"Be Yond" <terraform@mars.mar> wrote in message

news:47ff917a$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

: you can do that with xp too

:

: see here http://www.eboostr.com/

:

 

Hardly native is it? I wouldn't PAY for something like that!!

Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver

developers.

--

-Sam

 

 

"White Spirit" wrote:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just

> one of them:

>

> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It

> has the following prototype:

> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR

> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)

>

> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing

> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about

> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address

> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that

> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the

> application to one instance.

>

> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over

> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also

> over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time

> and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of

> course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short

> amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,

> over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.

>

> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86

> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only

> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,

> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the

> techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit

> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor

> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:48 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

>

>> You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was

>> utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and

>> Xenix.

>

> That's true, and there were people doing multitasking on 8086's (GEOS comes

> to mind), though this naturally had problems because of the lack of MMU or

> higher level priveleges.

 

GEOS was great!!

It was fast and light and included a lot of stuff all in the package.

 

I always wished they had kept with the desktop business.

 

 

 

 

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

I like the light blue selection color. What have you got against light blue?

Is it bad? Is it..."evil?" Anyway, Vista is more than just a pretty face.

If you're dedicated and smart enough to be able to get it to work right.

--

-Sam

 

 

"Frank" wrote:

> Well, capin' crunch...all you need is a box of Crayons...LOL!

> Frank

Frank! That quote makes me LOL! XD

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:24:17 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:

>

>>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>>

>> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

>

> Bloat is a relative term.

>

> Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does

> more.

>

> Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.

>

> Certainly there are somethings in Vista that are bloated, as in, they could

> be achieved with fewer resources, but on average a lot of Vista's appetite

> is not bloat, but rather it doing the right thing... using resources that

> are doing nothing to improve performance.

>

> Computers now ship with 2GB of memory standard, for a cost of about $50.

> That price is likely to go down even further very quickly. in less than 2

> years time 4GB of memory will be $50. Why shouldn't the OS make use of

> that memory if it's free?

 

I'm not a fan of Vista and for my DAW work it's not really even an option

yet due to latency problems and dodgey drivers for my high end cards but I

would NOT call Vista bloated on decent hardware.

 

I've worked with it a few times, on other people's machines as well as on

one of my laptops and with my albeit limited experience it seemed just as

fast as XP on similar hardware.

 

All machines were at least P4 class with lot's of memory.

 

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

A million reasons? List 'em. Right here, right now.

--

-Sam

 

 

"Be Yond" wrote:

> you can do that with xp too

>

> see here http://www.eboostr.com/

>

> there is nothing that vista can do so well that xp cannot.. but there are

> millions of reasons to avoid vista until windows7 is out

>

>

> "Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message

> news:fto2et$15v$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> >

> > "groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message

> > news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> > : We all know that vista sucks.

> > : You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

> > : Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

> > : I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

> > : But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

> > : professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

> > :

> > : Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

> >

> > The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I

> > won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file

> > from

> > the hard drive.

> > I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the

> > "caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

> >

> > But, of course, you can now buy hard drives that do this automatically,

> > without the need of the software to tell it to. These hard drives run

> > their

> > own mini OS, turns out it's Linux!

> >

> >

>

>

>

White Spirit wrote:

> The answer to that should be obvious.  For games to exist on platforms

> other than Windows, software houses have to make them for other platforms.

>

> But the original point still stands - all the games listed in my

> previous post run better on Linux (and FreeBSD) than they do on Windows.

 

Ah hell. If you want to play games, get a Playstation or a Wii.

 

--

RonB

"There's a story there...somewhere"

Trew dat.

--

-Sam

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

>

> > We all know that vista sucks.

>

> You mean you all think you know.

>

> > You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

> > Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

> > I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>

> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have

> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

>

> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

> decent machine that dislike it.

>

> > But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

> > professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>

> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It

> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

>

> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

>

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> Bloat is a relative term.

 

And the definition of "is" is....?

 

--

RonB

"There's a story there...somewhere"

Ron, you are a fool.

Eric, you are a god.

--

-Sam

 

 

"Ron Roberts" wrote:

> The fact is dork boy, is that users dont care about all the tech details.

>

> Computers should be made for PEOPLE!

>

> they want to use the comptuer for producing work or enjoyment.

>

> UAC slows the user experience down.

>

> Im done with you, you you have been blinded by vista so much, its

> conflicting with your brain function! Simple things you cannot understand!

>

> Now run along...

>

>

>

>

> "Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

> news:1e83e9l122uhe$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

> >

> >> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

> >> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

> >> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

> >

> > All supporting my claim.

> >

> >> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

> >> content.

> >

> > Whatever that means.

> >

> >> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

> >

> > I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.

> >

> >> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager

> >> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are

> >> a

> >> simple user.

> >

> > I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.

> >

> >> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in

> >> your

> >> face all the time again.

> >> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got

> >> updated.

> >

> > Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same

> > apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore

> > you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.

> >

> >> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!

> >

> > An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand

> > that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just

> > security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and

> > compatibility as well.

> >

> > It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x

> > more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it

> > bothers you that much.

> >

> > As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile

> > virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher

> > ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.

> >

> >> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available

> >> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

> >

> > You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.

> > Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up

> > some day.

>

>

>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:41:00 -0700, Sam <sam.korson@charter.net>

wrote:

>A million reasons? List 'em. Right here, right now.

 

Hey Sam, you a Frank wannabe?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:50:01 -0700, Sam <sam.korson@charter.net>

wrote:

>Ron, you are a fool.

>Eric, you are a god.

 

Sam, you are a idiot.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb

<brick.n.straw@gmail.com>

wrote

on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:36:31 -0400

<1pn7j5y3imp3p$.1bm48dpz7kesl.dlg@40tude.net>:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:48 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

>>

>>> You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was

>>> utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and

>>> Xenix.

>>

>> That's true, and there were people doing multitasking on 8086's (GEOS comes

>> to mind), though this naturally had problems because of the lack of MMU or

>> higher level priveleges.

>

> GEOS was great!!

> It was fast and light and included a lot of stuff all in the package.

>

> I always wished they had kept with the desktop business.

>

 

They had a small competitor at the time. You might have

heard of it it is now based in Redmond, Washington...?

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.

Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.

0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"AqD" <aquila.deus@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bcaa8442-26d4-49dd-a83e-7382f39fda11@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So what?

>A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

>counterparts.

 

 

Cite, BS is cheap.

"Sam" <sam.korson@charter.net> wrote in message

news:86CF12B5-BA98-4F7A-AC5F-89C830471590@microsoft.com...

> Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver

> developers.

 

No, Microsoft. They don't give the developers all they need.

 

Some also believe if the 3rd party developers also provide for Linux, get

less help from Microsoft. True or not, it does seem to be reflected in

reality.

 

Or perhaps Microsoft hasn't documented it enough, or is incapable of

providing such documents because of sloppy development practices.

 

Lots of possible reasons, most point right back at MS.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:24:17 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:

>>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>>

>> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

>Bloat is a relative term.

>Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does

>more.

>Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.

Wrong on both counts. It does nothing more and is bloated to the point

of uselessness. Vista actually requires more ram than a 32bit cpu can

address.

Canuck57 wrote:

> "AqD" <aquila.deus@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:bcaa8442-26d4-49dd-a83e-7382f39fda11@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> So what?

>

>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

>> counterparts.

>

>

> Cite, BS is cheap.

 

BS is one of the most popular linux games, but I thought it was free.

AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:24:17 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:

>

>

>>>>Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>>>

>>>you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

>

>

>>Bloat is a relative term.

>

>

>>Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does

>>more.

>

>

>>Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.

>

> Wrong on both counts. It does nothing more and is bloated to the point

> of uselessness. Vista actually requires more ram than a 32bit cpu can

> address.

 

hehehe...you're really one stupid POs...LOL!

Frank

Canuck57 wrote:

> "Sam" <sam.korson@charter.net> wrote in message

> news:86CF12B5-BA98-4F7A-AC5F-89C830471590@microsoft.com...

>

>

>>Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver

>>developers.

>

>

> No, Microsoft. They don't give the developers all they need.

 

Horsesh*t! Most of the majors had drivers for Longhorn beta, although a

few didn't. And those few still didn't have dependable stable drivers at

or right after Vista RTM'em.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just one stupid IT

who can't even get one little install of Vista Home Premium to run properly.

You're either a phooey, or else you're very stupid.

Oh, and you're also just another lying linux troll.

IOW's a real POS!

Frank

On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, White Spirit <wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

> AqD wrote:

> > So what?

> > A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

> > counterparts.

>

> It depends on the app.  But the application is not part of the OS, so

> it's a moot point.  With a better OS, the same app will run better.

 

Yes but an OS is useless itself without apps.

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) writes:

> In article <hwd5ycqk8zde.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>>

>>Then why is it called "tape archiver"? That's what tar stands for. It's

>

> They had to call it something. But in fact, tar is designed to

> read and write tar archives. Not tape drives.

 

Heh heh. I read some dumb arse comments in COLA but that takes the

biscuit! It could be HPT on stupid pills like WronG.

>

>>filled with options to format data for tape drives

>

> Tar has options to control input and output block size and to

> inform it of media capacities. Those are applicable to tape devices but

> not unique to tape devices. Or even required by all tape devices.

 

Duh. Way to miss the point.

>

> Hey, don't listen to me. Go read the man page:

>

> " The tar command creates, adds files to, or extracts files from an archive

> file in ``tar'' format. A tar archive is often stored on a magnetic

> tape, but can be stored equally well on a floppy, CD-ROM, or in a regular

> disk file."

>

 

The new man page?

 

LOL.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:26:00 -0700, Sam wrote:

> Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver

> developers.

 

The average user does not care, she just wants it to work.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:23:18 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Canuck57 wrote:

>

>> "Sam" <sam.korson@charter.net> wrote in message

>> news:86CF12B5-BA98-4F7A-AC5F-89C830471590@microsoft.com...

>>

>>

>>>Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver

>>>developers.

>>

>>

>> No, Microsoft. They don't give the developers all they need.

>

> Horsesh*t! Most of the majors had drivers for Longhorn beta, although a

> few didn't. And those few still didn't have dependable stable drivers at

> or right after Vista RTM'em.

> You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just one stupid IT

> who can't even get one little install of Vista Home Premium to run

> properly.

 

Evidently he's not alone.

In article <c12c25ef-228a-44ad-9646-86376f00814f@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

AqD <aquila.deus@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>Yes but an OS is useless itself without apps.

 

 

Not if you have front panel switches!

"ricky valentine" <valentine@heart.co.uk.ch> writes:

> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

> content.

 

"I cant do work on it"

 

ROTFLM

 

If these guys could only hear themselves,