3.51 is probably the best version of NT that ever came out. 4.0 was something evil. 3.51 feels almost like they 'got it' as far as a Unix-like architecture in many ways, but then Windows 95 happened and everything had to be like 'that' from then on.
The Fall 1992 first beta (alpha) version of NT didn't even have the applets (Notepad, Solitaire, etc.) working quite right. I specifically spent $600 on a Sound Blaster Pro and a 1x CD-ROM to install it. It installed, all right, but Creative didn't ever release NT drivers for the CD and sound card that I know of, so you... umm.. installed NT and it essentially bricked your sound card and CD that you just spent a bunch on.
The good old days. Thank goodness Linux happened. Yggdrasil's first release ("LGX") with an 0.99 something kernel was 'plug and play' with that sound card/CD drive. It booted off the CD to a full system and played music at the login prompt.
The real 'kink' in the works is that the first version of Windows NT was version 3.1. And the numbering for Windows 2000 and on is based on the versioning of the NT line, not the old 16 bit mess.
I have Windows 1.03 (complete package including retail box, manuals, etc.) but have never heard of anybody having Windows 1.0. PC-DOS 1.0 is a weird thing, too.
That's the standard 'classic' Slackware install set. A boot diskette, a root diskette, an ethernet card in the box, and you install over an NFS share from a server somewhere on your network. Good times and Slackware in the 90's, building a network of 386sx machines all hovering around my big 486 box with all 16 megs of ram in it, with thin ethernet and ancient 3-Com cards I bought at a surplus store for $2 a pound.
This is a little bit of a branching-off rant, but WTF is it with Microsoft's 'search' technology. I used to be able to hit and search a folder. Now it brings up a bunch of bullshit and nonsense about searching the fricking Web. Did the 'Google Competition' cause Microsoft to again completely lose direction in their technology, the way that Netscape did in the past, where Microsoft turned their whole product into a competitor with Netscape (i.e. Windows Explorer ceased to be about the PC and became 'one-big-web-browser')??
I am talking about how the search used to pop up fast and be useful on your machine in Windows 2000 and earlier and how it turned into a processor-cycling kludge in XP and later, btw.
Somebody probably threw a chair at him when he was a small child.
That, or he feels Microsoft is a good example of the root cause of a lot of the problems the world faces.
Your psychobabble ridicule method follows the pattern pioneered by the Stalinists, by the way. Address your opponents like they're mentally unstable, and their angst is a psychological problem (Stalin took it further by institutionalizing them- you don't have that power at the moment.)
How can Americans be refusing to sign up to Kyoto on one hand and winning Nobel prizes on the other? Probably because Bush isn't Gore and Gore isn't Bush.
Actually, former President Clinton already signed the Kyoto accord. Then he refused to present it to Congress to be reviewed and possibly adopted in the US. This was long before Bush became president. The Democrats do NOT want the Kyoto accord to go to congress. It would make a huge mess of things as they'd then be forced to take an accountable position on it. Many would have to oppose adoption to satisfy their constituents (business).
It's better the way things stand, where the Democrats can claim Kyoto is 'blocked' because of 'Bush' (a universal scapegoat for all things.)
The GNU project has tended to embrace and extend things. Not to the point of extinguishing them (except for classic UNIX, to a large degree.) But many people write shell scripts that traditionally run under/bin/sh but include bash extensions that make it impossible to run them under regular/bin/sh on other systems. The GCC contains extensions that don't deprecate and aren't flagged when the -pedantic switch is set. As a consequence C code is written that won't compile on other than GCC, and the developers aren't even made aware of this. The codebase slowly becomes GCC compilable only. All of this can be researched by anybody interested enough to look into it. The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft.
So you're saying that a modern bloated OS is a better platform for running the new bloated application software, and that throwing a quad-core processor and several GB of RAM at the solution proves this?
If I were developing an OS today, it would depend on whether I was in collusion with companies like Dell and Intel to sell new hardware. If I were, I would certainly bloat up my OS with as much processor-chewing bullshit as possible. The little bits of animated paper that streamed across the dialog box while copying files would contain the 3-D rendered actual content of the files being copied, for instance. Why settle for the usual inane bullshit eyecandy bloat from Microsoft if we can do better?
No. That is not what I meant. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining what I meant. You're just trying to score some points by feigning a misunderstanding, correct?
In case you're wondering*, neo-conservative is the label properly applied to only a small but loud segment of the conservative political movement. Namely, neo-conservatives are former leftists who've jumped sides and now are loud critics of the left/liberal political sphere. An example of a prominent neo-conservative would be David Horowitz, a former red-diaper child who was a prominent member of the New Left in the sixties.
There aren't that many neo-cons out there. Many people within the conservative sphere have held conservative views their entire life.
(*I know you're not wondering. You just slapped a label on something 'bad' and don't have to consider who they are at all. You've constructed your parody opponent and by golly, you're sticking it to 'em!)
Or perhaps Blackwater and Exxon's lawyers have been busy. One can hope, anyway.
I can see no greater justice than Google's action in this case leading to many other advertisers not being allowed to place paying ads on their service.
The article mentions anti-Blackwater and anti-Exxon ads as being "permitted" by Google, but it doesn't say whether or not the companies have requested takedowns.
It would be ironic if the MoveOn.org action set a precedent by which Blackwater and Exxon could get a whole buncha opposing advertising removed from Google. Hey Google! Let's get moving on removing the ads of those paying customers!
What the whole controversy reveals to me is that MoveOn.org has decided that trademark protection is an important weapon to use to resolve a political issue. It strikes me that MoveOn.org has characterized themselves as a commercial operation by this action. Are they just hucksters soliciting funds from people by using political issues to rile them up and get them to send in their dollars? Nothing about MoveOn.org from the past has led me to believe this. I've long had the opinion that they want to act in the political, not the commercial sphere.
So why are they waving around 'TradeMark Protection' as a political weapon? It just seems, to use crude language, like a cowardly bullshit approach.
That Vista performance is slower is just common sense. XP performance is slower than W2K. I recently installed (for gads knows what reason) NT 4.0 on an old '486 Toshiba Laptop with 32M of RAM. It ran pretty decently on that laptop. Until I installed NT4 Service Pack 6, which bogged it waaay down for some reason that I'm sure was well documented a decade or so back.
Microsoft OSes bloat and bloat and always have. They really don't have a good overall design. Just tons and tons and tons of fairly good programming talent capable of tossing all kinds of new stuff into each release.
Stop being so bipolar. It isn't an either/or decision. We don't have to like either Microsoft or Apple. And, no, that also doesn't mean we have to then like Linux or one of the BSD OSes. People can express strong dislikes without 'siding' with another 'camp' in a fanboy scene.
Well, for one thing, XP has the 'phone home and kill Bill's ring' feature of mandatory validation. I prefer buying something and not requiring 'clearance' from anybody to install it on my machine and use it. So I've not updated past Windows 2000. And I am a person who used to purchase EVERY update, usually in the form of the full retail box 'Install on a New Computer' version because update versions have awkward installers. I have Windows 95, 98, even ME, and W2K in that format.
Microsoft lost me as a software customer some years ago. Although I still like their mice. Microsoft makes decent mice, just like Harley-Davidson makes decent Dog Collars (but H-D cat collars suck: our little 4 pound black longhair ripped her H-D collar all up in a matter of weeks)
Slashdot Mirror
There was NT 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51.
3.51 is probably the best version of NT that ever came out. 4.0 was something evil. 3.51 feels almost like they 'got it' as far as a Unix-like architecture in many ways, but then Windows 95 happened and everything had to be like 'that' from then on.
The Fall 1992 first beta (alpha) version of NT didn't even have the applets (Notepad, Solitaire, etc.) working quite right. I specifically spent $600 on a Sound Blaster Pro and a 1x CD-ROM to install it. It installed, all right, but Creative didn't ever release NT drivers for the CD and sound card that I know of, so you... umm.. installed NT and it essentially bricked your sound card and CD that you just spent a bunch on.
The good old days. Thank goodness Linux happened. Yggdrasil's first release ("LGX") with an 0.99 something kernel was 'plug and play' with that sound card/CD drive. It booted off the CD to a full system and played music at the login prompt.
The real 'kink' in the works is that the first version of Windows NT was version 3.1. And the numbering for Windows 2000 and on is based on the versioning of the NT line, not the old 16 bit mess.
I have Windows 1.03 (complete package including retail box, manuals, etc.) but have never heard of anybody having Windows 1.0. PC-DOS 1.0 is a weird thing, too.
If you compile the kernel with just the keyboard, basic console, IDE hard drive, no SCSI and no networking, a 1.0 or 1.2 kernel can be pretty small.
But it will never 'beat' Minix in that game, cuz Minix you can run on an 8088 machine.
That's the standard 'classic' Slackware install set. A boot diskette, a root diskette, an ethernet card in the box, and you install over an NFS share from a server somewhere on your network. Good times and Slackware in the 90's, building a network of 386sx machines all hovering around my big 486 box with all 16 megs of ram in it, with thin ethernet and ancient 3-Com cards I bought at a surplus store for $2 a pound.
Ah, the memories.
Say hello to your cubicle neighbor darthflo.
Or are you just two accounts from the same person?
Windows Desktop Search
This is a little bit of a branching-off rant, but WTF is it with Microsoft's 'search' technology. I used to be able to hit and search a folder. Now it brings up a bunch of bullshit and nonsense about searching the fricking Web. Did the 'Google Competition' cause Microsoft to again completely lose direction in their technology, the way that Netscape did in the past, where Microsoft turned their whole product into a competitor with Netscape (i.e. Windows Explorer ceased to be about the PC and became 'one-big-web-browser')??
I am talking about how the search used to pop up fast and be useful on your machine in Windows 2000 and earlier and how it turned into a processor-cycling kludge in XP and later, btw.
(what's your salary at Microsoft, btw?)
Somebody probably threw a chair at him when he was a small child.
That, or he feels Microsoft is a good example of the root cause of a lot of the problems the world faces.
Your psychobabble ridicule method follows the pattern pioneered by the Stalinists, by the way. Address your opponents like they're mentally unstable, and their angst is a psychological problem (Stalin took it further by institutionalizing them- you don't have that power at the moment.)
I'm browsing it using wget. And my .wgetrc file has the lines 'robots=off' and 'recursive=on' in it.
Hmmm. They have some really big mp3 files on their site. Hmmm, it's taking quite a while to read the site....
I suppose they could put their website on a CD, then mail it to everybody who calls in and asks to visit their website.
No. First their lawyer pays you a visit and you sign the NDA. Then they mail you the CD.
Savings??
My DEBT is in dollars, and with inflation, I owe less every day!
There's a fairly nice port of Midnight Commander to Win32 that you can run.
I like xcopy, too, but there are those times when you just want to point at something and hit a key to have things move from one place to another.
Certainly not! Windows 2000 was the last tolerable Microsoft OS. That truth will hold fast, from what I've seen over the last decade.
How can Americans be refusing to sign up to Kyoto on one hand and winning Nobel prizes on the other? Probably because Bush isn't Gore and Gore isn't Bush.
Actually, former President Clinton already signed the Kyoto accord. Then he refused to present it to Congress to be reviewed and possibly adopted in the US. This was long before Bush became president. The Democrats do NOT want the Kyoto accord to go to congress. It would make a huge mess of things as they'd then be forced to take an accountable position on it. Many would have to oppose adoption to satisfy their constituents (business).
It's better the way things stand, where the Democrats can claim Kyoto is 'blocked' because of 'Bush' (a universal scapegoat for all things.)
The GNU project has tended to embrace and extend things. Not to the point of extinguishing them (except for classic UNIX, to a large degree.) But many people write shell scripts that traditionally run under /bin/sh but include bash extensions that make it impossible to run them under regular /bin/sh on other systems. The GCC contains extensions that don't deprecate and aren't flagged when the -pedantic switch is set. As a consequence C code is written that won't compile on other than GCC, and the developers aren't even made aware of this. The codebase slowly becomes GCC compilable only. All of this can be researched by anybody interested enough to look into it. The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft.
It will be amusing on a certain level if Google, which has been termed a potential 'Microsoft killer,' instead kills Apple.
So you're saying that a modern bloated OS is a better platform for running the new bloated application software, and that throwing a quad-core processor and several GB of RAM at the solution proves this?
If I were developing an OS today, it would depend on whether I was in collusion with companies like Dell and Intel to sell new hardware. If I were, I would certainly bloat up my OS with as much processor-chewing bullshit as possible. The little bits of animated paper that streamed across the dialog box while copying files would contain the 3-D rendered actual content of the files being copied, for instance. Why settle for the usual inane bullshit eyecandy bloat from Microsoft if we can do better?
No. That is not what I meant. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining what I meant. You're just trying to score some points by feigning a misunderstanding, correct?
In case you're wondering*, neo-conservative is the label properly applied to only a small but loud segment of the conservative political movement. Namely, neo-conservatives are former leftists who've jumped sides and now are loud critics of the left/liberal political sphere. An example of a prominent neo-conservative would be David Horowitz, a former red-diaper child who was a prominent member of the New Left in the sixties.
There aren't that many neo-cons out there. Many people within the conservative sphere have held conservative views their entire life.
(*I know you're not wondering. You just slapped a label on something 'bad' and don't have to consider who they are at all. You've constructed your parody opponent and by golly, you're sticking it to 'em!)
Or perhaps Blackwater and Exxon's lawyers have been busy. One can hope, anyway.
I can see no greater justice than Google's action in this case leading to many other advertisers not being allowed to place paying ads on their service.
The article mentions anti-Blackwater and anti-Exxon ads as being "permitted" by Google, but it doesn't say whether or not the companies have requested takedowns.
It would be ironic if the MoveOn.org action set a precedent by which Blackwater and Exxon could get a whole buncha opposing advertising removed from Google. Hey Google! Let's get moving on removing the ads of those paying customers!
What the whole controversy reveals to me is that MoveOn.org has decided that trademark protection is an important weapon to use to resolve a political issue. It strikes me that MoveOn.org has characterized themselves as a commercial operation by this action. Are they just hucksters soliciting funds from people by using political issues to rile them up and get them to send in their dollars? Nothing about MoveOn.org from the past has led me to believe this. I've long had the opinion that they want to act in the political, not the commercial sphere.
So why are they waving around 'TradeMark Protection' as a political weapon? It just seems, to use crude language, like a cowardly bullshit approach.
That Vista performance is slower is just common sense. XP performance is slower than W2K. I recently installed (for gads knows what reason) NT 4.0 on an old '486 Toshiba Laptop with 32M of RAM. It ran pretty decently on that laptop. Until I installed NT4 Service Pack 6, which bogged it waaay down for some reason that I'm sure was well documented a decade or so back.
Microsoft OSes bloat and bloat and always have. They really don't have a good overall design. Just tons and tons and tons of fairly good programming talent capable of tossing all kinds of new stuff into each release.
Stop being so bipolar. It isn't an either/or decision. We don't have to like either Microsoft or Apple. And, no, that also doesn't mean we have to then like Linux or one of the BSD OSes. People can express strong dislikes without 'siding' with another 'camp' in a fanboy scene.
Well, for one thing, XP has the 'phone home and kill Bill's ring' feature of mandatory validation. I prefer buying something and not requiring 'clearance' from anybody to install it on my machine and use it. So I've not updated past Windows 2000. And I am a person who used to purchase EVERY update, usually in the form of the full retail box 'Install on a New Computer' version because update versions have awkward installers. I have Windows 95, 98, even ME, and W2K in that format.
Microsoft lost me as a software customer some years ago. Although I still like their mice. Microsoft makes decent mice, just like Harley-Davidson makes decent Dog Collars (but H-D cat collars suck: our little 4 pound black longhair ripped her H-D collar all up in a matter of weeks)
A lot of people frown AT jet skis. I've done so from a canoe. Weighted fishhook tossing is discouraged but tempting.