Why are we wasting time w/ Seti@home???? We should be working on ways of creating new propulsion systems and weapons so that we can beat the stuffing out of the little green! Remeber the 3 step system to personal success:
1) Rape 2) Pillage 3) Burn
Of course, I always problems with the order......I'll get it eventually though:-) --------------------------
Are you out of your mind to use *this* as a benchmark? I mean, Word97 when starts loads fewer DDLs,the rest will be auto-loaded when you use feature, like spelling giving you some slowdown once. Besides WP and Word97 are two very different products (they let you do same thing though).
Again, these were my impressions...not actual benchmarking values. And, I don't mean to be rude here, but how do you know how the guts of WP work vs. how the guts of Word 97 work? Imho, it *is* a good benchmark for testing...but let me ask you, what would you compare? I'm viewing Linux and W2K as your average Joe User would....I want to write a paper. WP seems to load and run this fast. Word 97 loads and run this fast. Granted, my impressions aren't scientific...they're based on expierence using both OS's...not benchmarking them.
As you may have heard NT Server 4.0 and NT Workstation 4.0 were different only in a bit more installed services AND as far as kernel is concerned, REgistry settting controled what is the OS right now. Ie, you could have easily turn your "Workstation" into "Server", it has *same* kernel. This might not be true for W2k.
Again, I don't really care about how it works on the inside. But as far as my opinion goes on NT/W2K and being a server:
Windows is, for all intensive purposes, designed around its GUI. From what I understand, MS devoted millions of dollars and lots of research time to developing its interface(Debating the actual benefits of the interface can be saved for another post;-). This seems to show up in its implementation. The user sitting at the machine is the most important according to the MS design philosophy. However, for servers, that's a *really* bad idea. Its job is to serve, whether that be files over a LAN, or web pages. It should be set up once, and then left alone. A GUI is far less important than before. To try to make up for this flaw, it seems like MS did the equivalent of nice -n -10'ing all of its server processes, resulting in a slowed down system for everyone. MS should throw out the interface and work on making NT Server blazingly fast. To admin such a machine, you could install some admining package on a workstation, and admin it remotely. Granted, to do this, MS would have to work its butt off on security (all the posts on NTBugtraq seems to indicate that anyways;-) to pull something like this off, but, imho, it would be worth it. Let the server do the serving. Let a workstation, which is designed for a single user, be able to control the server remotely.
ok, here's my $0.02 on Windows 2k (and, fyi, I run Linux most of the time).
(First and foremost, these are just my impressions of Win2k...not cut in stone by any means)
First, my computer is a p200 mxx, 64 megs, ~1 gig NTFS, ~2 gigs ext2. W2K found all my devices and configured then almost perfectly. The only thing it didn't get was my Voodoo 2, but I can run GL Quake in Linux:-)
The system runs faster than NT 4 ever did. Some of you may than scoff NT 4's performance, but let me say this: I started using Linux because NT 4 was too slow. W2K (approximately) matches the speed of Linux in performing tasks (starting WP vs starting Word97). There's only one other nice change. It hasn't BSoD'd yet. Its stable and quick.
Now, for all you Linux zealots: problems w/ win2k.
Its a beta. I understand that. But it really shouldn't stop being able to look up things via DNS. Its an infrequent problem, but its annoying. Next, it does kinda take over for you too much. I was surpirsed after a while of using W2k that my application icons in the start menu had disappeared...Windows had a cheerful message telling me that it had optimized my Start menu. I really would have prefered if I could have asked it to do that for me, but ah well. Next, I used to run NT in 1600x1200 perfectly. W2k seems to have trouble drawing at that resolution...I had to revert to 1280x1024 (fyi, its a Matrox G200 SD, 8 meg - drivers come w/ Win2k).
Conclusion. If MS can clean up the problems, Win2k will be *very* nice. Although it can't run servers up the wazoo like Linux can (than again, NT Workstations was never designed to run servers, and therefore shouldn't be tested, IMNSHO), it runs well, far better than any previous MS OS.
Note to MS: Open up the source to NT/W2K. Open Source development of NT would speed up removal of bugs, and I would think that NT would probably speed up as a result. Plus, if the good of Linux and the good of NT could be mixed together into an GPL uber-OS, I would be happy...hell, I would even pay for it... --------------------------
It takes me long enough to compile my kernel on my computer at home... how long would it take to compile 30 or 40million lines of win2k code? you're forgetting that Windows is (fairly) modular...you wouldn't compile all of it, just bits and pieces...of course, linux is pretty much the same way...compiling windows would probably be like linux (only with LOTS more warnings:-) --------------------------
Well, the media kinda turn Linux vs. Windows into a David and Goliath (I hope I typed that right...I can't spell before 9am;-) type of struggle. It sounds more interesting than writing something for pure intellectual curiosity and/or personal usefulness.
IMHO, the Linux community has changed since Linux started to get all this publicity...its become something worse. Its become more of a weapon against MS than an alternate OS. People cry "LINUX!" when they want to say something bad against MS.
Thoughts? Feelings? Comments? (puts on asbestos body suit, and hopes the crowds will give him a runnins start) --------------------------
wasn't emacs supposed to be this great all in one type of application? i mean, its got a web browser, spell checker, syntax checking, etc. Word is more specific for its job (although I must say, MS is trashing that idea w/ its Office 2000 bullsh*t).
I think what he was trying to say was that Emacs was good when there was few choices out there, but since we now have new, more focus products, Emacs loses its luster...
DAVEO is a person. Most likely, a person who posts in hopes of pissing people off. Since we can't do anything about (you can't shut him up because he *attempts* to make a point) all you can do is suck it up, deal, and hope whoever is on that end of the connection grows up *soon.* --------------------------
Not exactly. NT is great for running multiple single user program at the same time (I've run PS5.0, IE, Word, Excel, played mp3s all at once) and NT has ran without a hitch. However, things like whatever MS's web server is brings NT to a halt.
MacOS, from my most recent expierences, still had significant problems multitasking. (Try doing something intensive in PhotoShop and then trying to switch to the Finder. GFL.)
After working with Windows 2000 Beta 3 for a while, I wouldn't toss it out of the running quite yet AS A WORKSTATION. From my expierence with it, its quicker than NT 4, and (so far) as stable.
Of course, I still run Linux most of the time...why? Because I need my computer to do things in the background, and I need it to do them efficently. NT isn't able to do that (imho). But you need/want a stable enviornment to code, do word processing, etc. (i.e. not be serving anything on a large scale), then NT definately rivals Linux.
some people out here aren't as expierenced as you...yeah, the tone of the article was rather simplistic, but imho that doesn't warrent your remark...I'd love to learn how to overclock a chip...unfortunately, right now I don't have the money or time to...
Of course, if someone wants to post a howto, I'd be very grateful:-)
wouldn't the standalone have the same rendering engine as communicator, just less baggage? I've always been downloading NS Standalone...the extra stuff that came with communicator wasn't all that useful to me...
really? my machine (p200 mmx, 64 megs of ram, NT4, sp5) runs IE smoothly...NS(4.51) take a significant amount more time to load, and it renders everything slower...plus, its crashed on my half a dozen times...where IE has locked up only once....i'll try NS 4.6 a bit later today then...but I'd be interested to hear other people, their configs, and their expierences with the two titan browsers....
I would...remeber when NS 4.6 came out? Take a look at the thread...lots of complaints about memory hogging and crashing...I would at least give IE a chance...and if its anything like IE5 for NT, then it might be an effective NS killer for the 'nixes....
Granted, MS is not exactly the most...ummm...moral of companies, but after using IE on my NT partition and comparing that to Netscape on both Windows and Linux, I prefer IE. Its quick and stable...which is far more than I can say for Netscape.
But, IE is pretty much a Windows thing...does anyone have any expierence with IE on Solaris or HP-UX? Does it keep its quick and stable reputation on those platforms?
(And before you start calling me a MicroSerf, I'm running Linux right now...and I do most of the time. I only use NT for Half-Life and doing somethings with MS Office)
Honestly, I thought it was kinda dumb that Bush had to do this....but I can understand his reasoning...
Why do people in general have to create sucks.com sites? Yeah, you may not like the person, but you can still let the person campaign/sell/express their opinion. Going out and just saying they suck is just childish. If you want to vent your frustrations with someone, you can find a far more adult way to do it somewhere else.
(And I'm not associated with *any* political party...I don't agree with any of them)
Re:Alternatives to NS...
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 1
CMU(my school) does have iexplorer installed on its Solaris boxes...it did seem kinda clunky when I ran it, but then again, I was ssh'd in, so I thought that maybe had to do w/ the transfering of all the images, widgets and other stuff(I guessed that becaue XEmacs also seems noticably slower). But if MS ever *did* wind up porting IE to Linux, they might find ways to speed it up...
Re:Alternatives to NS...
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 1
hehe....yeah, I use lynx occationally...mostly on pages that don't have frames...using it on those can be *messy*
Re:NS is a good alternate to NS
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't you expierence some problems viewing some pages?(I'm thinking things like CSS).
BTW, noticed your email addy...I'm a CMU student too;-)
Re:what about the KDE "exporer"?Re:Alternatives to
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 1
i wouldn't think that NS would do this...that then kinda implies that they are throwing their weight behind KDE, and the GNOME peeps are gonna get upset;-)
Alternatives to NS...
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 1
There are a whole bunch of complaints here about Netscape being buggy and crashing constantly...so why aren't there more alternatives?
Opera seemed really nice when I used the Windows version of it, but the Linux port isn't out yet...I haven't had the opportunity to try out Mozilla, but heard it was so-so. Although I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, IE is remarkably quick and stable on my NT box, and I've been kinda hoping that MS ports their browser to Linux (please spare me the childish "Micro$haft sux0rs, Netscape ru1es!" comments).
Are there any other browsers out there that I'm not aware of? If so, are they any good? If not, why not?:-)
I don't know if it would work...but couldn't you just vary the brightness of a light to see if the pupil even reacts to to it? I would think that making the iris move appropriately for a dead eye would be a bigger pain than its worth;-)
Slashdot Mirror
#include "humor.h"
:-)
Why are we wasting time w/ Seti@home???? We should be working on ways of creating new propulsion systems and weapons so that we can beat the stuffing out of the little green! Remeber the 3 step system to personal success:
1) Rape
2) Pillage
3) Burn
Of course, I always problems with the order......I'll get it eventually though
--------------------------
Again, these were my impressions...not actual benchmarking values. And, I don't mean to be rude here, but how do you know how the guts of WP work vs. how the guts of Word 97 work? Imho, it *is* a good benchmark for testing...but let me ask you, what would you compare? I'm viewing Linux and W2K as your average Joe User would....I want to write a paper. WP seems to load and run this fast. Word 97 loads and run this fast. Granted, my impressions aren't scientific...they're based on expierence using both OS's...not benchmarking them.
As you may have heard NT Server 4.0 and NT Workstation 4.0 were different only in a bit more installed services AND as far as kernel is concerned, REgistry settting controled what is the OS right now. Ie, you could have easily turn your "Workstation" into "Server", it has *same* kernel. This might not be true for W2k.
Again, I don't really care about how it works on the inside. But as far as my opinion goes on NT/W2K and being a server:
Windows is, for all intensive purposes, designed around its GUI. From what I understand, MS devoted millions of dollars and lots of research time to developing its interface(Debating the actual benefits of the interface can be saved for another post ;-). This seems to show up in its implementation. The user sitting at the machine is the most important according to the MS design philosophy. However, for servers, that's a *really* bad idea. Its job is to serve, whether that be files over a LAN, or web pages. It should be set up once, and then left alone. A GUI is far less important than before. To try to make up for this flaw, it seems like MS did the equivalent of nice -n -10'ing all of its server processes, resulting in a slowed down system for everyone. MS should throw out the interface and work on making NT Server blazingly fast. To admin such a machine, you could install some admining package on a workstation, and admin it remotely. Granted, to do this, MS would have to work its butt off on security (all the posts on NTBugtraq seems to indicate that anyways ;-) to pull something like this off, but, imho, it would be worth it. Let the server do the serving. Let a workstation, which is designed for a single user, be able to control the server remotely.
Again, just my $0.02.
--------------------------
ok, here's my $0.02 on Windows 2k (and, fyi, I run Linux most of the time).
:-)
(First and foremost, these are just my impressions of Win2k...not cut in stone by any means)
First, my computer is a p200 mxx, 64 megs, ~1 gig NTFS, ~2 gigs ext2. W2K found all my devices and configured then almost perfectly. The only thing it didn't get was my Voodoo 2, but I can run GL Quake in Linux
The system runs faster than NT 4 ever did. Some of you may than scoff NT 4's performance, but let me say this: I started using Linux because NT 4 was too slow. W2K (approximately) matches the speed of Linux in performing tasks (starting WP vs starting Word97). There's only one other nice change. It hasn't BSoD'd yet. Its stable and quick.
Now, for all you Linux zealots: problems w/ win2k.
Its a beta. I understand that. But it really shouldn't stop being able to look up things via DNS. Its an infrequent problem, but its annoying.
Next, it does kinda take over for you too much. I was surpirsed after a while of using W2k that my application icons in the start menu had disappeared...Windows had a cheerful message telling me that it had optimized my Start menu. I really would have prefered if I could have asked it to do that for me, but ah well. Next, I used to run NT in 1600x1200 perfectly. W2k seems to have trouble drawing at that resolution...I had to revert to 1280x1024 (fyi, its a Matrox G200 SD, 8 meg - drivers come w/ Win2k).
Conclusion. If MS can clean up the problems, Win2k will be *very* nice. Although it can't run servers up the wazoo like Linux can (than again, NT Workstations was never designed to run servers, and therefore shouldn't be tested, IMNSHO), it runs well, far better than any previous MS OS.
Note to MS: Open up the source to NT/W2K. Open Source development of NT would speed up removal of bugs, and I would think that NT would probably speed up as a result. Plus, if the good of Linux and the good of NT could be mixed together into an GPL uber-OS, I would be happy...hell, I would even pay for it...
--------------------------
It takes me long enough to compile my kernel on my computer at home... how long would it take to compile 30 or 40million lines of win2k code? you're forgetting that Windows is (fairly) modular...you wouldn't compile all of it, just bits and pieces...of course, linux is pretty much the same way...compiling windows would probably be like linux (only with LOTS more warnings :-)
--------------------------
Well, the media kinda turn Linux vs. Windows into a David and Goliath (I hope I typed that right...I can't spell before 9am ;-) type of struggle. It sounds more interesting than writing something for pure intellectual curiosity and/or personal usefulness.
IMHO, the Linux community has changed since Linux started to get all this publicity...its become something worse. Its become more of a weapon against MS than an alternate OS. People cry "LINUX!" when they want to say something bad against MS.
Thoughts? Feelings? Comments?
(puts on asbestos body suit, and hopes the crowds will give him a runnins start)
--------------------------
wasn't emacs supposed to be this great all in one type of application? i mean, its got a web browser, spell checker, syntax checking, etc. Word is more specific for its job (although I must say, MS is trashing that idea w/ its Office 2000 bullsh*t).
;-)
I think what he was trying to say was that Emacs was good when there was few choices out there, but since we now have new, more focus products, Emacs loses its luster...
Anyone have any thoughts on my interpretation?
(and, fyi, I use vi
--------------------------
ok, lets makes this blisteringly clear
DAVEO is a person. Most likely, a person who posts in hopes of pissing people off. Since we can't do anything about (you can't shut him up because he *attempts* to make a point) all you can do is suck it up, deal, and hope whoever is on that end of the connection grows up *soon.*
--------------------------
ummmmwhere the hell are you guys, and why the hell hasn't this guy been moderated down yet??
Not exactly. NT is great for running multiple single user program at the same time (I've run PS5.0, IE, Word, Excel, played mp3s all at once) and NT has ran without a hitch. However, things like whatever MS's web server is brings NT to a halt.
MacOS, from my most recent expierences, still had significant problems multitasking. (Try doing something intensive in PhotoShop and then trying to switch to the Finder. GFL.)
After working with Windows 2000 Beta 3 for a while, I wouldn't toss it out of the running quite yet AS A WORKSTATION. From my expierence with it, its quicker than NT 4, and (so far) as stable.
Of course, I still run Linux most of the time...why? Because I need my computer to do things in the background, and I need it to do them efficently. NT isn't able to do that (imho). But you need/want a stable enviornment to code, do word processing, etc. (i.e. not be serving anything on a large scale), then NT definately rivals Linux.
ehn...that hasn't always worked for me...I'm running 1600x1200, and Helvetica Bold looks kinda icky, though everything else is good...
hey now...
:-)
some people out here aren't as expierenced as you...yeah, the tone of the article was rather simplistic, but imho that doesn't warrent your remark...I'd love to learn how to overclock a chip...unfortunately, right now I don't have the money or time to...
Of course, if someone wants to post a howto, I'd be very grateful
actually, couldn't MS just take the latest mozilla release, clean it up, and then call it IE?
wouldn't the standalone have the same rendering engine as communicator, just less baggage? I've always been downloading NS Standalone...the extra stuff that came with communicator wasn't all that useful to me...
really? my machine (p200 mmx, 64 megs of ram, NT4, sp5) runs IE smoothly...NS(4.51) take a significant amount more time to load, and it renders everything slower...plus, its crashed on my half a dozen times...where IE has locked up only once....i'll try NS 4.6 a bit later today then...but I'd be interested to hear other people, their configs, and their expierences with the two titan browsers....
:-T
;-)
kinda a shame to hear that...of course, we *could* hope for something good to finally come out of Redmond...
I would...remeber when NS 4.6 came out? Take a look at the thread...lots of complaints about memory hogging and crashing...I would at least give IE a chance...and if its anything like IE5 for NT, then it might be an effective NS killer for the 'nixes....
Granted, MS is not exactly the most...ummm...moral of companies, but after using IE on my NT partition and comparing that to Netscape on both Windows and Linux, I prefer IE. Its quick and stable...which is far more than I can say for Netscape.
But, IE is pretty much a Windows thing...does anyone have any expierence with IE on Solaris or HP-UX? Does it keep its quick and stable reputation on those platforms?
(And before you start calling me a MicroSerf, I'm running Linux right now...and I do most of the time. I only use NT for Half-Life and doing somethings with MS Office)
Honestly, I thought it was kinda dumb that Bush had to do this....but I can understand his reasoning...
Why do people in general have to create sucks.com sites? Yeah, you may not like the person, but you can still let the person campaign/sell/express their opinion. Going out and just saying they suck is just childish. If you want to vent your frustrations with someone, you can find a far more adult way to do it somewhere else.
(And I'm not associated with *any* political party...I don't agree with any of them)
CMU(my school) does have iexplorer installed on its Solaris boxes...it did seem kinda clunky when I ran it, but then again, I was ssh'd in, so I thought that maybe had to do w/ the transfering of all the images, widgets and other stuff(I guessed that becaue XEmacs also seems noticably slower). But if MS ever *did* wind up porting IE to Linux, they might find ways to speed it up...
hehe....yeah, I use lynx occationally...mostly on pages that don't have frames...using it on those can be *messy*
Wouldn't you expierence some problems viewing some pages?(I'm thinking things like CSS).
;-)
BTW, noticed your email addy...I'm a CMU student too
i wouldn't think that NS would do this...that then kinda implies that they are throwing their weight behind KDE, and the GNOME peeps are gonna get upset ;-)
There are a whole bunch of complaints here about Netscape being buggy and crashing constantly...so why aren't there more alternatives?
:-)
Opera seemed really nice when I used the Windows version of it, but the Linux port isn't out yet...I haven't had the opportunity to try out Mozilla, but heard it was so-so. Although I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, IE is remarkably quick and stable on my NT box, and I've been kinda hoping that MS ports their browser to Linux (please spare me the childish "Micro$haft sux0rs, Netscape ru1es!" comments).
Are there any other browsers out there that I'm not aware of? If so, are they any good? If not, why not?
I don't know if it would work...but couldn't you just vary the brightness of a light to see if the pupil even reacts to to it? I would think that making the iris move appropriately for a dead eye would be a bigger pain than its worth ;-)