You would choose to have us believe with you that the 100s of millions that use Windows daily have utterly not noticed that they are doing absolutely nothing.
I wouldn't say "absolutely nothing" but the fact that Gates is the world's greatest marketeer has no bearing on the quality of the product, as any user of Windows 1,2,3,3.11,95,98,ME would tell you. It's easy to be successful when no one has a choice about using your product.
I cannot even buy a P133 w/24 megs new anymore. The very cheapest computer we build today will be running a PIII at over 500 mhz.
At the risk of repeating myself, the point is what happens when your 500Mhz (or 3GHz) machine is under stress? The system that works well on a machine with few resources will also work well on a machine with lots of resources being consumed by high demand.
Meanwhile, I report that I haven't seen W2K fall over and have seen Linux crash during "normal" stuff
You never said anything to me about Linux falling over.
Look, kid, we've had almost 20 years of Windows and while W2K is a lot more stable than Windows 98/CE/ME etc the fact is that the world has moved on. Get over it. Windows is a legacy system now and there is no good reason to use it on the server and very little for the desktop unless you're an architect or something specialised.
There is a reason why I, and lot of other experienced programmers and admins got out of the MS tarpit and that's the fact that we didn't have time to wait for MS to get their act together and paying for the privilege of running viruses on our systems.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - you saw something/I saw something; neither is strong enough on it's own to support a conclusion in general. So, why bother using it?
Because, my fine feathered friend, it does establish something. Assuming that we each believe the other, it has established that if either claimed that our OS of choice never crashed then we would be wrong. See? Not a total waste of time.
My point about our printer server on 32 MB was a direct rebuttal, do with it as you will.
It's a funny rebuttal when I say Linux can do x with y and you claim that W2K can do x with a bit more than y.
Anyway, at this point it's clear that this conversation has nowhere to go, you keep sending Bill his cheques if you want; it's your money.
Colour me impressed. The machines I have seen crash (which were in the same room but, as I say, I never used them) were setup and installed by MSCE's and I assumed that they knew what they were doing. Perhaps not.
I still think your life would be easier on a *nix system.
Because most business don't run servers on a P133 with 24 MB of RAM. UNIX or MS. n00b
Handy for firewall/router duty or just a mail/print server or internal webserver.
Regardless, the need was not the issue. The point is that if you have two OSes and one grinds to a halt under pressure of reduced resources before the other it's pretty odd to say that the failed one is more efficient and faster than the one that is still working.
Resource reduction can happen on a 3GHz machine under a high load and the same test applies: which OS can survive when the clock cycles and memory are running out?
They didn't give it four failed attempts and hide their actions and make a mess.
They did however make a single failed attempt and tried to hide their actions. As I recall they bought it running on Solaris and messed up the conversion and settled on BSD as a halfway house (so they were not paying Sun) while they got ready for the second attempt. They put a page up on their site (now gone) to say that they had basically just been trying a few ideas on a couple of spare machines but some probing showed that the conversion from Solaris to BSD was very widespread.
That was all quite a while ago, though, so it would have been NT rather than W2K itself.
whether you like it or not anecdotal evidence is eye witness account of an incident. as opposed to say, emperical evidence, which would be held to a more rigorous definition
I agree but it is often used around here as an excuse to dismiss any evidence which runs against the speaker's bias. In effect it is used to imply that the eyewitness is lying.
It's particularly amusing in this case because the poster used the term to dismiss my account immediately after giving one of his own about using W2K on 32MB!
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to compare like with like. For example, compare Windows 2000's hardware requirements to that of the complete KDE 2.
I don't use KDE on any of my machines, I hate it precisely because it repeats Window's bloat and design errors. I use WindowMaker on even my fastest machines and it will run fine on the P133 as well. Windows 2000 does not give you the choice which is why, if you want to be taken seriously, you would avoid using it.
Because you can run MS-DOS on a 286 but you can't run even the earliest Linux on a 286, does that make MS-DOS a better operating system? No, of course not.
But it might make it faster and more efficient (until you want a lot of memory or multi tasking etc), which was the original assertion. "Better" is a broader topic but, given two 32Bit, multi tasking OSes, faster and more efficent becomes a lot closer to meaning "better" than it does when comparing a 16bit single-tasker and a 32bit multi-tasker. Then there's security to consider; DOS and Windows are not secure systems.
They moved because Windows 2000 was faster and more efficient.
If W2000 is so fast and efficient why can't I run it on a P133 with 24MB of RAM like I can Linux?
It is obviously stable as any honest person running W2K/XP can tell you.
I don't use W2000/XP but I've seen both blue screen while just sitting with no one even using the machine. I've seen Linux die twice in four years of heavy use and one of those was faulty hardware.
I do wonder sometimes just how often MS has to issue buggy slugeware before you fanboys realise that they just don't care about quality (or you).
Just because no OS is perfect does not mean that some of them are not plain crap.
This obviously shows how desperate the linux community is to brag about something as useless as this. -- lets all report every time some amazon tribe uses toilet paper instead of a leaf to wipe his ass!
Yes, a representative of the govenment of the single largest country on Earth is of no importance or interest. That he is acting in opposition to half a billion dollars of bribes distributed by Gates in person doesn't make it news and the possibility that this will undermine the Microsoft hegemony in every developing country in the world and may even impact the EU's attitude to free software is never going to matter to the readers of/. Or perhaps you need to look outside your own window once in a while.
Yes, I'd like to see a film version of Lord of the Rings too. It would be much better than paying to see an advertisement for a DVD which is another advertisement for another DVD which still is a crap version of the book. Three payments and still no evidence that Jackson ever read the book.
And your proof that the PS2 and GameCube are sold at a loss is where?
Search Google for "loss leader".
Microsoft should just count itself lucky that Intel decided to flog Celerons for the XBox on a zero profit model just to spite AMD.
The same applies to all the components in the Xbox to some degree: not only are they cheap because they have been mass produced for some time but the pressure from MS pushes the price further down. While the PS2 and GC are simpler, better, designs they have a lot of custom hardware which pushes the costs up so on balance they might break even but are probably still making a loss even some time after introduction.
Is there some aspect of the anti-trust laws that elude me? Is there some other principle at play?
The difference here is that selling Xboxes at a loss is standard industry practice: the PS2 and GameCube are both sold at a loss. If MS sold the games at a loss too, then you would have a valid point under the law, IMO, but as long as they're playing by the same rules as everyone else it would be difficult to bring a case.
Most of your analogies all describe new items that are BETTER and/or MORE INTRIGUING than their predecessors
In fact most of them were not better in any clear way at the start; even aircraft were too dangerous for most people when they started off. "Intriguing" is subjective.
The point is that you are taking a very static view. In five years bandwidth will allow better downloads and your grainy 10 hour download will be a thing of the past. I agree with what you said now but I don't think that's important to the principle involved.
Besides, wasn't it a team of human beings who wrote Deep Blue's algorithms?
And some human designed the Triumph motorcycle, but that doen't mean it should be permitted equipment in the 100m sprint.
Now here comes the part where all the Taco lovers mod me down without considering the point I'm trying to make...
Whatever point you thought you were making collapsed when you made it clear that you agree with Taco's implication. You're either against stealing people's work or you're not - make up your mind.
Yes, it's all a horrible and evil conspiracy, with the Gates foundation existing as nothing more than an extention of the Evil Empire.
Correct. If you haven't spotted that then you are ill-equipped for the modern (ie post 1700's) world.
Gates fights on a global battlefield, every donation buys influence at least in the form of a chat with the local PM, King, Dictator etc.
ad-hominum attacks on the Gates Foundation
Leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to have an ad-hominum attack on an organisation, Gates and his "wife" (what is the word for sleeping with someone for money?) are engaged in the never-ending quest to keep Bill at the top of the heap. Why? Because that's the way he likes it. Having built himself up from a state of great wealth (thanks, granddad!) to the leader of a company which is untouchable by the law or governments he is still trying to get more. Bill couldn't give two fucks about AIDS; he probably doesn't even know what it stands for.
What he does know is that there are some saps out there that will cut him some slack because he donated six day's interest from his own pocket (minus tax-relief). Then after the handshakes and photocalls it's off to spread some company money around India's ministers to make sure they know what side their bread is buttered on and it's home to have a laugh about who he'l put out of business next (Adobe, perhaps? Maybe you, maybe me).
History is littered with Bill Gates and they all had fans that said they were the second coming.
I showed Mrs. Eaglton, my English teacher, a research paper that backed up my assertion and was told that the class would hear nothing of this.
Probably because it isn't true.
Cleopatra was a nymphomaniac and once had a horse lowered down on her,
Nor is that.
Hemp was made illegal to protect DuPont's recently discovered method of making paper from wood pulp
If by "discovered" you mean they looked up Dahl's 1879 method in an encyclopedia then perhaps.
We are furtunate that most of the research at the Vatican, including the first copy of the King James Bible
I don't think you'll find the first copy of the English Protestant Bible in the Vatican unless they bought it off someone, it certainly is not the result of Vatican research.
This is exactly the sort of stupid action we need. If MS get hacked off with the shitty patent system then they might start bribing, er... lobbying, politicians to fix the bastarding thing.
most bands play concerts as well, which have ticket prices much higher than the price of a movie.
There are a lot more people that buy CD's and never go to concerts than do both. Concert performances of material on a particular album is on nothing like the scale of the number of people that wasted their money on "Titanic", for example.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say "absolutely nothing" but the fact that Gates is the world's greatest marketeer has no bearing on the quality of the product, as any user of Windows 1,2,3,3.11,95,98,ME would tell you. It's easy to be successful when no one has a choice about using your product.
I cannot even buy a P133 w/24 megs new anymore. The very cheapest computer we build today will be running a PIII at over 500 mhz.
At the risk of repeating myself, the point is what happens when your 500Mhz (or 3GHz) machine is under stress? The system that works well on a machine with few resources will also work well on a machine with lots of resources being consumed by high demand.
EOT
TWW
You never said anything to me about Linux falling over.
Look, kid, we've had almost 20 years of Windows and while W2K is a lot more stable than Windows 98/CE/ME etc the fact is that the world has moved on. Get over it. Windows is a legacy system now and there is no good reason to use it on the server and very little for the desktop unless you're an architect or something specialised.
There is a reason why I, and lot of other experienced programmers and admins got out of the MS tarpit and that's the fact that we didn't have time to wait for MS to get their act together and paying for the privilege of running viruses on our systems.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - you saw something/I saw something; neither is strong enough on it's own to support a conclusion in general. So, why bother using it?
Because, my fine feathered friend, it does establish something. Assuming that we each believe the other, it has established that if either claimed that our OS of choice never crashed then we would be wrong. See? Not a total waste of time.
My point about our printer server on 32 MB was a direct rebuttal, do with it as you will.
It's a funny rebuttal when I say Linux can do x with y and you claim that W2K can do x with a bit more than y.
Anyway, at this point it's clear that this conversation has nowhere to go, you keep sending Bill his cheques if you want; it's your money.
TWW
I still think your life would be easier on a *nix system.
TWW
Handy for firewall/router duty or just a mail/print server or internal webserver.
Regardless, the need was not the issue. The point is that if you have two OSes and one grinds to a halt under pressure of reduced resources before the other it's pretty odd to say that the failed one is more efficient and faster than the one that is still working.
Resource reduction can happen on a 3GHz machine under a high load and the same test applies: which OS can survive when the clock cycles and memory are running out?
TWW
They did however make a single failed attempt and tried to hide their actions. As I recall they bought it running on Solaris and messed up the conversion and settled on BSD as a halfway house (so they were not paying Sun) while they got ready for the second attempt. They put a page up on their site (now gone) to say that they had basically just been trying a few ideas on a couple of spare machines but some probing showed that the conversion from Solaris to BSD was very widespread.
That was all quite a while ago, though, so it would have been NT rather than W2K itself.
TWW
I agree but it is often used around here as an excuse to dismiss any evidence which runs against the speaker's bias. In effect it is used to imply that the eyewitness is lying.
It's particularly amusing in this case because the poster used the term to dismiss my account immediately after giving one of his own about using W2K on 32MB!
That is classic /. grammar:
TWW
Sorry, the claim was "fast and efficient". Unless you are claiming that a Ferrari is efficient then the comparison is unjustified.
anecdotal evidence
I've noticed over the years on /. that "anecdotal evidence" means "eye-witness account that I don't like".
TWW
I don't use KDE on any of my machines, I hate it precisely because it repeats Window's bloat and design errors. I use WindowMaker on even my fastest machines and it will run fine on the P133 as well. Windows 2000 does not give you the choice which is why, if you want to be taken seriously, you would avoid using it.
Because you can run MS-DOS on a 286 but you can't run even the earliest Linux on a 286, does that make MS-DOS a better operating system? No, of course not.
But it might make it faster and more efficient (until you want a lot of memory or multi tasking etc), which was the original assertion. "Better" is a broader topic but, given two 32Bit, multi tasking OSes, faster and more efficent becomes a lot closer to meaning "better" than it does when comparing a 16bit single-tasker and a 32bit multi-tasker. Then there's security to consider; DOS and Windows are not secure systems.
TWW
If W2000 is so fast and efficient why can't I run it on a P133 with 24MB of RAM like I can Linux?
It is obviously stable as any honest person running W2K/XP can tell you.
I don't use W2000/XP but I've seen both blue screen while just sitting with no one even using the machine. I've seen Linux die twice in four years of heavy use and one of those was faulty hardware.
I do wonder sometimes just how often MS has to issue buggy slugeware before you fanboys realise that they just don't care about quality (or you).
Just because no OS is perfect does not mean that some of them are not plain crap.
TWW
Yes, a representative of the govenment of the single largest country on Earth is of no importance or interest. That he is acting in opposition to half a billion dollars of bribes distributed by Gates in person doesn't make it news and the possibility that this will undermine the Microsoft hegemony in every developing country in the world and may even impact the EU's attitude to free software is never going to matter to the readers of /. Or perhaps you need to look outside your own window once in a while.
TWW
Yes, I'd like to see a film version of Lord of the Rings too. It would be much better than paying to see an advertisement for a DVD which is another advertisement for another DVD which still is a crap version of the book. Three payments and still no evidence that Jackson ever read the book.
TWW
Search Google for "loss leader".
Microsoft should just count itself lucky that Intel decided to flog Celerons for the XBox on a zero profit model just to spite AMD.
The same applies to all the components in the Xbox to some degree: not only are they cheap because they have been mass produced for some time but the pressure from MS pushes the price further down. While the PS2 and GC are simpler, better, designs they have a lot of custom hardware which pushes the costs up so on balance they might break even but are probably still making a loss even some time after introduction.
TWW
The difference here is that selling Xboxes at a loss is standard industry practice: the PS2 and GameCube are both sold at a loss. If MS sold the games at a loss too, then you would have a valid point under the law, IMO, but as long as they're playing by the same rules as everyone else it would be difficult to bring a case.
TWW
TWW
In fact most of them were not better in any clear way at the start; even aircraft were too dangerous for most people when they started off. "Intriguing" is subjective.
The point is that you are taking a very static view. In five years bandwidth will allow better downloads and your grainy 10 hour download will be a thing of the past. I agree with what you said now but I don't think that's important to the principle involved.
Besides, wasn't it a team of human beings who wrote Deep Blue's algorithms?
And some human designed the Triumph motorcycle, but that doen't mean it should be permitted equipment in the 100m sprint.
TWW
Cars will never replace horses, period.
Computers will never beat humans at chess, period.
Aircraft will never be a practical method of mass transport, period.
DVD's will not be popular until people can record at home.
Yadda yadda yadda...
TWW
It is. It just set the box office record for a preview in the UK via more than 500 screens. That's pretty well released in my book.
TWW
Whatever point you thought you were making collapsed when you made it clear that you agree with Taco's implication. You're either against stealing people's work or you're not - make up your mind.
TWW
Correct. If you haven't spotted that then you are ill-equipped for the modern (ie post 1700's) world.
Gates fights on a global battlefield, every donation buys influence at least in the form of a chat with the local PM, King, Dictator etc.
ad-hominum attacks on the Gates Foundation
Leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to have an ad-hominum attack on an organisation, Gates and his "wife" (what is the word for sleeping with someone for money?) are engaged in the never-ending quest to keep Bill at the top of the heap. Why? Because that's the way he likes it. Having built himself up from a state of great wealth (thanks, granddad!) to the leader of a company which is untouchable by the law or governments he is still trying to get more. Bill couldn't give two fucks about AIDS; he probably doesn't even know what it stands for.
What he does know is that there are some saps out there that will cut him some slack because he donated six day's interest from his own pocket (minus tax-relief). Then after the handshakes and photocalls it's off to spread some company money around India's ministers to make sure they know what side their bread is buttered on and it's home to have a laugh about who he'l put out of business next (Adobe, perhaps? Maybe you, maybe me).
History is littered with Bill Gates and they all had fans that said they were the second coming.
TWW
Probably because it isn't true.
Cleopatra was a nymphomaniac and once had a horse lowered down on her,
Nor is that.
Hemp was made illegal to protect DuPont's recently discovered method of making paper from wood pulp
If by "discovered" you mean they looked up Dahl's 1879 method in an encyclopedia then perhaps.
We are furtunate that most of the research at the Vatican, including the first copy of the King James Bible
I don't think you'll find the first copy of the English Protestant Bible in the Vatican unless they bought it off someone, it certainly is not the result of Vatican research.
TWW
TWW
Jesus, talk about the best prison bars being the ones you can't see! If this is Valhala I'd hate to be in Niflheim.
TWW
TWW
There are a lot more people that buy CD's and never go to concerts than do both. Concert performances of material on a particular album is on nothing like the scale of the number of people that wasted their money on "Titanic", for example.
TWW
TWW