Saul Luizaga wrote:

> You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? if so, can you put the links 
> here or e-mailme with them please? if not how did you get those WinXP 
> 64-bit?
> 
> Cheers.

It comes with the subscription. subscribe to MSDN, and you, too can have 
access to all versions of Windows.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> It comes with the subscription. subscribe to MSDN, and you, too can have 
> access to all versions of Windows.

Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)

you can use it for testing only ...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)
> 
> you can use it for testing only ...

Yeah. Like 12 year old kids are going to care about a little detail like 
*that*! ;-)

How much does an MSDN subscription cost?

Post a reply to this message

Well, you also get 10 licenses to prettymuch everything MS makes, including 
the OSs (IIRC), and the premium subscription is about $2k. There is one with 
VSTS but its like $10k, the rest just include VSpro. If you get it with 
VSpro you have even more valid licenses, because VSpro comes with winderz 
and SQL server dev too.

Just be prepared to get craploads of DVDs in the mail, along with MSDN mag 
if you choose to. You can order (for free) another bigger MSDN binder for 
all of the podcasts, indexes, service packs, servers, and other crap they 
send you. You'll need it. Seriously I have about 20lbs of crap they sent 
from just the last year, including the mags.

They send you things early too, so I knew I hated vista since early/mid 2006 
when they sent it to me.
Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*

ian

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49afd18a$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? 
>>> ;-)
>>
>> you can use it for testing only ...
>
> Yeah. Like 12 year old kids are going to care about a little detail like 
> *that*! ;-)
>
> How much does an MSDN subscription cost?
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*

Out of curiousity, what do you not like about it?  To me, it's so close to 
XP as to make no nevermind. Prettier, a little more convenient in some ways, 
a little less in other ways....

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Mostly my problem with it is that anything that I want to do takes longer, 
uses more ram and vidram, and maxes the processor. Even using a win98 theme.
I did install it on an old computer, but that isn't any excuse, as xp pro 
worked just fine on it and did so quickly.

ian

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:49affc3d@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*
>
> Out of curiousity, what do you not like about it?  To me, it's so close to 
> XP as to make no nevermind. Prettier, a little more convenient in some 
> ways, a little less in other ways....
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
>   unable to read this, even at arm's length."
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mostly my problem with it is that anything that I want to do takes longer, 
> uses more ram and vidram, and maxes the processor. Even using a win98 theme.
> I did install it on an old computer, but that isn't any excuse, as xp pro 
> worked just fine on it and did so quickly.

  While I can't talk from real experience and knowledge, I have the
understanding that with Vista (and the Windows line in general) you don't
even have any choice: The OS will consume significant amounts of RAM and
other resources, period. There's little you can do to reduce the footprint
of the OS even if you wanted to. (Ok, this might not be entirely true, as
memory consumption and speed could probably be improved by a simple change
in the GUI theme, etc, but I'd dare to say that there's a limit under which
you just can't go no matter what, at least not without seriously crippling
the entire system, and that this limit is still pretty high.)

  This is because Windows has been designed to be a rather monolithic OS
(not to be confused with "monolithic kernel", which is not at all what
I'm talking about): Things like the GUI (including its API, etc) are
integral parts of the OS and cannot be separated from it (at least not
with serious hacking, which will probably cripple the system). While this
has some advantages (eg. programs become more compatible because there's
only one single API for anything any program might need), it also has its
disadvantages: The OS becomes large and heavy, and you have little choice
about this.

  The design philosophy of Unix in general and Linux in particular is
rather different: The Operating System itself (which is basically
comprised of the kernel and its modules) is deliberately kept completely
separate from the GUI system (which in case of Unix is de-facto usually
the X Windowing System).

  This separation can be clearly seen. The OS is in no way tied to the
GUI system, and the GUI system is in no way tied to the OS. You can run
the OS without any GUI system whatsoever (usually with a console interface),
and the X Windowing System implementations are usually more or easily
portable to different kernels (eg. X11 has been ported to the Linux, BSD,
Solaris and Darwin kernels, among others).

  Even the de-facto GUI system for Unix-style OS's follows the same
principle internally: The X Windowing System specification is not tied
to any particular Window Manager. This is the reason why you have such
an ample choice of managers, such as Gnome, KDE (which are heavy but
pretty) and other more lightweight options.

  This means that if you need a lightweight OS, you can build one that is
(or use a pre-built distro which has been designed to be lightweight),
as the entire system is very customizable.

  For example a server which has no monitor nor even a graphics card
does not need a GUI, and thus you can install a very lightwright Linux
system in it which has no GUI support (with the consequent overhead)
whatsoever.

  If you need to run Linux on an older computer (eg. a 486) which is too
slow to run the latest eyecandy (ie. KDE or Gnome), but you still need
it to be graphical, you can choose a lightweight implementation of the
X Windowing System and an ultralight window manager for it.

  So you will still be running the latest version of Linux (as a whole,
including the kernel, its modules, the X Windowing System as well as the
window manager), but on a very old computer without problems. Something
like Vista will probably outright refuse to install in such a computer,
let alone run.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> How much does an MSDN subscription cost?

It's really targeted for companies, not individuals. That should answer your
question...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? 
> 
> I'm guessing he meant he got it by subscribing to MSDN, not that he 
> downloaded it off the MSDN website. When you pay an annual fee, MS will 
> send you copies of and licenses for a whole bunch of software, including 
> all their operating systems, which you can use for development and 
> testing purposes. But it's not free as in "downloadable to the world."
> 
Got it, thx.

Post a reply to this message