why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux

This is a discussion on why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux ; On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:38:28 +0100, Homer wrote: > Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly: >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: >>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message > >>>> The average ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65

Thread: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

  1. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:38:28 +0100, Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message

    >
    >>>> The average user doesn't run DB servers

    >>
    >>> The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.

    >
    > So Microsoft were just pissing up a tree when they released Windows
    > Home Server (backup server) and Windows Media Center Edition (media
    > server), were they?
    >
    > No don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.



    I think the lack of success of that product makes the point that the
    average homes user is NOT running a server nor has any desire to run a
    server.

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

  2. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:21:25 +0100, Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
    >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:11:22 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> "Homer" wrote in message
    >>> news:4jsth5-fmv.ln1@sky.matrix...

    >
    >>> The simple fact of the matter is that people do not buy very many
    >>> Linux machines because there aren't very many people selling them.
    >>> You call that "racketeering", but I call it a lack of faith in the
    >>> Linux product on the part of the OEMs. I know that I am right and
    >>> that you are wrong, too.

    >
    > Microsoft's racketeering is a proven; well documented fact [1].
    > Your bigoted conjecture is *not*.


    Linux is free.
    Windows is expensive.


    >>> Certainly the fault with your wonderful product not selling well is
    >>> due to the nefarious acts of others.

    >
    > It's interesting that you choose to describe repression as the victim's
    > "fault". It's also interesting that you attempt to dilute the
    > significance of Microsoft's contribution to that repression by
    > whitewashing the issues with "others". In the main, there /are/ no
    > "others" repressing Free Software ... just Microsoft.


    I think he is being sarcastic....
    However, Linux is free, Windows is not.


    > Again, Microsoft's corruption is well documented. Why do you choose to
    > ignore this huge body of factual information? Do you need me to
    > reproduce yet another 100-page list of links that you won't bother
    > reading, or just refuse to believe?


    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.


    > Perhaps you think this information is all lies, is that it? Are the DOJ
    > and European Commission just a bunch of liars? Is everyone a liar but
    > Microsoft? Or could it be that you just don't care?


    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.


    >>> It couldn't be due to the ineptude of you clowns, now, could it?

    >
    > What has ineptitude got to do with being the victim of crime?


    Ineptitude at being able to design a product that people will use.

    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.


    > As best as I can tell, all the Free Software community is trying to do
    > is write software and distribute it. Has that agenda failed in some way
    > that I'm not aware of?


    It depends.
    Embedded devices Linux has succeeded.
    Servers, Linux has succeeded.
    Cheap laptops, mixed bag but some success.
    OLPC Linux has failed.
    Desktop in general, Linux has failed.


    > OTOH Microsoft's agenda seems to be to use dirty tricks to sabotage
    > anything that threatens their Monopoly, by locking OEMs and others into
    > subservient deals that inhibit the pre-installation of our Free
    > Software, thus limiting public awareness of GNU/Linux amongst some, and
    > forcing others to pay for an OS they don't want.


    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.

    People can switch to Linux if they want.
    They don't.
    Why?


    >>> You snooze, you lose.

    >
    > ...said the mugger to the nun.
    >
    > Your moral depravity is palpable.


    And your refusal to see anything but paranoia is noted.

    Again:

    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.



    > Or IOW it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Microsoft's methods are
    > sickening; immoral and in many cases - illegal.


    Maybe, but......

    Linux is free.
    Windows is not.

    Fix your broken operating system and figure out why people are willing to
    pay for Windows instead of using Linux and you might have some hope.

    Until you realize that, you will continue to concentrate on Windows,
    Microsoft, proprietary software and so forth instead of advocating and
    improving Linux to the point where it can be given away.


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

  3. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:30:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:38:28 +0100, Homer wrote:


    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
    >>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message

    >>
    >>>>> The average user doesn't run DB servers
    >>>
    >>>> The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.

    >>
    >> So Microsoft were just pissing up a tree when they released Windows Home
    >> Server (backup server) and Windows Media Center Edition (media server),
    >> were they?


    >Apparently so - no average user would run a server. Besides, he spewed
    >that nonsense in response to my pointing out that no, average users do
    >_not_ do certain things. "I'm going to disagree with you by making the
    >exact same point you made."


    Right. The average user would never run a database. They keep all their
    email contacts on little 3x5 index cards. The average user would never
    run any kind of server. They don't share printers. They don't run
    any kind of file sharing. Can't have any of those pesky servers. They
    don't run print spoolers either. Every application has to have it's own
    print driver and it's own dedicated printer.

    The only server windows users run is for botnets.

  4. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:56:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:21:25 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
    >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:11:22 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> "Homer" wrote in message
    >>>> news:4jsth5-fmv.ln1@sky.matrix...

    >>
    >>>> The simple fact of the matter is that people do not buy very many
    >>>> Linux machines because there aren't very many people selling them.
    >>>> You call that "racketeering", but I call it a lack of faith in the
    >>>> Linux product on the part of the OEMs. I know that I am right and
    >>>> that you are wrong, too.

    >>
    >> Microsoft's racketeering is a proven; well documented fact [1]. Your
    >> bigoted conjecture is *not*.

    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is expensive.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    >
    >
    >>>> Certainly the fault with your wonderful product not selling well is
    >>>> due to the nefarious acts of others.

    >>
    >> It's interesting that you choose to describe repression as the victim's
    >> "fault". It's also interesting that you attempt to dilute the
    >> significance of Microsoft's contribution to that repression by
    >> whitewashing the issues with "others". In the main, there /are/ no
    >> "others" repressing Free Software ... just Microsoft.

    >
    > I think he is being sarcastic....
    > However, Linux is free, Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.
    >
    >
    >> Again, Microsoft's corruption is well documented. Why do you choose to
    >> ignore this huge body of factual information? Do you need me to
    >> reproduce yet another 100-page list of links that you won't bother
    >> reading, or just refuse to believe?

    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.
    >
    >
    >> Perhaps you think this information is all lies, is that it? Are the DOJ
    >> and European Commission just a bunch of liars? Is everyone a liar but
    >> Microsoft? Or could it be that you just don't care?

    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.
    >
    >
    >>>> It couldn't be due to the ineptude of you clowns, now, could it?

    >>
    >> What has ineptitude got to do with being the victim of crime?

    >
    > Ineptitude at being able to design a product that people will use.
    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    >
    >
    >> As best as I can tell, all the Free Software community is trying to do
    >> is write software and distribute it. Has that agenda failed in some way
    >> that I'm not aware of?

    >
    > It depends.
    > Embedded devices Linux has succeeded. Servers, Linux has succeeded.
    > Cheap laptops, mixed bag but some success. OLPC Linux has failed.
    > Desktop in general, Linux has failed.


    .... in your opinion...

    >
    >
    >> OTOH Microsoft's agenda seems to be to use dirty tricks to sabotage
    >> anything that threatens their Monopoly, by locking OEMs and others into
    >> subservient deals that inhibit the pre-installation of our Free
    >> Software, thus limiting public awareness of GNU/Linux amongst some, and
    >> forcing others to pay for an OS they don't want.

    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    >
    > People can switch to Linux if they want. They don't.
    > Why?


    You have been told repeated why not. Repeatedly.

    >
    >
    >>>> You snooze, you lose.

    >>
    >> ...said the mugger to the nun.
    >>
    >> Your moral depravity is palpable.

    >
    > And your refusal to see anything but paranoia is noted.
    >
    > Again:
    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Again:
    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Or IOW it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Microsoft's methods
    >> are sickening; immoral and in many cases - illegal.

    >
    > Maybe, but......
    >
    > Linux is free.
    > Windows is not.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    >
    > Fix your broken operating system and figure out why people are willing
    > to pay for Windows instead of using Linux and you might have some hope.


    My operating system isn't broken.

    >
    > Until you realize that, you will continue to concentrate on Windows,
    > Microsoft, proprietary software and so forth instead of advocating and
    > improving Linux to the point where it can be given away.


    Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.

    .... and again, Red Hat, Novel, Mandriva all seem to be doing OK.

    --
    Rick

  5. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Clogwog wrote:
    > It isn't a problem with the OS; it's a problem with your lack of knowledge.
    > A 32-bit Operating System can address a maximum of 4GB. Add your BIOS shadow
    > RAM, video RAM etc into that and the OS has no choice but to reduce the 4GB
    > of available RAM. If you want to see all 4GB or of RAM, get a 64-bit OS.
    > Get it, moron?


    But clogwog...
    You're wrong, as per usual...
    Even back in the 1980s, computers were breaking their address bus limits
    using paging, sinclair released a 128k 8bit computer. (that's 128k of RAM
    btw, add in the 32k of ROM and it was addressing 156k, just not all at the
    same time). That's 2?? times the "physical limit".

    Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.


    > b.t.w.:
    > MS Win x64 128 GB
    > MS Vista 64-bit 8 GB


    Only 8 gig? Even windows 2000 could address 64gig using PAE. Talk about a
    backwards step in technology.

    Why such a severe limitation when the full 64 bit physical capability is 16
    exabytes?

    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  6. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > Clogwog wrote:
    >> It isn't a problem with the OS; it's a problem with your lack of knowledge.
    >> A 32-bit Operating System can address a maximum of 4GB. Add your BIOS shadow
    >> RAM, video RAM etc into that and the OS has no choice but to reduce the 4GB
    >> of available RAM. If you want to see all 4GB or of RAM, get a 64-bit OS.
    >> Get it, moron?

    >
    > But clogwog...
    > You're wrong, as per usual...
    > Even back in the 1980s, computers were breaking their address bus limits
    > using paging, sinclair released a 128k 8bit computer. (that's 128k of RAM
    > btw, add in the 32k of ROM and it was addressing 156k, just not all at the
    > same time). That's 2?? times the "physical limit".
    >
    > Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    > extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.


    But programmers had to manually select the ram bank in most cases. Obviously.

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  7. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
    > On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:56:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:21:25 +0100, Homer wrote:


    >>> Or IOW it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Microsoft's
    >>> methods are sickening; immoral and in many cases - illegal.

    >>
    >> Maybe, but......
    >>
    >> Linux is free.
    >> Windows is not.


    Your repetition of that mindless mantra is irrelevant.

    The fact that Linux is free means you have no way to substantiate your
    inference that it is unpopular, since there are no POS figures beyond
    those for a limited subset of commercial distributions, and so called
    Web stats are equally unsubstantiated skewed metrics.

    And even that popularity (as in ubiquity) is irrelevant, to me at least,
    since I have no interest in any one OS (even Linux) dominating the
    market, nor much interest in /markets/ at all, frankly. What I /am/
    interested in is fair practice; equal opportunities; and personal
    choice. Microsoft immorally (and sometimes illegally) interferes with
    all three of those principles in the most vile manner, suppressing
    choice with unfair practises that inhibit even the /awareness/ of Linux,
    much less its deployment.

    That lack of OS choice at the POS for PC hardware has little to do with
    the OEMs, and far more to do with Microsoft's racketeering.

    If Microsoft is so confident of the merit of its products, then it
    should have no objection to the unbundling of Windows from PCs, such
    that all PCs sold must be offered with a choice of OSs from a selection
    of OS vendors, or offered without an OS at all.

    If such a system were implemented; those secret "Memoranda of
    Understanding" were shredded; and the OEMs were free to both offer and
    promote (as in "We recommend...") /any/ OS they wished, I think you'd
    find Windows' illegally maintained dominance plummet overnight.

    But of course you can confidently maintain that wouldn't happen, since
    Microsoft's monopoly will ensure it never gets the chance to happen,
    unless antitrust regulators take remedial action against them.

    > Microsoft has repeated broken anti-trust law.


    He doesn't care.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    13:21:05 up 171 days, 9:56, 1 user, load average: 4.81, 4.77, 4.73

  8. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Homer writes:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
    >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:56:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:21:25 +0100, Homer wrote:

    >
    >>>> Or IOW it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Microsoft's
    >>>> methods are sickening; immoral and in many cases - illegal.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe, but......
    >>>
    >>> Linux is free.
    >>> Windows is not.

    >
    > Your repetition of that mindless mantra is irrelevant.
    >
    > The fact that Linux is free means you have no way to substantiate your
    > inference that it is unpopular, since there are no POS figures beyond
    > those for a limited subset of commercial distributions, and so called
    > Web stats are equally unsubstantiated skewed metrics.


    Yet they manage to sample Windows just fine. Poor Homer. Wrong again.

    --
    "I do believe I have stated that he should be given the benefit of the
    doubt, as is his right. If he did this crime, as it would seem, then he
    should be punished as the law requires."
    -- alt in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  9. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On 2008-06-09, Hadron wrote:
    > Homer writes:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
    >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:56:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:21:25 +0100, Homer wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Or IOW it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Microsoft's
    >>>>> methods are sickening; immoral and in many cases - illegal.
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe, but......
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux is free.
    >>>> Windows is not.

    >>
    >> Your repetition of that mindless mantra is irrelevant.
    >>
    >> The fact that Linux is free means you have no way to substantiate your
    >> inference that it is unpopular, since there are no POS figures beyond
    >> those for a limited subset of commercial distributions, and so called
    >> Web stats are equally unsubstantiated skewed metrics.

    >
    > Yet they manage to sample Windows just fine. Poor Homer. Wrong again.


    So? That doesn't have any relevance to Linux.

    Linux has some key differences that make this so.

    Windows CAN'T survive without being sold at Walmart or CompUSA.

    Free software doesn't have that problem.

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On 2008-06-09, AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:30:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:38:28 +0100, Homer wrote:

    >
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
    >>>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>>>> The average user doesn't run DB servers
    >>>>
    >>>>> The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.
    >>>
    >>> So Microsoft were just pissing up a tree when they released Windows Home
    >>> Server (backup server) and Windows Media Center Edition (media server),
    >>> were they?

    >
    >>Apparently so - no average user would run a server. Besides, he spewed
    >>that nonsense in response to my pointing out that no, average users do
    >>_not_ do certain things. "I'm going to disagree with you by making the
    >>exact same point you made."

    >
    > Right. The average user would never run a database. They keep all their
    > email contacts on little 3x5 index cards. The average user would never


    ....I suspect you are trying to be funny but you have actually managed
    to stumble on the truth of the matter.

    You are also conflating "database" with RDBMS. My PIM databases that
    run on mysql and postgres certainly don't need masses of CPU or memory.
    Neither does the mysql database that runs on my MythTV master backend
    and that is at least of respectable size for a "toy" or "embedded" DB.

    > run any kind of server. They don't share printers. They don't run
    > any kind of file sharing. Can't have any of those pesky servers. They
    > don't run print spoolers either. Every application has to have it's own
    > print driver and it's own dedicated printer.
    >
    > The only server windows users run is for botnets.


    Pretty much...

    If a windows user has a shared printer it's probably because the
    neighborhood Linux user set it up for them.


    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  11. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> The only server windows users run is for botnets.


    Sig material.

    > If a windows user has a shared printer it's probably because the
    > neighborhood Linux user set it up for them.


    Even better sig material!

    --
    We are not even close to finishing the basic dream of what the PC can be.
    -- Bill Gates

  12. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Hadron wrote:
    >> Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    >> extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.

    >
    > But programmers had to manually select the ram bank in most cases. Obviously.
    >

    That was then, this is now.
    The operating system takes care of that these days.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  13. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    [snips]

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:22:51 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > If a windows user has a shared printer it's probably because the
    > neighborhood Linux user set it up for them.


    Stolen and sigified.




    --
    Reason kills Creationism dead!

  14. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Linonut writes:

    > * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>> The only server windows users run is for botnets.

    >
    > Sig material.
    >
    >> If a windows user has a shared printer it's probably because the
    >> neighborhood Linux user set it up for them.

    >
    > Even better sig material!


    Yuck. Does Liarnut ever pull his tongue in?

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  15. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>> Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    >>> extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.

    >>
    >> But programmers had to manually select the ram bank in most cases. Obviously.
    >>

    > That was then, this is now.
    > The operating system takes care of that these days.


    Which part of "had to" escaped you?

    A lot of people here also forget that it was not MS you designed the
    sgemented architecture and its weaknesses. It was Intel and their need
    to maintain backward compatibility.

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  16. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Hadron wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    >>>> extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.
    >>>
    >>> But programmers had to manually select the ram bank in most cases. Obviously.
    >>>

    >> That was then, this is now.
    >> The operating system takes care of that these days.

    >
    > Which part of "had to" escaped you?


    Had to could just as easily referred to windows 2000 as vista.
    Are you telling me that windows 2000 couldn't handle PAE without application
    programmer intervention?

    > A lot of people here also forget that it was not MS you designed the
    > sgemented architecture and its weaknesses. It was Intel and their need
    > to maintain backward compatibility.


    Well, Duuuuuh.
    Where did ANYONE attribute microsoft to the crappy CPU architecture they
    lumbered themselves with?

    I personally still find it rather sad that a better one didn't gain
    dominance, like acorn's ARM, motorola's 680xx or IBM's powerpc.
    it's VHS vs Beta all over again.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  17. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Andrew Halliwell writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Using the same methods today, 32bit intel chips have PAE (paged address
    >>>>> extension) which breaks the 4gig limit. By a quite significant margin.
    >>>>
    >>>> But programmers had to manually select the ram bank in most cases. Obviously.
    >>>>
    >>> That was then, this is now.
    >>> The operating system takes care of that these days.

    >>
    >> Which part of "had to" escaped you?

    >
    > Had to could just as easily referred to windows 2000 as vista.


    Not in the context of old days prior to real 32 bit CPUs.

    > Are you telling me that windows 2000 couldn't handle PAE without application
    > programmer intervention?


    Am I? Where did I do that?

    >
    >> A lot of people here also forget that it was not MS you designed the
    >> sgemented architecture and its weaknesses. It was Intel and their need
    >> to maintain backward compatibility.

    >
    > Well, Duuuuuh.
    > Where did ANYONE attribute microsoft to the crappy CPU architecture they
    > lumbered themselves with?
    >
    > I personally still find it rather sad that a better one didn't gain
    > dominance, like acorn's ARM, motorola's 680xx or IBM's powerpc.
    > it's VHS vs Beta all over again.


    Not really.

    But yes you are right about one thing : the 68000 series was a much better option.

    --
    XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
    over the advocacy newsgroups.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  18. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    > On 2008-06-09, Hadron wrote:
    >> Homer writes:


    >>> Web stats are equally unsubstantiated skewed metrics.

    >>
    >> Yet they manage to sample Windows just fine.


    Then I'm sure you can prove the accuracy of Web stats, for Windows or
    otherwise.

    >> Poor Homer. Wrong again.


    Poor Hardon's unsubstantiated bull**** again.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    21:54:19 up 171 days, 18:29, 1 user, load average: 0.41, 0.50, 0.35

  19. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Homer writes:

    >> On 2008-06-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Homer writes:

    >
    >>>> Web stats are equally unsubstantiated skewed metrics.
    >>>
    >>> Yet they manage to sample Windows just fine.

    >
    > Then I'm sure you can prove the accuracy of Web stats, for Windows or
    > otherwise.


    Maybe you would like to prove why you think there is such a discrepancy
    in such samples to Windows or Mac (or iPhone) over Liunx?

    >
    >>> Poor Homer. Wrong again.

    >
    > Poor Hardon's unsubstantiated bull**** again.


    It's not me claiming these stats are rubbish Hypocrite boy. It's you.

    --
    "What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The
    Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body
    you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"
    -- DFS in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  20. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Verily I say unto thee, that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:
    > On 2008-06-09, amicus_curious wrote:


    >> comes Linux, more than a day late and far more than a dollar short
    >> and you puzzle as to why they are not a success?


    So you admit that Microsoft's monopoly and lockin tactics makes an
    almost impenetrable entry barrier to the OS market?

    And again, you talk about "success". Being mugged is not a "failure to
    succeed". Subsequently bragging about the ill-gotten gains of the
    "mugger" makes you at least as reprehensible as the perpetrator. You are
    one sick; twisted individual.

    "Success" is not the issue. Linux is Free Software - mission
    accomplished. It has already succeeded. The problem /now/ is that
    Microsoft use racketeering in an attempt to inhibit the adoption of that
    Free Software.

    Now certainly, people /may/ obtain Linux after-market, and in a limited
    number of cases be able to buy desktop systems preinstalled with Linux,
    but Microsoft's racketeering ensures that non-Microsoft OSs do not have
    parity with their own in terms of pre-installed availability. And goons
    like Ballmer spreading unsubstantiated FUD about "undisclosed balance
    sheet liabilities" is yet more gangster tactics that inhibits Free Software.

    >> Well, in spite of your excess predjudices, you cannot point to a
    >> single commercial entity that was damaged by any illegal action in
    >> regard to Microsoft business practices. None. The courts agreed,
    >> too.


    You are completely deluded to the point of being brainwashed:

    Synet had already trademarked Internet Explorer as a brand name when
    Microsoft came calling, offering 75 thousand dollars for rights to the
    name. When they refused Microsoft stole the name anyway, and Synet went
    bankrupt fighting the software goliath’s lawyers in court. After filing
    for bankruptcy the company was forced to settle for a paltry five
    million dollars.
    http://thepopulist.wordpress.com/2003/10/

    That's /one/.

    Here's a whole /page/ of them:

    http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653

    The OS/2 case was especially despicable.

    But just go ahead and block out the truth ... or more likely revel in
    the wickedness of it, as malevolent people do.

    > You mean like Stac?


    Yes, that's another.

    > Microsoft settled out of court with Digital Research so your comment
    > it a bit of a red herring. Also, the courts never agreed that
    > Microsoft wasn't harmful. They never overturned those parts of the
    > 2nd MS DOJ anti-trust case.
    >
    > ...yes, that's the 2nd anti-trust case.
    >
    > People tend to forget the 1st one or sweep it under the rug.


    People like amicus_unscrupulous simply don't care. In fact they're
    overjoyed by Microsoft's criminal behaviour.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    22:31:02 up 171 days, 19:06, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.08, 0.14

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast