Advantages of going XP64

Randy Howard wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
Actually, my XP installation, since getting it set up and configured,
has never crashed. It's only been running a couple, though.

There is a word missing I think, after 'couple'. Assuming it is days,
weeks, or even months, consider yourself lucky.

Yeah, I left out the word seconds. It did finally crash after 8 seconds.

Actually, the word missing was "months". I don't really consider myself
lucky since my experience with XP is that it is relatively stable.

As much as I hate Windows and would love for Linux to become widely
accepted by Joe User, I'm not going to delude myself.

Why would you love that?

Because I use an x86 desktop system and I like alternatives and
competition. Right now, Windows has no competition.

Maybe if the Linux community would quit deluding themselves they'd
realize they aren't getting the job done when it comes to making
Linux acceptable as a mainstream desktop OS.

I hope they never do. Think about it. For that to happen, Linux has
to become as bloated, riddled with feature-creep driven hacks, filled
with resource consuming paper clips and other garbage as Windows is
today.

Only if that's your idea of a usable desktop OS. Mine is one which users
who have little interest in how a PC works can setup and use. That
doesn't mean only one simple to use distro. You can still have your
hand-built-impress-my-pimply-faced-geek-friends-with-my-uber-skillz
distro, too.

I for one would much rather see Linux concentrate on building
a stable server OS and let the lemmings run wherever they can find a
mouse that they can click without a training class.

They already have a stable server OS. It works great.

Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone
serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC
channel or a gameboy.

I don't really care how others use it as long as they use it. I guess my
elitest sensibilities aren't as keen as yours.

I'm sure all GUIs are out of the question for you since they serve no
purpose other than to make it easier to use. No mice for j00! That just
makes you look loony to those of us who are sane and don't base our self
esteem on how hard our PC is to use. I believe Linux will only get
better if it gets more popular and usable and I see no reason that has
to have any negative impact on its use as a server OS.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:17:15 -0500, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

"Randy Howard" wrote in message
Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone
serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC
channel or a gameboy.

There's a serious flaw in this theory.... Operating System development
takes lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.... This means the big Linux
distrabutions need to find a way to fund development... Hence all the
Major Distro's now "encourage" users to pay for support (i.e. make it very
difficult to find free ISOs). It's the law of economics... If you want a
modern operating system that is stable and has all the features you need
to get your work done, then you need lots of money... In order to get lots
of money you have to make your product appealing to businesses. Hence
paper clips and other "garbage" bloat ware.

I think you are confusing Linux Distros like RH, suse, Mandrake, etc with
linux. Mostly all these distros do is build the installation cd's/dvd from
free source. They then sell their work or distro, not Linux. One person
could put together a Linux distro in a short period of time since
basically all you do is package progams that are already written together
into an easy to install package. Why is it so hard to think that some
people want an alternative to the virus and bug infested MS product? And
why is it so hard to believe that people would work on the project for
free with a group of other people to accomplish this. I've not once been
asked to pay for support, and I've had absolutely no problem finding Linux
distros you can DL for free. There's literally thousand of places. of
course you have to burn your own cd's/dvd this way. If you can't do that,
you can buy a basic distro either online or in a store for about $30. With
that, you will not get just the OS though, you'll get office suites and
everything else under the sun. And if you've ever loaded Win from scratch
(not a recover cd) then you should be able to install linux easily, as
it's easier to install than windows is. And if you need support, well,
that's what the linux news groups are for. And it's totally free. And it
will be better than any support you get from MS.
There is one catch though. Don't expect all winhardware like winmodems
(which aren't even modems) to work. IOW's if you need a driver for it to
work with windows, you'll need one for linux. And while there are drivers
for a lot of this stuff, you may have trouble finding a driver for some
things.
You will also need at least dsl speeds to dl a distro. A dl distro of 3
cd's will take about 6-10hrs with dsl at 768K. or, you can get them
already burned on ebay for about $5 including shipping.


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit
capable
from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit
solutions,
as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a
lot
longer.

Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a
64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux, just like in PCs). Yes, they
have access to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a
32-bit OS still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can
either go to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the
full support in their mainline OS.

Yousuf Khan

Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit
capable
from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit
solutions,
as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a
lot
longer.

Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a
64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux here too). Yes, they have access
to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a 32-bit OS
still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can either go
to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the full support
in their mainline OS.

Yousuf Khan

Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit
capable
from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit
solutions,
as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a
lot
longer.

Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a
64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux, just like in PCs). Yes, they
have access to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a
32-bit OS still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can
either go to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the
full support in their mainline OS.

Yousuf Khan

Wes Newell got up from the bar and shouted: :
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:03:10 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:


Already run Linux on my home server (a Gentoo box), but as a workstation
OS, Linux sucks badly. Perhaps in a few years it would be ready for
mainstream...


Sorry, I just don't believe you run linux. Because if you did, you
wouldn't make such statements. I've been running Linux for about 3 or more
years now and it is much better than Win every thought about being. And if
you like Win so much why aren't you running a windows server instead of
linux? So tell me what sucks so badly about Linux. Is it that it's free?
Is it that you get almost every application you will ever need when you
get a distro? Is it that you don't have to have tons of driver disks for
all your hardware? Is it that you don't have to worry about all the
viruses you get free with Win? What is it?


No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you
REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can
find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com

Now who looks like a total **** now....

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:57:16 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:

No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you
REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can
find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com

Now who looks like a total **** now....

Well, I don't keep my server info on a web page or even use webmin, but I
also run http and ftp out of my little box (yeah, that's it in the sig
line). I also run samba every now and then, and I've got a news server
set up that I did for just the heck of it. So we can agree on that. What I
won't agree with is the workstaion part and here's why. You already said
it makes a fantastic server. The underlying part of all servers is
what, the OS. So the only thing left to make it a workstation is what?
Software. GUI? Take your pick. I use IceWM simply because it's fast and
doesn't clutter the desktop with tons of icons. And there are literally
thousands of workstation apps, which brings me to another point. Just how
do you define the generic word workstation. It could be nothing more than
some moron sitting there punching in data all day to a datbase, so you'l
need to be specificand tell me why you think it makes a lousy workstation.
I's worked better than any OS I've ever used for me for the last 3 years.
Besides, I've got nothing against ****s at this time, darn. Twits are
another story.

And to keep on the subject line, I see little advantage going to 64 bit at
this time unless you are running a high volume server. Then It's worth it
with a lot more performance. Anandtech has shown the differences between
32 and 64 bit some time back if one is interested.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

Wes Newell got up from the bar and shouted: :
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:57:16 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:


No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you
REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can
find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com

Now who looks like a total **** now....


Well, I don't keep my server info on a web page or even use webmin, but I
also run http and ftp out of my little box (yeah, that's it in the sig
line). I also run samba every now and then, and I've got a news server
set up that I did for just the heck of it. So we can agree on that. What I
won't agree with is the workstaion part and here's why. You already said
it makes a fantastic server. The underlying part of all servers is
what, the OS. So the only thing left to make it a workstation is what?
Software. GUI? Take your pick. I use IceWM simply because it's fast and
doesn't clutter the desktop with tons of icons. And there are literally
thousands of workstation apps, which brings me to another point. Just how
do you define the generic word workstation. It could be nothing more than
some moron sitting there punching in data all day to a datbase, so you'l
need to be specificand tell me why you think it makes a lousy workstation.
I's worked better than any OS I've ever used for me for the last 3 years.
Besides, I've got nothing against ****s at this time, darn. Twits are
another story.

And to keep on the subject line, I see little advantage going to 64 bit at
this time unless you are running a high volume server. Then It's worth it
with a lot more performance. Anandtech has shown the differences between
32 and 64 bit some time back if one is interested.


Various reasons why Desktop linux sucks, from sluggish performance even
on decent hardware, too much choice meaning no standard desktop
environment, complex administration (for end users anyway), lack of
application compatability, and just lousy applications. KDevelop is a
very poor Visual Studio for example. The whole Linux Desktop affair is
a very "disjointed" feel, which while a techy person may love, I prefer
to simply have something standard that works (XP).

--
Lite-On DVD Recorder User Forums
http://www.liteonusers.org.uk

Black Shuck wrote:

Various reasons why Desktop linux sucks, from sluggish performance even
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm running a 333MHz. Dare to do that with m$?

on decent hardware, too much choice meaning no standard desktop
environment, complex administration (for end users anyway),

Adm...what? Touched once. Never again. Unlike your self-modifying
crapware of m$

lack of
application compatability, and just lousy applications.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The day m$ will have something vaguely resembling quality of TeX for
writing, I will consider that. Before that day - somewhere around 3954 I
suppose - there's no question at all.

Let me twist the dagger in the wound:

No decent video player, unlike mplayer and xine
No decent editor
No compiler
No mail app (what? Lookout xpress? It's a virus-spreader...)
No decent web browser. We have mozilla, galeon, firefox, dillo, lynx,
netscape, opera, epiphany, skipstone, konqueror....
No postcript
No decent graphical file manager. Our list is way too long. Apart from
the usual one from kde/gnome, one name is enough. Rox.

I've been quite cavalier. Let's humiliate them further now.

No process control
No kill -9
No ssh
No multiple users
No choice of mounting partitions in a desired place
No mounting at all
No choice of filesystem
No package installation control. A wrong dll will make your box belly up.
No console
No secure remote video export
No gui choice
Poor apps choice

KDevelop is a
very poor Visual Studio for example. The whole Linux Desktop affair is
a very "disjointed" feel, which while a techy person may love, I prefer
to simply have something standard that works (XP).

Yes, like your word files. That are incompatible from 95 to 97 yo 2000
to xpee. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

En , Yousuf Khan va escriu
in a 32-bit system the virtual memory limit is 4GB,

It looks like 2GB to me. Perhaps 3GB with special compiled apps, and they do
not perform well everywhere (meaning: the result crash much more often).

so with 1GB already installed you're already very close to
your virtual memory limit.

However, I do not believe you should relate one with the other. When using a
big vm space, more memory means less swap, that's all.


Oh yes, there is also the problem with the fact that the very old
16-bit Windows apps will now no longer work in XP64. They
maintained 32-bit backward compatibility, but they dumped the
16-bit compatibility. I don't know why they did that,

Probably because VM86 mode is not available from a 64-bit OS. And I guess
NTVDM (the hack that actually runs both Win16 and MS-DOS executables) needs
to run in part in "real addressing mode", that is, part of it still depends
on the segmented DOS architecture instead of the protected mode of Win 3.x.

it shouldn't have been all that much
harder to implement it, but it was Microsoft's decision.

.... so in other words, marketing may have decided it this way.


En ErQId.1008$al1.178@lakeread07, Dracir Venostos asked:

Just a guess here, but wouldn't retaining 16 bit code compatibility
in the kernel create the potential for unnecessary instability
issues?

No reason for this. NTVDM runs as another process, exactly the same as
whatever ill-designed program; when it crashes, nothing happen except to it.
This is very different from the architecture of Win9x, where the kernel was
shared with every processes, 16- or 32-bit.



Antoine