I pointed out to Cory that somebody in the TSA obviously saw the animated movie "Madagascar" where penguins mastermind a zoo outbreak, then hijack the ship sending the animals back to Africa.
When the police raid the zoo, the penguin leader says, "We've been ratted out, boys! Cute and cuddly...cute and cuddly..."
One of the characters in the movie has the line: "The penguins are psychotic!" The scriptwriter must have been reading DiDio's rants.
When I saw the trailer, I had the urge to shout, "Linux rules!" in the theater. But I suppressed myself.
"Windows is better for some applications, and Linux is better for others."
That would work if that was the issue.
It isn't.
Apps can be changed, and new ones are being created for Linux all the time. As more corporations adopt Linux (and open source in general), and as more programmers see the benefits of designing with free OSS, you will see the application gap narrow considerably.
Which leaves the underlying technology as the real issue: does Windows have the performance, reliability, security, and enhanceability of Linux?
No, it doesn't. And as long as Bill Gates is running Microsoft, it won't.
The problem, as I've stated elswhere, is design philosophy. Windows is a competitive corporate product that emphasizes "features" at the expense of all other issues for marketing reasons. Linux is intended to be a quality OS that does what is needed by actual users well.
This fundamental difference accounts for the superiority of Linux.
And this difference is far more important than whether any given vertical app happens to run on Linux or Windows at any given point in time.
"Cost of deployment / migration: it is this simple -- if you have a pre-existing IT staff that is trained exclusively in windows, windows will be cheaper. If you have an IT staff educated in linux, it will be MUCH cheaper."
Your pre-existing IT staff is your problem. If they can't learn Linux prior to a rollout, they're incompetent - first because you don't rollout a system you don't understand, and second because they can't learn something new.
As I've stated repeatedly, rollout and migration are the least of your worries. Ongoing performance, maintenance, security, and reliability problems will cost you much more over a system's lifetime than the install costs. Everybody knows this is true in software, but nobody seems to want to admit it in the case of operating systems.
And those issues favor Linux.
Also, corporation are loath to admit that control over your IT environment is a business advantage as opposed to outsourcing it to Microsoft or whoever. Here again, Linux is superior.
"This goes with TCO, etc. When it comes to stability, security, management, operation, these things will all be relative -- once again, to the competence of your IT staff (how and why they use what they use, how everything is implemented, etc.)."
This merely restates the obvious. A competent Windows sysadmin can MINIMIZE system disruptions - once he learns about them. The problem is: it's going to cost him and his company to learn about them.
A competent Linux sys admin is going to be in the same boat - except that the experience of corporations that have made the switch indicates that there will be fewer system disruptions to begin with.
This is entirely due to OS design issues.
And THAT's the reason there is an issue about which OS to deploy.
Windows is written from the standpoint of "features" (most of which are irrelevant to any given set of users) which are complicated, hard to learn (I'm talking system configurtion issues here, not how an end user clicks on a menu item), and cause instability and security problems with the OS.
Linux is written from the standpoint of quality - to produce an OS that does everything needed and does so well. Linux is not perfect, but without the commercial motivation to get a product with the most "features" out the door in a given time frame, it just stands to reason - and has been proven by academic quality studies and performance measurements - that Linux is a better-written OS.
That - and the intangible benefit of having control over your systems - is why it is important to consider the OS being used in a given company.
And those issues outweigh most of the so-called "TCO" issues like "training" and "administration".
His networking issues are almost certainly due to Windows.
Windows is too complicated to function properly OR to understand what it's doing when it doesn't function properly. That simple.
As I mentioned in another topic the other day, merely trying to get Group Policy to apply permissions to a person in an Organization Unit did not work properly in a COLLEGE LAB SETTING. And nobody including the teacher could figure out why. This was a TEXTBOOK EXERCISE that Windows 2003 Server could not handle properly - and for which no way to debug the issue could be found. It was simply a "mystery" why it didn't work. And no minor MCSE was likely to figure out why.
Multiply that kind of thing in a real-world commercial environment, and yes, you are going to have serious software problems with Windows that are not likely to exist in Linux. And those problems will require experts in that software to resolve, not your ordinary sys admin. You can pay Microsoft $275 or you can hire a consultant for $100-500/hour - either of whom may have to spend five hours resolving the issue.
At least in Linux, you can look at a text file and either SEE what the hell is wrong or figure it out with a little help from Google or a conference.
"3) Hire a Linux consultant. Probably $100+/hr for a minimum of 5 hours plus whatever it would cost later."
So what's the problem? The app cost you $25? It has no business benefit? Compare the costs of the app and its business benefit over its lifespan to the cost of that consultant - almost certainly trivial and irrelevant.
BTW, your Solaris guy should have been able to make Linux work if he was smart enough to do some Googling to tide him over the rough sports. Five minutes of Google would have given you Werner Puschitz's Web site (and there are others) telling you how to install Oracle on every Red Hat version.
Finally, again, whereas you think a Windows install was the cheapest solution, it wouldn't have been if the project hadn't been canceled. It was only the most CONVENIENT solution - which is not the same thing at all.
Which means YOU are the one considering the cost of the OS and its install as the only factor to be considered.
ALL other factors (security, reliability, performance, upgradeability) - including the "intangibles" of having control of your OS and your app - favor Linux.
Network card unsupported: Swap out network card for some $20 item at Fry's. This isn't rocket science.
Oracle won't install:
First of all, you should have realized from second one that Oracle only supports certain Linux distros. Not knowing this was simply stupid.
Second, Google for Werner Puschitz Web site which will tell you how to install Oracle on all Red Hat Linux versions. Oracle makes a piss-poor install procedure in any event. Ridiculously complicated like everything Oracle makes. Hardly the fault of Linux.
Finally, your overall cost of running your Oracle app on Windows WILL end up costing you MUCH more than the same app on Linux - the install cost is irrelevant compared to the eventual problems with security, reliability, performance, etc.
Or it would have been if the project hadn't been discontinued. You would have learned something by running the app on both systems for a year and counting the reboots and maintenance problems.
TCO is mostly air. It's a justification by major companies for a subscription license scheme and/or a way to gain control of a corporation's IT operation so they can charge ever higher prices.
The primary cost of Windows is poor performance, poor security, poor reliability, and poor design - all of which will eventually cost a company MUCH MORE than "training" (which companies don't do anyway - and do badly when they do) or "administration" ("administration" is what you do when your server doesn't work in the first place.)
Cost of hardware is irrelevant - except for the fact that 1) Windows offers half the performance of Linux, and 2) Microsoft recommends a separate box for each server function. The two combined massively increases their license revenue.
And his example is exactly why Linux is better than Windows - or didn't you read the part about "no maintenance" on the Linux box versus weekly maintenance on the Windows box. Windows servers are NOT reliable - they fail regularly for no good reason and in some cases the cause of failure cannot even be determined. If a Linux box fails, it's because of something stupid like nobody clearing out/tmp or it's a hardware failure.
Finally, studies NOT commissioned by Microsoft indicate that even the so-called "TCO" is lower with Linux than Windows. And that is backed by numerous anecdotal stories of companies who have actually done the switch.
"Fedora's installer tries to relax you regarding Grub, but most of the time forcing LBA32 is needed or it sits there doing nothing at boot."
What ARE you babbling about?
I installed Fedora Core 3 a couple weeks ago. GRUB works fine.
I've NEVER had a problem with LILO or GRUB booting the system after install. And that's dual booting with Windows.
If you meant LBA48 (greater than 137GB disk support), that's been in the kernel since Red Hat 7.3. (Whereas Windows 2000 below Service Pack 4 will trash your system if you put it on a HD > 137GB.)
You said "enterprise servers" in the same sentence as Windows.
Windows is at best a departmental level server. It can't hold a candle to the UNIX OS's as an "enterprise level" server. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "carrier grade" Windows.
They put Windows on the Navy's Yorktown ship. They had to tow it back to port.
They put Linux on the nuclear subs - hardened and tested. The difference is engineers do the OS decision on the subs and bureacrats do it for Navy ships.
That's nice - compare a bare bones Linux install to a full-up VAR installation.
Makes a lot of sense.
There are VARS who will do all that on Linux (assuming the specific apps you mention are available on Linux, which I haven't looked into.)
And the VARS who do that with Windows are JUST as high-priced as ones who do it on Linux - in fact, probably more so since they have to pay for (or charge you) for the Windows server licenses.
And don't forget, Microsoft recommends a DIFFERENT server - i.e., one more license and one more machine cost - for EVERY Windows server type. Now you know why Windows servers have half the performance of Linux servers.
"BTW, If you *need* apps that only exist on one platform, you should probably stick with that platform"
Which is the fundamental mistake for any company that does that.
Sooner or later (unless that app was made directly by IBM or Microsoft or a company on that scale), the company that made that app is going to go bust - or simply stop supporting that app - or replace it with a more expensive version.
Any company that does mission critical work on a proprietary app is going to end up like Linus with BitKeeper.
Better to spend the money now to avoid that fate than have to spend it when you can't afford it later.
It is NOT foolish to do a custom build of a shrinkwrap app. And the more critical the app, the more important it is to do that. Because it restores control to the person who uses that app.
The cost of development is irrelevant (depending on the cash flow needed to support that development). The cost of maintenance is greater, but still not significant if the app has mission-critical importance (obviously you don't rebuild a minor utility that cost you $25). These are bean-counter notions. And bean-counters will always sell you short to save a couple bucks. Nobody running a company should care what the bean-counters say - unless they tell you there's no more revenue and no more profit. Accountants are supposed to tell you how you're doing - not tell you what to do.
It's not hard to find someone to work cheap to build or maintain a custom app - especially today when the IT market sucks. And if your IT department has some notion of quality (oh, wait, forget I said that), then the in-house app is likely to be as good or better than the commercial app - at the very least it will match your needs better. The cost of programmer and system design and maintenance time is small compared to the business benefit of the app.
I realize nobody believes this because it flies against the grain of conventional IT wisdowm.
Sorry - conventional IT wisdom, like all conventional wisdom, is simply wrong.
Management is about lying about the need for management. It's primate hierarchy in organizational terms.
They therefore love liars who reinforce that lie.
Humans will ALWAYS - ALWAYS - make the wrong decision given two or more options. They will do this to spite the person with the correct option. Because if that person is "right", then they're "wrong" - and if they're "wrong", they're dead - and that can't be allowed. So they're "right" and the other person is "wrong".
Human psychology is that simple. It's only the EXPRESSION of that psychology that occasionally gets complex.
No manager can make a correct decision because that action by itself conflicts with his primary purpose.
when I supported conglomerations of nested spreadsheets for Bank of America's Microstar cash management software customers. We had customers with fifty linked spreadsheets - totally idiotic.
Spreadsheets should be used for one thing - adding up your personal expenses.
Everything else needs a database and a good reporting tool.
Companies who rely on employees using spreadsheets to manipulate mission critical numbers are just asking to end up like Enron and WorldCom - guilty or not.
"64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."
Seriously, yesterday I was downloading tons of babe pictures from model sites using FireFox. Windows XP repeatedly told me my virtual memory space was too low and it was upping it, and while doing so, requests for memory might be denied. Whereupon the system got noticeably slower. Rebooting solved the problem for a while, but after another hour or two, it happened again.
So either FireFox has a serious memory leak, or Windows just can't handle memory no matter how much it has. I have 512MB and the only other thing running besides my usual tray utilities was my file manager. The same config right now shows only around 256MB being used with a peak of 300+MB.
Besides, who cares? Having more access to memory merely means Microsoft will bloat Windows with more "features" that nobody uses, anyway.
Well, now's the time to bring up Bill's famous quote about how Microsoft could hire twice as many women as men for half the pay to do the grunt work because "they're only women".
It's in the book "Hard Drive".
Always wondered what Melinda thought about that...but then, when a woman get s chance to marry a billionaire, feminism is the last thing on her mind.
While I would normally agree with this stance, it also has the effect of making their software crap since they spend no serious efforts making it better - they just add more failure-prone and insecure "features".
Slashdot Mirror
"12.5% said she was a mindless whore."
Ah, but that was only 12.5% of those who had actually screwed her!
And there's overlap with the ones who called her a stupid bitch!
Your statistics are crap!
Heh, yes, I saw that on Boing Boing.
I pointed out to Cory that somebody in the TSA obviously saw the animated movie "Madagascar" where penguins mastermind a zoo outbreak, then hijack the ship sending the animals back to Africa.
When the police raid the zoo, the penguin leader says, "We've been ratted out, boys! Cute and cuddly...cute and cuddly..."
One of the characters in the movie has the line: "The penguins are psychotic!" The scriptwriter must have been reading DiDio's rants.
When I saw the trailer, I had the urge to shout, "Linux rules!" in the theater. But I suppressed myself.
"Windows is better for some applications, and Linux is better for others."
That would work if that was the issue.
It isn't.
Apps can be changed, and new ones are being created for Linux all the time. As more corporations adopt Linux (and open source in general), and as more programmers see the benefits of designing with free OSS, you will see the application gap narrow considerably.
Which leaves the underlying technology as the real issue: does Windows have the performance, reliability, security, and enhanceability of Linux?
No, it doesn't. And as long as Bill Gates is running Microsoft, it won't.
The problem, as I've stated elswhere, is design philosophy. Windows is a competitive corporate product that emphasizes "features" at the expense of all other issues for marketing reasons. Linux is intended to be a quality OS that does what is needed by actual users well.
This fundamental difference accounts for the superiority of Linux.
And this difference is far more important than whether any given vertical app happens to run on Linux or Windows at any given point in time.
"Cost of deployment / migration: it is this simple -- if you have a pre-existing IT staff that is trained exclusively in windows, windows will be cheaper. If you have an IT staff educated in linux, it will be MUCH cheaper."
Your pre-existing IT staff is your problem. If they can't learn Linux prior to a rollout, they're incompetent - first because you don't rollout a system you don't understand, and second because they can't learn something new.
As I've stated repeatedly, rollout and migration are the least of your worries. Ongoing performance, maintenance, security, and reliability problems will cost you much more over a system's lifetime than the install costs. Everybody knows this is true in software, but nobody seems to want to admit it in the case of operating systems.
And those issues favor Linux.
Also, corporation are loath to admit that control over your IT environment is a business advantage as opposed to outsourcing it to Microsoft or whoever. Here again, Linux is superior.
"This goes with TCO, etc. When it comes to stability, security, management, operation, these things will all be relative -- once again, to the competence of your IT staff (how and why they use what they use, how everything is implemented, etc.)."
This merely restates the obvious. A competent Windows sysadmin can MINIMIZE system disruptions - once he learns about them. The problem is: it's going to cost him and his company to learn about them.
A competent Linux sys admin is going to be in the same boat - except that the experience of corporations that have made the switch indicates that there will be fewer system disruptions to begin with.
This is entirely due to OS design issues.
And THAT's the reason there is an issue about which OS to deploy.
Windows is written from the standpoint of "features" (most of which are irrelevant to any given set of users) which are complicated, hard to learn (I'm talking system configurtion issues here, not how an end user clicks on a menu item), and cause instability and security problems with the OS.
Linux is written from the standpoint of quality - to produce an OS that does everything needed and does so well. Linux is not perfect, but without the commercial motivation to get a product with the most "features" out the door in a given time frame, it just stands to reason - and has been proven by academic quality studies and performance measurements - that Linux is a better-written OS.
That - and the intangible benefit of having control over your systems - is why it is important to consider the OS being used in a given company.
And those issues outweigh most of the so-called "TCO" issues like "training" and "administration".
His networking issues are almost certainly due to Windows.
Windows is too complicated to function properly OR to understand what it's doing when it doesn't function properly. That simple.
As I mentioned in another topic the other day, merely trying to get Group Policy to apply permissions to a person in an Organization Unit did not work properly in a COLLEGE LAB SETTING. And nobody including the teacher could figure out why. This was a TEXTBOOK EXERCISE that Windows 2003 Server could not handle properly - and for which no way to debug the issue could be found. It was simply a "mystery" why it didn't work. And no minor MCSE was likely to figure out why.
Multiply that kind of thing in a real-world commercial environment, and yes, you are going to have serious software problems with Windows that are not likely to exist in Linux. And those problems will require experts in that software to resolve, not your ordinary sys admin. You can pay Microsoft $275 or you can hire a consultant for $100-500/hour - either of whom may have to spend five hours resolving the issue.
At least in Linux, you can look at a text file and either SEE what the hell is wrong or figure it out with a little help from Google or a conference.
"3) Hire a Linux consultant. Probably $100+/hr for a minimum of 5 hours plus whatever it would cost later."
So what's the problem? The app cost you $25? It has no business benefit? Compare the costs of the app and its business benefit over its lifespan to the cost of that consultant - almost certainly trivial and irrelevant.
BTW, your Solaris guy should have been able to make Linux work if he was smart enough to do some Googling to tide him over the rough sports. Five minutes of Google would have given you Werner Puschitz's Web site (and there are others) telling you how to install Oracle on every Red Hat version.
Finally, again, whereas you think a Windows install was the cheapest solution, it wouldn't have been if the project hadn't been canceled. It was only the most CONVENIENT solution - which is not the same thing at all.
Which means YOU are the one considering the cost of the OS and its install as the only factor to be considered.
ALL other factors (security, reliability, performance, upgradeability) - including the "intangibles" of having control of your OS and your app - favor Linux.
Network card unsupported:
Swap out network card for some $20 item at Fry's. This isn't rocket science.
Oracle won't install:
First of all, you should have realized from second one that Oracle only supports certain Linux distros. Not knowing this was simply stupid.
Second, Google for Werner Puschitz Web site which will tell you how to install Oracle on all Red Hat Linux versions. Oracle makes a piss-poor install procedure in any event. Ridiculously complicated like everything Oracle makes. Hardly the fault of Linux.
Finally, your overall cost of running your Oracle app on Windows WILL end up costing you MUCH more than the same app on Linux - the install cost is irrelevant compared to the eventual problems with security, reliability, performance, etc.
Or it would have been if the project hadn't been discontinued. You would have learned something by running the app on both systems for a year and counting the reboots and maintenance problems.
TCO is mostly air. It's a justification by major companies for a subscription license scheme and/or a way to gain control of a corporation's IT operation so they can charge ever higher prices.
The primary cost of Windows is poor performance, poor security, poor reliability, and poor design - all of which will eventually cost a company MUCH MORE than "training" (which companies don't do anyway - and do badly when they do) or "administration" ("administration" is what you do when your server doesn't work in the first place.)
Cost of hardware is irrelevant - except for the fact that 1) Windows offers half the performance of Linux, and 2) Microsoft recommends a separate box for each server function. The two combined massively increases their license revenue.
And his example is exactly why Linux is better than Windows - or didn't you read the part about "no maintenance" on the Linux box versus weekly maintenance on the Windows box. Windows servers are NOT reliable - they fail regularly for no good reason and in some cases the cause of failure cannot even be determined. If a Linux box fails, it's because of something stupid like nobody clearing out
Finally, studies NOT commissioned by Microsoft indicate that even the so-called "TCO" is lower with Linux than Windows. And that is backed by numerous anecdotal stories of companies who have actually done the switch.
You're talking out your ass.
"Fedora's installer tries to relax you regarding Grub, but most of the time forcing LBA32 is needed or it sits there doing nothing at boot."
What ARE you babbling about?
I installed Fedora Core 3 a couple weeks ago. GRUB works fine.
I've NEVER had a problem with LILO or GRUB booting the system after install. And that's dual booting with Windows.
If you meant LBA48 (greater than 137GB disk support), that's been in the kernel since Red Hat 7.3. (Whereas Windows 2000 below Service Pack 4 will trash your system if you put it on a HD > 137GB.)
You fucked up.
You said "enterprise servers" in the same sentence as Windows.
Windows is at best a departmental level server. It can't hold a candle to the UNIX OS's as an "enterprise level" server. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "carrier grade" Windows.
They put Windows on the Navy's Yorktown ship. They had to tow it back to port.
They put Linux on the nuclear subs - hardened and tested. The difference is engineers do the OS decision on the subs and bureacrats do it for Navy ships.
BTW, learn to spell "divisive".
"And no, I've never successfully gotten ANY Linux install to work on ANY PC"
At $15/hour, you're overpaid.
Try minimum wage next time.
Better yet, go on Welfare.
That's nice - compare a bare bones Linux install to a full-up VAR installation.
Makes a lot of sense.
There are VARS who will do all that on Linux (assuming the specific apps you mention are available on Linux, which I haven't looked into.)
And the VARS who do that with Windows are JUST as high-priced as ones who do it on Linux - in fact, probably more so since they have to pay for (or charge you) for the Windows server licenses.
And don't forget, Microsoft recommends a DIFFERENT server - i.e., one more license and one more machine cost - for EVERY Windows server type. Now you know why Windows servers have half the performance of Linux servers.
So it takes a high-priced consultant to recommend a surge protector and/or a UPS?
Sure, you need somebody to patch the machine. There are people who do that remotely for a few bucks a month compared to having someone on site.
"Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up."
That's funny.
My conclusion would be that you're incompetent (at least at installing Linux.)
"BTW, If you *need* apps that only exist on one platform, you should probably stick with that platform"
Which is the fundamental mistake for any company that does that.
Sooner or later (unless that app was made directly by IBM or Microsoft or a company on that scale), the company that made that app is going to go bust - or simply stop supporting that app - or replace it with a more expensive version.
Any company that does mission critical work on a proprietary app is going to end up like Linus with BitKeeper.
Better to spend the money now to avoid that fate than have to spend it when you can't afford it later.
It is NOT foolish to do a custom build of a shrinkwrap app. And the more critical the app, the more important it is to do that. Because it restores control to the person who uses that app.
The cost of development is irrelevant (depending on the cash flow needed to support that development). The cost of maintenance is greater, but still not significant if the app has mission-critical importance (obviously you don't rebuild a minor utility that cost you $25). These are bean-counter notions. And bean-counters will always sell you short to save a couple bucks. Nobody running a company should care what the bean-counters say - unless they tell you there's no more revenue and no more profit. Accountants are supposed to tell you how you're doing - not tell you what to do.
It's not hard to find someone to work cheap to build or maintain a custom app - especially today when the IT market sucks. And if your IT department has some notion of quality (oh, wait, forget I said that), then the in-house app is likely to be as good or better than the commercial app - at the very least it will match your needs better. The cost of programmer and system design and maintenance time is small compared to the business benefit of the app.
I realize nobody believes this because it flies against the grain of conventional IT wisdowm.
Sorry - conventional IT wisdom, like all conventional wisdom, is simply wrong.
Simple.
Management is about lying about the need for management. It's primate hierarchy in organizational terms.
They therefore love liars who reinforce that lie.
Humans will ALWAYS - ALWAYS - make the wrong decision given two or more options. They will do this to spite the person with the correct option.
Because if that person is "right", then they're "wrong" - and if they're "wrong", they're dead - and that can't be allowed. So they're "right" and the other person is "wrong".
Human psychology is that simple. It's only the EXPRESSION of that psychology that occasionally gets complex.
No manager can make a correct decision because that action by itself conflicts with his primary purpose.
With the way Bush operates, they could all have ended up in Guantanamo having dogs bite their asses.
"a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults"
Especially on
Leaving out the word "proficient", of course.
The only issue of significance is the di-morphic split between humans and Transhumans. All other issues are transitory and irrelevant.
Climate change in particular is the LEAST of our worries as it will take the longest time to occur.
"Its trademark 'sink plunger' attachment also reveals a terrifying new function."
Look out, Angelina Jolie - somebody with more lips than you!
when I supported conglomerations of nested spreadsheets for Bank of America's Microstar cash management software customers. We had customers with fifty linked spreadsheets - totally idiotic.
Spreadsheets should be used for one thing - adding up your personal expenses.
Everything else needs a database and a good reporting tool.
Companies who rely on employees using spreadsheets to manipulate mission critical numbers are just asking to end up like Enron and WorldCom - guilty or not.
"64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."
Seriously, yesterday I was downloading tons of babe pictures from model sites using FireFox. Windows XP repeatedly told me my virtual memory space was too low and it was upping it, and while doing so, requests for memory might be denied. Whereupon the system got noticeably slower. Rebooting solved the problem for a while, but after another hour or two, it happened again.
So either FireFox has a serious memory leak, or Windows just can't handle memory no matter how much it has. I have 512MB and the only other thing running besides my usual tray utilities was my file manager. The same config right now shows only around 256MB being used with a peak of 300+MB.
Besides, who cares? Having more access to memory merely means Microsoft will bloat Windows with more "features" that nobody uses, anyway.
Well, now's the time to bring up Bill's famous quote about how Microsoft could hire twice as many women as men for half the pay to do the grunt work because "they're only women".
It's in the book "Hard Drive".
Always wondered what Melinda thought about that...but then, when a woman get s chance to marry a billionaire, feminism is the last thing on her mind.
No - but they do have a monopoly on religious bigotry...Compared to Muslims, they OWN that market...if for no other reason then they were first...
it's not important to Microsoft.
While I would normally agree with this stance, it also has the effect of making their software crap since they spend no serious efforts making it better - they just add more failure-prone and insecure "features".