Vista "hasn't missed a beat" - Linux

This is a discussion on Vista "hasn't missed a beat" - Linux ; "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat. Everything just works - I have 64bit drivers for things like scanners and printers - I dont think ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

  1. Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive graphical
    and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat. Everything just works - I have 64bit
    drivers for things like scanners and printers - I dont think this machine
    has *ever* crashed - although I normally unplug it at night because of
    lightning storms in the tropics this time of year - so its not normally on
    for days on end.

    Very fast machine and very stable. I don't know what the fuss is about.

    I noticed a user or two above reporting how slow it was on their 1GB RAM
    computer - 1GB is not enough - I had it on a work laptop with 1GB that was
    supposed to come with 2GB (HP stuffed up the order) and it was very painful
    to use until it was upgraded to 2GB a couple of weeks later - then it was
    like a new computer. I know some will say this is excessive and it probably
    is - RAM is cheap however."

    Posted by: djambalawa at March 25, 2008 11:20 PM


    http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri....html#comments






  2. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    > graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat. Everything just works - I

    (snip)

    Yes? So what?
    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500
    :
    > "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM
    > for intensive graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed
    > a beat. Everything just works - I have 64bit drivers
    > for things like scanners and printers - I dont think
    > this machine has *ever* crashed - although I normally
    > unplug it at night because of lightning storms in the
    > tropics this time of year - so its not normally on for
    > days on end.
    >
    > Very fast machine and very stable. I don't know what
    > the fuss is about.
    >
    > I noticed a user or two above reporting how slow it
    > was on their 1GB RAM computer - 1GB is not enough -
    > I had it on a work laptop with 1GB that was supposed
    > to come with 2GB (HP stuffed up the order) and it was
    > very painful to use until it was upgraded to 2GB a
    > couple of weeks later - then it was like a new computer.
    > I know some will say this is excessive and it probably
    > is - RAM is cheap however."
    >
    > Posted by: djambalawa at March 25, 2008 11:20 PM
    >
    >
    > http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri....html#comments
    >


    Well, there you are, then. Can you put Jet on it and run it on a
    production server?

    Or was it MS Access?

    Clearly we need to abandon this nonsensical idea that Linux
    is any good, and just put more RAM and a beefier
    vidcard onto our machines. We can then run Vista without
    problems.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
    char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

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


  4. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    > graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.



    Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec hardware,
    and not on the sort of system most Windows users already have.

    '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.

    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.

    Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.

    No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the alternatives.


  5. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:

    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.

    >
    >
    > Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec hardware,
    > and not on the sort of system most Windows users already have.
    >
    > '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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >
    > No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the alternatives.


    Enter stage left, Kelsey claiming she can do all of this on a 486 machine
    with 16mb of memory and a 5.25 inch floppy diskette.

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

  6. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.

    >
    >
    > Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec hardware,
    > and not on the sort of system most Windows users already have.
    >
    > '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.



    NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565

    Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.



    > 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.


    The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.


    > Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >
    > No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    > alternatives.


    They are? What color is the sky on your planet?




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


  7. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:34 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    > news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.

    >>
    >>
    >> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >> have.
    >>
    >> '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.

    >
    >
    > NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565
    >
    > Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.
    >
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.
    >
    >
    >> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>
    >> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >> alternatives.

    >
    > They are? What color is the sky on your planet?


    What are the labour costs for IT staff on yours? Or do the IT staff there
    work for free?


  8. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:02:18 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.

    >>
    >>
    >> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >> have.
    >>
    >> '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.
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>
    >> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >> alternatives.

    >
    > Enter stage left, Kelsey claiming she can do all of this on a 486
    > machine with 16mb of memory and a 5.25 inch floppy diskette.


    Claiming is not proving.

    The OP proves what we all know.


  9. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:58SGj.20096$jH5.9954@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:34 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >> news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >>> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >>> have.
    >>>
    >>> '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.

    >>
    >>
    >> NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.
    >>
    >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565
    >>
    >> Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>>
    >>> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >>> alternatives.

    >>
    >> They are? What color is the sky on your planet?

    >
    > What are the labour costs for IT staff on yours? Or do the IT staff there
    > work for free?
    >


    Of course all companies should switch to linux instead. When it comes to IT
    labor costs, it's obviously much more time consuming to upgrade the memory
    by plugging in two sticks of RAM then it is to install linux, setup user
    accounts, configure the desktops and retrain every user.




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


  10. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    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.

    From the Ubuntu web page:

    System Requirements
    Ubuntu is available for PC, 64-Bit and Mac architectures. CDs require at
    least 256 MB of RAM. Install requires at least 2 GB of disk space.

    > 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".

  11. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > 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


    Quite a few Vista users replaced their OS much more quickly than that.

    With XP. 8)



  12. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:09 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    > news:58SGj.20096$jH5.9954@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:34 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>> news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>>>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >>>> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >>>> have.
    >>>>
    >>>> '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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565
    >>>
    >>> Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>>>
    >>>> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >>>> alternatives.
    >>>
    >>> They are? What color is the sky on your planet?

    >>
    >> What are the labour costs for IT staff on yours? Or do the IT staff
    >> there work for free?
    >>
    >>

    > Of course all companies should switch to linux instead. When it comes to
    > IT labor costs, it's obviously much more time consuming to upgrade the
    > memory by plugging in two sticks of RAM then it is to install linux,
    > setup user accounts, configure the desktops and retrain every user.


    No doubt you don't run a business yourself.


  13. Re: Vista "hasbeen missed a beat"

    Micoshaft Fraudster and Asstroturfer DFS wrote on behalf of micoshaft
    corporation:

    > "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive graphical
    > and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.



    I don't buy that at all - the 8Gb is to cover for tons of memory leaks
    long enough for a few hours a day of work!

    The quad core is to cover for lack of speed. Compared to Linux,
    Micoshaft PISTA runs 4 to 10 times slower and would significantly
    impair your productivity with daily crashes.

    A single core CPU running Linux will probably beat this PISTA
    quad core machine hands downs.

    A quad core with 8Gb RAM and say a 512Mb graphics card
    2 x 500Gb hard disks is uncatchable if running Linux and costs about
    600 pounds if it came with Linux and didn't come with PISTA.
    Of course if PISTA got installed, the machine would have to
    cost at least 1000 pounds to recover the wated time installing PISTA
    and cover the cost of buying PISTA from micoshaft to put on it.

    Micoshaft hasn't produced any winners for years since
    Linux has become widely accepted.

    Even an ancient 750MHz CPU is still unbeaten by expee or PISTA
    for performance.

    For example with a 750MHz machine and 256Mbytes of RAM, I can
    burn a DVD of 14,000+ files and AT THE SAME TIME download
    2Gb TO THE SAME HARD DISK from 100mbit network card.
    Both read/write operations finish at about the same time.
    While doing this, I can listen to interruption free MP3 music.

    I am now running virtualbox and I can play MP3s and videos
    on the emulation interruption free!! It is incredibly fast!
    That means I can set up codecs and other software like streamtuner
    and stream ripper on a dedicated virtual machine and take
    that with me on an 8Gb stick to another machine and without
    having to set up all the codecs and software, I can use the
    virtual machine there with realtime, video, internet radio stations
    etc..!!

    The world is changing fast.




  14. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:PBTGj.27324$5i5.12094@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:09 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >> news:58SGj.20096$jH5.9954@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    >>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:34 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>>> news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>>>>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >>>>> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >>>>> have.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> '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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565
    >>>>
    >>>> Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >>>>> alternatives.
    >>>>
    >>>> They are? What color is the sky on your planet?
    >>>
    >>> What are the labour costs for IT staff on yours? Or do the IT staff
    >>> there work for free?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Of course all companies should switch to linux instead. When it comes to
    >> IT labor costs, it's obviously much more time consuming to upgrade the
    >> memory by plugging in two sticks of RAM then it is to install linux,
    >> setup user accounts, configure the desktops and retrain every user.

    >
    > No doubt you don't run a business yourself.
    >


    Any CIO or CTO that thinks that it's easier/faster/cheaper to install,
    configure and train people to use linux than it is to plug-in $28 worth of
    memory won't be running a business long either.




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


  15. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    > news:PBTGj.27324$5i5.12094@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
    >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:09 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>> news:58SGj.20096$jH5.9954@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    >>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:34 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:IeRGj.12399$uX5.1845@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >>>>>>> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    >>>>>> hardware, and not on the sort of system most Windows users already
    >>>>>> have.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> '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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> NewEgg.com - 2 Gigs of memory. $28.99 with free shipping.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146565
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yep. That's surely going to drive businesses into bankrupcy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The whole $28 of extra cost will definitely crush them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    >>>>>> alternatives.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They are? What color is the sky on your planet?
    >>>>
    >>>> What are the labour costs for IT staff on yours? Or do the IT staff
    >>>> there work for free?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Of course all companies should switch to linux instead. When it comes to
    >>> IT labor costs, it's obviously much more time consuming to upgrade the
    >>> memory by plugging in two sticks of RAM then it is to install linux,
    >>> setup user accounts, configure the desktops and retrain every user.

    >>
    >> No doubt you don't run a business yourself.
    >>

    >
    > Any CIO or CTO that thinks that it's easier/faster/cheaper to install,
    > configure and train people to use linux than it is to plug-in $28 worth of
    > memory won't be running a business long either.


    Especially if he thinks he can SELL the SW they create .....


    --
    "Its obvious Micoshaft sponsored frauds and net stalkers are now attacking individuals directly in organised gangs in linux advocacy newsgroups as predicted since it is known micoshaft is failing in the market place."
    7, COLA Linux "advocate" and nutjob.

  16. Re: Vista "hasbeen missed a beat"

    Micoshaft Fraudster, Asstroturfer and Impersonator of High Plains Thumper
    wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

    > AWOL Mental Patient 7 wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Even an ancient 750MHz CPU is still unbeaten by expee or PISTA
    >> for performance.
    >>
    >> For example with a 750MHz machine and 256Mbytes of RAM, I can
    >> burn a DVD of 14,000+ files and AT THE SAME TIME download
    >> 2Gb TO THE SAME HARD DISK from 100mbit network card.
    >> Both read/write operations finish at about the same time.
    >> While doing this, I can listen to interruption free MP3 music.

    >
    >
    >
    > From: 7
    > Subject: Re: Cutting edge Linux distro?
    > User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
    > Message-ID:
    > Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:46:05 GMT
    >
    > As an asside,
    > can your souped up windope machine beat my 750Mz Duron running GNU/Linux?
    > I have 256M byte RAM, a 100M bit ethernet, and I am
    > burning 4Gb DVD (14,000+) files whilst copying 2Gb data
    > through network to THE SAME hard disk at THE SAME time
    > and playing uniterrupted MP3 music from THE SAME hard disk.
    > The file copy finishes at about the same time as DVD burning
    > so there is no chance of deep buffering anything in between to cheat.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> I am now running virtualbox

    >
    > You're running the same **** and telling the same lies you always have,
    > Joseph ****wit.



    You needed to take out a dizum anonimzer account to post this?

    I am running virtualbox on a dual core 3800 AMD machine with 2Gb RAM
    and 512Mb 3D graphics card. Its running expee faster than expee
    can run by itself. So I am curious to find out what happens when quad core
    meets virtualbox.

    A quad core with 8Gb RAM and say a 512Mb graphics card
    2 x 500Gb hard disks is uncatchable if running Linux and costs about
    600 pounds if it came with Linux and didn't come with PISTA.
    Of course if PISTA got installed, the machine would have to
    cost at least 1000 pounds to recover the wated time installing PISTA
    and cover the cost of buying PISTA from micoshaft to put on it.



  17. Re: Vista "hasbeen missed a beat"

    Anonymising cowardly trollboi nym-thief using "High Plains Thumper"

    X-ME-UUID: 20080327220235239.3A5D91C0008A@mwinf6209.orange.nl
    From: High Plains Thumper
    Organization: Single Cylinder Sex Toys
    Subject: Re: Vista "hasbeen missed a beat"
    User-Agent: KKKNode/0.10.9
    Message-Id: <20080327220235.3A5D91C0008A@mwinf6209.orange.nl>
    Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com

    wrote:
    > AWOL Mental Patient 7 wrote:
    >
    >> Even an ancient 750MHz CPU is still unbeaten by expee or
    >> PISTA for performance.
    >>
    >> For example with a 750MHz machine and 256Mbytes of RAM, I
    >> can burn a DVD of 14,000+ files and AT THE SAME TIME
    >> download 2Gb TO THE SAME HARD DISK from 100mbit network
    >> card. Both read/write operations finish at about the same
    >> time. While doing this, I can listen to interruption free
    >> MP3 music.

    >
    >
    > From: 7
    > Subject: Re: Cutting edge Linux distro?
    > User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
    > Message-ID:
    > Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:46:05 GMT
    >
    > As an asside, can your souped up windope machine beat my 750Mz
    > Duron running GNU/Linux? I have 256M byte RAM, a 100M bit
    > ethernet, and I am burning 4Gb DVD (14,000+) files whilst
    > copying 2Gb data through network to THE SAME hard disk at THE
    > SAME time and playing uniterrupted MP3 music from THE SAME
    > hard disk. The file copy finishes at about the same time as
    > DVD burning so there is no chance of deep buffering anything
    > in between to cheat.
    >
    >> I am now running virtualbox

    >
    > You're running the same **** and telling the same lies you
    > always have, Joseph ****wit.


    Same old gob****e from "josh fickler" AKA 1st Lt Jean Poole,
    Abdul Bonnatari, Adam Baum, Barb Dwyer, Capt. James Pike, Capt.
    Morgan, Captain Commando, Colonel Ichabod Conk, Cpl. Kronk, Dr
    Gang Green, Dr. Disco, Dr. Fafoofnik, Dr. Feelgood, Dr.
    GroundAxe, Dr. Hungwell, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Livingston, Dr.
    McGillicudy, Dr. Pain, Dr. Seymour Butts, Dr. Shlongwell, Dr.
    Shlongwell (aka your Boss), Dr. Smooth, Dr. Zhivago, Duncan
    Meyer, Geppetto Olivio, Gordon Glover, Johan Schmidt, Keith
    Windsor, LENNY, Lintard Luser, Lt. Stardust, nym-thief imposter
    of Mindy Cohen, Mr. Doug Hoel, Mr. X, Ms. Polly Ester, Ofc.
    Michael Clayton, rafael (note the nym-thief couldn't even leave
    poor Rafael alone), Randy Oaks, Sgt. Wannacker, SgtMajor
    Gansevoort, nym-thief imposter of Sinister Midget, Sophie
    McDowell, Simon Templar, Sue Romer, Sir Michael Clayton, Troy
    Kirtland, Vernon Wormer, Walter Smeddler, Warren Piece, and
    Zumwalt Humphry.

    --
    HPT

  18. Re: Vista "hasbeen missed a beat"

    7 wrote:

    > I am running virtualbox on a dual core 3800 AMD machine with 2Gb RAM
    > and 512Mb 3D graphics card. Its running expee faster than expee
    > can run by itself.


    Excuse us if we don't take your lies at face value.



    > A quad core with 8Gb RAM and say a 512Mb graphics card
    > 2 x 500Gb hard disks is uncatchable if running Linux and costs about
    > 600 pounds if it came with Linux and didn't come with PISTA.


    A Dell Vista machine costs $50 more than a Dell Ubuntu machine. Vista Home
    Premium Upgrade is $95 at Amazon.




  19. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    Robin T Cox wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> "I'm using Vista 64bit on a quad core with 8GB RAM for intensive
    >> graphical and 3d apps - hasn't missed a beat.

    >
    >
    > Proving what we already knew: that Vista only runs on high-spec
    > hardware,


    Untrue.


    > and not on the sort of system most Windows users already have.


    As if you know.


    > '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.
    >
    > It's a pain in the ass for home users,


    Much more fun and fruitful than wasting time downloading a Linux distro,
    burning it to a DVD, rebooting, futzing with your BIOS, then seeing what
    fills the screen.



    > and a nightmare for IT support
    > as far as business users are concerned, adding a load of extra costs
    > to the bottom line


    What? Vista doesn't cost any more than XP.


    > for very little business benefit beyond the
    > ability to run the only Windows system that's going to be available
    > when XP is scrapped.


    Life moves on. XP is yesterday. Linux had it's 15 minutes, and couldn't
    capitalize. Vista is tomorrow.



    > Planned obsolescence - planned to line Microsoft's pockets.


    Only Suse has ever dropped support for an OS after 2 years.



    > No wonder people and businesses are looking seriously at the
    > alternatives.


    And looking is all they're doing, 'cause they sure aren't switching off
    Windows.








  20. Re: Vista "hasn't missed a beat"

    chrisv wrote:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> 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

    >
    > Quite a few Vista users replaced their OS much more quickly than that.
    >
    > With XP. 8)



    heeheeheeheehee... look at chrissy go!




+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast