Linux-Advocacy Digest #379, Volume #25 Thu, 24 Feb 00 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (josco)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The Chemical Resource Kit ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Quake 3 & GPL ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Quake 3 & GPL (Mig Mig)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Robert Moir")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Michael Guyear")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:03:10 -0800
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Dr Yassam wrote:
>
> > > <snip>...
> > > You're welcome to lay of the smug remarks, let your content show
> > > the extant of your vaunted education.
> >
> > I wasn't addressing you and I did not appreciate the smug remarks
> > that addressed me in the prior post. That the Mac OS multitasks in
> > the multimedia example I gave is NOT proof it is a better over all OS
> > at multitasking. Someone posting with a Dr in his SIG thought to
> > make that inference.
>
> Oh dear, if thou hast offended thee then thou...or is it thee...never
> mind...if you felt offended by my post then my apologies, but as I said,
> I'm as technology fan who's interested in getting facts correct, and my
> PC copes with your QT test ABSOLUTELY perfectly, perhaps even better
> than your Mac, or at worse as good as your Mac! (see my post to the QT
> test).
I responded to a criticism directed at me that was posted PRIOR to your
post with your results. If the order were different Id had seen you did
make an effort, at this time I posted, there wasnt any reference.
FWIW I tried and retried the Win95 test over the course of a few weeks and
got consistent results.
> There are a few G3 Macs here in my university, and I may find your QT
> test runs poorly on the machine I try. But that wouldn't lead me to
> believing you must be lying or exaggerating the performance of your Mac
> or that the Mac's OS is not as good as some claim. Instead I would
> initially assume that there was either a) A problem with that particular
> Mac or b) a problem with the network connection itself.
Thats a great approach to a host of problems that are unimportant. Live
and let live. If youre not using the G3 systems then why would you care
to figure out the problem so youre as much tolerant as you were
disinterested.
I decided to go one step further and understand the problem since I am
invested in this Win95 (and another) system. I asked and paid for a
network upgrade and it works real well for the BSD system and Solaris
system I have on the same switch. I asked and paid for a PC systems admin
to set up and maintain the OS. I asked and paid for updates to the
networking and got a top of the line 3COM networking card. So when this
Win95 system does NOT perform I have a certain degree of confidence that
its not just some localized fluke. I have a vested interest in a good
system since I use it as a X-terminal and bureaucratic file compatibility.
The respectable people who I pay to keep this system working say it works
as well as it can with correct updates and networking.
It is also not as if a criticism of the win95 OS with multimedia and
multitasking is an outlier or uncommon complaint buy a user. It tracks
well to the legacy of the OS and to the fact it's being canned due to its
weak preformance in these areas.
A good multitasking OS wouldn't let a QT app degrade downloads. If the
system lacked a powerful CPU then I/O multitasking would suffer the last
since it isn't a demanding process to run. At least that is my experience
with OS/2 on a 486-66 in 32MB of RAM and OS/2 on 166 in 64 MB. Regardless
of the forefround processes - slow as they might run, the OS can maintain
a good network connection. I'm sure NT and LINUX work the same way. We
often hear how low end systems can be made to work well as servers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:47:58 GMT
If linux got seamless mousewheel support, would you
finally switch over?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> put another way:
>
> When MS does migrate hotmail to W2K - will you suddenly decide that
that was
> the only critieria you needed satisified to prove how powerful and
wonderful
> W2K is? Suddenly you will drop your false pretenses and rush to
embrace it?
> If not, what other than trolling is the point of your post?
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Chemical Resource Kit
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:35:44 GMT
The Chemical Resource Kit (CRK)
http://servus.ucr.edu
This project represents an effort to provide software tools for the
practising research chemist, for the purpose of storage, presentation, and
modelling of molecular chemical compounds.
All components are open source, and Linux-based.
Xykron
======
An X-windows application (uses the Qt toolkit) which provides
editing and graphical presentation of molecular chemical compounds.
Compounds are organised in hierarchies (directories & groups). A datafile
format common to all of the CRK programs is used for storing information on
each compound, including simple information such as Name, Formula, Elemental
analysis data etc, as well as data of much greater complexity, such as
IR, NMR, Mass Spectroscopy and X-Ray crystal structures. A 2-dimensional
DiagramStructure editor is supplied, and such pictographic representations
can be output to Encapsulated PostScript (EPS) for inclusion in other
presentation software. A powerful 3-dimensional viewer/editor is included
for viewing X-ray crystal structures, as well as building molecular
structures; these can likewise be output as EPS files, or alternatively
a POV-Ray (ray tracing) source file can be generated. The ModelStructure
capability has a built-in simple structure optimiser for simulating
approximate molecular structures, suitable as a starting point for an ab
inition calculation. The next program, Xentark, can be invoked with two
mouse-button clicks.
Xentark
=======
Also an X-windows application, Xentark is the computational arm of the
project. It is in itself a GUI-front end and interface to the datafiles used
in this project. The computational code used is that of MPQC (Massively
Parallel Quantum Chemistry), a fine piece of open source software (see
http://midway.ca.sandia.gov/projects/mpqc.html), and is used to carry out
Hartree-Fock calculations with a large variety of basis sets. Using Xentark
requires no knowledge of theoretical chemistry.
Xortoth
=======
The tools that generate the website at http://servus.ucr.edu, Xortoth is a
suite of Perl scripts, CGI applications and Java applets which present the
datafiles used in this project as online HTML.
--
Dr. Alex M. Clark
http://servus.ucr.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
.--------------------------.
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
====================+==========================+=========================.
| I'm not paranoid, everyone IS trying to kill me |
| I'm not a megalomaniac, I really AM the greatest person who ever lived |
`-+---------------------------------------------------------------------.-'
| Note: you do NOT have permission to send unsolicited Email to this |
| address, and especially may not include on mailing lists without |
| my request. .-----------------------------------------------------+-'
`-------------+ God Damn the Spammer Man! May Hell be made to exist |
| just for him, and may his tender bits be roasted |
| slowly while his teeth are rendered to stumps with |
| a rusty nailfile. .---------------------------------'
`-------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:42:33 +0100
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >It is a difficult problem. UNIX is up-front with the user, Windows
>> >and MacOS hide it and then certain applications start "acting funny";
>> >hence fun tools like "Conflict Catcher" and "First Aid".
>>
>> But Linux is not UNIX, unfortunately. I'd love to have the UNIX
>> aproach, but the Linux aproach is braindead.
>Linux certainly behaves like UNIX (if are a pedigree bigot) in this
>regard. If you don't believe me, then explain how Linux differs from
>"real" UNIX (whatever that is) for library support.
That is easy to explain. When I write programs for e.g. Solaris 7, I
can be shure to know a set of shared libraries, that will be available
on the target system. And I can be sure, they have the correct ABI.
When writing a Program for e.g. Linux 2.2.13, I cannot rely on
anything except the system calls. This is an ABI, too, but far from
sufficient for most programs.
Since Solairs is an operating system, specifying its version does
specify the version (and th4e interface) of all shared libraries,
too. There are patches, but the pates usually do not change the
interface of the libs, not the API, nor the ABI.
In linux, everything is on its own. I can have libz.so.1.1.3, but even
this specification (altough including a version number) does not
specify it all. I can have one libz.so.1.1.3 linked agains libc5, and
one libz.so.1.1.3 linked against libc6.
So if Linux will not be an OS, there sould be at least a way to define
the ABI of the linux versions, and the build process of the individual
libraries should be modified to guarantee, that the specified
interface is implemented by the libarary.
Linux could include a set of ABI specifications for the Linux set of
libraries, and when linking the libraries, the linker can check,
wehter the library maches the specified ABI.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:52:47 +0100
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>> There is no such thing as a Linux OS! There is RedHat Linux,
>> SUSE-Linux, debian Linux, and lots of other. Face it, Linux already
>> has fragmented.
>>
>> This will kill Linux, because if you want to support Linux, you have
>> to support more than a hand foll of operating systems, that only
>> differ slightly. And although you officially are supporting Linux, you
>> are not supporting all thos linux systems, that are not just installed
>> from CD, but self compiled.
>Oh? Like Windows 95, 98, NT4, NT4/Alpha, NT2k, and the CE variants?
The Windows plattforms have at least ABIs in common, like the win32
ABI. CE does not need to have anything in common, since binary
compatibility to anything is not its purpose. We are talking about
ABIs, the interface between the OS and binaries running on it.
>Or MacOS/68k, MacOS/PPC, Carbon, Cocoa?
But MacOS/PPC included tha ABI of MacOS/68k, and the new Macs with
Carbon ABI still do support the Macintosh ABI. IMHO this is an
excellent example on how older ABIs can be supportet on new
architectures.
BTW, Windows did the same with supporting the win16 ABI on Win9x.
But in Linux, there is no ABI, and this is the problem.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:30:52 +0100
Bernd Strieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Mattias Engdegård" wrote:
>> >libstdc++ 2.7.2 and glibc 2.0
>> >libstdc++ 2.7.2 and glibc 2.1
>> >libstdc++ 2.8 and glibc 2.0
>> >libstdc++ 2.8 and glibc 2.1
>> >libstdc++ with-the-funky-name and glibc 2.0
>> >libstdc++ with-the-funky-name and glibc 2.1
>> >and so on....
>This comes from the fact that the C++ part is not as carefully kept up
>to date as other parts of the system, e.g. libc. It is not a core part,
>so many forget about it. Since getting the last libstdc++ together with
>the last G++ is as easy as downloading the latest stable release of gcc,
>issuing some 10 shell commands, perhaps you can do as others do with
>libc: glibc2.1 required, basta.
But getting new versions of the libraries is no help. I often had the
problem, that I needed older versions of them. While it was not that
hard to find the older verion, compiling it was only a minor problem,
but the executables did not work with my newly compiled libraries. The
obviously need to be compiled with an older version of the compiler,
or even worse, need to be linked against the older libc.
So it is not only keeping older versions of the liby around, you also
have to keep older versions of the include files and the
compiler. This really is getting stupid!
>The ABI is some core piece of a compiler, so commercial vendors would in
>general protect this and not publish the internals freely as long as
>they can get some money out of it.
The ABI should be a core pice of the OS, since it is the basic
requirement for binary distribution. This should not be tied to a
compiler.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:46:48 +0100
Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Mario Klebsch wrote:
>All you need to do is follow standards, then you will easily be able to
>write a installer which can cope with any Linux distribution's
>specifics.
Please tell me, where can I finde those standards?
>> P.S. We should stop to compare this aspect of Linux to Windows, and
>> see how great Linux is. We should compare against other UNIX systems,
>> (e.g. Solaris, HP-UX,...) and then we will see, that great is not that
>> great. :-(
>That must be why all those major Unix vendors are wholeheartedly
>embracing Linux and extending it with the best their systems have to
>offer...
They are doing it, because almose everyone askes them about, not
because Linux is superior. They would have a much easier job, if Linux
would be a complete OS, not just a kernel.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Quake 3 & GPL
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:01:34 GMT
This whole Quake 3 and GPL issue has made me wonder something...
If I write an application entirely on my own and wanted to sell it and
keep my programming methods secret, could someone come along and
say "You ripped this off a GPLed application", and force me to have to
release the source code in order to prove it isn't ripped off?
Isn't that a Catch-22? (And has this issue already come up and been
debated to death?)
-andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:52 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So then, what's the command to do a registry recover
> to a specific 'known good' date?
You can use the NT Recovery option on startup. There
are also several tools (Microsoft and 3rd party)that
allow you switch Control Sets and other functions.
Using the "Last Known Good" configuration is generally
the most common. Of course, common is relative, seeing
as how the registry never corrupts.
The most common use for LKG is when/if you a.) make
some critical mistake that prevents the system from
booting (very difficult) or b.) install a driver that
has some issue that prevents the system from booting
properly.
> What happens if your transaction log is toasted?
** Disclaimer: This is my impression of how it works,
I'm sure there might be someone who could talk more
definitively about this subject
1.) The likelyhood of both the registry AND the
log file getting nuked is nil
2.) If the log is nuked, the registry will most likely
continue with what it's got currently and rebuild
the log.
3.) If BOTH are nuked (very unlikely) you can either
a.) Restore from backup
b.) perform recovery steps and/or rebuilds
It's also important to note that the System Hive, which
is the most critical hive (required for boot) is backed
up before the log file is updated into the HIVE. So,
if an update is in process, and both the hive and the
log file get nuked, or the log file gets nuked and the
hive is in an inconsistent state, the alternate System
HIVE will be used. If all 3 files get nuked (highly
unlikely) you will have to restore from backup.
It's unlikely that the .alt file will get nuked, as its
only open for a split second as it's being copied.
If it does get nuked at that instance, the original
system hive is still valid, so it doesn't matter.
> Can you mount the transaction log somewhere else?
Not that I know of. I don't think you can, because that's
a good thought. However, Microsoft is smarter than that,
because they use transaction logging in many of their
database-type systems like Exchange, SQL, etc. In all of
those, you can choose different volumes to put them on.
For some reason, with the registry they choose not to.
I'm sure they know more about it than you or I and made
an informed decision to keep it with the reg file itself.
> Is the transaction log visible and available for filesystem
> level backup and recovery.
Yes.
Can you secure inividual options or configurations in a flat file?
What happens when your conf file(s) get nuked?
Can you audit changes to individual options or configurations in a
flat file?
Can you delegate the access and/or modification of a specific
section of the conf file to a sub-administrator?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:28:12 +0100
Whats Linux got to do with it?
They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing it.
If they want to have companies to use W2K, then they must show that their
own high volume sites can run on NT/W2K.
If they cant port it then it is an embarassment... and we laugh (actually
we laugh now)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I'm sure you could just migrate it to Linux overnight yourself, right?
>
> mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quake 3 & GPL
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:41:09 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This whole Quake 3 and GPL issue has made me wonder something...
>
> If I write an application entirely on my own and wanted to sell it and
> keep my programming methods secret, could someone come along and
> say "You ripped this off a GPLed application", and force me to have to
> release the source code in order to prove it isn't ripped off?
This is not specific for the GPL... same would happen if you
stole code from a commerciall app. You just violated copyrights.
I guess you could be forced to reveal the code by a judge.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:41:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That would just be the extension of common law regarding one's residence.
Ahh, but we've just been told that, in the absence of actual damage to your
property, you have no complaints.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:37:05 -0600
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Whats Linux got to do with it?
Well, seeing as how mr_rupert was a linux troll, not unlike yourself,
he made it relevant.
> They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing it.
s/incapable/unwilling/ They knew it was going to be a huge undertaking,
and they wanted to wait until Win2K came out. What's the point of migrating
it to NT, just to turn around and upgrade it to Win2K. Why not just wait
and do it all lock-stock-barrel.
> If they want to have companies to use W2K, then they must show that their
> own high volume sites can run on NT/W2K.
They do. www.microsoft.com, many of the msn.com related sites, as well as
many high volume, high profile sites like Dell, Barnes and Noble, etc
all run on it. All of those get many more hits than hotmail.com does.
Chad
Friends don't let friends use Linux
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:46:02 +0000
Mario Klebsch wrote:
> >> P.S. We should stop to compare this aspect of Linux to Windows, and
> >> see how great Linux is. We should compare against other UNIX systems,
> >> (e.g. Solaris, HP-UX,...) and then we will see, that great is not that
> >> great. :-(
>
> >That must be why all those major Unix vendors are wholeheartedly
> >embracing Linux and extending it with the best their systems have to
> >offer...
>
> They are doing it, because almose everyone askes them about, not
> because Linux is superior. They would have a much easier job, if Linux
> would be a complete OS, not just a kernel.
But Linux *is* only a kernel. If your talking about an operating system,
you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does. This is the
correct way of saying: Hey, I'm using the Linux kernel as a foundation
for all the wonderful GNU tools and utilities. Anything else should be
derived from the LSB and FSH, so all distributions are compatible.
All of this would not be a problem if people could finally start keeping
definitions of the concepts they're using in their minds. This may sound
unnecessary in times of PnP and Rio etc., but it sure saves you a few
headaches when serious computing is the topic.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:55:23 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Whats Linux got to do with it?
>
> Well, seeing as how mr_rupert was a linux troll, not unlike yourself,
> he made it relevant.
But did i mention Linux in connection with Hotmail? No.. but that is what
you guys suddenly want to discuss.. and not MS incompetence in moving
hotmail to NT/W2K
> > They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing it.
>
> s/incapable/unwilling/ They knew it was going to be a huge undertaking,
> and they wanted to wait until Win2K came out. What's the point of migrating
> it to NT, just to turn around and upgrade it to Win2K. Why not just wait
> and do it all lock-stock-barrel.
:-) good excuse Chad... but not good enough.. if they are running
microsoft.com (you clain its bigger than hotmail) why cant they run
hotmail.com (You claim its smaller) ?
> > If they want to have companies to
use W2K, then they must show that their > > own high volume sites can run on
NT/W2K. >
> They do. www.microsoft.com, many of the msn.com related sites, as well as
> many high volume, high profile sites like Dell, Barnes and Noble, etc
> all run on it. All of those get many more hits than hotmail.com does.
I would like to see a graph comparing the data volumes handled at
hotmail.com compared to microsoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:05:55 -0000
Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8934f8$lh8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:26:27 GMT, mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> The question of course is why weren't they running NT in the first
> place...but I'm sure this has already been beaten into the ground so
> your point is moot. :)
... fwiw it is because in the first place hotmail was never a microsoft or
MSN owned company until they paid the cash money to buy it.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Guyear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:40:37 -0600
of course everyone will replace their apps. M$ will just release a new
version of office that runs better on win2k.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:48:09 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> No, but like with every previous major release from microsoft,
you'll
> >have
> >> >> to replace all your apps to get decent performance.
> >> >
> >> >Completely untrue.
> >> >
> >> >This is a myth. Very few apps had to be replaced. Hell, 16 bit
office
> >> >still runs fine on Windows 9x, and any flavor of NT if you want to run
> >it.
> >> >You just don't get all the latest glitzy features.
> >> >
> >>
> >> DOS apps ran like shit under windows 3.1 because DOS was such a piss
poor
> >> operating system that apps had to talk directly to the hardware and
> >> windows 3.1 had lousy virtualization, like not offering a mouse pointer
in
> >> windows sessions.
> >
> >No, DOS apps ran like shit because the system was grossly underpowered.
> >Windows 3.1 machines typically had 2-4MB of RAM and ran on a 486/33 or
less.
> >
> >> Windows 3.1 apps ran like shit in windows 95 because win95 didn't have
> >> individual preemptive multitasking for them. A single 3.1 app can lock
up
> >> the entire system.
> >
> >Compared to Win95 apps, sure. But they ran no worse than they did under
> >Windows 3.1. And in fact, they ran faster than in Windows 3.1, just not
as
> >fast as native 95 apps did.
>
> Under os/2, win3.1 apps ran better than they did under windoze 3.1 because
> the environment was properly virtualized and had preemptive multitasking.
>
> You just don't know any better.
>
> Watch everyone replace all their apps when windows 2K comes around. I've
> seen it too many times before w/ MS.
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
