Vista? - Linux

This is a discussion on Vista? - Linux ; On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:16:45 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote: > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote: > > > > One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other > background solutions running on the HP ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Vista?

  1. Re: Vista?

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:16:45 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    > background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    > the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a Vista
    > certified computer and not on something that would turn the machine into
    > a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.


    Well that's always a problem with the Linux loons.
    They use hardware they have scarfed out of the local dumpster and are
    wondering why it runs some CLI based version of Lite Linux great but won't
    run a modern OS like Vista.

    Sure...
    Now find 10 people who want to run say Damm small Linux after using Vista.

    Only those with poor hardware will be interested.

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

  2. Re: Vista?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:16:45 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    >> background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    >> the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a Vista
    >> certified computer and not on something that would turn the machine into
    >> a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

    >
    > Well that's always a problem with the Linux loons.
    > They use hardware they have scarfed out of the local dumpster and are
    > wondering why it runs some CLI based version of Lite Linux great but won't
    > run a modern OS like Vista.
    >
    > Sure...
    > Now find 10 people who want to run say Damm small Linux after using Vista.
    >
    > Only those with poor hardware will be interested.
    >


    You know the sad part about this, because I am a fan of all O/S(s), I
    even have Suse Linux that's on a computer, a 1999 vintage Dell,
    locked-up in storage as I went .Net contracting across the US a couple a
    years ago, is that all the posters in this thread have used MS or are
    still using MS.

    They have found their way over to Linux and were forced to deal, use,
    and understand Linux, unlike what they did or had to do with MS (a
    spoon-feeding), and now these people think they are an expert's expert,
    a guru's guru and a Moses' Moses.

    What jokes they are, and they are jokes that constantly do lie
    justification with each other and just make up stuff out of the clear
    blue sky.

    It really is pathetic.


  3. Re: Vista?

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    > background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    > the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a
    > Vista certified computer and not on something that would turn the
    > machine into a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.


    I have a P3, 3.0ghz, 2gb RAM system running Windows Server 2003 and a bunch
    of heavy processes (Oracle 9i, SQL Server 2005, DB2 Personal Edition, a doc
    mgmt server), and it blazes and is perfectly stable.

    Vista runs very well on this same machine, too. In fact, Vista installed
    and ran just fine on my Dell 4100 (P3-800mhz with 512mb of RAM).

    What bothers Linux idiots is having to spend $20 for a gig of RAM.




  4. Re: Vista?

    DFS wrote:
    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    >> background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    >> the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a
    >> Vista certified computer and not on something that would turn the
    >> machine into a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

    >
    > I have a P3, 3.0ghz, 2gb RAM system running Windows Server 2003 and a bunch
    > of heavy processes (Oracle 9i, SQL Server 2005, DB2 Personal Edition, a doc
    > mgmt server), and it blazes and is perfectly stable.
    >
    > Vista runs very well on this same machine, too. In fact, Vista installed
    > and ran just fine on my Dell 4100 (P3-800mhz with 512mb of RAM).
    >
    > What bothers Linux idiots is having to spend $20 for a gig of RAM.
    >
    >
    >


    Well the idiot that made the original post couldn't help a fly find a
    garbage truck in 100% weather. So I wouldn't trust what it had to say as
    far as I could pick-up a building and toss it somewhere. I doubt that
    any of the clowns that use Linux can really help anyone when it really
    comes down to it.

    Like dumbass Poaster, I have seen posts people have made about Linux
    issues in a neutral NG that Windows and Linux users post to and in the
    Suse NG too where I have seen him. And not one time have I ever seen
    that *clown* step to the plate and help someone with technical issues
    concerning Linux.

    I suspect others like Kolhmann, Schestowitz and many other Linux using
    ass-wipes fit the bill too.

  5. Re: Vista?

    DFS wrote:
    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    >> background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    >> the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a
    >> Vista certified computer and not on something that would turn the
    >> machine into a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

    >
    > I have a P3, 3.0ghz, 2gb RAM system running Windows Server 2003 and a bunch
    > of heavy processes (Oracle 9i, SQL Server 2005, DB2 Personal Edition, a doc
    > mgmt server), and it blazes and is perfectly stable.
    >
    > Vista runs very well on this same machine, too. In fact, Vista installed
    > and ran just fine on my Dell 4100 (P3-800mhz with 512mb of RAM).
    >
    > What bothers Linux idiots is having to spend $20 for a gig of RAM.
    >
    >
    >


    Well, the idiot that made the original post couldn't help a fly find a
    garbage truck in 100% weather. So I wouldn't trust what it had to say as
    far as I could pick-up a building and toss it somewhere. I doubt that
    any of the clowns that use Linux can really help anyone when it really
    comes down to it.

    Like dumbass Poaster, I have seen posts people have made about Linux
    issues in a neutral NG that Windows and Linux users post to and in the
    Suse NG too where I have seen him. And not one time have I ever seen
    that *clown* step to the plate and help someone with technical issues
    concerning Linux.

    I suspect others like Kolhmann, Schestowitz and many other Linux using
    ass-wipes fit the bill too.

    The stupid moderator of this NG thinks he can stop me from posting. :-P


  6. Re: Vista?

    DFS wrote:
    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    >> background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    >> the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a
    >> Vista certified computer and not on something that would turn the
    >> machine into a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

    >
    > I have a P3, 3.0ghz, 2gb RAM system running Windows Server 2003 and a bunch
    > of heavy processes (Oracle 9i, SQL Server 2005, DB2 Personal Edition, a doc
    > mgmt server), and it blazes and is perfectly stable.
    >
    > Vista runs very well on this same machine, too. In fact, Vista installed
    > and ran just fine on my Dell 4100 (P3-800mhz with 512mb of RAM).
    >
    > What bothers Linux idiots is having to spend $20 for a gig of RAM.
    >
    >
    >

    Well, the idiot that made the original post couldn't help a fly find a
    garbage truck in 100% weather. So I wouldn't trust what it had to say as
    far as I could pick-up a building and toss it somewhere. I doubt that
    any of the clowns that use Linux can really help anyone when it really
    comes down to it.

    Like dumbass Poaster, I have seen posts people have made about Linux
    issues in a neutral NG that Windows and Linux users post to and in the
    Suse NG too where I have seen him. And not one time have I ever seen
    that *clown* step to the plate and help someone with technical issues
    concerning Linux.

    I suspect others like Kolhmann, Schestowitz and many other Linux using
    ass-wipes fit the bill too.

    The stupid moderator of this NG thinks he can stop me from posting. :-P


  7. Re: Vista?

    [snips]

    On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:42:28 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > Those are the sorts of slight-of-hand tricks MS pulls in front of
    > audiences, when they demo things that they claim they're going to
    > release. Only they do it in reverse. After the trade shills are
    > mesmerized with greatness and go forth into the world to spread the
    > Good© News©, MS goes to work making a mess of it all.
    >
    > And that, my friends, is how ME and Vista were born.


    Heh.

    Meanwhile, I've discovered the drive has at least one bad sector -
    despite being SATA with SMART enabled and all the other usual goodness.

    No prob, fire up the disk scanner. "Can't do that now, disk is in use;
    schedule for reboot?"

    Okay, not too terribly unreasonable; if, say, the OS lives on the drive,
    running a surface scan could be argued to be a bad idea. (Why it's okay
    when the OS is running off the drive in bootscan mode, though, isn't
    quite so clear, but anyhow...).

    Tell it to do its thing. Reboot. Yadda yadda, blah, bla, check this,
    check that. Then it gets to "Checking file data" - the actual surface
    scan part. Says "18 percent complete". Has said "18 percent complete"
    for, oh, 10 minutes. No indication of any sort whether the thing has
    frozen, or is working, or what.

    Is it frozen? Might be. Might be working. The drive indicator (it's a
    laptop) simply say the drive is active; no blinky-blinky suggesting
    activity (nor dark light indicating lack thereof) so the user is simply
    left to guess.

    I'm going to guess that ctrl-z, bg, top isn't going to tell me whether
    the process is actually doing anything.


  8. Re: Vista?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:

    > Okay, not too terribly unreasonable; if, say, the OS lives on the
    > drive, running a surface scan could be argued to be a bad idea. (Why
    > it's okay when the OS is running off the drive in bootscan mode,
    > though, isn't quite so clear, but anyhow...).


    Presumably it's mounted RO, which begs the question - why does Windows
    need to reboot for that? This is undoubtedly the reason it also needs to
    reboot /after/ the disk check too, because it can't remount the disk RW.

    How lame.

    Linux OTOH:

    init 1
    mount -o remount,ro /
    fsck.ext3 -Dfvy /dev/
    mount -o remount,rw /
    init 5

    Granted one might need a bit of help from lsof; ps; kill and friends (in
    fact I tried it just now, and I needed to kill bonobo-activation-server
    for some reason), but surely the mighty Vole could figure that one out,
    what with all the billions they waste on highly trained H1-B engineers.


    Windows: How Many Times Would You Like To Reboot Today?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    22:32:52 up 2 days, 7:28, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.06, 0.02

  9. Re: Vista?

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
    >
    >> Okay, not too terribly unreasonable; if, say, the OS lives on the
    >> drive, running a surface scan could be argued to be a bad idea. (Why
    >> it's okay when the OS is running off the drive in bootscan mode,
    >> though, isn't quite so clear, but anyhow...).

    >
    > Presumably it's mounted RO, which begs the question - why does Windows
    > need to reboot for that? This is undoubtedly the reason it also needs to
    > reboot /after/ the disk check too, because it can't remount the disk RW.
    >
    > How lame.
    >
    > Linux OTOH:
    >
    > init 1
    > mount -o remount,ro /
    > fsck.ext3 -Dfvy /dev/
    > mount -o remount,rw /
    > init 5
    >
    > Granted one might need a bit of help from lsof; ps; kill and friends (in
    > fact I tried it just now, and I needed to kill bonobo-activation-server
    > for some reason), but surely the mighty Vole could figure that one out,
    > what with all the billions they waste on highly trained H1-B engineers.
    >
    >
    > Windows: How Many Times Would You Like To Reboot Today?
    >


    This person is a *clown*. Is this the best that people can come up with
    in this chicken-**** NG?

  10. Re: Vista?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:16:45 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    >> background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    >> the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a Vista
    >> certified computer and not on something that would turn the machine into
    >> a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

    >
    > Well that's always a problem with the Linux loons.
    > They use hardware they have scarfed out of the local dumpster and are
    > wondering why it runs some CLI based version of Lite Linux great but won't
    > run a modern OS like Vista.
    >
    > Sure...
    > Now find 10 people who want to run say Damm small Linux after using Vista.
    >
    > Only those with poor hardware will be interested.
    >


    I am going to give you another little tit bit about the differences
    between Vista and any previous version of the NT based O/S.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382503.aspx



  11. Re: Vista?

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>
    >> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    >> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
    >>
    >> First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    >> 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    >> minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.

    >
    > All this other crap happened while the file copy was in progress?


    No, all this other crap happened independent of the file copy. It was
    just the most amusing, given a certain resident troll's penchant for
    incessantly whining how sometimes Linux file copy dialogs and the like
    will show incorrect values - the implicit assertion being that Windows
    does such things perfectly.


  12. Re: Vista?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason

    wrote
    on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:16:17 -0700
    <1t12s5-ihf.ln1@spanky.work.net>:
    > Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    > core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.


    A little slow processor-wise, perhaps -- though that
    shouldn't affect a file copy all that much. (Gee: find
    block, push block to buss, push into RAM, push RAM to buss,
    find destination block, push into disk. The main issue
    is moving the heads around.)

    >
    > First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    > 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    > minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.


    522/3.42 = 152.63 seconds here. It's barely possible that
    Vista is seeing a transfer rate of 83 kB/s for some reason
    for the last few seconds, and making its calculations
    accordingly.

    >
    > Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
    > on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
    > Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.
    >
    > 'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
    > "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
    > the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
    > documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.
    >
    > So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
    > explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
    > their sweet time about it.
    >
    > Gah, the AV's taking forever.


    My AV (on my one XP work desktop, anyway -- dunno offhand
    what brand the AV is) apparently loves to read every file
    on the disk when it first fires up. That is going to sap
    your disk-to-system bandwidth if yours is doing something
    similar.

    The read takes several hours -- annoying as all get out if
    I want to do something quick in Windows and then flip back
    to Linux.

    > Switch to another window. Well, the
    > _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
    > again.
    >
    > 'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
    > something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
    > going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
    > all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
    > doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.
    >
    > All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
    > unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
    > thing in the first place.
    >
    > Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
    > double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
    > wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
    > running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
    > running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.
    >
    > Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?
    >


    It just needs more memory. Throw another gig on the barbie.... ;-)

    Meanwhile, Linux could probably do all this and more in as little
    as 256 megabytes.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature: Not a text file
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2