Re: Windows XP optimization tricks - Hardware

This is a discussion on Re: Windows XP optimization tricks - Hardware ; In article news: , Arno Wagner wrote: > UAC is in fact a step backwards, since most people will click ''yes'' > without reading it after a few of those. I agree that UAC is not well implemented in its ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

  1. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5h3kcgF3idn73U2@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > UAC is in fact a step backwards, since most people will click ''yes''
    > without reading it after a few of those.


    I agree that UAC is not well implemented in its current incarnation in
    Vasti. It does do things that improve security, though, and for most of
    those it doesn't matter if the user does just click blindly on "Yes".

    UAC is an awkward beast. On the one hand it adds some security by
    preventing some questionable activities, while on the other it actually
    reduces security by elevating the privileges of some processes to enable
    them to run from a limited user account. The way it decides to do that is
    questionable ... automatically elevating a process's privilege just because
    it's name includes "setup" is an open invitation to malware writers to call
    their malwares "setup"!

    Given the size of that hole, it seems odd that some of the hoops you have
    to jump through to circumvent the 'security' that UAC imposes are very
    small and held very high up. For example: UAC normally prevents a process
    from installing a JOURNAL_RECORD hook (the sort of hook you'd want to
    install to implement a keyboard macro recorder, for example) because such a
    hook might be used by a keylogger. Fair enough, keyloggers are bad and
    represent a real security liability for people using their PCs for (say)
    home banking; stopping keyloggers is a good thing.

    Some apps do have legitimate reasons for wanting to use those hooks to
    implement macro recorders, though, and to make that possible UAC allows
    some apps to continue to use the hooks ... such an app must be code-signed,
    must contain a manifest that says it requires elevated privilege, and must
    be installed in a standard place (such as a subdirectory of C:\Program
    Files). I can see good reasons for all of that ... but given the weakness
    of the security of some of the other things that UAC does this is an
    incongruously strict set of requirements.

    > Operating XP with current patches and a virus scanner, Firefox or Opera
    > as browser and not Outlook to read mail is pretty secure today.


    Yes ... especially if you don't use an administrator account for
    everything. The trouble is that a default XP install is a right PITA if you
    don't use an administrator account ... there are too many things that can't
    be "Run As" administrator from a limited account, and too many file
    permissions that are set up by default to be just a little too restrictive.

    UAC does make limited accounts more usable under Vista.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.





  2. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:, Kony wrote:
    >> There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    >> once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    >> person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    >> introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista.


    > I's have said: NT 3.1, Win95, and XP64. All other changes have been
    > evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I certainly don't see XP->Vista as
    > a revolutionary change.


    > There has also been a trend in that the more recent evolutionary upgrades
    > have added less and less that is new and good, and more and more that is
    > pointless (eye-candy) or unwanted (activation, DRM).


    I agree. And I frankly doubt that MS is currently capable of
    any major innovation. Not that there seems to be much room for
    innovation.

    Arno


  3. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:<13apej953uk0gb7@corp.supernews.com>, Eric Gisin wrote:
    >> Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.


    > My comment was made in reply to Arno Wagner's question:
    >> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.?


    > Routers and NAS devices are very definitely embedded apps. Smartphones are
    > also arguably embedded apps -- and they're certainly things that use WinCE.


    Hmm. Byt my Linux NAS happens to be my NAT, firewall and communication
    server too. And sometimes compute server. You would call that embedded?
    I don't. I call it ''server'' and count it as a full Linux
    installation.

    The thing is that Linux looses far less functionality in small
    installations that anything from MS does.

    Arno



  4. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:19:45 +0000, Arno Wagner wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:30:35 +0000, Grinder wrote:

    >
    >>> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>>> And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    >>>> small devices run a full Linux kernel.
    >>>
    >>> I'm not trying to jump into your on-going dispute/debate, but I'm
    >>> curious as to what you mean by the statement above.
    >>>
    >>> Isn't "embedded Linux" a "full Linux kernel" running on a dedicated
    >>> device? I thought that the footprint of such systems were reduced by
    >>> paring away libraries, not the most basic part of the OS--the kernel.
    >>>
    >>> See this, possibly non-authoritative, remark from wikipedia:
    >>>
    >>> | Embedded Linux systems combine the Linux kernel with a
    >>> | small set of free software utilities.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux

    >
    >> On an embedded device, you would compile your kernel with only the needed
    >> hardware configured. On a normal distro, the kernel is configured to enable
    >> as much hardware as possible, to serve a variety of users. Usually with
    >> modules that any one computer may never need. So, in my understanding, a
    >> full linux kernel is used for embedded, but only as full as needed to work
    >> on that type of device.

    >
    > Not at all. My kernel on my PC has only the needed drivers compiled
    > in, as I roll my own. That does not make it an embedded system.
    >
    > Arno


    Yes, of course. I didn't say that having a compact kernel makes
    it an embedded system. I could have worded it better. Maybe I should
    have sed 's/On a normal distro,/On many distros, out of the box,/'

    stonerfish

  5. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On 30 Jul 2007 05:53:17 GMT, Arno Wagner
    wrote:


    >> There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    >> once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    >> person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    >> introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
    >> just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
    >> line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
    >> 98/ME/XP.

    >
    >I don't agree that Vista has revolutionary changes.
    >
    >Arno


    I'm not suggesting "revolutionary" is necessarily a good
    thing, but there are enough differences (including things
    that were being developed but simply not ready by the time
    it was released, but expected to be released eventually)
    that it is distinctly different enough to effect users/uses.


  6. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    > On 30 Jul 2007 05:53:17 GMT, Arno Wagner
    > wrote:



    >>> There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    >>> once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    >>> person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    >>> introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
    >>> just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
    >>> line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
    >>> 98/ME/XP.

    >>
    >>I don't agree that Vista has revolutionary changes.
    >>
    >>Arno


    > I'm not suggesting "revolutionary" is necessarily a good
    > thing, but there are enough differences (including things
    > that were being developed but simply not ready by the time
    > it was released, but expected to be released eventually)
    > that it is distinctly different enough to effect users/uses.


    Well, yes. There is the UI, that is finally almost as fancy as
    some window-managers for X-windows were years ago. The security
    model is less archaic that that of XP. But I would say these are
    gradual changes, not revolutionary ones. Especially as you can
    very well go on using the old product without massive
    disadvantages.

    Of course MS wants you to think this stuff is revolutionary.
    It is not. But they are growing desparate, since their OSes
    begin to approach reasonable usability, reliability and
    performance. MS used to be a master to build products just
    good enough to customers would have to upgrade, but bad
    enough that there was ample room for further imrovement.
    Today, it is well understood what the capabilities of a
    modern OS should be. And although MS still has to go far,
    it is mostly in things not visible to the end user.

    Arno

  7. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5h66g6F3ivdh6U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > I agree. And I frankly doubt that MS is currently capable of
    > any major innovation. Not that there seems to be much room for
    > innovation.


    I don't see this as an issue of capability ... I don't see how Microsoft
    could possibly be /motivated/ to innovate much on the OS front. They have a
    huge user base running all kinds of apps -- some from MS themselves and
    some third-party -- and those users would HOWL with rage if MS were to
    change the OS in any way that stopped those apps being usable.

    I see MS patching security bit by bit, and I see them adding more DRM-like
    things -- I see them heading towards a software rental licensing model
    rather than outright licence sale over the next several years.

    As you said: MS used to have a continuous income stream as they brought out
    new versions and charged for the upgrade, but now that Windows changes less
    and less between versions fewer and fewer people are bothering to upgrade.
    Software rental must look very attractive to them right now.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



  8. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5h66kmF3ivdh6U2@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > Hmm. Byt my Linux NAS happens to be my NAT, firewall and communication
    > server too. And sometimes compute server. You would call that embedded?
    > I don't. I call it "server" and count it as a full Linux
    > installation.


    Yes, certainly, that's a full linux installation and so it does 'count'
    toward the total of linux boxes ... but that wasn't the question. The
    question was whether the 'commodity' router, firewalls, NAS servers, etc,
    running linux (very possibly from ROM) 'counted' ... and those certainly
    *are* embedded.

    > The thing is that Linux looses far less functionality in small
    > installations that anything from MS does.


    That's true ... but a little unfair. Wince is actually not a bad little
    embedded OS -- it wouldn't be my first choice for an embedded system but I
    could work with it -- but MS and their licensees have always chosen to cut
    down the functionality of the user interface and apps of every device I've
    seen that used it. For example: the pocket office applications in Windows
    Mobile didn't *have* to be such an emasculated parody of the desktop office
    apps that they insult the intelligence of the user, that's just how
    Microsoft chose to specify them -- blame Microsoft, but don't blame the
    Wince platform for that, it's capable of better.

    (I could make the same criticism of the Hansol Office apps on the
    linux-based Sharp Zaurus, for that matter ... why do software vendors
    appear to believe that a handheld computer is just a toy, and should only
    be allowed to run toy software? Of all vendors, only Psion have ever
    displayed an inkling of understanding of their own marketplace)

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



  9. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article , Conor wrote:
    > You've been using Linux since 1994? Riight.


    Sounds reasonable to me. That's around the time I started playing around
    with Linux, using Slackware. (For that matter I've worked with Unix and
    Unix-like systems since the 1970s.)

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  10. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Roger Blake wrote:
    > In article , Conor wrote:
    >> You've been using Linux since 1994? Riight.


    > Sounds reasonable to me. That's around the time I started playing around
    > with Linux, using Slackware. (For that matter I've worked with Unix and
    > Unix-like systems since the 1970s.)


    My first Distro was the "April' 94" SuSE", which I bought together
    with some friends the day it hit the stores. Therefore I am pretty sure.

    Note: Think first, then check facts, then shoot off mounth.

    Arno

  11. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:<5h66kmF3ivdh6U2@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> Hmm. Byt my Linux NAS happens to be my NAT, firewall and communication
    >> server too. And sometimes compute server. You would call that embedded?
    >> I don't. I call it "server" and count it as a full Linux
    >> installation.


    > Yes, certainly, that's a full linux installation and so it does 'count'
    > toward the total of linux boxes ... but that wasn't the question. The
    > question was whether the 'commodity' router, firewalls, NAS servers, etc,
    > running linux (very possibly from ROM) 'counted' ... and those certainly
    > *are* embedded.


    Not that clear-cut. Sorry. And there are 'commodity' routers that do
    filesharing, web-servering, DNS-caching and other server-stuff.

    >> The thing is that Linux looses far less functionality in small
    >> installations that anything from MS does.


    > That's true ... but a little unfair.


    I don't believe so. I think it is entirely fair to point
    out that Linux is not the bloatware MS produces.

    > Wince is actually not a bad little
    > embedded OS -- it wouldn't be my first choice for an embedded system but I
    > could work with it -- but MS and their licensees have always chosen to cut
    > down the functionality of the user interface and apps of every device I've
    > seen that used it. For example: the pocket office applications in Windows
    > Mobile didn't *have* to be such an emasculated parody of the desktop office
    > apps that they insult the intelligence of the user, that's just how
    > Microsoft chose to specify them -- blame Microsoft, but don't blame the
    > Wince platform for that, it's capable of better.


    > (I could make the same criticism of the Hansol Office apps on the
    > linux-based Sharp Zaurus, for that matter ... why do software vendors
    > appear to believe that a handheld computer is just a toy, and should only
    > be allowed to run toy software? Of all vendors, only Psion have ever
    > displayed an inkling of understanding of their own marketplace)


    Hmmm. Interesting point.

    Arno



  12. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    Conor wrote:
    > Trevor Best says...
    >> Conor wrote:
    >>
    >>> No need to relearn everything with Windows. Windows didn't
    >>> become what it is today by making massive changes.

    >>
    >> What??? I'll have a pint of what you had.

    >
    > Been using Windows for 17 years so I think I know what I'm on
    > about.


    Obviously you don't recognize what you are using. Some of us have
    been using it for longer. By the simple expedient of sticking with
    W98 we can avoid most of the problems.

    There is also Linux available. Probably the best cure.

    F'ups set to eliminate the excessive cross-posting.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    kony wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the user
    > environment hasn't changed substantially in MS' products
    > over that time period, at least until Win95 came along.
    >
    > 'Nix hasn't necessarily changed so much either, if you want
    > to dismiss the changes between each major revision as we'd
    > do with windows.


    Windows didn't really exist in anything like its present form much
    before W95. However Unix has been in full operation world wide
    since about 1975. Both have changed to some degree, but Unix (and
    its offshoots, such as Linux) far less.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  14. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On 01 Aug 2007 02:45:28 GMT, Roger Blake
    wrote:

    >In article , Conor wrote:
    >> You've been using Linux since 1994? Riight.

    >
    >Sounds reasonable to me. That's around the time I started playing around
    >with Linux, using Slackware. (For that matter I've worked with Unix and
    >Unix-like systems since the 1970s.)



    Well Linux, err Unix, was what anyone was using if they took
    even most 101 level college computer classes 12+ years ago.

  15. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On Aug 1, 5:20 pm, kony wrote:
    > On 1 Aug 2007 07:37:35 GMT, Arno Wagner
    > wrote:
    >
    > Well Linux, err Unix, was what anyone was using if they took
    > even most 101 level college computer classes 12+ years ago.
    >
    > If you're talking about a personal system or one limited to
    > only use by one technically inclined, the situation
    > changes... but is that user only using the system as a
    > "standard office PC"?


    2 trivial points. Most of my college classes, '90-94 were done on a
    VAX or a PC with Win 3.x. My last semester one lab installed
    Slackware so they could access Netscape (and Doom) and that was my
    first experience with any seriously Unix-derived Operating System.

    Also, as well as being technically inclined, I'm an artist. As such,
    I've been sensitized to how people actually use things, because that's
    how I was trained and how so many people I know make their livings:
    dyne:bolic is a nifty little package but I neither use it much (having
    discovered most of the packages in it through other distros) nor
    recommend it because most artists I know would find the packages more
    annoying than useful for what they do --'cept gimp which is equally
    both. Even as far as a "standard office PC" goes, there's no such
    thing. Most people perceive and use their computers so superficially
    they do not even know what's on their computers and even I've been
    surprised when somebody pokes around.


  16. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5harrgF3hu34fU3@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > Yes, certainly, that's a full linux installation and so it does 'count'
    > > toward the total of linux boxes ... but that wasn't the question. The
    > > question was whether the 'commodity' router, firewalls, NAS servers, etc,
    > > running linux (very possibly from ROM) 'counted' ... and those certainly
    > > *are* embedded.

    >
    > Not that clear-cut. Sorry. And there are 'commodity' routers that do
    > filesharing, web-servering, DNS-caching and other server-stuff.


    I think we both know what I'm trying to say here ... there is a class of
    device, that we may call an 'appliance', that uses an embedded linux system to
    perform just one function -- be that router, DNS server, DHCP server,
    firewall, NAS, or (more usually) some combination of these.

    Yes, there are other devices that don't fit that pattern, but they're not what
    we were talking about.

    > >> The thing is that Linux looses far less functionality in small
    > >> installations that anything from MS does.

    >
    > > That's true ... but a little unfair.

    >
    > I don't believe so. I think it is entirely fair to point
    > out that Linux is not the bloatware MS produces.


    I said it was unfair because you're not comparing like with like. When you
    compare the linux used to run an 'appliance' you can't compare that with NT --
    you have to comapare it with WinCE. CE is quite a decent little RTOS. It's not
    fair to tar that with the same 'bloatware' brush that one might apply to XP.

    Not that I'm talking about the core WinCE OS, not the "Windows Mobile" crap
    that tends to be piled on top of it ... after all, when we talk about embedded
    linux we're not talking about Qtopia.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



  17. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:<5harrgF3hu34fU3@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> > Yes, certainly, that's a full linux installation and so it does 'count'
    >> > toward the total of linux boxes ... but that wasn't the question. The
    >> > question was whether the 'commodity' router, firewalls, NAS servers, etc,
    >> > running linux (very possibly from ROM) 'counted' ... and those certainly
    >> > *are* embedded.

    >>
    >> Not that clear-cut. Sorry. And there are 'commodity' routers that do
    >> filesharing, web-servering, DNS-caching and other server-stuff.


    > I think we both know what I'm trying to say here ... there is a
    > class of device, that we may call an 'appliance', that uses an
    > embedded linux system to perform just one function -- be that
    > router, DNS server, DHCP server, firewall, NAS, or (more usually)
    > some combination of these. Yes, there are other devices that don't
    > fit that pattern, but they're not what we were talking about.


    I know indeed what you are trying to say. My claim is that
    with Linux installations there is a large grey area that does
    usually not exist with commercial OSes.

    >> >> The thing is that Linux looses far less functionality in small
    >> >> installations that anything from MS does.

    >>
    >> > That's true ... but a little unfair.

    >>
    >> I don't believe so. I think it is entirely fair to point
    >> out that Linux is not the bloatware MS produces.


    > I said it was unfair because you're not comparing like with
    > like. When you compare the linux used to run an 'appliance' you
    > can't compare that with NT -- you have to comapare it with WinCE. CE
    > is quite a decent little RTOS. It's not fair to tar that with the
    > same 'bloatware' brush that one might apply to XP.


    Why, it is. The thing is that you do not have to resort to
    a "little RTOS" to get something Linux-like onto a smaller device.
    You can just use the same kernel, that also is put on larger and
    very large systems.

    > Not that I'm talking about the core WinCE OS, not the "Windows
    > Mobile" crap that tends to be piled on top of it ... after all, when
    > we talk about embedded linux we're not talking about Qtopia.


    Aha. I think there is the misunderstanding. You see, the WinCE kernel
    is not the Windows kernel. But the Linux kernel is the Linux
    kernel. There is no cut down and adapted version, because the original
    thing can be used in an embedded context. Consequentially you have the
    option to run a lot of standard Linux software on embedded Linux
    installations. This is what makes defining what a ''Linux
    installation'' is much more difficult.

    Arno

  18. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5he1qkF3kgs69U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > I know indeed what you are trying to say.


    I thought I had succeeded in saying it ... but as long as you understand,
    that's the main thing.

    > My claim is that with Linux installations there is a large grey area
    > that does usually not exist with commercial OSes.


    "Grey area"? I'd say rather that linux has the potential to support a wide
    range of diverse applications that Windows is not able to address because
    of its closed nature, proprietary control, and costly licensing ... but you
    can call it a "grey area" if you like .

    > Why, it is. The thing is that you do not have to resort to
    > a "little RTOS" to get something Linux-like onto a smaller device.
    > You can just use the same kernel, that also is put on larger and
    > very large systems.


    The whole notion of "same kernel" seems a little strange to me ... I have
    three boxes here that spend some or all of their time running linux and I
    don't run the same kernel on any two of them: they're all 2.6.19 (at
    present) but the II and C3 boxes don't have multiprocessor support compiled
    in, the C3 and P4 boxes don't have SCSI drivers compiled in, the PIII and
    P4 boxes don't have v4l support compiled in ... and my Zaurus (on 2.4.6) is
    different again ...

    However, I do know what you mean ... NT and CE aren't the same OS, but the
    linux on my Zaurus is substantially the same as the linux on all three
    Gentoo boxes. I happen to configure the kernel differently for each box,
    but I could run one kernel configuration that would work on all three boxes
    (and there would be advantages in doing so, at least for the two that run
    IDE drives and could then boot off each others' disks).

    > Aha. I think there is the misunderstanding. You see, the WinCE kernel
    > is not the Windows kernel. But the Linux kernel is the Linux kernel.


    No, I understand that ... I just wasn't sure whether you were going to
    insist on making the distinction. This all started with the observation
    that if CE counts as Windows then embedded linux devices must count as
    linux, for the purposes of counting the size of the installed base. You're
    now taking that a step further and saying that CE devices are not what is
    meant, generically, by "Windows" but linux appliances *are* linux ... I'd
    agree with that but many (Windows Mobile users, especially) would not.

    I've a feeling that there are many more linux applicances than there are
    Wince devices, so I say we count 'em all!

    ( ... Tivo boxes are linux appliances ... that's another.)

    > This is what makes defining what a ''Linux installation'' is much more
    > difficult.


    On the contrary ... it makes defining a "linux installation" easier, it
    makes defining a "Windows installation" more difficult.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.




  19. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:<5he1qkF3kgs69U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> I know indeed what you are trying to say.


    > I thought I had succeeded in saying it ... but as long as you understand,
    > that's the main thing.


    >> My claim is that with Linux installations there is a large grey area
    >> that does usually not exist with commercial OSes.


    > "Grey area"? I'd say rather that linux has the potential to support a wide
    > range of diverse applications that Windows is not able to address because
    > of its closed nature, proprietary control, and costly licensing ... but you
    > can call it a "grey area" if you like .


    Ok, I see we are in agreement ;-)


    >> Why, it is. The thing is that you do not have to resort to
    >> a "little RTOS" to get something Linux-like onto a smaller device.
    >> You can just use the same kernel, that also is put on larger and
    >> very large systems.


    > The whole notion of "same kernel" seems a little strange to me ... I have
    > three boxes here that spend some or all of their time running linux and I
    > don't run the same kernel on any two of them: they're all 2.6.19 (at
    > present) but the II and C3 boxes don't have multiprocessor support compiled
    > in, the C3 and P4 boxes don't have SCSI drivers compiled in, the PIII and
    > P4 boxes don't have v4l support compiled in ... and my Zaurus (on 2.4.6) is
    > different again ...


    > However, I do know what you mean ... NT and CE aren't the same OS, but the
    > linux on my Zaurus is substantially the same as the linux on all three
    > Gentoo boxes. I happen to configure the kernel differently for each box,
    > but I could run one kernel configuration that would work on all three boxes
    > (and there would be advantages in doing so, at least for the two that run
    > IDE drives and could then boot off each others' disks).


    Exactly. Form the developers/sysadmin side of things there is no
    fundamental difference. Of course you can configure your kernel
    differently. It is still the same beast.

    >> Aha. I think there is the misunderstanding. You see, the WinCE kernel
    >> is not the Windows kernel. But the Linux kernel is the Linux kernel.


    > No, I understand that ... I just wasn't sure whether you were going to
    > insist on making the distinction. This all started with the observation
    > that if CE counts as Windows then embedded linux devices must count as
    > linux, for the purposes of counting the size of the installed base. You're
    > now taking that a step further and saying that CE devices are not what is
    > meant, generically, by "Windows" but linux appliances *are* linux ... I'd
    > agree with that but many (Windows Mobile users, especially) would not.


    Yes, you are right. Good summary. I think I lost track of the discussion
    to some degree.

    > I've a feeling that there are many more linux applicances than there are
    > Wince devices, so I say we count 'em all!


    > ( ... Tivo boxes are linux appliances ... that's another.)


    >> This is what makes defining what a ''Linux installation'' is much more
    >> difficult.


    > On the contrary ... it makes defining a "linux installation" easier, it
    > makes defining a "Windows installation" more difficult.


    Hmm. True again.

    Arno




  20. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article , Daniel James wrote:
    > Of all vendors, only Psion have ever
    > displayed an inkling of understanding of their own marketplace)
    >

    "Someone would think that we're singing from the same hymn
    sheet," says Aidan, closing his Psion and putting it back into his coat
    pocket.

    --
    Aidan Karley
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Written at Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:01 +0100, but posted later.
    Using VA 5.51 build 315 under Windows 2000 build 2195.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast