 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47b1993e$1@news.povray.org...
> > It is *not* normal behaviour, no matter what you might think of MS.
>
> Ah, I see. So all PCs that use M$ products do this, but it's not
> "normal"? Interesting definition. ;-)
I've got 4 Windows PCs (one 2000, one 2003, one XP and one Vista) and none
of them have blue screened in so long, I can't remember the last crash.
I have a large number of servers ( all running windows OS, either 2000
server or 2003 server) with uptimes in months and the only reason we reboot
them at all is for patches or hardware reconfigs
I'd actually love to have a look in your system's event logs, see why
they're crashing so often. It's certainly not normal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
>> Note that Windows supports DOS programs that bypass the OS in exactly
>> the same way, and it WORKS.
>
> I believe the list of DOS games which don't work anymore in current hardware
> with the current Windows is larger than the list of DOS games which do.
>
And also, I believe the list of DOS games that run on DOSBox is larger
than the list of DOS games that run on current Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> It's crippled with M$ tech and IP, like mono
Mono is an implementation of an ECMA standard, just like Javascript is.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're right. It isn't. FF is the number one sucker-up-of-useless-memory
>> -and-cycles on my machines.
>
> Yes, everything not made by Microsoft is by definition bad, horrid,
> heavy, a memory-hog and a CPU-hog. Everything made by Microsoft is
> just perfect.
>
> You must have a different version of Firefox, as mine is taking 0%
> of CPU time right now.
>
Firefox indeed eats a lot of memory (it has been already identified to
be memory fragmentation, and has improved lots in Firefox 3). But it
only eats lots of CPU when Flash is running...
IE, on the other hand, has great performance and no standards
compliance, and since it hasn't been updated much for years... it was
made for older machines :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> and yet prior to Windows 95 there were quite the number of competing OSs.
Afterwards, too. Just not on the same hardware. And not really offering
a whole lot more.
>> Apple requires you to buy new hardware, so it's not purely a software
>> decision.
>
> Yet everyone loves their monopolistic ways :-)
And the software is subsidized by the hardware, which *would* be
monopolistic if Apple split into two companies. And it *still* costs
roughly the same for Apple software as MS software, in spite of the subsidy.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> What's not "viable" about Linux et al?
It's still not [yet] as easy to use.
Most hardware companies don't supply drivers for it, and refuse to hand
over the information required for anybody else to write those drivers.
If you're into gaming, forget it. Almost no big developers target that
platform.
>> Unfortunately, thanks to M$, this situation will never arise. If
>> anybody starts making really good software, they'll just get bought...
>
> And how does MS "buy" Linux?
They can't buy Linux. They can, however, pay the hardware guys to only
supply new computers with M$ Windows preinstalled, make them sign
agreements not to develop drivers for other platforms, and so forth.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> M$ is the largest and richest corporation ever to have existed in
> recorded human history.
Only in today's dollars.
>> and yet prior to Windows 95 there were quite the number of competing OSs.
> Really? That's news.
That's why people take your opinions on the subject with a grain of
salt. :-)
> BTW, have you ever used a Windows Live CD?
Yes.
> If you thought it was slow running from your HD then... you ain't seen
> nothing yet! B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen nothing yet!!
Yeah. Don't do that. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Darren New wrote:
>> And why isn't Linux an alternative? Why isn't Mac OS X an alternative?
>
> Linux is cheap but doesn't run Windows software or ports of major
> popular commercial software like Photoshop, AutoCAD or World of Warcraft
> without Wine and crashes.
You got that backwards. "Photoshop, AutoCAD or World of Warcraft don't
run on Linux". It's not "Linux doesn't run them". It's not Linux's fault
that they don't run.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, sure, if there were an alternative,
>
> And why isn't Linux an alternative? Why isn't Mac OS X an alternative?
Linux is designed for nerds, but Joe Average. Sure, they're trying to
retarget it, but fundamentally that's not what it's about.
Mac OS X is an alternative - if you have several thousand pounds laying
spare...
> Ding ding ding! MS's product advantage is that it *can* be used by
> naive users without a lot of expense.
So can products like Firefox and OpenOffice. And Apple stuff, actually,
but that's very expensive...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And yet funnily enough since Vista/IE7, I've seen people who previously were
> using FF now going back to IE - "well it has tabbed browsing already doesn't
> it?"
Sometimes it scares me the power Microsoft has over people.
Back when Netscape was approximately the only web browser in existence,
with something like 99% of market share, Microsoft published their first
version of IE and in something like *one month* it surpassed Netscape's
marketshare.
Netscape back then was rather horrid, but Microsoft's IE was even
more horrendeous. It broke about every possible standard and RFC in
existence and was completely full of security holes. It was IE which
introduced the concept of going to a website and getting your system
infected with a trojan.
Microsoft made six versions of IE, yet they still failed to support
even the most basic of standards, such as CSS and PNG, and the list
of serious security holes is just endless.
Yet, regarldess, IE became almost overnight the industry standard.
Because IE broke almost every single standard in existence, IE-only
websites started to spawn. IE was the measurement by which the correctness
of websites were measured. If something worked in IE but didn't work in
another browser, it was that another browser which was broken, not IE.
Nobody dared to make websites which wouldn't work with IE, no matter how
many hoops they had to jump through to achieve that. It was simply better
to have an IE-only website than a website which wouldn't work with IE.
Yet IE was so horridly broken that even the US government advised
their citizens to use another browser. Any browser except IE.
It took something like 5 years or more of complete cessation of the
development of IE before people finally started to slowly migrate to
other browsers. Many people wouldn't let go even then. IE was like
some kind of brainwashing, like some kind of addictive drug: They just
couldn't let it go.
It's really scary that one company can have this kind of power.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
