The kernel is filled with legacy backward-compatibility stuff from all the way back to Windows 3.1. Some time ago, there was this leaked Windows source code thing going on and someone extracted all the comments and made those available to read. I read through them and saw where there was a LOT of stuff written into the kernel that was there for the purpose of running old code.
Of course, if that old code isn't being run, then the legacy shims aren't being used and the fact that they just happen to be present in the source code is irrelevant.
To me, this is a backwards approach to things... the idea of writing the OS to run applications? The applications should be written for the OS.
Which is barely workable if your applications can always be updated to support the latest version of the OS. Reality dictates this is impossible.
(I recognize that if Microsoft took this proper approach, they'd risk people not upgrading to their latest OS because of their dependency on older applications that aren't updated, but then that's all part of their broken business model. An OS isn't supposed to be "the thing." It's supposed to be the software that enables access between the hardware and applications that *are* "the thing.")
Exactly. The OS is not the end, it is the means. It is critical that the OS continue to run all the applications. Hence the reason Microsoft go to extreme lengths to keep the applications running.
I'm fascinated at the mental disconnect necessary to argue one way (the OS is the most important thing) at the start of the paragraph then the opposite way (the apps are the most important thing) at the end. Does it give you a headache ?
If Windows 7 represents the "clean slate" that I hope it does, we might see a serious reduction in the amount of that sort of trouble which will make my life better.
It isn't and it won't. Not because of the software, but because of the users.
I disapprove of your attempt to disassociate the "bloated GUI" from OS. While it's technically correct, it's practically incorrect.
In the context of this discussion, it is most assuredly correct. If Microsoft were to "port" Vista to an iPhone-like device, the GUI would be the first thing to go.
If you're trying to say that Microsoft could write a new, more simple, GUI for the "Vista kernel" and make it run on lower-end hardware? You're probably right, but not without also modifying the kernel to pull out ALL that backward compatibility stuff.
Once again, just because it's in the source code doesn't mean it's always being used. Haven't you ever heard of an if statement ?
It's really hard to know if they can actually do that or not.
No, it's not hard at all. Of course they can.
Microsoft has testified in court that the GUI, and more specifically, Microsoft Internet Explorer, cannot be removed from the OS because it would break too many things. We know that Microsoft wouldn't lie in court, so it must be true... and so Microsoft would probably also disapprove of your attempt the disassociate the "bloated GUI" from the OS.
Yes, it would break things that the desktop version of Windows does. A version of Windows for an iPhone-like device would not be burdened by breaking this sort of breakage, therefore would not be limited in the same way.
(It's amazing people still go on and on about IE, despite all mainstream platforms now doing exactly the same thing.)
But isn't the GUI built-in to the kernel in Windows?
No.
For what it's worth, Vista ran like utter crap on my friends brand-new laptop until we upgraded the memory from 500MB (stock) to 2GB. This despite having turned off all of the eye-candy, making it look just like Windows 2000. Windows 2000 would have run all snappy-like on much less memory.
Windows 2000 would also have been doing a lot less.
It amazes me that, today, people still skimp on RAM when it is probably the single most important factor in overall system performance. 2G of RAM is not a lot, these days. Heck, it hasn't been for years - I got my first PC with 1G RAM nearly a decade ago.
Not without using a tool such as vLite to essentially strip Vista down to bare bones. And even then it runs like a dog. 8 year old hardware would be hardware from 2000. We are talking MAYBE a 1Ghz processor, (more likely 800Mgz) and probably either 128 or 256 Mb of RAM. That setup runs XP slowly. Vista, with all the extra overhead the larger kernel is running BARELY FUNCTIONS on a machine such as that.
In fact, my 2000-era PC was a 933Mhz P3 with 1G RAM. Fairly high-end for its day. The only upgrade I put into it was a newer video card and a bigger hard disk.
It's certainly no speed demon, but it does run Vista quite well enough for web browsing, email, and the like.
Now, with some extra RAM, that might have been sped up a bit.
In fact, the performance would increase nearly linearly with RAM up to 768Mb and see significant improvements even beyond that (much as, say, OS X does).
But in no way would it ever be able to run Vista in a manner that anyone would consider usable.
With a gig of RAM, a machine like that is quite usable for basic tasks.
Statements like "Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware..." make me wonder if these guys graduated at the top of their class at Captain Obvious University.
Particularly since Vista already runs on hardware that is, today, both low-priced and low-powered.
I know people who were used to Windows XP and managed to use a Macintosh running Leopard without any assistance (including figuring out how to use the touchpad with two fingers), but had real problems using Vista.
Given the UI differences between Vista and Windows _95_ (let alone XP) are almost all cosmetic, whereas the UI differences between any version of Windows and any version of MacOS [X] are most fundamental, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Anyone having trouble going XP to Vista is going to have substantially more trouble going XP to OS X. Unless, of course, they've got someone whispering in their ear about how much Vista sux0rs and how much OSX rawks.
I think that is the point. 5 years of development and one service pack later MS is still struggling to get Vista to run on the machines it was designed for.
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Heck, you can run Vista usably on hardware up to about 8 years old, with minor upgrades.
I am not aware of the detailed structure of Vista's kernel, but my guess would be it is unlikely to be easily scaled down - it is an OS that requires higher specifications than XP to do mundane tasks like file copying. That doesn't suggest efficiency and portability.
The "bloat" in Vista isn't the kernel, it's all the stuff that goes on top like the GUI.
If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.
That's because your objective is free software, but RMS's objective "Free" software.
Why is that? We just use an HDMI cable from our computer to our HDTV set when we want to use the computer for movies (including Netflix online movies). Even non-tech people could do that....(Plus I know a lot of people who love to watch movies on their laptop, though that is not us.)
Because you (by which I mean the average, tech-ignorant consumer) can't sit back on the couch with a beer and do everything from your remote control.
Has it been your experience that personal attack is an effective mechanism for winning others to your way of thinking?
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation of your comprehension skills.
But they are not. Some of my good friends live 30-50 miles from me.
Then you might need some alternative means of transport to make those trips (like, say, a rental car). I never suggested public transport was the only solution that should be available.
Let's assume that it's a 45 minute bus ride all the way across town. In my car, I can keep toys, books, emergency clothes, snacks and water to entertain the kids in case we run into trouble. If I want to do the same thing on public transport, I have to carry all of that stuff in addition to managing coats, diaper bag, etc. WAY too much hassle.
You have six kids, none of whom are capable of looking after themselves and helping you ?
Your argument assumes many more things besides creation of a public transport system. You assume that people *want* to live in cities.
Given the majority of the population in most modern societies live in cities, that seems to be a reasonable assumption.
People may not *want* to live in the city - I certainly don't - but practicality dicates that most of them do.
I don't. You assume that people will willingly change their way of thinking and living for the more "efficient " life oriented around city living.
Actually, I assume they will change because of the financial and lifestyle benefits a decent public transport system, and everything that comes along with it, delivers.
I'm glad that city life and public transport work for you. Anecdote does not equal data. Not everyone is like you.
In point of fact, in the scenario I was discussing, most people *are* like me (just like they are like everyone else). Each weekday, they get up in the morning and go to work in some fixed location, then come home at night. They need to buy food. They need to see a doctor. Etc. Most of their trips are predictable and between a small set of destinations also shared with large numbers of other people.
Most people, most of the times, are using their cars for trips that public transport can do quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.
I live about 25km from downtown Washington DC in a city of ~60K people. You assert that I should be able to get by solely on public transport? You can see *no* reason for me to own a car?
No, you idiot, I said WITH A DECENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM THERE SHOULD BE NO _NEED_ FOR ANYONE LIVING WITHIN 10-20KM OF THE CENTRE OF ANY REASONABLY LARGE CITY TO OWN A CAR.
Not that you shouldn't need one right not. Not that there would be no reason for you to own a car. Not that you shouldn't be allowed to own a car.
SIMPLY THAT WITH A DECENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO EASILY LIVE WITHOUT OWNING A CAR.
Let's throw out the idea that I need a car to get to work. I'll even pretend that if I was taking efficient public transport that my commute would not QUADRUPLE! I'll pretend that, but I don't believe that.
You should. Even a mediocre public transport system should make your commute quicker.
Is it reasonable to expect that I will load all of these items onto public transport and lug them from the nearest bus top to my house?
No. Get it delivered, get a taxi or use a short-term car rental.
What about when I need to buy materials for home improvement, for car maintenance, to buy large/heavy tools, etc.
Get it delivered, get a taxi or use a short-term car rental.
What about when my family wants to visit someone?
Assuming they're within the same city limits I described, you should be able to get to their house via public transport easily.
Should I really load six kids onto the bus when they have a play date?
Why not ?
What if I have a sick kid who needs to go the pediatrician? Do you want my kid sitting near you?
Get a taxi.
Public transport is not always the answer.
At no point did I suggest it was. I was merely highlighting the fact that with a decent public transport system, ownership of a car is optional. The vast majority of people's travel is between points that either are, or should be, accessible with public transport.
Your error is assuming nothing will change except you won't have a car.
I can tell that you have no children. I have 4 kids and every grocery store trip fills our trunk. Will the public bus let me use 4 seats to place my groceries? How about the cart i need to wheel them home from the bus stop?
No.
* Your local grocery store will deliver.
* Taxis.
* Short-term (pay by the hour) vehicle rental locations within 20 minutes of your house.
Will they let me strap in a booster and child seat when i take my kids to the Science center?
Out of all of this you neglected to refute the fact that my wife would be adding 30% or more time to her already 8-10 hour trip to her parents every weekend by traveling to town to get the car, or are you saying that there will be day car rental shops within 5 minutes of everyone's house?
Actually I did, by pointing out that in a decent system there should be such a rental facility within 20 minutes of anyone's house. That doesn't mean "it will take 20 minutes to get there", either, it means "it should take no longer than 20 minutes and for most people would be less".
I also pointed out that driving 60 miles to do some laundry, is perhaps a poor allocation of time and resources.
I was assuming that the public transportation would have a stop right at our house. But then a 15km travel into the city (You did say upto 20km away) to get the car rental, then 15km back to the apt to get the laundry, etc. not counting the time it takes to return the car that night.
You would not be required to travel into the city, simply the nearest hub (which, as I stated, should be no more than 20 minutes away).
I assume you don't have children? As I said, your proposal would be find for someone without a family, but is very questionable for a family.
I dont, however, I know many people who do and use public transport frequently, in the style I have described.
I'm not limiting myself to relatively high-density urban areas. I explained that below.
I am. Hence the reason my original post said:
[...] within 10-20km of the centre of any reasonably large city (few hundred thousand people and up) [...]
These questions were answered in my original post. Please read the whole post before responding so you don't ask questions that I have already answered.
Sorry, you appeared to be implying travel other than a weekly trip by your wife and a bi-monthly trip by the two of you. I had assumed you were referring to commuting, shopping, etc.
Not practical. Get 2 kids together, pay for public transportation for her and 2 kids to go the 15KM into town where the rental place is, then pay for the rental for 1 day of the rental car, drive back the 15KM to our house to pick up 4-5 baskets of laundry, then drive 90KM to parents house. Watch the kids, do laundry, visit with her parents, etc. Then ~8-10 hours later, drive back to our apartment, drop off the laundry, drive the 15KM to the car rental place, drop off car, get public transportation back to home, and get kids to bed.
Again, you seem to be having trouble with the differences between how the system is _now_ rather than how it _should_ be. With a good system, your first hop (be it bus or suburban train) should be no more than a 5-10 minute walk away. This would take you to a larger hub another 5-10 minutes away where you can catch expresses between major hubs, possibly inter-city trains. It is also where short-term vehicle rental/car-share agencies like this one have a presence for when you need a car. Such hubs would also have sufficient commercial presence to meet regular and frequent needs (groceries, doctor, chemist, post office, "government office", etc).
Added to which, arguing that you need a car because you travel 90km to do some laundry is not particularly compelling.
How much extra time does that use up each week? That doesn't even count things like dance class, music class, girl scouts, etc.
All of which would be accessible with a _decent_ public transport system.
Not really nothing.
Sorry, nothing _useful_. I thought that part would have been obvious.
It *is* a 4 hour drive, (No one drives the speed limit) and that works out to 2 movies and lunch. Since we do the round tripe drive once every 2 months at most, it's not an issue for them to watch TV for the drive. We also time it so they'll sleep a good portion of the drive (Leave at their bedtime the night before instead of driving during the day, etc)
So with a decent system you simply take a late train the night before or an early train the next morning. You still have the advantages of getting there quicker, not being fatigued from a drive, not having wasted 4 hours of your life, etc, etc.
Cheaper is not always better. There are a *very* large number of instances where not having a car is a bad thing. Children need to be picked up at a friends house early because of illness/lonelyness, etc.
Your children need to be picked up early ? Catch a bus/train/tram over and get them. "Emergency" ? Get in a taxi.
I have never suggested simply having a car is a bad thing. I am merely saying that with a decent public transport system no-one in a city should feel it _necessary_ to own a car. I have lived in small country towns where cars are genuinely necessary, I have lived in cities with fairly good public transport where cars are optional (Sydney) and I am currently living in a city where it's definitely not necessary (Zurich). When I was living in Sydney, even when I had a car I only drove it infrequently (mainly for recreation). I've only been in Zurich for a few months, but I certainly can't see any reason to own a car here. The public transport (both within the city and between cities) is excellent and cheap, and car-sharing/short-ter
I don't think you understand how big the United States actually is, and how spread out people are here.
I'm from Australia. I think I've got a reasonably good handle on spread out populations in large landmasses.
OTOH, I don't think _you_ realise just how well a co-ordinated, comprehensive public transport system can work. Particularly when you're only limiting yourself to relatively high-density urban areas.
I live within this 10-20 KM os the center of a city, but routinely have to travel.
How frequently ? To where ? What stops you using public transport ? What would allow you to ?
Weekly my wife drives to her mother's house, which is about 60 miles away.
So once a week she grabs a short term rental car and drives over there.
I am *not* making those trips with 2 young children on any form of public transportation.
Instead of having to strap your children into the back of a car for ~4-5 hours and concentrate on driving, you can interact with them for 2-3 hours and arrive at your destination earlier, less stressed and having possibly spent the time getting there doing something useful rather that sitting in a car doing nothing.
(Bonus, this will almost certainly be cheaper than actually owning and running multiple cars.)
Clarification: in my previous post I was talking about owning a vehicle for "personal use" and excluding people for who it is a necessary part of their work (builders, electricians, etc). Note that "commuting" isn't a "necessary part of work" with decent public transport (although why anyone would *prefer* to drive in the presence of a decent public transport system is beyond me). I should also emphasise that I don't believe people shouldn't be allowed to have cars, merely that they shouldn't feel like owning one is required to make life livable.
Invest in decent public transport. There should be no _need_ for anyone living within 10-20km of the centre of any reasonably large city (few hundred thousand people and up) to own a car.
Is that actually true for OS X? I've heard that many releases actually ran faster than their predecessors.
While this is true, you have to keep it in context - early versions of OS X were noticably slow, even on the top-end hardware of the day. The hardware caught up to OS X around 10.4.
This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?
No, it does not. With MacOS "Classic" Apple had a single user OS with no memory protection, no pre-emptive multitasking, no multiprocessor support, nothing. Their OS was a technological relic.
With NT, Microsoft has an OS with everything Linux has to offer, plus more. Why on Earth would they throw that all away to create Yet Another Linux Dustribution ?
The way CEO performance is measured goes like this. When the company the CEO is heading does well, the CEO gets the credit. When the company the CEO is heading goes down the tubes, there's an excuse like "bad economic climate", "piracy" or something else.
Exactly. It's the same as religion:
Things go well - Praise the Lord ! Without him we'd all be fucked.
Things go badly - it's part of his "greater plan" or "we weren't worthy" or some other such bullshit.
I have watched them buy out companies just to take the products off the market because someday they might compete. You may call it "Typical Corporate" behavior and in many cases you are right. But Microsoft has always treaded on the edge of "evil". Moreso than most other corporate entities.
Not even close. Consider industries like pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, pornography, mining (to mention but a few). You want to talk about "evil" ? Those are companies destroying local environments, massively exploiting local workers, destroying people's lives, killing their customers, etc.
On the "1-10 corporate evilness" scale, Microsoft would struggle to even make a '4'. About the worst thing you could accuse them of doing is putting another company out of business.
Like I said. Sheltered life, or a meangingless definition of "evil".
Great, so you post a bunch of links to some random person's blog who spends a lot of time writing anti-MS screeds, and that's supposed to convince anybody?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misspelled "DRM".
No DRM-encumbered media, no DRM. Your argument fails.
The kernel is filled with legacy backward-compatibility stuff from all the way back to Windows 3.1. Some time ago, there was this leaked Windows source code thing going on and someone extracted all the comments and made those available to read. I read through them and saw where there was a LOT of stuff written into the kernel that was there for the purpose of running old code.
Of course, if that old code isn't being run, then the legacy shims aren't being used and the fact that they just happen to be present in the source code is irrelevant.
To me, this is a backwards approach to things... the idea of writing the OS to run applications? The applications should be written for the OS.
Which is barely workable if your applications can always be updated to support the latest version of the OS. Reality dictates this is impossible.
(I recognize that if Microsoft took this proper approach, they'd risk people not upgrading to their latest OS because of their dependency on older applications that aren't updated, but then that's all part of their broken business model. An OS isn't supposed to be "the thing." It's supposed to be the software that enables access between the hardware and applications that *are* "the thing.")
Exactly. The OS is not the end, it is the means. It is critical that the OS continue to run all the applications. Hence the reason Microsoft go to extreme lengths to keep the applications running.
I'm fascinated at the mental disconnect necessary to argue one way (the OS is the most important thing) at the start of the paragraph then the opposite way (the apps are the most important thing) at the end. Does it give you a headache ?
If Windows 7 represents the "clean slate" that I hope it does, we might see a serious reduction in the amount of that sort of trouble which will make my life better.
It isn't and it won't. Not because of the software, but because of the users.
I disapprove of your attempt to disassociate the "bloated GUI" from OS. While it's technically correct, it's practically incorrect.
In the context of this discussion, it is most assuredly correct. If Microsoft were to "port" Vista to an iPhone-like device, the GUI would be the first thing to go.
If you're trying to say that Microsoft could write a new, more simple, GUI for the "Vista kernel" and make it run on lower-end hardware? You're probably right, but not without also modifying the kernel to pull out ALL that backward compatibility stuff.
Once again, just because it's in the source code doesn't mean it's always being used. Haven't you ever heard of an if statement ?
It's really hard to know if they can actually do that or not.
No, it's not hard at all. Of course they can.
Microsoft has testified in court that the GUI, and more specifically, Microsoft Internet Explorer, cannot be removed from the OS because it would break too many things. We know that Microsoft wouldn't lie in court, so it must be true... and so Microsoft would probably also disapprove of your attempt the disassociate the "bloated GUI" from the OS.
Yes, it would break things that the desktop version of Windows does. A version of Windows for an iPhone-like device would not be burdened by breaking this sort of breakage, therefore would not be limited in the same way.
(It's amazing people still go on and on about IE, despite all mainstream platforms now doing exactly the same thing.)
But isn't the GUI built-in to the kernel in Windows?
No.
For what it's worth, Vista ran like utter crap on my friends brand-new laptop until we upgraded the memory from 500MB (stock) to 2GB. This despite having turned off all of the eye-candy, making it look just like Windows 2000. Windows 2000 would have run all snappy-like on much less memory.
Windows 2000 would also have been doing a lot less.
It amazes me that, today, people still skimp on RAM when it is probably the single most important factor in overall system performance. 2G of RAM is not a lot, these days. Heck, it hasn't been for years - I got my first PC with 1G RAM nearly a decade ago.
No.
Yes. I know, because I've done it.
Not without using a tool such as vLite to essentially strip Vista down to bare bones. And even then it runs like a dog. 8 year old hardware would be hardware from 2000. We are talking MAYBE a 1Ghz processor, (more likely 800Mgz) and probably either 128 or 256 Mb of RAM. That setup runs XP slowly. Vista, with all the extra overhead the larger kernel is running BARELY FUNCTIONS on a machine such as that.
In fact, my 2000-era PC was a 933Mhz P3 with 1G RAM. Fairly high-end for its day. The only upgrade I put into it was a newer video card and a bigger hard disk.
It's certainly no speed demon, but it does run Vista quite well enough for web browsing, email, and the like.
Now, with some extra RAM, that might have been sped up a bit.
In fact, the performance would increase nearly linearly with RAM up to 768Mb and see significant improvements even beyond that (much as, say, OS X does).
But in no way would it ever be able to run Vista in a manner that anyone would consider usable.
With a gig of RAM, a machine like that is quite usable for basic tasks.
Not quite. Vista was designed to run on high end machines, however Vista was marketed to be able to run on not-so high end machines.
A Ghz-class machine with 1+GB of RAM hasn't been "high end" for 5+ years.
"Low end" today is a dual core machine with 2G RAM - and it'll run Vista fine.
Statements like "Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware..." make me wonder if these guys graduated at the top of their class at Captain Obvious University.
Particularly since Vista already runs on hardware that is, today, both low-priced and low-powered.
I know people who were used to Windows XP and managed to use a Macintosh running Leopard without any assistance (including figuring out how to use the touchpad with two fingers), but had real problems using Vista.
Given the UI differences between Vista and Windows _95_ (let alone XP) are almost all cosmetic, whereas the UI differences between any version of Windows and any version of MacOS [X] are most fundamental, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Anyone having trouble going XP to Vista is going to have substantially more trouble going XP to OS X. Unless, of course, they've got someone whispering in their ear about how much Vista sux0rs and how much OSX rawks.
I think that is the point. 5 years of development and one service pack later MS is still struggling to get Vista to run on the machines it was designed for.
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Heck, you can run Vista usably on hardware up to about 8 years old, with minor upgrades.
I am not aware of the detailed structure of Vista's kernel, but my guess would be it is unlikely to be easily scaled down - it is an OS that requires higher specifications than XP to do mundane tasks like file copying. That doesn't suggest efficiency and portability.
The "bloat" in Vista isn't the kernel, it's all the stuff that goes on top like the GUI.
This is interesting. Languages spoken as a secondary tongue. I wonder why so many speakers use French as a second language?
French colonisation (especially in Africa).
The biggest problem I find with civil penalty is that it can often be inadequate to act as a genuine deterrent.
If a law requires a severe punishment to deter people from breaking it, then it's probably a bad law.
If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.
That's because your objective is free software, but RMS's objective "Free" software.
Why is that? We just use an HDMI cable from our computer to our HDTV set when we want to use the computer for movies (including Netflix online movies). Even non-tech people could do that....(Plus I know a lot of people who love to watch movies on their laptop, though that is not us.)
Because you (by which I mean the average, tech-ignorant consumer) can't sit back on the couch with a beer and do everything from your remote control.
Has it been your experience that personal attack is an effective mechanism for winning others to your way of thinking?
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation of your comprehension skills.
But they are not. Some of my good friends live 30-50 miles from me.
Then you might need some alternative means of transport to make those trips (like, say, a rental car). I never suggested public transport was the only solution that should be available.
Let's assume that it's a 45 minute bus ride all the way across town. In my car, I can keep toys, books, emergency clothes, snacks and water to entertain the kids in case we run into trouble. If I want to do the same thing on public transport, I have to carry all of that stuff in addition to managing coats, diaper bag, etc. WAY too much hassle.
You have six kids, none of whom are capable of looking after themselves and helping you ?
Your argument assumes many more things besides creation of a public transport system. You assume that people *want* to live in cities.
Given the majority of the population in most modern societies live in cities, that seems to be a reasonable assumption.
People may not *want* to live in the city - I certainly don't - but practicality dicates that most of them do.
I don't. You assume that people will willingly change their way of thinking and living for the more "efficient " life oriented around city living.
Actually, I assume they will change because of the financial and lifestyle benefits a decent public transport system, and everything that comes along with it, delivers.
I'm glad that city life and public transport work for you. Anecdote does not equal data. Not everyone is like you.
In point of fact, in the scenario I was discussing, most people *are* like me (just like they are like everyone else). Each weekday, they get up in the morning and go to work in some fixed location, then come home at night. They need to buy food. They need to see a doctor. Etc. Most of their trips are predictable and between a small set of destinations also shared with large numbers of other people.
Most people, most of the times, are using their cars for trips that public transport can do quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.
I live about 25km from downtown Washington DC in a city of ~60K people. You assert that I should be able to get by solely on public transport? You can see *no* reason for me to own a car?
No, you idiot, I said WITH A DECENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM THERE SHOULD BE NO _NEED_ FOR ANYONE LIVING WITHIN 10-20KM OF THE CENTRE OF ANY REASONABLY LARGE CITY TO OWN A CAR .
Not that you shouldn't need one right not. Not that there would be no reason for you to own a car. Not that you shouldn't be allowed to own a car.
SIMPLY THAT WITH A DECENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO EASILY LIVE WITHOUT OWNING A CAR.
Let's throw out the idea that I need a car to get to work. I'll even pretend that if I was taking efficient public transport that my commute would not QUADRUPLE! I'll pretend that, but I don't believe that.
You should. Even a mediocre public transport system should make your commute quicker.
Is it reasonable to expect that I will load all of these items onto public transport and lug them from the nearest bus top to my house?
No. Get it delivered, get a taxi or use a short-term car rental.
What about when I need to buy materials for home improvement, for car maintenance, to buy large/heavy tools, etc.
Get it delivered, get a taxi or use a short-term car rental.
What about when my family wants to visit someone?
Assuming they're within the same city limits I described, you should be able to get to their house via public transport easily.
Should I really load six kids onto the bus when they have a play date?
Why not ?
What if I have a sick kid who needs to go the pediatrician? Do you want my kid sitting near you?
Get a taxi.
Public transport is not always the answer.
At no point did I suggest it was. I was merely highlighting the fact that with a decent public transport system, ownership of a car is optional. The vast majority of people's travel is between points that either are, or should be, accessible with public transport.
Your error is assuming nothing will change except you won't have a car.
Are you serious???
Very.
I can tell that you have no children. I have 4 kids and every grocery store trip fills our trunk. Will the public bus let me use 4 seats to place my groceries? How about the cart i need to wheel them home from the bus stop?
No.
* Your local grocery store will deliver.
* Taxis.
* Short-term (pay by the hour) vehicle rental locations within 20 minutes of your house.
Will they let me strap in a booster and child seat when i take my kids to the Science center?
No, nor will they need to.
Out of all of this you neglected to refute the fact that my wife would be adding 30% or more time to her already 8-10 hour trip to her parents every weekend by traveling to town to get the car, or are you saying that there will be day car rental shops within 5 minutes of everyone's house?
Actually I did, by pointing out that in a decent system there should be such a rental facility within 20 minutes of anyone's house. That doesn't mean "it will take 20 minutes to get there", either, it means "it should take no longer than 20 minutes and for most people would be less".
I also pointed out that driving 60 miles to do some laundry, is perhaps a poor allocation of time and resources.
I was assuming that the public transportation would have a stop right at our house. But then a 15km travel into the city (You did say upto 20km away) to get the car rental, then 15km back to the apt to get the laundry, etc. not counting the time it takes to return the car that night.
You would not be required to travel into the city, simply the nearest hub (which, as I stated, should be no more than 20 minutes away).
I assume you don't have children? As I said, your proposal would be find for someone without a family, but is very questionable for a family.
I dont, however, I know many people who do and use public transport frequently, in the style I have described.
I'm not limiting myself to relatively high-density urban areas. I explained that below.
I am. Hence the reason my original post said:
[...] within 10-20km of the centre of any reasonably large city (few hundred thousand people and up) [...]
These questions were answered in my original post. Please read the whole post before responding so you don't ask questions that I have already answered.
Sorry, you appeared to be implying travel other than a weekly trip by your wife and a bi-monthly trip by the two of you. I had assumed you were referring to commuting, shopping, etc.
Not practical. Get 2 kids together, pay for public transportation for her and 2 kids to go the 15KM into town where the rental place is, then pay for the rental for 1 day of the rental car, drive back the 15KM to our house to pick up 4-5 baskets of laundry, then drive 90KM to parents house. Watch the kids, do laundry, visit with her parents, etc. Then ~8-10 hours later, drive back to our apartment, drop off the laundry, drive the 15KM to the car rental place, drop off car, get public transportation back to home, and get kids to bed.
Again, you seem to be having trouble with the differences between how the system is _now_ rather than how it _should_ be. With a good system, your first hop (be it bus or suburban train) should be no more than a 5-10 minute walk away. This would take you to a larger hub another 5-10 minutes away where you can catch expresses between major hubs, possibly inter-city trains. It is also where short-term vehicle rental/car-share agencies like this one have a presence for when you need a car. Such hubs would also have sufficient commercial presence to meet regular and frequent needs (groceries, doctor, chemist, post office, "government office", etc).
Added to which, arguing that you need a car because you travel 90km to do some laundry is not particularly compelling.
How much extra time does that use up each week? That doesn't even count things like dance class, music class, girl scouts, etc.
All of which would be accessible with a _decent_ public transport system.
Not really nothing.
Sorry, nothing _useful_. I thought that part would have been obvious.
It *is* a 4 hour drive, (No one drives the speed limit) and that works out to 2 movies and lunch. Since we do the round tripe drive once every 2 months at most, it's not an issue for them to watch TV for the drive. We also time it so they'll sleep a good portion of the drive (Leave at their bedtime the night before instead of driving during the day, etc)
So with a decent system you simply take a late train the night before or an early train the next morning. You still have the advantages of getting there quicker, not being fatigued from a drive, not having wasted 4 hours of your life, etc, etc.
Cheaper is not always better. There are a *very* large number of instances where not having a car is a bad thing. Children need to be picked up at a friends house early because of illness/lonelyness, etc.
Your children need to be picked up early ? Catch a bus/train/tram over and get them. "Emergency" ? Get in a taxi.
I have never suggested simply having a car is a bad thing. I am merely saying that with a decent public transport system no-one in a city should feel it _necessary_ to own a car. I have lived in small country towns where cars are genuinely necessary, I have lived in cities with fairly good public transport where cars are optional (Sydney) and I am currently living in a city where it's definitely not necessary (Zurich). When I was living in Sydney, even when I had a car I only drove it infrequently (mainly for recreation). I've only been in Zurich for a few months, but I certainly can't see any reason to own a car here. The public transport (both within the city and between cities) is excellent and cheap, and car-sharing/short-ter
I don't think you understand how big the United States actually is, and how spread out people are here.
I'm from Australia. I think I've got a reasonably good handle on spread out populations in large landmasses.
OTOH, I don't think _you_ realise just how well a co-ordinated, comprehensive public transport system can work. Particularly when you're only limiting yourself to relatively high-density urban areas.
I live within this 10-20 KM os the center of a city, but routinely have to travel.
How frequently ? To where ? What stops you using public transport ? What would allow you to ?
Weekly my wife drives to her mother's house, which is about 60 miles away.
So once a week she grabs a short term rental car and drives over there.
I am *not* making those trips with 2 young children on any form of public transportation.
Instead of having to strap your children into the back of a car for ~4-5 hours and concentrate on driving, you can interact with them for 2-3 hours and arrive at your destination earlier, less stressed and having possibly spent the time getting there doing something useful rather that sitting in a car doing nothing.
(Bonus, this will almost certainly be cheaper than actually owning and running multiple cars.)
Clarification: in my previous post I was talking about owning a vehicle for "personal use" and excluding people for who it is a necessary part of their work (builders, electricians, etc). Note that "commuting" isn't a "necessary part of work" with decent public transport (although why anyone would *prefer* to drive in the presence of a decent public transport system is beyond me). I should also emphasise that I don't believe people shouldn't be allowed to have cars, merely that they shouldn't feel like owning one is required to make life livable.
Invest in decent public transport. There should be no _need_ for anyone living within 10-20km of the centre of any reasonably large city (few hundred thousand people and up) to own a car.
Yeah well, I felt the value came sometime around SP2 with the firewall.
Windows XP had a firewall from it's first release.
(So did Windows 2000, for that matter, albeit less use friendly.)
Is that actually true for OS X? I've heard that many releases actually ran faster than their predecessors.
While this is true, you have to keep it in context - early versions of OS X were noticably slow, even on the top-end hardware of the day. The hardware caught up to OS X around 10.4.
Windows has never, ever been that bad.
This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?
No, it does not. With MacOS "Classic" Apple had a single user OS with no memory protection, no pre-emptive multitasking, no multiprocessor support, nothing. Their OS was a technological relic.
With NT, Microsoft has an OS with everything Linux has to offer, plus more. Why on Earth would they throw that all away to create Yet Another Linux Dustribution ?
The way CEO performance is measured goes like this. When the company the CEO is heading does well, the CEO gets the credit. When the company the CEO is heading goes down the tubes, there's an excuse like "bad economic climate", "piracy" or something else.
Exactly. It's the same as religion:
Things go well - Praise the Lord ! Without him we'd all be fucked.
Things go badly - it's part of his "greater plan" or "we weren't worthy" or some other such bullshit.
I have watched them buy out companies just to take the products off the market because someday they might compete. You may call it "Typical Corporate" behavior and in many cases you are right. But Microsoft has always treaded on the edge of "evil". Moreso than most other corporate entities.
Not even close. Consider industries like pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, pornography, mining (to mention but a few). You want to talk about "evil" ? Those are companies destroying local environments, massively exploiting local workers, destroying people's lives, killing their customers, etc.
On the "1-10 corporate evilness" scale, Microsoft would struggle to even make a '4'. About the worst thing you could accuse them of doing is putting another company out of business.
Like I said. Sheltered life, or a meangingless definition of "evil".
Great, so you post a bunch of links to some random person's blog who spends a lot of time writing anti-MS screeds, and that's supposed to convince anybody?
It's actually his own blog.