[News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows - Linux ; "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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

  1. [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    "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.
    `----

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

    Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open source
    drivers don't have this issue.


    Related:

    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.
    `----

    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...129TX1K0000535
    http://tinyurl.com/26ndme


    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.
    `----

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


    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 ¬*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.
    `----

    http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/...num=1171842357


    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.
    `----

    http://www.pintmaster.com/20061212/w...-list-goes-on/
    http://tinyurl.com/yguyum


    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.
    `----

    http://roacm.blogspot.com/


    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.
    `----

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9273707,00.htm
    http://tinyurl.com/224e3f

  2. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > "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.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >
    > Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open source
    > drivers don't have this issue.


    I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers are
    typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for performance
    like their Windows counterparts are.

    I'd dare say, most "performance" oriented drivers (video, sound, etc..) are
    written largely in assembly language to eek out every ounce of performance
    the hardware can give. This makes them less portable, and developers have
    much less experience writing 64-bit assembly. C drivers, unless you're
    really stupid, largely just need a recompile.

  3. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:00:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    >On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


    >> "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.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >>
    >> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open source
    >> drivers don't have this issue.


    >I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers are
    >typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for performance
    >like their Windows counterparts are.


    Windows isn't optimized for anything.
    Their primary problem with 64 bit machines is that they don't have a second
    semester CS student in the house who can write a decent compiler. Their
    64 bit code is bloated garbage. Only microsoft could fail from
    yielding any performance improvement at all when using a 64bit machine.

  4. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open
    >> source drivers don't have this issue.

    >
    > I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers
    > are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for
    > performance like their Windows counterparts are.
    >
    > I'd dare say, most "performance" oriented drivers (video, sound, etc..)
    > are written largely in assembly language to eek out every ounce of
    > performance the hardware can give. ¬*This makes them less portable, and
    > developers have much less experience writing 64-bit assembly. ¬*C drivers,
    > unless you're really stupid, largely just need a recompile.


    ....and yet, where the hardware interface is available, Linux performs
    better. The USB driver is case in point.

    The problem is that the Windows driver model is a nightmare to develop and
    is not particularly efficient. This is probably because of the high degree
    of abstraction between the drivers and the Windows kernel. The fact that
    the Windows driver model is a cluster fudge probably doesn't help.

    Like with most of the deeper API's, the fact that there is no version
    control mechanism in Windows means that drivers need to pass in details of
    what they expect so that the kernel libraries can attempt to provide the
    correct return. It is a very clumsy model.

    The inherent version control on libraries in Linux plus being Open Source
    means that the drivers can be closer to the metal and hence perform better.
    The only caveat is that drivers have to be compiled for the kernel. The
    Ubuntu nVidia driver has shown that this process can work seamlessly, even
    where the driver contains a CSS blob.

    Ian




  5. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Micoshaft Corporation's Asstroturfer Erik Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of
    Micoshaft Corporation:

    > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> "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.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >>
    >> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open
    >> source drivers don't have this issue.

    >
    > I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers
    > are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for
    > performance like their Windows counterparts are.


    Muahaahahhahahahhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhahahahahahha!!!!!

    You are such a tool for insight!!!!

    All you are required to do now is prove this by producing one
    obnoxious windummy counterpart to compare with a reasonably
    well known Linux driver.


  6. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> "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.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >>
    >> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open source
    >> drivers don't have this issue.

    >
    > I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers are
    > typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for performance
    > like their Windows counterparts are.


    What, you mean C code cannot be optimized? Cannot include inline
    assembler?

    > I'd dare say, most "performance" oriented drivers (video, sound, etc..) are
    > written largely in assembly language to eek out every ounce of performance
    > the hardware can give. This makes them less portable, and developers have
    > much less experience writing 64-bit assembly. C drivers, unless you're
    > really stupid, largely just need a recompile.


    Or you can just use a somewhat portable assembler, such as gas (the GNU
    assembler).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Assembler

    Of interest:

    http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-...e-Dependencies

    Oh, it's "eke", not "eek", above. (Just FYI, not trying to bust your
    chops on spelling.).

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >>> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open
    >>> source drivers don't have this issue.

    >>
    >> I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers
    >> are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for
    >> performance like their Windows counterparts are.
    >>
    >> I'd dare say, most "performance" oriented drivers (video, sound, etc..)
    >> are written largely in assembly language to eek out every ounce of
    >> performance the hardware can give. ¬*This makes them less portable, and
    >> developers have much less experience writing 64-bit assembly. ¬*C drivers,
    >> unless you're really stupid, largely just need a recompile.

    >
    > ...and yet, where the hardware interface is available, Linux performs
    > better. The USB driver is case in point.
    >
    > The problem is that the Windows driver model is a nightmare to develop and
    > is not particularly efficient. This is probably because of the high degree
    > of abstraction between the drivers and the Windows kernel. The fact that
    > the Windows driver model is a cluster fudge probably doesn't help.
    >
    > Like with most of the deeper API's, the fact that there is no version
    > control mechanism in Windows means that drivers need to pass in details of
    > what they expect so that the kernel libraries can attempt to provide the
    > correct return. It is a very clumsy model.
    >
    > The inherent version control on libraries in Linux plus being Open Source
    > means that the drivers can be closer to the metal and hence perform better.
    > The only caveat is that drivers have to be compiled for the kernel. The
    > Ubuntu nVidia driver has shown that this process can work seamlessly, even
    > where the driver contains a CSS blob.
    >
    > Ian
    >
    >
    >


    And yet with Linux (or some distros) new kernel means compiling a new
    video driver. Nightmare.

    http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.p...8045f6e281780c

    --
    Humor in the Court:
    Q: (Showing man picture.) That's you?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: And you were present when the picture was taken, right?

  8. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    AZ Nomad writes:

    > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:00:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    >
    >>> "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.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >>>
    >>> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open source
    >>> drivers don't have this issue.

    >
    >>I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers are
    >>typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for performance
    >>like their Windows counterparts are.

    >
    > Windows isn't optimized for anything.
    > Their primary problem with 64 bit machines is that they don't have a second
    > semester CS student in the house who can write a decent compiler. Their
    > 64 bit code is bloated garbage. Only microsoft could fail from
    > yielding any performance improvement at all when using a 64bit
    > machine.


    I have seem zero performance gain using a 64 bit Debian over the 32 bit
    counterpart. Certain applications may even perform worse.

    --
    Humor in the Court:
    Q: (Showing man picture.) That's you?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: And you were present when the picture was taken, right?

  9. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Hadron wrote:

    > Ian Hilliard writes:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open
    >>>> source drivers don't have this issue.
    >>>
    >>> I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers
    >>> are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for
    >>> performance like their Windows counterparts are.
    >>>
    >>> I'd dare say, most "performance" oriented drivers (video, sound, etc..)
    >>> are written largely in assembly language to eek out every ounce of
    >>> performance the hardware can give. ¬*This makes them less portable, and
    >>> developers have much less experience writing 64-bit assembly. ¬*C
    >>> drivers, unless you're really stupid, largely just need a recompile.

    >>
    >> ...and yet, where the hardware interface is available, Linux performs
    >> better. The USB driver is case in point.
    >>
    >> The problem is that the Windows driver model is a nightmare to develop
    >> and is not particularly efficient. This is probably because of the high
    >> degree of abstraction between the drivers and the Windows kernel. The
    >> fact that the Windows driver model is a cluster fudge probably doesn't
    >> help.
    >>
    >> Like with most of the deeper API's, the fact that there is no version
    >> control mechanism in Windows means that drivers need to pass in details
    >> of what they expect so that the kernel libraries can attempt to provide
    >> the correct return. It is a very clumsy model.
    >>
    >> The inherent version control on libraries in Linux plus being Open Source
    >> means that the drivers can be closer to the metal and hence perform
    >> better. The only caveat is that drivers have to be compiled for the
    >> kernel. The Ubuntu nVidia driver has shown that this process can work
    >> seamlessly, even where the driver contains a CSS blob.
    >>
    >> Ian
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > And yet with Linux (or some distros) new kernel means compiling a new
    > video driver. Nightmare.
    >
    >

    http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.p...8045f6e281780c
    >


    Many OSS developers believe that by not making it easy to use the CSS
    drivers this will force the producers of these drivers to change their
    ways. I personally believe that the producers of these drivers won't change
    their ways until there is an economic imperative. The opening of the ATI
    hardware spec may just be the necessary catalyst.

    Ian

  10. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
    > wisdom:


    >> I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux
    >> drivers are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth
    >> degree for performance like their Windows counterparts are.

    >
    > What, you mean C code cannot be optimized? Cannot include inline
    > assembler?


    I have to assume Erik is referring to hardware features protected by
    NDA, rather than compiler optimisations. I'm not quite sure how the
    development /language/ is relevant. Certainly C code is more than
    capable of being optimised.

    Still, despite paranoid trade secrets, Linux and BSD developers manage
    to not only create drivers for most current hardware, and most legacy
    hardware that is no longer supported under Windows, but indeed it can be
    built to multiple architectures, including AMD64.

    Why a "bunch of hobbyists" can accomplish this goal; but a global,
    multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft cannot; is beyond
    comprehension. Of course Microsoft is hardly unique in this failing,
    Adobe and Sun are just as bad.

    This is especially incredible given that Microsoft supposedly works in
    /collaboration/ with hardware manufacturers, whereas Linux/BSD
    developers must invariably work autonomously, reverse engineering the
    specifications, building drivers from scratch, and indeed facing
    hostility from certain companies in the process.

    Maybe Erik would care to explain that one.

    So remind me again, exactly /why/ is the proprietary development model
    so much "better" than FOSS?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    21:31:18 up 44 days, 20:26, 2 users, load average: 0.16, 0.33, 0.34

  11. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    >>

    > http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.p...8045f6e281780c
    >>

    >
    > Many OSS developers believe that by not making it easy to use the CSS
    > drivers this will force the producers of these drivers to change their


    Yes. The kind that were a hindrance to Linux adoption for years. The
    Mark Kents of this world.

    > ways. I personally believe that the producers of these drivers won't change
    > their ways until there is an economic imperative. The opening of the ATI
    > hardware spec may just be the necessary catalyst.


    They are not going to give their code away. And why should they?

    >
    > Ian


    --
    Imagina que hay una guerra y no vamos NADIE.
    -- Pintada en una plaza de Plasencia.

  12. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Hadron wrote:

    > AZ Nomad writes:
    >
    >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:00:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:43:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    >>
    >>>> "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.
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42548
    >>>>
    >>>> Even some Microsoft products do not support 64-bit PCs. Of course, open
    >>>> source drivers don't have this issue.

    >>
    >>>I think the issue here is that, for a variety of reasons, Linux drivers
    >>>are typically written in C, and not optimized to the Nth degree for
    >>>performance like their Windows counterparts are.

    >>
    >> Windows isn't optimized for anything.
    >> Their primary problem with 64 bit machines is that they don't have a
    >> second
    >> semester CS student in the house who can write a decent compiler. Their
    >> 64 bit code is bloated garbage. Only microsoft could fail from
    >> yielding any performance improvement at all when using a 64bit
    >> machine.

    >
    > I have seem zero performance gain using a 64 bit Debian over the 32 bit
    > counterpart. Certain applications may even perform worse.
    >


    Why am I not surprised, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs
    user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    admin", "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka Hans
    Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary?

    BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin
    --
    Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.


  13. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter KŲhlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    > [utter bull****]
    >
    > BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    > 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin


    Indeed, I have the same experience (only a few months, though). I'd be
    quite happy to convert to 64-bit on all my machines.

    The only downside is that I'd like to increase my RAM.

    By the way, check out Hadron's recent post at alt.linux.debian.

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Linonut wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o'
    > wisdom:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> [utter bull****]
    >>
    >> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin

    >
    > Indeed, I have the same experience (only a few months, though). I'd be
    > quite happy to convert to 64-bit on all my machines.
    >
    > The only downside is that I'd like to increase my RAM.
    >
    > By the way, check out Hadron's recent post at alt.linux.debian.


    So it's trolling that group now? It figures, I suppose.

    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, Debian 4.0
    PCLinuxOS 2007, (K)Ubuntu 7.04
    Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" alpha - Tribe 5

  15. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    [H]omer wrote:



    > So remind me again, exactly /why/ is the proprietary development model
    > so much "better" than FOSS?


    So they can keep their source code closed, & threaten open-source OSs that
    they're infringing their patents?

    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, Debian 4.0
    PCLinuxOS 2007, (K)Ubuntu 7.04
    Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" alpha - Tribe 5

  16. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Linonut writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> [utter bull****]
    >>
    >> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin


    This is not my experience. Not when one takes into account the problems
    that occur - e.g need to use ia32 libs, skype falling over, delay in
    backports for the amd64 libraries in some cases.

    If someone proved to me it was faster by a wide margin, I would say
    "great". As it is I don't notice any speed increase. I *do* however
    notice a difference now I have moved from Ubuntu to Debian.

    >
    > Indeed, I have the same experience (only a few months, though). I'd be
    > quite happy to convert to 64-bit on all my machines.
    >
    > The only downside is that I'd like to increase my RAM.
    >
    > By the way, check out Hadron's recent post at alt.linux.debian.


    Why? It just so happens that I swapped some emails and now the issues
    are resolved in the Sid kernel.

    It's called helping to improve things - not what passes for "advocacy"
    here.

    --
    A mi me gustar√*a criar homepages, pero no s√© que comen.
    -- Www.frases.com.

  17. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    William Poaster wrote:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o'
    >> wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [utter bull****]
    >>>
    >>> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >>> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin

    >>
    >> Indeed, I have the same experience (only a few months, though). I'd be
    >> quite happy to convert to 64-bit on all my machines.
    >>
    >> The only downside is that I'd like to increase my RAM.
    >>
    >> By the way, check out Hadron's recent post at alt.linux.debian.

    >
    > So it's trolling that group now? It figures, I suppose.
    >


    Certainly. After all, in the ubuntu group people have now smelled the stench
    from Hadron.
    --
    Hardware, n.:
    The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.


  18. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    Hadron wrote:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o'
    >> wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [utter bull****]
    >>>
    >>> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >>> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin

    >
    > This is not my experience.


    Who cares for your "expericence", liar Hadron Quark

    You have none, and you will never get any given your attitude

    I run 64bit linux longer than you have run *any* linux. And that time is
    just a small part of the time I run linux.

    You are incredible, Hadron. Incredible dishonest and stupid

    < snip more Hadron Quark idiocy >
    --
    You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species


  19. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:03:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    >Linonut writes:


    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter KŲhlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [utter bull****]
    >>>
    >>> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >>> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin


    >This is not my experience. Not when one takes into account the problems
    >that occur - e.g need to use ia32 libs, skype falling over, delay in
    >backports for the amd64 libraries in some cases.


    Bull****. Everything with very very few exceptions compiles as 64
    bits. Some stuff like firefox plugins but that's it.

    >If someone proved to me it was faster by a wide margin, I would say
    >"great". As it is I don't notice any speed increase. I *do* however
    >notice a difference now I have moved from Ubuntu to Debian.


    People have proved it to you but you aren't interested in facts.

    >It's called helping to improve things - not what passes for "advocacy"
    >here.


    Go blow it out your ass. You're little more than a microsoft shill.

    I'm surprised you even tolerate 32 bits. You should stick with windows
    9x.

  20. Re: [News] Customers Stung by 64-bit Microsoft Windows

    ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Sunday 23 September 2007 16:09 : \____

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o'
    >>> wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> [utter bull****]
    >>>>
    >>>> BTW: I run 64bit linux since nearly 2 years. I have not switched back to
    >>>> 32bit, as 64bit is *faster* than 32bit, often by quite some margin
    >>>
    >>> Indeed, I have the same experience (only a few months, though). I'd be
    >>> quite happy to convert to 64-bit on all my machines.
    >>>
    >>> The only downside is that I'd like to increase my RAM.
    >>>
    >>> By the way, check out Hadron's recent post at alt.linux.debian.

    >>
    >> So it's trolling that group now? It figures, I suppose.
    >>

    >
    > Certainly. After all, in the ubuntu group people have now smelled the stench
    > from Hadron.


    They have a release named after him -- Warty Warthog.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-09-10 01:53 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast