which are
> sort of a revolution and certainly also against MS's wishes).
Credit and kudos to Dell ... though they don't exactly push preinstalled
linux outside the US.
> I have not identified any other reason to move to Vista yet ...
In fairness, the security of Vista *is* better than XP. The fact that a
default install does not set all users up as administrators is a definite
improvement, and the fact that UAC popups (annoying though they are) make
it possible to operate the machine as an unprivileged user without having
to log off and log back in as administrator every ten minutes or so is very
welcome. UAC itself is a pain, though ... I hope they manage to fine-tune
some usability into it in SP1 or SP2 ...
> What I actually think could be happening at the moment is the
> commodization (sp?) of the mainstream OS, ...
You mean "commoditization". "commodization" would mean turning it into a
piece of furniture that conceals a chamber-pot ... no, come to think of it,
if that's what you meant you were right the first time <smile>
> if MS wanted to make an actual server OS (no, they do not have
> one now by all sane standards), then they would need to ...
Word is that it will be possible to install Windows NT6 server ("Longhorn",
if it's still called that) without the GUI ... which has to be a step in
the right direction.
Re: Windows XP optimization tricks 
Linear Mode
