That would require significantly more than 1GB RAM, I would presume, then. Even Linux distros are fairly slow from liveCDs, at least last time I used the Ubuntu one it was.
On the other hand, a live CD would be kinda cool, so I'll go with you there. I'm trying to figure out where I'm going to install the Windows 7 beta..
I suppose you run your KDE 4.2 (with compiz) on 512MB RAM. For that matter, even a lot of Linux OS's recommend 512mb or more. As has already been pointed out, I fail to see why 1GB is unreal. I actually just bought 4GB for $16, and you can frequently pick up 1GB sticks for under $10 (USD).
Um. What Windows version have you not been able to install in virtualization software?
If you're looking for paravirtualization sort of stuff, that might be a little difficult, but I'm pretty sure you can stick Windows in virtualbox and whatnot. In fact, I've done it... it's really easy.
Please read what they said before complaining about it.
They ARE fixing UAC, and they ARE slimming down Vista. I quote from the article.
Among the new features in Windows 7 are an updated interface, including a redesigned task bar; tools to make home networking simpler; and a reworking of the User Account Control feature, which annoyed many Vista users with its constant prompts. It also aims to give better performance than Vista and supports a touch-screen interface, though few PCs are likely to use that feature at first.
The minimum recommended hardware for the beta includes a 1-GHz processor, 1GB of system memory, 16GB of available disk space and support for DX9 graphics with 128MB of memory (to enable the Aero theme), Microsoft said.
(emphasis mine)
My mistake about this - it wasn't this article that had the "lean" part... it was this one:
At the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has announced a free public beta of the new OS, which reportedly will be less of a resource hog than Vista and may even run well on netbooks. The Windows 7 public beta is reportedly "feature complete" and will expire on Aug. 1, 2009.
Microsoft says Windows 7 is a leaner, stripped-down OS that will require as little as 1GB of memory. Then again, it's fair to be skeptical here. Vista has the same memory requirement but runs sluggishly on systems with 1GB of RAM.
There's a liveCD so I'll download it and try it on my old Dell laptop, which I plan to update to openSuSE 11.1 (from 11.0) anyways.
Has anyone tried this yet, though? Does it actually work and "in seconds of turning your computer on" can you get online, while it loads another operating system in the background?
That sounds pretty cool, I have to say. It'd be really cool, too, if I put the liveCD onto a USB drive and boot from there, seems like that'd be even faster and cooler.
Anyways.. anyone tried the distro or are these comments, so far, just based on what people think about the screenshots?:)
E.g., this time last year, I was still having to run a patched version of winex from cedega to get the map editor in neverwinter nights to run and even then it still crashed periodically. This year, that app runs using the stock wine code.
The NWN map editor wasn't released as a Linux version like the NWN client was?
Electricity doesn't magically get created. There needs to be power plants built, lines ran, etc.etc.
You using more energy costs everybody more money.
Yes, I know that. It's a commodity, essentially. A product. A company has to produce it. Now, as I have been saying many times, most companies are happy to produce more and thus sell more to meet demand.
Using your logic, if I buy more food, I make everyone else pay more for their food, too, just because I am buying more. Yeah, makes sense to me.~ *
* Note usage of new punctuation indicating sarcasm.
When the grid is overloaded because turkeys like you are out there exercising their right to waste energy, everyone pays for the rate hikes required to build more infrastructure.
Yes, because what happens when most companies find that they are not supplying enough to meet demand (read: they could be making more money by simply upping production), they charge more money. Hm... well, normal companies I don't think do that. Companies do that when they are forced to (read: they aren't allowed to produce more, for whatever reason).
On a side note, I actually prefer to keep my electricty bill low. I even turn off my desktop computer when I'm not using it (including turning it off overnight). I have never used my air conditioning or central heating (use a space heater roughly two hours a day, if that, in the winter), use energy-saving bulbs and keep lights off when not in use, physically unplug coffeemaker/toaster/blender when not using them, etc). But thank you for assuming that arguing for rights/freedoms == wasting.;)
Yes, California has electricity problems. Of course, part of that is not allowing power plants to be built, no? Which goes back to government regulation, etc.
The capitalistic idea isn't necessarily that you raise rates for power. I don't think that's the only solution. One other solution would be to allow more power plants to be built (sure, clean ones, but let them be built already!). Competition or expansion is always good. Think of it this way: the happiest position, it would seem, for a company to be in is to have too little supply and too much demand. That is never a problem for a company... unless the company is not allowed to fulfill the demand.
If you want Edison, PG&E, etc., to be successful private enterprises, why not let them do what companies do by nature - expand production to meet demand?
I would mod you if I could. I didn't even read it, let alone look at the graphic. LCD is way more efficient than CRT. I thought pretty much everyone knew that =P
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government.
But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, but the government still insists on regulating how much I use of it, and now even what I'm allowed to buy to use it with...
One would think that, since I'm the one PAYING for electricity (not to mention various taxes and sales taxes associated with a TV, if I had a TV), I'd be allowed to pay more and use more? Now THERE is a novel concept - if I have more money, I can use more money to get more things! Wow. And if I'm smart, I can save money by buying a more power-efficient TV! Wouldn't that be a thought...
I'm not saying they don't have the right to say what to use. I'm saying that the switch may produce undesired perceptions about Linux. Just like forcing a bunch of PC users to use only Macs would do the same about Macs. People just don't like being forced to change, and when they are forced to change (being hired new is a bit different from having been there and THEN undergo a big change), their perception about what they are newly being required to use is generally colored with the dislike of being forced to use it. Especially when it's a "big" switch, like Windows -> Linux is. No, it's not a big switch for people that know what directory structure are, blah blah blah, but for someone that doesn't know much past "My Documents" and "The Internet (TM)," it can definitely be a big change...
I am going on the assumption that they were previously using Windows. I didn't read the article.
Assuming they were using Windows, forcing the switch from Windows to Linux is a pretty big switch... for most non-geeky people anyways.
I'm looking at this from a user-perception-of-Linux/open source software and how this might affect it. If the switch were reversed, I'm guessing the consensus that being forced to use Windows when people are used to Linux would create general dissent against Windows because of the forcible change, not necessarily because of Windows vs. Linux (I think we have to admit that most users, unless they are in the IT field, don't really care about the difference between Linux and Windows, as long as it works).
IMO, this is not necessarily good. Forcing free software on someone is not going to generate all good comments. In fact, forcing someone to use something, especially if they aren't used to it, usually generates more complaints - not because the new thing is actually worse, but simply because they are being FORCED to use it.
I dunno. I like using Linux and I think it's a good alternative to Windows, but forcing people to switch doesn't really show Linux to be a "good alternative," doesn't make people want to use it on its own merits, etc... it makes it look more like a financial move, not a "This is better software" move.
[begin offtopicness]
Maybe the store near me is just weird, but most of the prices are more expensive than many places... except for some items including dairy, if I remember correctly. Their dairy actually tends to be cheaper. And beans. Other items tend to be more expensive.
[/end offtopicness]
I'm all for being a good steward of the environment (that probably gives you a good hint as to my worldview, too).
But when it comes to "green," unless we're talking about dumping pollutants into various ponds, lakes, and oceans, the primary thing that I would be interested in "green" about is monetary. Like most things.
Specifically, if it uses less electricity, power, etc., and I don't need it to use more, that's a Good Thing (tm). For example, light bulbs. Unless it's a reading light (I don't like the "weird" light when I'm reading), the electricity-saving bulbs are nice on my electricity bill. I assume the same about other large appliances, though I haven't had to buy one yet.
But the "green" craze that companies seem to be going through is kind of annoying. Sort of like the organic fad. I'm actually into the organic food stuff (read: anti-hormone, somewhat against certain GMO stuff, not a fan of ingesting pesticides, and organically grown food usually tastes better, too), but the rich-posh-styling-trendy organic thing (the typical Trader Joes or Whole Foods crowd) is silly. A trendy, posh thing is one thing; a good reason to do it is another. I prefer good reasons over trends. Fashionable organic food or fashionable "green" consumer items are usually silly and overpriced, it seems. Like most lemming-reaction trends.
On a serious note, though... it's still true that if you tax to create something, you're not exactly creating wealth in such a way that you are able to now pay someone to do something... you're just taking money (a tax) in order to pay someone to do something else.
The point is that you aren't exactly creating a new job, you're almost... splitting someone else's job. You're taking someone else's worked-for-money to pay someone else to work. Yeah, it's a "new job" but it's not creating a new income, it's taking it from someone else's income. Or many someone else's.
Either way, it's significantly different from starting a business and "creating jobs" that way. Now, if they do a stimulus where the money comes from other canceled projects, that might be nicer. In other words, more efficiently use existing revenue, not try to take more in an effort to give more.
Which reminds me of one other point. I take $100 from everyone. I pay the people that I had to hire to take the $100, and the huge organization that is now required to run this new operation. By the time I actually get around to paying the "new hired" people, how much of that $100-per-person do I have left? I've paid a bunch of superfluous people. In other words, I'm taking money, paying some un-necessary people, and finally getting around to paying someone else with it. The taxpayer is losing money on this deal while making more bureaucratic jobs. That's... stupid.
Jews and Arabs (and christians for that matter) have lived peacefully together, in that area, for hundreds of years at a time.
I am not sure exactly how "peaceful" it has been since, if I remember correctly, around AD 600, when Mohammad and the Qur'an showed up.
Yes, I do buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face-of-the-earth line. Read the Qur'an and find out what they think about Jews and the land Israel possesses. The more extreme Islamic believers, if memory serves, believe that they should have conquered pretty much the entire world already.
There are things intrinsic in the Jewish and Islamic religions that make it difficult to tolerate the existence of the other. For the orthodox Jew, something like a mosque on top of the temple mount is going to be pretty annoying, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded to not allow any false religion in their lands, no other gods, etc.
As for Christians, most orthodox Jews aren't too happy with Christians (Jesus == Messiah is something a Jew has to come to grips with if he is to accept Christianity). Muslims and Christians have an even bigger problem than Muslims and Jews, except that Christians are not currently occupying "their" land.
You're right, Israel wants land that they haven't had for 2000 years (but were given it in '48 or '49, whichever year that was). Why haven't they had the land? Well let's see. First Rome decided to wipe them out (and Christians, which were seen as a Jewish sect by most of the pagan Roman empire). Next, the "Holy Roman Empire," the Roman Catholic controlled Europe, was pretty anti-Semitic as well, as well as anti-Islamic (hence crusades, etc, which - if I remember correctly, again - were more against Arabs/Muslims than Jews, as Jews were scattered - referred to as the "diaspora" at times). Muslims/Islamic groups have more or less had control since the very violent Mohammad showed up, with the crusades now and then taking over territory. My history is a bit fuzzy after that, but eventually we get to Hitler, who went on a kill-all-the-Jews-because-they-are-inferior (as well as other groups, yes) rampage. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century. Israel was given its tiny, tiny, tiny strip of land back after 2000 years.
And if you think it doesn't have to do with religion, what DOES it have to do with? After all, it's just a very small piece of land. Not even all that great for agriculture and whatnot.
Also, lest I come across as anti-religion, I'm not... plus, I have read both the OT and the NT, so the Jew/Christian stuff is quite familiar to me.
Slashdot Mirror
That would require significantly more than 1GB RAM, I would presume, then. Even Linux distros are fairly slow from liveCDs, at least last time I used the Ubuntu one it was.
On the other hand, a live CD would be kinda cool, so I'll go with you there. I'm trying to figure out where I'm going to install the Windows 7 beta..
I suppose you run your KDE 4.2 (with compiz) on 512MB RAM. For that matter, even a lot of Linux OS's recommend 512mb or more. As has already been pointed out, I fail to see why 1GB is unreal. I actually just bought 4GB for $16, and you can frequently pick up 1GB sticks for under $10 (USD).
Even netbooks have 1GB+.
Um. What Windows version have you not been able to install in virtualization software?
If you're looking for paravirtualization sort of stuff, that might be a little difficult, but I'm pretty sure you can stick Windows in virtualbox and whatnot. In fact, I've done it... it's really easy.
Please read what they said before complaining about it.
They ARE fixing UAC, and they ARE slimming down Vista. I quote from the article.
Among the new features in Windows 7 are an updated interface, including a redesigned task bar; tools to make home networking simpler; and a reworking of the User Account Control feature, which annoyed many Vista users with its constant prompts. It also aims to give better performance than Vista and supports a touch-screen interface, though few PCs are likely to use that feature at first.
The minimum recommended hardware for the beta includes a 1-GHz processor, 1GB of system memory, 16GB of available disk space and support for DX9 graphics with 128MB of memory (to enable the Aero theme), Microsoft said.
(emphasis mine)
My mistake about this - it wasn't this article that had the "lean" part... it was this one:
At the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has announced a free public beta of the new OS, which reportedly will be less of a resource hog than Vista and may even run well on netbooks. The Windows 7 public beta is reportedly "feature complete" and will expire on Aug. 1, 2009.
Microsoft says Windows 7 is a leaner, stripped-down OS that will require as little as 1GB of memory. Then again, it's fair to be skeptical here. Vista has the same memory requirement but runs sluggishly on systems with 1GB of RAM.
(emphasis mine)
There's a liveCD so I'll download it and try it on my old Dell laptop, which I plan to update to openSuSE 11.1 (from 11.0) anyways.
Has anyone tried this yet, though? Does it actually work and "in seconds of turning your computer on" can you get online, while it loads another operating system in the background?
That sounds pretty cool, I have to say. It'd be really cool, too, if I put the liveCD onto a USB drive and boot from there, seems like that'd be even faster and cooler.
Anyways.. anyone tried the distro or are these comments, so far, just based on what people think about the screenshots? :)
That's pretty weird. I had nostalgic fun running NWN in Linux when the client came out, but I never tried using the map editor.
E.g., this time last year, I was still having to run a patched version of winex from cedega to get the map editor in neverwinter nights to run and even then it still crashed periodically. This year, that app runs using the stock wine code.
The NWN map editor wasn't released as a Linux version like the NWN client was?
Ooooooh! So that's what the three E's refer to in the netbook by Asus.
* CannonballHead runs off to tell all his friends that his laptop is based on electricity but is powered by (wireless!) Linux
I am fairly certain that they still run on electricity... I could be wrong, but last time I checked...
There appear to be duplicate links in the summary :)
Electricity doesn't magically get created. There needs to be power plants built, lines ran, etc.etc. You using more energy costs everybody more money.
Yes, I know that. It's a commodity, essentially. A product. A company has to produce it. Now, as I have been saying many times, most companies are happy to produce more and thus sell more to meet demand.
Using your logic, if I buy more food, I make everyone else pay more for their food, too, just because I am buying more. Yeah, makes sense to me.~ *
* Note usage of new punctuation indicating sarcasm.
When the grid is overloaded because turkeys like you are out there exercising their right to waste energy, everyone pays for the rate hikes required to build more infrastructure.
Yes, because what happens when most companies find that they are not supplying enough to meet demand (read: they could be making more money by simply upping production), they charge more money. Hm... well, normal companies I don't think do that. Companies do that when they are forced to (read: they aren't allowed to produce more, for whatever reason).
On a side note, I actually prefer to keep my electricty bill low. I even turn off my desktop computer when I'm not using it (including turning it off overnight). I have never used my air conditioning or central heating (use a space heater roughly two hours a day, if that, in the winter), use energy-saving bulbs and keep lights off when not in use, physically unplug coffeemaker/toaster/blender when not using them, etc). But thank you for assuming that arguing for rights/freedoms == wasting. ;)
Yes, California has electricity problems. Of course, part of that is not allowing power plants to be built, no? Which goes back to government regulation, etc.
The capitalistic idea isn't necessarily that you raise rates for power. I don't think that's the only solution. One other solution would be to allow more power plants to be built (sure, clean ones, but let them be built already!). Competition or expansion is always good. Think of it this way: the happiest position, it would seem, for a company to be in is to have too little supply and too much demand. That is never a problem for a company... unless the company is not allowed to fulfill the demand.
If you want Edison, PG&E, etc., to be successful private enterprises, why not let them do what companies do by nature - expand production to meet demand?
I would mod you if I could. I didn't even read it, let alone look at the graphic. LCD is way more efficient than CRT. I thought pretty much everyone knew that =P
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government.
But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, but the government still insists on regulating how much I use of it, and now even what I'm allowed to buy to use it with...
One would think that, since I'm the one PAYING for electricity (not to mention various taxes and sales taxes associated with a TV, if I had a TV), I'd be allowed to pay more and use more? Now THERE is a novel concept - if I have more money, I can use more money to get more things! Wow. And if I'm smart, I can save money by buying a more power-efficient TV! Wouldn't that be a thought...
California, frankly, is wacky :)
I'm not saying they don't have the right to say what to use. I'm saying that the switch may produce undesired perceptions about Linux. Just like forcing a bunch of PC users to use only Macs would do the same about Macs. People just don't like being forced to change, and when they are forced to change (being hired new is a bit different from having been there and THEN undergo a big change), their perception about what they are newly being required to use is generally colored with the dislike of being forced to use it. Especially when it's a "big" switch, like Windows -> Linux is. No, it's not a big switch for people that know what directory structure are, blah blah blah, but for someone that doesn't know much past "My Documents" and "The Internet (TM)," it can definitely be a big change...
I am going on the assumption that they were previously using Windows. I didn't read the article.
Assuming they were using Windows, forcing the switch from Windows to Linux is a pretty big switch... for most non-geeky people anyways.
I'm looking at this from a user-perception-of-Linux/open source software and how this might affect it. If the switch were reversed, I'm guessing the consensus that being forced to use Windows when people are used to Linux would create general dissent against Windows because of the forcible change, not necessarily because of Windows vs. Linux (I think we have to admit that most users, unless they are in the IT field, don't really care about the difference between Linux and Windows, as long as it works).
IMO, this is not necessarily good. Forcing free software on someone is not going to generate all good comments. In fact, forcing someone to use something, especially if they aren't used to it, usually generates more complaints - not because the new thing is actually worse, but simply because they are being FORCED to use it.
I dunno. I like using Linux and I think it's a good alternative to Windows, but forcing people to switch doesn't really show Linux to be a "good alternative," doesn't make people want to use it on its own merits, etc... it makes it look more like a financial move, not a "This is better software" move.
[begin offtopicness] Maybe the store near me is just weird, but most of the prices are more expensive than many places... except for some items including dairy, if I remember correctly. Their dairy actually tends to be cheaper. And beans. Other items tend to be more expensive. [/end offtopicness]
I'm all for being a good steward of the environment (that probably gives you a good hint as to my worldview, too).
But when it comes to "green," unless we're talking about dumping pollutants into various ponds, lakes, and oceans, the primary thing that I would be interested in "green" about is monetary. Like most things.
Specifically, if it uses less electricity, power, etc., and I don't need it to use more, that's a Good Thing (tm). For example, light bulbs. Unless it's a reading light (I don't like the "weird" light when I'm reading), the electricity-saving bulbs are nice on my electricity bill. I assume the same about other large appliances, though I haven't had to buy one yet.
But the "green" craze that companies seem to be going through is kind of annoying. Sort of like the organic fad. I'm actually into the organic food stuff (read: anti-hormone, somewhat against certain GMO stuff, not a fan of ingesting pesticides, and organically grown food usually tastes better, too), but the rich-posh-styling-trendy organic thing (the typical Trader Joes or Whole Foods crowd) is silly. A trendy, posh thing is one thing; a good reason to do it is another. I prefer good reasons over trends. Fashionable organic food or fashionable "green" consumer items are usually silly and overpriced, it seems. Like most lemming-reaction trends.
Hi, I'm Paul, I would like to be paid!
On a serious note, though... it's still true that if you tax to create something, you're not exactly creating wealth in such a way that you are able to now pay someone to do something... you're just taking money (a tax) in order to pay someone to do something else.
The point is that you aren't exactly creating a new job, you're almost ... splitting someone else's job. You're taking someone else's worked-for-money to pay someone else to work. Yeah, it's a "new job" but it's not creating a new income, it's taking it from someone else's income. Or many someone else's.
Either way, it's significantly different from starting a business and "creating jobs" that way. Now, if they do a stimulus where the money comes from other canceled projects, that might be nicer. In other words, more efficiently use existing revenue, not try to take more in an effort to give more.
Which reminds me of one other point. I take $100 from everyone. I pay the people that I had to hire to take the $100, and the huge organization that is now required to run this new operation. By the time I actually get around to paying the "new hired" people, how much of that $100-per-person do I have left? I've paid a bunch of superfluous people. In other words, I'm taking money, paying some un-necessary people, and finally getting around to paying someone else with it. The taxpayer is losing money on this deal while making more bureaucratic jobs. That's ... stupid.
Jews and Arabs (and christians for that matter) have lived peacefully together, in that area, for hundreds of years at a time.
I am not sure exactly how "peaceful" it has been since, if I remember correctly, around AD 600, when Mohammad and the Qur'an showed up.
Yes, I do buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face-of-the-earth line. Read the Qur'an and find out what they think about Jews and the land Israel possesses. The more extreme Islamic believers, if memory serves, believe that they should have conquered pretty much the entire world already.
There are things intrinsic in the Jewish and Islamic religions that make it difficult to tolerate the existence of the other. For the orthodox Jew, something like a mosque on top of the temple mount is going to be pretty annoying, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded to not allow any false religion in their lands, no other gods, etc.
As for Christians, most orthodox Jews aren't too happy with Christians (Jesus == Messiah is something a Jew has to come to grips with if he is to accept Christianity). Muslims and Christians have an even bigger problem than Muslims and Jews, except that Christians are not currently occupying "their" land.
You're right, Israel wants land that they haven't had for 2000 years (but were given it in '48 or '49, whichever year that was). Why haven't they had the land? Well let's see. First Rome decided to wipe them out (and Christians, which were seen as a Jewish sect by most of the pagan Roman empire). Next, the "Holy Roman Empire," the Roman Catholic controlled Europe, was pretty anti-Semitic as well, as well as anti-Islamic (hence crusades, etc, which - if I remember correctly, again - were more against Arabs/Muslims than Jews, as Jews were scattered - referred to as the "diaspora" at times). Muslims/Islamic groups have more or less had control since the very violent Mohammad showed up, with the crusades now and then taking over territory. My history is a bit fuzzy after that, but eventually we get to Hitler, who went on a kill-all-the-Jews-because-they-are-inferior (as well as other groups, yes) rampage. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century. Israel was given its tiny, tiny, tiny strip of land back after 2000 years.
And if you think it doesn't have to do with religion, what DOES it have to do with? After all, it's just a very small piece of land. Not even all that great for agriculture and whatnot.
Also, lest I come across as anti-religion, I'm not... plus, I have read both the OT and the NT, so the Jew/Christian stuff is quite familiar to me.
You're right. I forgot about the inherent worth as evidence that a slashdot post has.
A politician said it so it must be true.
My mistake.
1. can't tell if you're joking.
2. Execution, not Execution.