K
kony
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:55:32 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
<gisin@uniserve.com> wrote:
>"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
>news:VA.0000112b.0a60363c@nospam.aaisp.org...
>> 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.
>>
>Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.
>WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.
>
His point was, if the statistics for Windows "systems"
includes anything deployed running WinCE, then likewise
statistics for Linux "systems" would include embedded apps
like the aforementioned devices.
>>> 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.
>
>Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.
>
As was USB
There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
98/ME/XP.
<gisin@uniserve.com> wrote:
>"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
>news:VA.0000112b.0a60363c@nospam.aaisp.org...
>> 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.
>>
>Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.
>WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.
>
His point was, if the statistics for Windows "systems"
includes anything deployed running WinCE, then likewise
statistics for Linux "systems" would include embedded apps
like the aforementioned devices.
>>> 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.
>
>Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.
>
As was USB
There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
98/ME/XP.