> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> > Yes. Large reads come from the disk, while small reads come from the
> > USB. Plus, by reading from the USB, you don't have to move the head
> of
> > the disk that someone else might be trying to use also.
> 
> Isn't flash quite slow to write though?

Absolutely, and for sustained reads as well.  That's why it's used for
small files only, where the seek time on a typical HDD would kill
performance.  Large, sustained reads or writes go straight to the HDD,
small / fragmented ones go through the cache on the flash drive.

> Yeah, I guess that's it. And also whether the minor changes really are
> "improvements" or just changes for the sake of changes. (Or changes to
> make M$ customers happy, rather than M$ users...)

Why shouldn't they?  The customers are the ones who pay.

> Well, for example, when Windows NT came out, they added *file
> security*.
> That's a pretty major addition. When Windows 2000 came out, they added
> USB support. Not quite so major, but still pretty significant. When XP

USB support was in 98, and I think you could even get an update for 95
to do it.

> came out, they added... well it's pretty? And Vista seems to have
added

XP was originally 2K made pretty for the masses; a 2K "Home" version, if
you will.  Over time they added to it, such that SP2 was basically a new
OS.

> even less. It's like Windows NT already did most of what you want an
OS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

A lot of the stuff is under the hood; that is, it just does things
better, even though users won't necessarily notice the difference.

> Added in NT over ten years ago.

Did you actually *use* NT ten years ago?  I guarantee Vista stands head
and shoulders above any version of NT ever published.  NT was great for
it's time, but people keep asking for more features, and MS delivered
them in the form of Vista.

> > stuff like that that lets things like your database
> > engine running in the virtual machine know that it needs to complete
> all
> > its transactions and hold off starting new ones and flush its
buffers
> > *in the virtual machine* because you're about to take a snapshot of
> the
> > host's disk for backup purposes.
> 
> ...and I care because?

Because you claimed that Vista didn't do anything new.

> > Or that lets you lose power halfway
> > through upgrading a program and not have half the changes on the
disk
> > and the other half blown away. (I'm not sure how Linux handles such
a
> > thing, actually. I always assumed I had to do that sort of
> reliability
> > work manually and without any support from the OS. :-)
> 
> I'd be pretty surprised if it actually works properly.

Define "properly" for that situation.  I've had a few interrupted
installs, and it gracefully rolled back all changes for me so that
nothing was left in a half-baked state.  Is that "proper?"

> >> It's nice that they're trying to make improvements to the thing,
> >> but... uh, you want *how much* for a few minor tweaks? No thanks.
> >
> > You need to run *something* on your new machine. :-)
> 
> Fortunately, XP is still on sale. ;-)

So is GeOS.

Your attitude is exactly what I meant in my first post when I said that
some people just like to complain.

On the one hand, you claim that Vista makes hundreds of improvements.
On the other hand, you say that it's a "few minor tweaks."

Which is it?  Whether or not you feel it's worth the price they charge
is a completely different question, by the way.  Personally, I don't
think an Apple computer is worth the premium they charge, but I'd never
say it's a Dell PC with a few minor tweaks.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message