Slashdot Mirror
ACPI Forced On & Option Disabled in WinXP-Certified Motherboards
stealth_zipper asks: "I just got off the phone with a rep from Soyo Computer Inc trying to get the ability to change IRQs for the onboard hardware. It turns out that because of a deal to get WindowsXP certification, the Dragon-series motherboard ended up having the ability of Enabling/Disabling ACPI in the BIOS disabled. Now FreeBSD has complications with multiple devices on the same IRQs (especially sound, video, and nic all off the same one). Is there a way to get around this for new hardware? Has anyone else encountered this?" Why in the world does XP need this feature disabled, and are there workarounds to get OSes like FreeBSD working properly with motherboards of this sort?
Because ACPI is deprecated, in favour of APM. Is that a good enough reason? God forbid we should actually move forward and embrace new standards.
Gee, looks like somebody doesn't want
That's really fucking self-rightous, isn't it?
What makes the Libertarian party the best? If the Libertarians ruled the world, the nothing could be done about MS. Did you think of that? It would be Adam Smith's "utopia" for a free-market capitalism. A true Libertarian wouldn't want the gov't messing with business.
Apparently your infinite wisdom doesn't realise one thing. The country isn't exactly split 50/50. More Republicans vote than Democrats by at least a 2:1 margin. Besides, the past election should tell you that the voting system can be pirated f you have enough crooked bastards on your side.
Grow the fuck up.
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Windows is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Windows community when
recently IDC confirmed that Windows accounts for less than a fraction of 0.1
percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft
survey which plainly states that Windows has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Windows
is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by
failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a nerd
to predict Windows's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Windoss
faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for
Windows because Windows is dying. Things are looking very bad for
Windows. As many of us are already aware, Windows continues to lose market
share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Windows XP is the most
endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Windows leader
Bill gates states that there are 7000 users of Windows 2000. How many users
of Windows ME are there? Let's see. The number of Windows 2000 versus Windows ME
posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are
about 7000/5 = 1400 Windows ME users. Windows XP posts on Usenet are about
half of the volume of Windows ME posts. Therefore there are about 700
users of Windows XP. A recent article put Windows 98 at about 80 percent
of the Windows market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
Windows 98 users. This is consistent with the number of Windows 98 Usenet
posts.
Due to the troubles at Redmond, abysmal sales and
so on, Windows went out of business and was taken over by
Internet Explorer who sell another troubled OS. Now Internet Explorer is also
dead,
its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major
surveys show that Windows has steadily declined in market share. Windows is
very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Windows
is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Windows
continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at
this point in time. For all practical purposes, Windows is dead.
Fact: Windows is dead
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dead
Good post! This kind off sums up the main area of positive influence Microsoft and possibly only Microsoft is able to have - that is the broad influence to enact strategic changes in industry standards. OK half the time they do it in a way that benefits their bottom line and they are quite happy to wreck standards that they perceive (in their rather paranoid worldview) to threaten their bottom line BUT on more than one occasion they have radically accelerated the adoption of technology that may never have seen the light of day otherwise... I am wary to pick any examples cos I am bound to be wrong in the details but I sometimes wonder if how fragmented the industry could become without our favourite evil empire in the picture?