Linux-Advocacy Digest #425, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Day One ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: IE on UNIX (5X3)
Re: IE on UNIX (5X3)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Nik Simpson")
Ext2 Limitations, or *CLAIMED* Limitations (Christopher Browne)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (David Goldstein)
Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA) (John Jensen)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jaro Larnos)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: Windows Network Configuratin? ("tony roth")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (phil hunt)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (JCA)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Hobbyist)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Day One
Date: 28 Feb 2000 13:57:30 GMT
ndg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: If one were starting computing at day one and wanted to learn Linux;
: what advice would you give?
Advice #1: don't rely on my advice alone; get several differing
opinions and weigh them and choose a course of action you're happy
with. :)
Advice #2: Linux is a great way to learn about your computer from the
inside out. Unlike the more popular commercial operating systems,
nothing in Linux is hidden from you.
Advice #3: In spite of the advantages of Linux, there has been a
tendency for the past 5-6 years for hardware and software vendors to
write Windows-only code. This is changing, but only slowly. The
dominant office suite and Web browser for instance are Windows-only,
as are many best-of-breed multimedia applications, and many of the
cheap "modems," printers, and sound cards. Using Linux alone will be
frustrating if you are expecting to be able to use these specific
items. In this case, I would suggest setting up a dual-boot machine
(running both Linux and the current consumer version of Windows) for
the time being. With careful selection of hardware, you can run both
on the same machine, although not at the same time, unless you
purchase VMWare, in which case you actually can run both at the same
time.
Advice #4: Get someone who is knowledgeable to help. Not only Linux,
but most things computer-related, tend have inadequately documented
features and quirks that may or may not be covered in books, but
which a knowledgeable and experienced user can help with.
: Get a computer science degree? Take a unix os course?; don't know if
: colleges offer linux courses.
All of the above are potentially worthy endeavors.
A CS degree is *very* valuable in the current economic climate and is
likely to be for the foreseeable future. CS if taught properly
teaches concepts, not just technologies. The technologies come and go,
but the concepts remain useful for a fairly extended period of time.
A course in any modern Unix would be useful, as all modern Unices are
fundamentally similar as are the concepts that underlie them, but
Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD are the Unices most likely to be useful
and relevant to the average IT professional.
Some Linux courses do exist but they tend to be fairly advanced,
*very* heavily booked, and expensive. Most are probably better suited
to intermediate to advanced users, but if you happen to find one that
seems suitable and affordable, it might be very rewarding.
If there is a Linux users' group in your area, you may find it well
worth your while to join or attend some meetings.
: I mean, it's nice to learn on your own, but a little direction would
: really cut down on the proverbial time factor; like on sci-fi.
There is a *lot* to learn no matter how you go about it.
We might be able to suggest specific directions on where to go first,
if we knew more about what you're trying to accomplish.
: Can't wait to start sliding.
: Just scanning around briefly I see the linux community thing and free
: and all that; but aren't most of the gurus employed as unix system
: administrators?
Every ISP and large enterprise needs Unix people. As the use of Linux
in business continues to expand, more and more will be needed across
the board.
: Who says there's no money in linux?
Microsoft and friends claim to believe that.
Everyone else knows better. :)
: Sys adms make beaucoup bux; but are in a world of their own (little jab
: waiting for reactionaries there).
A challenging, well-compensated, and (for the right kind of person)
rewarding little world.
: Seems it takes a lot of energy and time, preferrably uninterrupted time.
: Myself, I have so many distractions and battles going on with punks in
: the neighborhood and the local streets, it's sometimes difficult to keep
: a focus. I go out for a bike ride to relax and think about it, and
: someone's wanting to test how tough I am. Just got one of those faces.
I've lived in places like that. Not fun.
Learning Linux (and computer science in general) could potentially be
your ticket out. It was for me - not Linux specifically, since it
didn't exist yet at the time, but computer proficiency in general,
which allowed me to work my way to a fairly responsible position as an
analyst/programmer in spite of having relatively little formal
education.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:08:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
> introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
> Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without rewriting
> code.
Neat. I wonder why that USB camera I have constantly bluescreens W2K.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:10:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So if my question is:
>> Is Win2K able to use Win98 drivers?
>> What's the answer?
> Maybe.
The answer is absolutely, flat out NO; at least not network, (incl.
pcmcia) video (nvidia, riva, voodoo), USB (scanner, camera), or
sound (SBLive, Aureal, Aureal2).
All of drivers tested were WDM, windows 98 specifically.
And if you dont believe me, try them all yourself.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:11:49 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89c4je$1upq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Of of one single machine, gigE interface and 10,000 simultanious
> connections.
>
> How was microsoft's day handled? One single machine?
>
> I have a very hard time believing that NT can listen to 10,000
simultanious
> single port connections and talk gigE at the same time.
>
Very likely true, but equally, ftp.cdrom.com on a single machine could not
do what www.microsoft.com does. The two systems are entirely different in
the type of content they serve up, comparisons of the maximum downloads/day
from the two sites are simply an excuse for dick swinging by people on both
sides of the argument who don't understand or choose to ignore the
differences between a dedicated FTP server and site serving up large vloumes
of dynamically generated web pages from large databases.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Ext2 Limitations, or *CLAIMED* Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:21:12 GMT
[Subject, newsgroup fixed. When Internet Exploder isn't mentioned,
even indirectly, why do people maintain the same subject line?]
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 27 Feb 2000 22:08:48 -0600 <89cscg$17ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <kvgu4.2620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with ext2 being a crappy filesystem and it's
>>>needing to be replaced/overhauled?
>>>
>>>NTFS will work fine in just about every situation, whereas, ext2 will not
>>>due to major, glaring limitations.
>>
>>Ummm, try letting that NTFS fill completely with subdirectories
>>of tiny files. Then delete them and wonder why you don't get
>>the space back...
>
>And it fragments like crazy, directories can't move while defragmenting,
>and the control area will grow and grow and grow unchecked during
>the aforementioned filling of the file system with tiny little files.
>(Diskeeper Lite is a useful tool... :-) )
>
>To be fair, it should be possible to put an ext2+ file system (the
>+ is because NT needs ACLs) on NT. It would require some sort of
>DLL (of course). The main problem here is documentation; I've seen
>'fsdext2' for Windows which allows read-only access to ext2 partitions.
I thought someone had done this, although you may be looking to a fuller
implementation than has been done.
>I also wouldn't mind seeing a fragment display on Linux, as well.
>It might give the NT folks something to compare to. :-)
This would indeed be little more than an "advertising supplement."
>The only glaring limitation of ext2 -- and it's only a problem on
>32-bit machines, but the majority of machines are 32-bit -- is that
>it can't handle files bigger than 2 gigabytes. As I understand it,
>this is being worked on.
The kernel sources reject >32 bit files on 32 bit platforms, which
is more a matter of supporting APIs than anything else.
The *true* point is that the data structure in use for files at
present uses 32 bit values. That means that any program that has
a file descriptor compiled into it has a forcible 32 bit dependancy.
The "glaring limitation" is thus not one relating in any way, shape,
or form, to ext2. It instead relates to LIBC.
--
The world's full of apathy, but I don't care.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linuxkernel.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:38:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:34:59 GMT...
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:56:33 +0000...
> > ...and Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Netscape screwed themselves over with 4.0, the codebase is unstable, and
> with no
> > > support for ActiveX...
> >
> > ActiveX is crap. Proprietary Microsoft crap. Why would one expect
> > anyone except Microsoft to support it?
>
> Why is it crap?
It's single-platform, it's not an implementation of an open standard,
it locks you into the products of a single vendor; it's got security
holes as big as a barndoor. To me, that means ActiveX certifies as
crap.
> Have you ever made an ActiveX control? Have you ever
> seen a well programmed ActiveX control in action? Have you seen
> how well it works (how easily it's downloaded and executed and how
> well the security works when well implemented)? Have you seen how
> easy they are to create/program/script?
>
> Granted, there are some security issues, but Microsoft is working
> on them. They have fixed most of the glaring holes in IE 5.xx.
>
> What do you recommend in place of ActiveX? Java? Hahahaha.... that's
> funny.
I don't recommend anything in place of ActiveX.
mawa
--
Murderer's Gulch | Delirium Tremens | Chicken Thief Flat
Guano Hill | Whiskey Diggings | Poker Flat
Chucklehead Diggings | You Bet | Git-Up-And-Git
-- mid-1800s' Californian placenames
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:39:26 +0100
Boris wrote:
<snipped>
> I was downloading Winzip recently and I noticed that it was from cdrom.com (I didn't
>go to
> cdrom.com; I just searched Yahoo for Winzip and clicked on url returned by the
>search).
> One interesting observation: download speed was ~3KB per second. Our corporate pipe
>at
> work provides speeds >100 KB per second, so it looked like the bottleneck was on
>cdrom.com
> site. This speed was ok for Winzip (which is only 2-3MB in size) but I cannot imagine
> anybody being patient enough to download smthg > 10 MB at such low speed.
I just downloades Winzip 7.0 for a friend yesterday. I did not notice
the site that it was downloading from, but I was getting 7.0KB/sec.
This was downloading over a normal 64kb ISDN line. Obviously, just more
FUD from the Winlusers in this group.
> Boris
David Goldstein
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:41:22 GMT
Nils Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: you can come to my establishment to see no pirate stuff
: Honor has no price
Congratulations sir. We can comfort ourselves to a degree that honest
folk are at least in the majority ... but with a 38% piracy rate there is
a sizable minority with a problem.
John
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:57:21 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > I am confused. Dell and the other sites you mentioned are BIGGER than
> > Hotmail and have already been converted over to win2k. Hotmail is
> > smaller than those sites but MS is waiting to change because it will be
> > such a huge undertaking. Am I understanding you correctly?
>
> Yes, custom applications written for Solaris require some small effort
> to port to a different platform, regardless of size.
Yes, they were written with assembly language, not just the OS but
all of the html, java, cgi etc. too. Yes you can talk about hard time
porting them. Someone has already tried to pull this one here, doesn't
seem to get thru somehow that there are no such big problems MS
couldn't have had time, money and people to fix. But probaly they
just lack the knowledge. Or thenagain NT was too much of a toy
to begin with.
> Again a valid point, but the conversion from Solaris to NT4 would be
> even more difficult. The problem is really the hack and slash patch to
> the Solaris TCP/IP stack that would also need to be integrated into the
> W2K stack.
Argh, again this blabbering about TCP/IP stacks, doesn't MS
know how deeply it hurts someone who knows tcp/ip stacks
have nothing to do with porting a load of html, java, cgi and
a two million user database plus many more of in messages.
It doesn't take anything else than a big complex of computers
and reasonable sized Raid's to do. If NT can't handle such,
it's bad luck.
--J
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 15:00:06 +0000
>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph T Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> it implies that force and/or fraud should be initiated
Joseph> against those who try to write software without contributing
Joseph> it to the public domain. Even if socialists could live with
Joseph> that notion, libertarians quite obviously could not.
Keeping software out of the "public domain" in the sense of
maintaining it as propietary also requires force, in the shape of law
enforcements. I dont think that it would require force to prevent
people from writing non PD software. It would just require the absence
of the current support for it. After all if someone wants to write
software in their own house and never give it to anyone why should I
care?
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 15:02:21 +0000
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> Capitalism does not stand opposed to civic duty, at least not
Mark> clasical capitalism.
What a strange thought.
Phil
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Network Configuratin?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:06:08 -0800
use hardware profiles!
"Bill Shine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00022721231100.02859@Penguin...
> I'd like to use Windows NT on a laptop, but I can't, because I can't
> reconfigure the network settings without a reboot and a lot of fiddling
around
> when I hook it up to different networks, because the IP address, the
gateway,
> and the DNS servers are different. This is very easy to do on Linux. How
does
> one go about doing it on windows?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 15:05:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: by institutions with many users and deep pockets. For individual end users,
: there is no real legal deterrant to copying software from a friend rather than
: buying it.
It would be unwise for those who make or use unauthorized copies of
commercial software to assume that they can't or won't be caught and
prosecuted in the future, just because they haven't been yet.
There is no reason why proprietary software could not have "back
doors" that would allow the vendor to determine the IP addresses of
machines using it in an unauthorized manner. With the help of
fascist-friendly "legislation" such as UCITA and legal intimidation of
ISPs, it would not be difficult to determine exactly who is
responsible and to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute.
Of course I see free (nonproprietary) software as the best answer to
this dilemma. I'm fairly sure no one is going to break down my doors
because I copied a GPL'd or BSD-licensed software package. I'm also
fairly sure it won't have backdoors that I don't know about. If I
were using unauthorized proprietary software (I'm not, but if I were),
I wouldn't be quite as confident as a lot of folks today seem to think
they can be.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:15:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
> BigMac
> > >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers
> > >> still
> > >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to
> > >> be
> the
> > >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99%
> > >> of
> all
> > >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound
> > >> train
> > >> transport".
> >
> > >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
> >
> > Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> > *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit
> > address
> > spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
> MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs
> on
> 64 bit processors right now.
Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any plans to
put W2K on.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:52:38 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 27 Feb 2000 06:02:00 +0000, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2000 02:23:00 -0800,
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not sure an advocate of free software would want to draw that
>> >particular comparison, as the primary difference between theatrical movies
>> >and TV programs is that theatrical movies are significantly higher quality
>> >in pretty much all technical respects and even in most creative respects.
>> >(There are, of course, exceptions.)
>
>> Cinematic movies cost more money than TV shows, certainly. But does that
>> make them better quality? IMO, no. The only way I'd say quality is
>> definitely better is regarding expensive special effects. In terms of the
>> quality of the scripts, the quality of the acting, etc, there is little
>> difference.
>
>Bog standard 35mm film can do things that are basically impossible to
>achieve with TV - even on fairly low-budget indie films. There are
>things that work beautifully in widescreen on a huge, high resolution
>image that just can't have the same impact on TV. Similarly for sound
>and even audience, although to a lesser extent. You can loose some of
>these things, but you loose some of the film. What TV gains in
>exchange is generally time, which allows it to do it's own things that
>film can't. The target medium is an important constraint.
There's a lot more to the quality of a film than the resolution of the
image recording material. To say otherwise is to imply that Casablanca
is a crap film because it is in black and white.
>Holywood != film. In any case, the problem isn't just the lack of
>creative risk (although that's certainly a problem), it's that people
>put a lot of money into making films. Having done this people aren't
>about to just bin it if it sucks - people will pretty much try to sell
>whatever they end up with. Often a movie with big enough names it's
>going to make enough on release to make some worthwhile impact on the
>costs, so out on release it goes.
>
>In part, what's happening is that you're seeing more of the rubbish
>getting more attention - there are plenty of shelved pilots or
>whatever that never make it onto TV at any time you'd notice.
That's a good point.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 28 Feb 2000 15:22:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
> There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any plans to
> put W2K on.
He dresden, did you have something to add to this thread? I couldnt
help but notice your total silence regarding this particular lie.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:22:09 -0800
crashed wrote:
> Just to clarify
> Windows 2000 has potentially 63000 bugs. This number was generated by a program
> auto-scanning the source code which also included 10000 lines of code that was not
> used in the final release-
> I am by no means a Microsoft supporter but the distribution of FUD is
> counter-productive.
> Linux will eventually surpass Microsoft in the server market based on it's own
> merits, not propoganda. The way it should be
>
This is a very commendable feeling but, unfortunately, not the way things have
historically worked out, the egregious example being that of home VCR formats.
Any tactic within the law should be used in order to kill the Redmond beast, least
it kills Linux and the open source movement first. This is a kind of Alliance vs.
Empire struggle.
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:57:32 -0500
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:09:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] chose to bless
us with this bit of wisdom:
>Todd Kepus writes:
>
>> How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
>> 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
>> higher...
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
>> resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
>
>Why do you find it so hard to believe, Todd? Perhaps you should read
>up on HDTV.
>
Illogical!
"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in
this country is a jumble of economic irrationality
and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather
naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories."
Alan Greenspan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:55:52 -0600
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
>
> There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any plans to
> put W2K on.
It's not shipping, but Microsoft is going for the Itanium IA-64 ISA.
I assume that AMD's not far behind, and they'll have a processor also.
However, they'll both use the IA-64 (I believe, AMD wouldn't be foolish
enough to try to pass their own 64-bit architecture, would they?) ISA.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:02:06 -0500
Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> The ID is determined by the device's position on the SCSI chain.
Really? The ID my SCSI devices get are the ID's I assign them through
switches on each device. It has nothing to do with their position on
the chain.
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:59:29 -0600
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89dvkv$4in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So if my question is:
> >> Is Win2K able to use Win98 drivers?
> >> What's the answer?
>
> > Maybe.
>
> The answer is absolutely, flat out NO; at least not network, (incl.
> pcmcia) video (nvidia, riva, voodoo), USB (scanner, camera), or
> sound (SBLive, Aureal, Aureal2).
>
> All of drivers tested were WDM, windows 98 specifically.
>
> And if you dont believe me, try them all yourself.
Microsoft admitted a boof in the Win98 WDM spec.
They had some fundamental flaws, I guess, in the WDM spec
for 98. Appearently, there were some fundamental changes
during the design process for Win2000 that an incompatability
could not be avoided.
Now that Windows2000's code base is final, WinME will support
full WDM compatability. That's what they say, at least.
All future versions of Windows (Whistler, etc) will support
the new WDM spec.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
