On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:48:34PM -0400, Ben Russo wrote: > Windows XP has virtual desktops (not as fully customizable as most > X-window managers, but good enough).
So, after about 15-20 years, Windows has finally caught up in usability? >;-) > You have to get the Microsoft XP power toy for multi-desks. Does that mean I still have to get some "extras" to get the full functionality? I wouldn't know - at work, we have Win00 and at home, I wouldn't touch XP with a barge pole - no registration crap for me, thank-you-very-much. That, by the way, is another reason not to use Windows - the whole licensing crap. I just hope that SCO won't succeed in shooting holes into Linux in that regard, although even then there are alternatives. What will happen when the whole DRM sh*t takes off (and it *will* take off - the media industries will see to that), remains to be seen. > Windows XP Pro also has "Remote Desktop", built in ready to go right out > of the box. > It makes X-windows look like crap in comparison. > It is FAST, even over high latency , low bandwidth connections. > It has exported sound and the connecting client can share his disks (if > he wants to ) with the server. > The only downside I have seen is that it is not true multi-user, it only > allows one desktop user to be active at a time (whether remote OR local). Which means that it is no match for X for me, as the multi-user ability is *exactly* the most interesting stuff. That's what I love about the traditional Unix concept: Full multiuser, no matter what you're doing - and fully transparent, too. > I guess that Terminal > server is based on the same > thing as Remote-Desktop, and it is true multi-user, but it is very > expensive when compared with *FREE* Also, it's an add-on, not included with Windows, right? To get back to the speed argument: One thing I'm missing is the hardware requirements: I can build fully usable Linux systems on hardware where the latest offerings from MS would be completely unusable. I have a P233MMX with 48MB which is my "bedside computer" - light browsing, mail - that kind of stuff. Runs beautifully under RH 7.3, whereas even Win98 crawls on that machine, due to excessive swapping. Of course, I'm not running KDE/GNOME or suchlike on that box, but then again, I'm not running those on any of my boxes, as I have no use for them. For me, DE's like that just get in the way, just like the Windows GUI - they all feel like "Nanny GUI's" to me... ;-) I think one of the reasons that apparently nobody is interested in improving Linux' desktop speed is that many of the developers have different priorities. Fortunately for me, they're pretty much in agreement with my own priorities, so I'm happy. ;-) Cheerio, Thomas (who's in urgent need of a coffee... :-} ) -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
