[News] Vista64 + 4GB of RAM = BSOD

Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram

,----[ Quote ]
| I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram from Newegg.com. Everything
| arrived fine, I installed the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it
| involves talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and then to
| install the second stick you just have to remove the back panel. I stuck in a
| Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit version and started the install. Everything
| went fine, Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this point.
| It rebooted after successful install, was loading into windows and then blue
| screened. I was devastated lol.
`----

[url]http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/[/url]

More 'polished' software from our friends at Redmond.


Related:

Testing Vista's different memory configurations

,----[ Quote ]
| You simply cannot play games on Vista with 512MB o memory, at least not the
| games wen tested. You will sometimes get playable scores but even then the
| experience and the load time will be ridiculous.
|
| Anything more than 512MB will help you a lot, with 2x1GB being the best
| price performance buy.
|
| 4x1GB is the best choice for best raw performance. It is hard to prove it
| ^^^^^
| in every test, but if you have 2x1GB and you load as much in memory, the
| ^^^^^
| system will become endessly slow.
| ^^^^
`----

[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148[/url]


Vista Runs Smooth Only on 2G Memory

,----[ Quote ]
| However, Dell CEO Kevin Rollins suggested otherwise on Thursday, 26 Oct at
| a speech at Shanghai's Jiaotong University. "I think they tell you maybe 1
| gig of memory is OK. No, two gigs of memory would be great."
|
| This echoes with my own experience with Vista RC2. With only 1G of
| RAM, there are many disk activities indicating heavy disk swap, a
| symptom of lack of memory in the system.
`----

[url]http://www.itechnote.com/2006/10/27/vista-runs-smooth-only-on-2g-memory/[/url]


Vista System Memory Concerns

,----[ Quote ]
| Vista: Facing a Slow Adoption. In the beginning, early adopters and
| gamers who are looking to ready themselves for the DirectX 10 upgrade
| will be best suited for those ready to make an investment in the
| unknown.
|
| Considering how many software and game titles will likely need to
| be run in "compatibility mode" until patches are released across
| the board, I would suggest really looking at what Vista's advantages
| are before taking the plunge.
|
| No matter how much we may wish to see the path Vista is about to
| embark on, the fact remains that because of its hardware requirements,
| Vista adoption may turn out to be rather slow.
`----

[url]http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2395&Itemid=449[/url]


Microsoft Windows Is A Greedy Memory Hog, The Cure Is To Feed It RAM

,----[ Quote ]
| For Windows 2000, XP, 512MB is the minimum and 1GB or more is recommended.
| For Windows 98 any flavor, 256MB is the minimum and 1GB is recommended. If
| you are an avid PC gamer or video editor, 1GB is the minimum
| recommendation. Other operating systems such as Linux or Mac are similar.
| Simply put: more is better.
`----

[url]http://bytepowered.org/articles/Article/Microsoft-Windows-Is-A-Greedy-Memory-Hog--The-Cure-Is-To-Feed-It-RAM/539[/url]
[url]http://tinyurl.com/yn9ztx[/url]


Vista PCs: Suffering from Memory Loss?

,----[ Quote ]
| A reader wants to know why his new computer--which is supposed to have
| 4GB of memory--keeps telling him it really has only 3GB
`----

[url]http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070326_121616.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology[/url]


"Valued customers" bug Neat Receipts over Vista support

,----[ Quote ]
| There, people wonder why it's just so difficult for firms to develop 64-bit
| drivers. Microsoft might be a better company to ask - but we suspect it's a
| huge sea change and we are just the flots and the jets being carried along on
| the top of an irresistible wave. Â*
`----

[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548[/url]


Next Release of OneCare Won't Support Vista x64

,----[ Quote ]
| When Microsoft announced that it was ready to roll out Windows Live
| OneCare version 1.5 to coincide with the general release of Windows
| Vista, it omitted one important fact: the product will not support
| Vista x64 or XP x64.
`----

[url]http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/security/next_release_of_onecare_still_wontsupport_vista_x64.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535[/url]
[url]http://tinyurl.com/26ndme[/url]


Microsoft Vista 64 bit is no go in 2007

,----[ Quote ]
| Without an exception, they all think it's too early and the drivers
| won't be that polished for 64 bit either. AMD and Intel have CPUs which
| can support 64 operating systems but the drivers are still lame,
| unpolished and slow compared with 32 bit.
`----

[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36938[/url]


Vista 64 VS Vista 32

,----[ Quote ]
| Vista 64 has a slight advantage over the 32 Bit version speed
| wise, unfortunately due to the stringent drivers requirements
| for the 64 Bit versions, at this point
| my recommendations are to stick with the 32 Bit version of
| Vista until most of Â*hardware manufacturers and software
| manufactures (including Microsoft) decide to actually take
| advantage of the 64 Bit architecture!
| Even better: get serious and do some progress in this
| industry, I am sick and tired to just see marketing
| numbers and not actually progress here.
`----

[url]http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1171842357[/url]


Windows XP 64 is crap and things break and printers dont work and
quickbooks doesnt work the list goes on

,----[ Quote ]
| Morale (sic) of the story is - if you are using Microsoft products, stay
| away from the cutting edge - it sucks pretty bad.
`----

[url]http://www.pintmaster.com/20061212/windows-xp-64-is-crap-and-things-break-and-printers-dont-work-and-quickbooks-doesnt-work-the-list-goes-on/[/url]
[url]http://tinyurl.com/yguyum[/url]


Support for Microsoft Windows XP x64 Not Worth Anything

,----[ Quote ]
| Almost no one is supporting Microsoft Windows XP x64, the 64-bit
| version of Windows XP.
|
| There are no Antivirus programs that work with x64 and most
| applications won't work with x64 (unless they run the crippled
| 32-bit equivalent).
|
| Programs won't install printer drivers because, apparently, no one
| can figure out how to write a 64-bit printer driver.
|
| If Windows XP x64 has this much trouble with basic elements such
| as printer drivers, how can anyone expect the much maligned Windows
| Vista to be of any value?
|
| Frankly, my high opinion of Microsoft is quickly fading away, and
| my shop used to be a staunch Microsoft shop.
|
| Open Source alternatives are looking better and better every
| day.
`----

[url]http://roacm.blogspot.com/[/url]


Vista users get the 64-bit blues

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is keen to stir up enthusiasm for Windows Vista, but
| when it comes to the 64-bit edition of the recently released
| operating system, the software giant is sending decidedly
| mixed messages.
`----

[url]http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Vista_users_get_the_64_bit_blues/0,130061733,339273707,00.htm[/url]
[url]http://tinyurl.com/224e3f[/url]

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@schestowitz.com...[color=blue]
> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram from Newegg.com.
> Everything
> | arrived fine, I installed the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it
> | involves talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and then to
> | install the second stick you just have to remove the back panel. I stuck
> in a
> | Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit version and started the install.
> Everything
> | went fine, Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
> point.
> | It rebooted after successful install, was loading into windows and then
> blue
> | screened. I was devastated lol.
> `----
>
> [url]http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/[/url][/color]


--- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows fine, installed
the small patch, restarted, stuck additional stick back in and yay! it didn't
blue screen going into windows. If you ask me, this update should be part of
the Vista install, and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having
trouble with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I hope
it helps you."

And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even consider using
linux.






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

On Oct 21, 10:20 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>[/color]

Misinformation from Roy Toy as usual. In point of fact, Vista 64 bit
will run 4GB RAM flawlessly, but it's the 32 bit version of Vista that
gives problems with RAM over 2 GB--since it cannot see RAM over 2 GB.

Computer Science 101. But what do you expect from Roy, a salesman and
paid basher for the Linux parasite businesses. They'll stoop to
nothing, even paying a basher like Roy to post in COLA endlessly.

RL

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dan D. Lyons
<DanLyons@gmail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
<471cfd8d$0$26424$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=blue]
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@schestowitz.com...[color=green]
>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram
>> | from Newegg.com. Everything arrived fine, I installed
>> | the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it involves
>> | talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and
>> | then to install the second stick you just have to remove
>> | the back panel. I stuck in a Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit
>> | version and started the install. Everything went fine,
>> | Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
>> | point. It rebooted after successful install, was loading
>> | into windows and then blue screened. I was devastated lol.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/[/url][/color]
>
>
> --- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows
> fine, installed the small patch, restarted, stuck additional
> stick back in and yay! it didn't blue screen going into windows.
> If you ask me, this update should be part of the Vista install,
> and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having trouble
> with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I
> hope it helps you."
>
> And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even
> consider using linux.
>[/color]

What, precisely, is the reason (or, if one prefers,
a good set of reasons) someone should use Linux?

If we advocates can't answer that, Linux is doomed to die,
and rightfully so; a user must *want* Linux, and thus
far Linux (or many of the distributions surrounding it)
is merely a carbon copy of the "innovative" Windows...at
least as far as I can see from the publications focusing
thereon, and the ignorance of users in general. (Some of
them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
standing still here.)

Not that that is anywhere near true, but does Joe Business
User really care if Linux uses open() or CreateFile()
in its internals? Not even close; the user cares about
accurate presentation of a document/spreadsheet (or the
GUI representation thereof) and its printout. Windows is
adequate (though hardly spectacular) therein, and therefore
Joe User is satisfied.

And in the above case, Joe User was quite satisfied
after the patch. These things happen with both systems.
Clearly, once repaired, Vista is more than adequate for
the task at hand (though at this point the task is simply
to stay up for more than 5 seconds while booting itself;
if a system can't do that, it's very very doomed).

There is, of course, the question of acquisition cost,
but that's not the whole problem -- and I'm frankly not
sure how much of the problem acquisition cost is.

The question of reliability is an interesting one, and
Linux does appear to be more reliable in that realm;
it either works 99.9999% or it fails all the time.
With Windows, one gets some interesting randomicity (if
that's a word). IE in particular is not guaranteed to show
the user's homepage (it occasionally goes to its update
site), and even Mozilla is slightly infected in that realm,
though only if Mozilla's been updated previously.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:22ivu4-73b.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=blue]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dan D. Lyons
> <DanLyons@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
> <471cfd8d$0$26424$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=green]
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>> news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@schestowitz.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram
>>> | from Newegg.com. Everything arrived fine, I installed
>>> | the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it involves
>>> | talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and
>>> | then to install the second stick you just have to remove
>>> | the back panel. I stuck in a Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit
>>> | version and started the install. Everything went fine,
>>> | Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
>>> | point. It rebooted after successful install, was loading
>>> | into windows and then blue screened. I was devastated lol.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> [url]http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/[/url][/color]
>>
>>
>> --- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows
>> fine, installed the small patch, restarted, stuck additional
>> stick back in and yay! it didn't blue screen going into windows.
>> If you ask me, this update should be part of the Vista install,
>> and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having trouble
>> with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I
>> hope it helps you."
>>
>> And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even
>> consider using linux.
>>[/color]
>
> What, precisely, is the reason (or, if one prefers,
> a good set of reasons) someone should use Linux?[/color]

It's one of the questions that a product maker must ask itself. Who is our
target customer? Why would they choose this product over product X? And
other questions like this. Amateurs laugh and think this is a childish
exercise. Senior management calls it product focus and knowing your market.


[color=blue]
> If we advocates can't answer that, Linux is doomed to die,
> and rightfully so; a user must *want* Linux, and thus
> far Linux (or many of the distributions surrounding it)
> is merely a carbon copy of the "innovative" Windows...at
> least as far as I can see from the publications focusing
> thereon, and the ignorance of users in general.[/color]

It's a question that people don't ask... but they should. Because it is
exactly the question that customers (NEW users) will be asking themselves.
(Customers does not imply having to pay for the product.)

[color=blue]
> (Some of
> them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
> which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
> standing still here.)[/color]

Windows is plenty reliable for 99% of users. The only place where people
complain and whine about the urban legend of needing to reboot Windows ever
hour is here in COLA. It certainly isn't like that out in the real world.

As long as the "advocates" here think that they've won because people will
pick linux to avoid "rebooting every hour" then they are more clueless than
previously imagined.


[color=blue]
> Not that that is anywhere near true, but does Joe Business
> User really care if Linux uses open() or CreateFile()
> in its internals? Not even close; the user cares about
> accurate presentation of a document/spreadsheet (or the
> GUI representation thereof) and its printout. Windows is
> adequate (though hardly spectacular) therein, and therefore
> Joe User is satisfied.[/color]

For Joe user the "internals" doesn't matter. Not one bit. It's a matter of
what they can do with the computer that counts... not how the computer does
things internally. Users think about the "applications" not OS.

[color=blue]
> And in the above case, Joe User was quite satisfied
> after the patch. These things happen with both systems.
> Clearly, once repaired, Vista is more than adequate for
> the task at hand (though at this point the task is simply
> to stay up for more than 5 seconds while booting itself;
> if a system can't do that, it's very very doomed).[/color]

The article didn't mention what the "task" was that the user was going to
do. But he felt that Windows was the OS to do it with.


[color=blue]
> There is, of course, the question of acquisition cost,
> but that's not the whole problem -- and I'm frankly not
> sure how much of the problem acquisition cost is.[/color]

It matters for places like schools that are on a tight budget. But for a
company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years (which they buy in bulk
anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay employees. They'd
save more by switching to cheaper brand of coffee in the kitchen.


[color=blue]
> The question of reliability is an interesting one, and
> Linux does appear to be more reliable in that realm;
> it either works 99.9999% or it fails all the time.
> With Windows, one gets some interesting randomicity (if
> that's a word). IE in particular is not guaranteed to show
> the user's homepage (it occasionally goes to its update
> site), and even Mozilla is slightly infected in that realm,
> though only if Mozilla's been updated previously.[/color]

Linux may be slightly more reliable but to most people there is no
difference between linux being 99.999% reliable and Windows being 99.99%
reliable. If you were comparing linux to Win98 there'd be an advantage.

[color=blue]
> --
> #191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
> Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
> It's a question of when.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]
>[/color]



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

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Templar
<TheSaint@comcastic.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:04:41 -0400
<471d2eb1$0$29634$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=blue]
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:22ivu4-73b.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=green]
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dan D. Lyons
>> <DanLyons@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
>> <471cfd8d$0$26424$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@schestowitz.com...
>>>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram
>>>> | from Newegg.com. Everything arrived fine, I installed
>>>> | the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it involves
>>>> | talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and
>>>> | then to install the second stick you just have to remove
>>>> | the back panel. I stuck in a Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit
>>>> | version and started the install. Everything went fine,
>>>> | Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
>>>> | point. It rebooted after successful install, was loading
>>>> | into windows and then blue screened. I was devastated lol.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/[/url]
>>>
>>>
>>> --- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows
>>> fine, installed the small patch, restarted, stuck additional
>>> stick back in and yay! it didn't blue screen going into windows.
>>> If you ask me, this update should be part of the Vista install,
>>> and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having trouble
>>> with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I
>>> hope it helps you."
>>>
>>> And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even
>>> consider using linux.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> What, precisely, is the reason (or, if one prefers,
>> a good set of reasons) someone should use Linux?[/color]
>
> It's one of the questions that a product maker must
> ask itself.[/color]

Linux has no product maker as such. A product manager,
maybe...but no maker. Linus did initially create the seed,
and manages part of the kernel. I'm not sure regarding
the division of labor now, but at best it's a labor of
love, leveraged by big businesses such as IBM to sell
more actual hardware. But then, this is an inherently
communistic enterprise -- anyone can take the kernel,
and some might be able to give back according to their
abilities. Is this good? An interesting question, which
is probably beyond this particular discussion group.
[color=blue]
> Who is our target customer?[/color]

Linux has no customers. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.
Zero. To be sure, there are a number of salable distros --
Redhat and Novell/SuSE being the most obvious -- and of
course one can modify the Linux kernel as s/he sees fit.
But one does not *buy* the kernel -- one downloads it
(the cost of a download being at most half a cent).

Therefore, no customers as such. Perhaps a different
term would be preferable -- Users? Integrators?
[color=blue]
> Why would they choose this product over product X?[/color]

s/X/Windows/

And that is indeed the question. The only answer I
have: inexpensiveness and reliability -- and both quickly
evaporate unless one knows exactly what one is doing, nor
is either one all that relevant in a desktop setting (the
inexpensiveness is in the IT budget and therefore hidden;
reliability is not an issue if one has a good NAT blocking
infection vectors and procedures to handle the stupider
phishing/pharming email attempts).
[color=blue]
> And
> other questions like this. Amateurs laugh and think this
> is a childish exercise. Senior management calls it product
> focus and knowing your market.[/color]

I wouldn't know. I'm a software engineer, schlogging through
the actual code while senior management do their high-level
thinking stuff. One hopes we're in sync but there are days
I do wonder here at $EMPLOYER.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> If we advocates can't answer that, Linux is doomed to die,
>> and rightfully so; a user must *want* Linux, and thus
>> far Linux (or many of the distributions surrounding it)
>> is merely a carbon copy of the "innovative" Windows...at
>> least as far as I can see from the publications focusing
>> thereon, and the ignorance of users in general.[/color]
>
> It's a question that people don't ask... but they should.[/color]

Should? They *MUST*. Does one ask what one needs a car
for? How about that new toaster? House? Boat? Desktop
unit?

It's a significant capital expenditure.
[color=blue]
> Because it is
> exactly the question that customers (NEW users) will be
> asking themselves. (Customers does not imply having to
> pay for the product.)[/color]

One pays in a way. With Linux, it's a learning curve.
With Windows, it's "ease of use" and preinstallation.

Guess which way works better for Microsoft.

Go on. Guess. ;-)

Now guess which one works better for the individual
business. The answer may depend on whether the business
or individual has Linux expertise or not.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> (Some of
>> them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
>> which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
>> standing still here.)[/color]
>
> Windows is plenty reliable for 99% of users.[/color]

s/99%/almost all/
[color=blue]
> The only place where people
> complain and whine about the urban legend of needing
> to reboot Windows ever hour is here in COLA.
> It certainly isn't like that out in the real world.[/color]

The usual reboot time for Windows has been claimed to be
about 6 weeks on average (the 49.7 day bug is about 7 weeks
and has long since been fixed); however, there are Windows
systems out there that have been running continuously for
over 2 years.

The main problem with Windows is that auto-extending paging
file. Fix that, and I for one surmise most of the performance
problems will evaporate.
[color=blue]
>
> As long as the "advocates" here think that they've won
> because people will pick linux to avoid "rebooting every
> hour" then they are more clueless than previously imagined.[/color]

Some advocates are more clued-in than others -- or haven't
you noticed? ;-) In any event, Windows is a perfect
solution for many -- and a pricey one for some, both in
terms of initial cost and in terms of maintenance headaches
(primarily brought upon by sloppy management, exacerbated
by common but inadvisable practices caused primarily by
Windows' history of "one machine, one user" -- a practice
that is changing for the better and Vista will complete
that changeover, presumably...though I have my doubts.)
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> Not that that is anywhere near true, but does Joe Business
>> User really care if Linux uses open() or CreateFile()
>> in its internals? Not even close; the user cares about
>> accurate presentation of a document/spreadsheet (or the
>> GUI representation thereof) and its printout. Windows is
>> adequate (though hardly spectacular) therein, and therefore
>> Joe User is satisfied.[/color]
>
> For Joe user the "internals" doesn't matter. Not one bit.
> It's a matter of what they can do with the computer that
> counts... not how the computer does things internally.
> Users think about the "applications" not OS.[/color]

I'm not at all sure about that. Users think about the data
and/or the high-level processes. I want to do this with
the information; the tool names are generally irrelevant,
except perhaps as a sales point. I want this unit to help
our customers, who are coming in with Internet Explorer
and Mozilla Firefox web browsers -- a web browser being,
generally speaking, a standardized fat client. I want
to contact XYZ corporation to place an order using
this standardized fat client.

To that end, Microsoft has superb packaging. Want to
write? Use Word. Want to excel in business? Use Excel.
Want to make powerful points in a presentation?
Microsoft Powerpoint. Want to implement a service?
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, and Internet Information
Services. Want to do office work? Microsoft Office.
Want to explore the Internet? Internet Explorer. Want
to browse the Web? Uh, we'll get back to you on that.

And so on. There are some interesting exceptions, such
as "Microsoft BOB" -- but by and large, Microsoft has
succeeded in building a marketing empire that Rome would
have drooled over.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> And in the above case, Joe User was quite satisfied
>> after the patch. These things happen with both systems.
>> Clearly, once repaired, Vista is more than adequate for
>> the task at hand (though at this point the task is simply
>> to stay up for more than 5 seconds while booting itself;
>> if a system can't do that, it's very very doomed).[/color]
>
> The article didn't mention what the "task" was that the user was going to
> do. But he felt that Windows was the OS to do it with.[/color]

The task starts with the machine being made available
for use. To that end, Vista was initially failing --
but came up once the patch was applied. Teething problems.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[color=green]
>> There is, of course, the question of acquisition cost,
>> but that's not the whole problem -- and I'm frankly not
>> sure how much of the problem acquisition cost is.[/color]
>
> It matters for places like schools that are on a tight
> budget.[/color]

In which case, that budget is expressable both as a
monetary outlay ($$$) and as a time-to-working-system.
That's where Microsoft excels; small scale system
integration is a snap.

(This is not to say Linux can't be set up equally quickly,
by a competent IT staff. However, it *is* different, and
the problem is exacerbated in mid-scale integration if
one has a Linux/Windows hybrid network.)
[color=blue]
> But for a
> company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years[/color]

3. Equipment is depreciated on a 36 month schedule here.
[color=blue]
> (which they buy in bulk
> anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay
> employees. They'd save more by switching to cheaper brand
> of coffee in the kitchen.[/color]

And to Vista. The IDC report has been questioned many times,
but its conclusions are clear: Windows is cheaper.

(Whether its premises or methodology are correct -- I for one
do not know. I have my suspicions.)
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> The question of reliability is an interesting one, and
>> Linux does appear to be more reliable in that realm;
>> it either works 99.9999% or it fails all the time.
>> With Windows, one gets some interesting randomicity (if
>> that's a word). IE in particular is not guaranteed to show
>> the user's homepage (it occasionally goes to its update
>> site), and even Mozilla is slightly infected in that realm,
>> though only if Mozilla's been updated previously.[/color]
>
> Linux may be slightly more reliable[/color]

The two are now equally reliable, given the commentary below.
[color=blue]
> but to most people there is no
> difference between linux being 99.999% reliable and Windows being 99.99%
> reliable. If you were comparing linux to Win98 there'd be an advantage.[/color]

Linux has no performance advantages; they've eroded away.
Regrettably, the viruses have not -- so one wonders how
reliable Windows really is, in the malware defense area.
However, I suspect Linux's advantage here will eventually
erode away as well, as vulnerable dialup lines get replaced
with sophisticated NAT routers (they're *given* away!),
hardware spam blockers, and traffic analyzers that can
sniff out most common DDoS attacks and squish them before
the IT staff even has to get involved.

Is your system infected? Doesn't matter. It can't attack.
Windows wins again.

(How one overthrows such a corrupt system is far from
clear. Linux is the cleaner solution, but not the
preferable one from a marketing standpoint, especially
if one is selling hardware designed to bullet-proof a
Windows web/SOAfarm. If we're not careful the webfarms
will also start to specialize in IE-specific code again,
with Silverlight being the joker in the deck.)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable

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

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:04:41 -0400, Simon Templar wrote:
[color=blue]
> It matters for places like schools that are on a tight budget. But for a
> company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years (which they buy in
> bulk anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay employees.
> They'd save more by switching to cheaper brand of coffee in the kitchen.[/color]

I think there are many hidden costs -- for instance, the annoyance of
malware (never mind the tools to remove it). I was about to argue that
given a sufficient number of Linux users there would be plenty of room
for commercial apps to duke it out on a level playing field to the
benefit of all -- but then considered the google office apps.

I can't imagine a situation where commercial application software for
Linux would be competitive and lucrative because either the GPL version
is or would displace the commercial version, or some other model, like
google office running over the web, would change the rules.

However, there's an enormous hidden cost in the lost opportunities from
being stuck with Windows because the applications are written only for
Windows because Windows is what's installed, and being locked into a
specific application.


-Thufir

raylopez99 wrote:[color=blue]
> On Oct 21, 10:20 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
> wrote:[color=green]
>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>[/color]
>
> Misinformation from Roy Toy as usual.[/color]

No, Roy is correct as usual.

[color=blue]
> In point of fact, Vista 64 bit
> will run 4GB RAM flawlessly, but it's the 32 bit version of Vista that
> gives problems with RAM over 2 GB--since it cannot see RAM over 2 GB.[/color]

On the other hand, you are wrong. You might want to read this
easy-to-understand article about 32 bit Vista memory:

[url]http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/[/url]
'32-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business,
Enterprise, and Ultimate: 4GB'

[color=blue]
> Computer Science 101.[/color]

You flunked Computer Science 101, didn't you Ray?

[color=blue]
> But what do you expect from Roy,[/color]

Good news and great Linux advocacy. And that is what I'm getting.



--
Timo Pirinen
[email]pirisisi@dlc.fi[/email]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Timo Pirinen
<pirisisi@dlc.fi>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:42:50 GMT
<KLnTi.139$Gq3.5@read3.inet.fi>:[color=blue]
> raylopez99 wrote:[color=green]
>> On Oct 21, 10:20 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
>> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Misinformation from Roy Toy as usual.[/color]
>
> No, Roy is correct as usual.
>
>[color=green]
>> In point of fact, Vista 64 bit
>> will run 4GB RAM flawlessly, but it's the 32 bit version of Vista that
>> gives problems with RAM over 2 GB--since it cannot see RAM over 2 GB.[/color]
>
> On the other hand, you are wrong. You might want to read this
> easy-to-understand article about 32 bit Vista memory:
>
> [url]http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/[/url]
> '32-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business,
> Enterprise, and Ultimate: 4GB'[/color]

Double edged sword, though; that article also claims:

So, PAE won’t make your Photoshop or video editing
app any faster, and it isn’t nearly as useful as it
sounds. While 64-bit Windows Vista isn’t perfect,
it will give you access to your full address space,
and you’re bound to have far fewer application
compatibility problems (and get more out of your
memory) than you would with 32-bit Linux and PAE.

Granted, I'd have to study the issue in Linux's case.
I'll admit to wondering.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> Computer Science 101.[/color]
>
> You flunked Computer Science 101, didn't you Ray?
>
>[color=green]
>> But what do you expect from Roy,[/color]
>
> Good news and great Linux advocacy. And that is what I'm getting.
>[/color]

If nothing else, Roy's stuff is a series of news reports
that show various successes with Linux -- and interesting
failures with Vista.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

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

Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> espoused:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:04:41 -0400, Simon Templar wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It matters for places like schools that are on a tight budget. But for a
>> company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years (which they buy in
>> bulk anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay employees.
>> They'd save more by switching to cheaper brand of coffee in the kitchen.[/color]
>
> I think there are many hidden costs -- for instance, the annoyance of
> malware (never mind the tools to remove it). I was about to argue that
> given a sufficient number of Linux users there would be plenty of room
> for commercial apps to duke it out on a level playing field to the
> benefit of all -- but then considered the google office apps.
>
> I can't imagine a situation where commercial application software for
> Linux would be competitive and lucrative because either the GPL version
> is or would displace the commercial version, or some other model, like
> google office running over the web, would change the rules.
>
> However, there's an enormous hidden cost in the lost opportunities from
> being stuck with Windows because the applications are written only for
> Windows because Windows is what's installed, and being locked into a
> specific application.
>
>[/color]

Many of the costs are not all that well hidden. One of the many
problems is that large companies pay OEMs which already have a licence
deal, and then have their own licence deal as well, so most large
companies pay not once, but twice, for their Windows licences. Of
course, then you have to factor the amazing costs of all the
applications and the servers which go with them; just exhange and
outlook alone can come into millions, *and* you're paying per user as
well as for the package, too.

Then, of course, being Microsoft, the servers need to be rebooted
regularly, so you need to pay babysitters for that. And, of course, you
need lots of machines to do things the Microsoft way, so your
electricity and cooling bills are huge, which is a disaster for your
green footprint.

We haven't even started on the horrific costs of Office yet,
particularly when you consider that there are perfectly good free Office
suites out there.

And then, finally, as you say, their is the appalling costs of trying to
keep all those machines secure, free of trojans, malware, viruses and
whatever else is doing the rounds this week.

Microsoft is for victims with huge budgets to waste.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: [url]http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/[/url] |
| Cola trolls: [url]http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/[/url] |
| My (new) blog: [url]http://www.thereisnomagic.org[/url] |