* High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> I am now running virtualbox

The Dizum Dip**** nym-steals again.

What a putz.

--
The worst programs are the ones where the programmers doing the original
work don't lay a solid foundation, and then they're not involved in the
program in the future.
-- Bill Gates

Linonut wrote:

> * High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> I am now running virtualbox
>
> The Dizum Dip**** nym-steals again.
>
> What a putz.

I didn't see it. Seems like teh troll's probably desperate for attention.

--
Mandriva 1 - 2008 - RC2 - 64bit OS.
COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/

William Poaster wrote:

> Linonut wrote:
>
>> * High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> I am now running virtualbox
>>
>> The Dizum Dip**** nym-steals again.
>>
>> What a putz.
>
> I didn't see it. Seems like teh troll's probably desperate for attention.



Haven't seen this type for a little while.

1. Keeps records on individuals
2. Uses a team to research individuals
3. Targets individuals (i.e. they are involved in team stalking)
4. Uses old networks which has hints of gov - may be they worked there?
5. Reaks of rent boys and spliffing management.
6. Hmm.. add more info here as as more infrastructure gets exposed...

Linonut wrote:

>* High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> I am now running virtualbox
>
>The Dizum Dip**** nym-steals again.
>
>What a putz.

You should change the attribution to something like "some idiot
forging HPT"...

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:43:29 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
>>
>>> 'Upgrading' involves either buying a complete new machine or fitting
>>> extra RAM. In either case this involves wasteful disposal of perfectly
>>> good exiting hardware, or extra time and costs of (a) fitting extras as
>>> well as (b) installing Vista upgrade software, with all the knock-on
>>> effects of re-installing drivers, networking software etc etc.
>>
>> By that argument, everyone should still be using 486's with 1MB of memory.
>>
>> I wonder why we aren't? Hell, even Linux requires 256MB these days if you
>> want decent performance of KDE or Gnome.
>
> You don't have to run KDE or Gnome. There are plenty of other smaller GUI
> desktops out there.

The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
use it.

>>> It's a pain in the ass for home users, and a nightmare for IT support as
>>> far as business users are concerned, adding a load of extra costs to the
>>> bottom line for very little business benefit beyond the ability to run
>>> the only Windows system that's going to be available when XP is scrapped.
>>
>> Most users don't upgrade their OS. Not even corporations. They replace
>> the OS as they replace hardware, which is typically on a 3 years cycle
>> (Hardware is fully tax depreciated after 3 years).
>>
>> Buying new machines properly configured for your needs is not "a pain in
>> the ass", nor is it very expensive.
>>
>> 2GB of memory costs $50, that's not "high spec".
>
> Fifty bucks? What planet do you live on?
>
> Here in Australia you pay three times that.... current US-AUS exchange rate
> is 92c US

Actually, it's significantly less than $50.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=%2425+-+%2450

If memory prices are that high in Australia, then computer prices in
general must be proportionately expensive as well, meaning that RAM is
proportionate to the cost of the PC the same.

On Mar 28, 12:27 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:43:29 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:

> >> I wonder why we aren't? Hell, even Linux requires 256MB these days if you
> >> want decent performance of KDE or Gnome.

> > You don't have to run KDE or Gnome. There are plenty of other smaller GUI
> > desktops out there.

Even KDE and Gnome don't require all that much. You can use
performance settings that require less memory and get a pretty nice
system that will run on a relatively small system. On the other hand,
even small PDAs and MP3 players have 1 gig of FLASH and 1/2 gig of RAM
for less than $50 (obviously not iPod, but Sansa, and Casio units for
example).

> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
> use it.

XP will run the basic applications, one at a time, on about 256 meg,
but if you want MS-Office, the popular plug-ins, and some third party
software, and you run them all concurrently, you can easily find your
PC in endless "halts" and pauses for simple functions.

I have a laptop with 4 gig of RAM, 160 gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and
dual core 2.6 Ghz Intel Duo processor, and it still seems painfully
slow when running multiple applications on Windows XP in native mode.
Memory garbage collection, hard drive thrashing.other bottlenecks just
seem to plague Windows XP. Vista was even worse, so bad I unplugged
it after about a week. Neither could recognize more than 3 gigabytes
of the 4 gigabytes of RAM, and even that seemed to be insufficient.

Linux on the other hand, had no problem using the full 4 gig, but
needed so little that it was able to more effeciently use the hard
drive, making everything - even the XP vmware appliance, run faster.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:

>> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
>> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
>> use it.
>
> XP will run the basic applications, one at a time, on about 256 meg,
> but if you want MS-Office, the popular plug-ins, and some third party
> software, and you run them all concurrently, you can easily find your
> PC in endless "halts" and pauses for simple functions.

You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock XP
install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not use
150MB each.

> I have a laptop with 4 gig of RAM, 160 gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and
> dual core 2.6 Ghz Intel Duo processor, and it still seems painfully
> slow when running multiple applications on Windows XP in native mode.
> Memory garbage collection, hard drive thrashing.other bottlenecks just
> seem to plague Windows XP. Vista was even worse, so bad I unplugged
> it after about a week. Neither could recognize more than 3 gigabytes
> of the 4 gigabytes of RAM, and even that seemed to be insufficient.

What kind of consultant are you if you don't understand that the PC
architecture reserves a certain amount of memory for device I/O?

http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archiv...m-problem.aspx

> Linux on the other hand, had no problem using the full 4 gig, but
> needed so little that it was able to more effeciently use the hard
> drive, making everything - even the XP vmware appliance, run faster.

Linux was clearly reporting 4GB, despite the fact that much of it was
unusable, unless of course you were using a 64 bit version of Linux, in
which case you should have been using a 64 bit version of Windows as
comparison.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:41:46 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>>> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
>>> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
>>> use it.
>>
>> XP will run the basic applications, one at a time, on about 256 meg,
>> but if you want MS-Office, the popular plug-ins, and some third party
>> software, and you run them all concurrently, you can easily find your
>> PC in endless "halts" and pauses for simple functions.
>
> You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock XP
> install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not use
> 150MB each.

Nooooo!
Rex fibbing?
Can't be...

FWIW the Dell 2400 i bought a few years ago came with Windows XP and 256M
memory.

It was horribly slow until I removed all the Dell trial ware, especially
Symantec Internet Security Suite, the entire POS.

Then the machine was decent.

Bumping up to 1G made it much better though.



>> I have a laptop with 4 gig of RAM, 160 gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and
>> dual core 2.6 Ghz Intel Duo processor, and it still seems painfully
>> slow when running multiple applications on Windows XP in native mode.
>> Memory garbage collection, hard drive thrashing.other bottlenecks just
>> seem to plague Windows XP. Vista was even worse, so bad I unplugged
>> it after about a week. Neither could recognize more than 3 gigabytes
>> of the 4 gigabytes of RAM, and even that seemed to be insufficient.
>
> What kind of consultant are you if you don't understand that the PC
> architecture reserves a certain amount of memory for device I/O?
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archiv...m-problem.aspx

He works for "you know who" so the standard answer is:

1. Underpaid
2. Over worked.
3. Under appreciated.
4. Stupid (for staying more than 3 years or so)

>> Linux on the other hand, had no problem using the full 4 gig, but
>> needed so little that it was able to more effeciently use the hard
>> drive, making everything - even the XP vmware appliance, run faster.
>
> Linux was clearly reporting 4GB, despite the fact that much of it was
> unusable, unless of course you were using a 64 bit version of Linux, in
> which case you should have been using a 64 bit version of Windows as
> comparison.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

* Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>>> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
>>> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
>>> use it.
>>
>> XP will run the basic applications, one at a time, on about 256 meg,
>> but if you want MS-Office, the popular plug-ins, and some third party
>> software, and you run them all concurrently, you can easily find your
>> PC in endless "halts" and pauses for simple functions.
>
> You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock XP
> install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not use
> 150MB each.

I wouldn't use XP on 256Mb, myself. Bleh.

>
>> I have a laptop with 4 gig of RAM, 160 gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and
>> dual core 2.6 Ghz Intel Duo processor, and it still seems painfully
>> slow when running multiple applications on Windows XP in native mode.
>> Memory garbage collection, hard drive thrashing.other bottlenecks just
>> seem to plague Windows XP. Vista was even worse, so bad I unplugged
>> it after about a week. Neither could recognize more than 3 gigabytes
>> of the 4 gigabytes of RAM, and even that seemed to be insufficient.
>
> What kind of consultant are you if you don't understand that the PC
> architecture reserves a certain amount of memory for device I/O?
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archiv...m-problem.aspx

>> Linux on the other hand, had no problem using the full 4 gig, but
>> needed so little that it was able to more effeciently use the hard
>> drive, making everything - even the XP vmware appliance, run faster.
>
> Linux was clearly reporting 4GB, despite the fact that much of it was
> unusable, unless of course you were using a 64 bit version of Linux, in
> which case you should have been using a 64 bit version of Windows as
> comparison.

You might want to rethink that claim, Erik:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...rary/l-memmod/

Therefore, in total the addressable limit by Page Directory is equal
to 1024*1024*4096 (equal to 2^32 memory cells which comes to 4 GB).
So on x86 architectures, the total addressable limit is 4 GB.

. . .

I've already shown you that the Linux kernel (on a 32-bit
architecture) divides the virtual memory into a 3:1 ratio, 3 GB
virtual memory for user space and 1 GB for kernel space. The kernel
code and its data structures must reside in this 1 GB of address
space, but an even bigger consumer of this address space is the
virtual mappings for the physical memory.

. . .

The high memory zone made its appearance in kernel memory management
when support for both Pentium II's virtual memory extension was
implemented (to access up to 64 GBs by means of PAE -- Physical
Address Extension -- on 32-bit systems) and support for 4 GB of
physical memory (again, on 32-bit systems). It is a concept applied
to x86 and SPARC platforms. Generally this 4 GB of memory is made
accessible by mapping the ZONE_HIGHMEM onto ZONE_NORMAL by means of
kmap(). Please note that it is not advisable to have more than 16 GB
of RAM on a 32-bit architecture, even when PAE is enabled.

Just get the kernel source, and find

Processor type and features
High Memory Support
CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y

--
The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete
sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really
love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible
degree.
-- Bill Gates

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:21:03 -0400, Linonut wrote:

> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>>>> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
>>>> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
>>>> use it.
>>>
>>> XP will run the basic applications, one at a time, on about 256 meg,
>>> but if you want MS-Office, the popular plug-ins, and some third party
>>> software, and you run them all concurrently, you can easily find your
>>> PC in endless "halts" and pauses for simple functions.
>>
>> You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock XP
>> install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not use
>> 150MB each.
>
> I wouldn't use XP on 256Mb, myself. Bleh.

Who cares what you would do.
The point is it runs fine.




--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:21:03 -0400, Linonut wrote:

>>> I have a laptop with 4 gig of RAM, 160 gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and
>>> dual core 2.6 Ghz Intel Duo processor, and it still seems painfully
>>> slow when running multiple applications on Windows XP in native mode.
>>> Memory garbage collection, hard drive thrashing.other bottlenecks just
>>> seem to plague Windows XP. Vista was even worse, so bad I unplugged
>>> it after about a week. Neither could recognize more than 3 gigabytes
>>> of the 4 gigabytes of RAM, and even that seemed to be insufficient.
>>
>> What kind of consultant are you if you don't understand that the PC
>> architecture reserves a certain amount of memory for device I/O?
>>
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archiv...m-problem.aspx
>
>>> Linux on the other hand, had no problem using the full 4 gig, but
>>> needed so little that it was able to more effeciently use the hard
>>> drive, making everything - even the XP vmware appliance, run faster.
>>
>> Linux was clearly reporting 4GB, despite the fact that much of it was
>> unusable, unless of course you were using a 64 bit version of Linux, in
>> which case you should have been using a 64 bit version of Windows as
>> comparison.
>
> You might want to rethink that claim, Erik:
>
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...rary/l-memmod/

Different concept. That article is talking about how the Virtual Memory
subystem maps memory abover 1GB. The article I reference above is talking
about how physical memory is replaced by hardware device memory mapped I/O.

For example, depending on how much memory your video card has in it, it
could steal 256, 512, etc.. MB of memory from the address space. This
memory is "ghosted" on top fo the real memory and thus doesn't allow access
to the real memory.

If you have more than 4GB and are running a 64 bit OS, and your chipset
supports I/O remapping, then you can remap those addresses outside of the
available physical memory range.

This is regardless of what OS is used.

The key part of your link is this:

"ZONE_DMA (0-16 MB): The memory range residing in the lower physical memory
area which certain ISA/PCI devices require."

"ZONE_NORMAL (16-896 MB): The memory range that is directly mapped by the
kernel into the upper regions of physical memory. All kernel operations can
only take place using this memory zone, therefore it is the most
performance-critical zone."

"ZONE_HIGHMEM (896 MB and higher): The remaining available memory in the
system which is not mapped by the kernel."

Notice how it says 896MB and higher. Not 3GB and higher.

Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

On 2008-03-28, Linonut claimed:
> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock XP
>> install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not use
>> 150MB each.
>
> I wouldn't use XP on 256Mb, myself. Bleh.

I'm using it on 512MB and it's somewhat usable. It's unbearbale on
256M, which is why they finally upgraded all 300 laptops to 768M. The
cops were having fits.

--
Death is just nature's way of killing you.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:43:29 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Upgrading' involves either buying a complete new machine or fitting
>>>> extra RAM. In either case this involves wasteful disposal of perfectly
>>>> good exiting hardware, or extra time and costs of (a) fitting extras as
>>>> well as (b) installing Vista upgrade software, with all the knock-on
>>>> effects of re-installing drivers, networking software etc etc.
>>>
>>> By that argument, everyone should still be using 486's with 1MB of
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> I wonder why we aren't? Hell, even Linux requires 256MB these days if
>>> you want decent performance of KDE or Gnome.
>>
>> You don't have to run KDE or Gnome. There are plenty of other smaller GUI
>> desktops out there.
>
> The same is true of Windows. You can customize your system to use a great
> deal less resources if you like, but that's not the way most people will
> use it.

So, Vista can run on a 256MB memory machine?

Gee, that's good news!


>>> 2GB of memory costs $50, that's not "high spec".
>>
>> Fifty bucks? What planet do you live on?
>>
>> Here in Australia you pay three times that.... current US-AUS exchange
>> rate is 92c US
>
> Actually, it's significantly less than $50.

[snip]

> If memory prices are that high in Australia, then computer prices in
> general must be proportionately expensive as well, meaning that RAM is
> proportionate to the cost of the PC the same.

You are correct.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Sinister Midget wrote:

> On 2008-03-28, Linonut claimed:
>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> You're fibbing again Rex. XP runs perfectly fine with 256MB. The stock
>>> XP install uses about 100MB of memory for the OS, and Office apps do not
>>> use 150MB each.
>>
>> I wouldn't use XP on 256Mb, myself. Bleh.
>
> I'm using it on 512MB and it's somewhat usable. It's unbearbale on
> 256M, which is why they finally upgraded all 300 laptops to 768M. The
> cops were having fits.

In my experience, XP needs at least 384 Meg to run worth a crap.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Gregory Shearman wrote:

>> If memory prices are that high in Australia, then computer prices in
>> general must be proportionately expensive as well, meaning that RAM is
>> proportionate to the cost of the PC the same.
>
> You are correct.

Which probably goes a long way in explaining *why* Linux seems to be more
popular in other countries, rather than the United States. It's a matter of
economics.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"