PDA

View Full Version : WPA in Longhorn, but not in WinXP 64 Extended...


Pon Fart
June 5th 04, 03:56 AM
Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP 64
Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.

However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows Product
Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has WPA.
Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP 64
Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same serial.... To
me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously. And that
doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to many of
users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place in
Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and bandwidth.

The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.

Wes Newell
June 5th 04, 06:44 AM
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:56:31 -0500, Pon Fart wrote:

> Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
> 64 Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
>
Ho hum..

> Linux is not an option to many of users because most of the hardware and
> software they run have no place in Linux. So don't recommend it, you
> will only be wasting time, and bandwidth.
>
Ok I won't recommend it. I'll just state the fact that Linux runs on more
hardware than Windows ever thought about running on. Linux distros come
with more software than windows, with the exception of virus attracting
programs. Windows has alomost exclusive rights to that.:-)

> The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.

Not all of use really care.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Pon Fart
June 5th 04, 06:48 AM
Most people that use computers don't care about Linux.




"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected] .net...
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:56:31 -0500, Pon Fart wrote:
>
> > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
> > 64 Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> >
> Ho hum..
>
> > Linux is not an option to many of users because most of the hardware and
> > software they run have no place in Linux. So don't recommend it, you
> > will only be wasting time, and bandwidth.
> >
> Ok I won't recommend it. I'll just state the fact that Linux runs on more
> hardware than Windows ever thought about running on. Linux distros come
> with more software than windows, with the exception of virus attracting
> programs. Windows has alomost exclusive rights to that.:-)
>
> > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
>
> Not all of use really care.
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

baskitcaise
June 5th 04, 07:11 AM
Pon Fart adjusted his tin foil beanie and asbestos underwear to write:

> Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But
> WinXP 64 Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
>
> However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> Product Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the
> AMD has WPA. Further more, there is only one serial for every version
> of Windows XP 64 Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or
> 1184.... same serial.... To
> me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously.
> And that doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an
> option to many of users because most of the hardware and software they
> run have no place in Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be
> wasting time, and bandwidth.
>
> The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.

Why would they need WPA when they have Palladium, DMA ... etc.....

--
Mark
Iligitimi Non Carborundum!
Twixt hill and high water, N.Wales, UK
onfxvgpnvfr-ng-tzk-qbg-pb-hx

Pon Fart
June 5th 04, 03:46 PM
"baskitcaise" > wrote in message
...
> Pon Fart adjusted his tin foil beanie and asbestos underwear to write:
>
> > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But
> > WinXP 64 Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> >
> > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> > Product Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the
> > AMD has WPA. Further more, there is only one serial for every version
> > of Windows XP 64 Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or
> > 1184.... same serial.... To
> > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously.
> > And that doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an
> > option to many of users because most of the hardware and software they
> > run have no place in Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be
> > wasting time, and bandwidth.
> >
> > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
>
> Why would they need WPA when they have Palladium, DMA ... etc.....
>
> --
> Mark
> Iligitimi Non Carborundum!
> Twixt hill and high water, N.Wales, UK
> onfxvgpnvfr-ng-tzk-qbg-pb-hx

I don't think Palladium has been instituted as of yet. DMA? Isn't that part
of the building blocks of life? DMA, and RMA? :o)

baskitcaise
June 5th 04, 09:43 PM
Pon Fart adjusted his tin foil beanie and asbestos underwear to write:

> I don't think Palladium has been instituted as of yet. DMA? Isn't that
> part
> of the building blocks of life? DMA, and RMA? :o)

Yep fingers fast, brain dead, nearly and anagram of DRM and DMCA, which
is what I meant to type :)

Palladium will be in longhorn though, maybe not fully but it will be
even MS admit that, so with those included there will be no need for a
proper WPA, that is why they are predicting that software will cost
( on the drip, for every use ) and hardware will come free, the
hardware will include the bits no one wants that control access and
usability, and can switch the whole lot off if you so much as look at
anything that you have not signed your life away for.

--
Mark
Iligitimi Non Carborundum!
Twixt hill and high water, N.Wales, UK
onfxvgpnvfr-ng-tzk-qbg-pb-hx

Ian Hastie
June 6th 04, 03:07 AM
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:56:31 -0500, Pon Fart wrote:

> Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
> 64 Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.

Who said? Chances are it will come out when/if Intel get their AMD64
alike(ish) chips out.

> However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> Product Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD
> has WPA. Further more, there is only one serial for every version of
> Windows XP 64 Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184....
> same serial....

Why would they invest the time and resources needed for a give away
beta? They're not even bothering with security critical patches let
alone anything else.

> To me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market
> seriously. And that doesn't bode well for the Windows users.

Quite so, Microsoft have dropped the ball on AMD64 very badly. They're
now playing catch up with Linux and BSD. In my opinion there wouldn't
have been a free public beta if it wasn't to try to stop people going to
Linux or BSD with their AMD64 hardware.

> Linux is not
> an option to many of users because most of the hardware and software they
> run have no place in Linux.

This makes no sense. You're not trying to troll are you?

> So don't recommend it, you will only be
> wasting time, and bandwidth.

You're either a troll or very stupid.

> The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.

So what? Of course the reason it matters is the MS monopoly. If it
weren't for that no one would care if there was an MS Win for AMD64 or
not.

--
Ian.

EOM

Ian Hastie
June 6th 04, 03:11 AM
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 00:48:05 -0500, Pon Fart wrote:

> Most people that use computers don't care about Linux.

Oh well, it was only a stupid troll all along.

--
Ian.

EOM

Randy Howard
June 6th 04, 04:14 AM
In article >, says...
> Most people that use computers don't care about Linux.

ROTFLMAO.

Jacob
June 8th 04, 09:28 AM
I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at Microsoft HQ i
Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials. (Not
that it proves anything, but interresting though)

- Jacob

"Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
64
> Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
>
> However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
Product
> Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has WPA.
> Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP 64
> Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same serial....
To
> me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously. And
that
> doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to many of
> users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place in
> Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
bandwidth.
>
> The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
>
>
>
>

jpsga
June 8th 04, 08:58 PM
Gee J,

Do they have any choice? I'll bet it appears this fall with a heavy price
tag and it will drag the Xenon along as an after thought,
JPS

"Jacob" > wrote in message
. ..
> I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at Microsoft HQ
i
> Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials. (Not
> that it proves anything, but interresting though)
>
> - Jacob
>
> "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
> > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
> 64
> > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> >
> > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> Product
> > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has WPA.
> > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP
64
> > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same serial....
> To
> > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously. And
> that
> > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to many
of
> > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place
in
> > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> bandwidth.
> >
> > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Only NoSpammers
June 10th 04, 08:33 PM
Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This definitely
brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is still
struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you have
already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to anyone
how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure 32-bit
Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting utilities
source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture definitely
means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the releases
of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is these
bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final release.
Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with other
OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.

Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using his PS2
to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both Linux
distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really awesome
considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the 128-bit
Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02 GFLOPs
(Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2 dropping
to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a 128-bit CPU
architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and $$ for
the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.

--
Mazi

"Jacob" > wrote in message
. ..
> I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at Microsoft HQ
i
> Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials. (Not
> that it proves anything, but interresting though)
>
> - Jacob
>
> "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
> > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But WinXP
> 64
> > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> >
> > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> Product
> > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has WPA.
> > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP
64
> > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same serial....
> To
> > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously. And
> that
> > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to many
of
> > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place
in
> > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> bandwidth.
> >
> > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Early 2 Riz
June 10th 04, 08:43 PM
Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have to
rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then have
to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters. Then
games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run natively in
Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively in
Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ... But
again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than it does
in Windows.

Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common user.
Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that figure
is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best Buy, and
see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY OTHER
platform. Get the picture??


"Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54...
> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This definitely
> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is still
> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you
have
> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to anyone
> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
32-bit
> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
utilities
> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture definitely
> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
releases
> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is
these
> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final release.
> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with other
> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
>
> Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using his
PS2
> to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both Linux
> distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
awesome
> considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
128-bit
> Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02 GFLOPs
> (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
dropping
> to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a 128-bit CPU
> architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and $$ for
> the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
> whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
>
> --
> Mazi
>
> "Jacob" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at Microsoft
HQ
> i
> > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials.
(Not
> > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
> >
> > - Jacob
> >
> > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > ...
> > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But
WinXP
> > 64
> > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> > >
> > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
> > Product
> > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has
WPA.
> > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP
> 64
> > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
serial....
> > To
> > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously.
And
> > that
> > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to
many
> of
> > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place
> in
> > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> > bandwidth.
> > >
> > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
> > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Ben Meyer
June 11th 04, 04:01 AM
Just a little updating on that but two distros seem to take care of
that....

Gentoo: emerge <software-name>
Debian: apt-get <software-name>

Both take care of most configuration, dependencies, and Gentoo will even
compile it on your system for you after retrieving _all_ the sources.
Not every distro is that easy, and (of course) there is some software
that will act up with those systems, but the ability is there.

Then again, there's nothing like trying to install legacy software on a
new Windows system, or even trying to install patches and a certain
programs from Microsoft.

Not everything in Windows installs well. Many apps will fail during
installation but people generally write it off because of how huge
Microsoft it.

As to Linux, yeah there some problems at times with 'legacy' apps, but
only due to compatibility with newer software. There's little stopping
you from installing the older software it is compatible with along side
the new software you wish to use in order to use it.

As to DirectX and other Microsoft APIs, there are several ways to get
around that. (a) Run VMware with Windows installed; (b) run programs
like Win4Lin. Not all are fully there, but they are mostly more there
than their open source equivalents because they signed NDAs or whatever.

Later,

BRM

"Early 2 Riz" > wrote in message
...
> Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have
to
> rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then
have
> to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters.
Then
> games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run
natively in
> Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively
in
> Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ...
But
> again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than
it does
> in Windows.
>
> Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common
user.
> Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that
figure
> is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best
Buy, and
> see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY
OTHER
> platform. Get the picture??
>
>
> "Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s54...
> > Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> > stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and
Intel
> > Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for
Sony
> > Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
definitely
> > brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
still
> > struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of
you
> have
> > already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to
a
> > 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
anyone
> > how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
> 32-bit
> > Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> > Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
> utilities
> > source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case,
any
> > effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
definitely
> > means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
> releases
> > of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it
is
> these
> > bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
release.
> > Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
other
> > OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using
his
> PS2
> > to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both
Linux
> > distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
> awesome
> > considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
> 128-bit
> > Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02
GFLOPs
> > (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
> dropping
> > to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a
128-bit CPU
> > architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and
$$ for
> > the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
> > whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
> >
> > --
> > Mazi
> >
> > "Jacob" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at
Microsoft
> HQ
> > i
> > > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64
commercials.
> (Not
> > > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
> > >
> > > - Jacob
> > >
> > > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > > ...
> > > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2.
But
> WinXP
> > > 64
> > > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> > > >
> > > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA
(Windows
> > > Product
> > > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD
has
> WPA.
> > > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of
Windows XP
> > 64
> > > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
> serial....
> > > To
> > > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market
seriously.
> And
> > > that
> > > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option
to
> many
> > of
> > > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no
place
> > in
> > > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> > > bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact
that
> > > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Early 2 Riz
June 11th 04, 06:03 AM
Emulators are slowwww. That is a known fact. Have you tried to play Far Cry
in Linux? Or what about Tomb Radier:AOD ? And what about EAX HD support?

Give it up. Linux is not a Desktop OS, at least not yet. As a web-server,
it is my choice, as it is many others.



"Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> Just a little updating on that but two distros seem to take care of
> that....
>
> Gentoo: emerge <software-name>
> Debian: apt-get <software-name>
>
> Both take care of most configuration, dependencies, and Gentoo will even
> compile it on your system for you after retrieving _all_ the sources.
> Not every distro is that easy, and (of course) there is some software
> that will act up with those systems, but the ability is there.
>
> Then again, there's nothing like trying to install legacy software on a
> new Windows system, or even trying to install patches and a certain
> programs from Microsoft.
>
> Not everything in Windows installs well. Many apps will fail during
> installation but people generally write it off because of how huge
> Microsoft it.
>
> As to Linux, yeah there some problems at times with 'legacy' apps, but
> only due to compatibility with newer software. There's little stopping
> you from installing the older software it is compatible with along side
> the new software you wish to use in order to use it.
>
> As to DirectX and other Microsoft APIs, there are several ways to get
> around that. (a) Run VMware with Windows installed; (b) run programs
> like Win4Lin. Not all are fully there, but they are mostly more there
> than their open source equivalents because they signed NDAs or whatever.
>
> Later,
>
> BRM
>
> "Early 2 Riz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have
> to
> > rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then
> have
> > to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters.
> Then
> > games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run
> natively in
> > Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively
> in
> > Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ...
> But
> > again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than
> it does
> > in Windows.
> >
> > Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common
> user.
> > Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that
> figure
> > is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best
> Buy, and
> > see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY
> OTHER
> > platform. Get the picture??
> >
> >
> > "Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]_s54...
> > > Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> > > stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and
> Intel
> > > Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for
> Sony
> > > Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
> definitely
> > > brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
> still
> > > struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of
> you
> > have
> > > already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to
> a
> > > 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
> anyone
> > > how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
> > 32-bit
> > > Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> > > Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
> > utilities
> > > source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case,
> any
> > > effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
> definitely
> > > means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
> > releases
> > > of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it
> is
> > these
> > > bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
> release.
> > > Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
> other
> > > OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
> > >
> > > Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using
> his
> > PS2
> > > to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both
> Linux
> > > distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
> > awesome
> > > considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
> > 128-bit
> > > Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02
> GFLOPs
> > > (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
> > dropping
> > > to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a
> 128-bit CPU
> > > architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and
> $$ for
> > > the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
> > > whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mazi
> > >
> > > "Jacob" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at
> Microsoft
> > HQ
> > > i
> > > > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64
> commercials.
> > (Not
> > > > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
> > > >
> > > > - Jacob
> > > >
> > > > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > > > ...
> > > > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2.
> But
> > WinXP
> > > > 64
> > > > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA
> (Windows
> > > > Product
> > > > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD
> has
> > WPA.
> > > > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of
> Windows XP
> > > 64
> > > > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
> > serial....
> > > > To
> > > > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market
> seriously.
> > And
> > > > that
> > > > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option
> to
> > many
> > > of
> > > > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no
> place
> > > in
> > > > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> > > > bandwidth.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact
> that
> > > > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Wes Newell
June 11th 04, 07:38 AM
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:03:03 -0500, Early 2 Riz wrote:

> Emulators are slowwww. That is a known fact. Have you tried to play Far Cry
> in Linux? Or what about Tomb Radier:AOD ? And what about EAX HD support?
>
Do you have a computer or a game box?

> Give it up. Linux is not a Desktop OS, at least not yet. As a
> web-server, it is my choice, as it is many others.
>
I wish you would have told me that 3 years ago when I switched to Linux.
Please tell me what I'm missing by not running windows, except the
viruses. I don't really miss them.:-)

And could you point me to a definition of "Desktop OS". My computer is
on my desktop. I run Linux. So to me it's a desktop OS. But now that you
pointed out it's not a desktop OS I want my money back, Wait a minute,
what money.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Only NoSpammers
June 11th 04, 01:32 PM
"Early 2 Riz" > wrote in message
...
> Emulators are slowwww. That is a known fact. Have you tried to play Far
Cry
> in Linux? Or what about Tomb Radier:AOD ? And what about EAX HD support?
>
> Give it up. Linux is not a Desktop OS, at least not yet. As a web-server,
> it is my choice, as it is many others.
>
Give it upp??? You've got to be kidding or are just woken up from a long
nightmare. When the Windows and/or DOS were still an infant or even in their
conception, the words "Desktop" and "Workstation" have already been around
for quite sometimes used under Unix, VMS, etc. OSes. As with Linux, it is
basically a Unix OS; thus, Linux can definitely be designated as either a
"Desktop", "Workstation" and/or "Server/Client". When DOS/Win3 came out, the
computer used such an OS was not even clear to name as a "Desktop" until
win95 (mind you Linux came out in 1991).

Please go to sleep to have more nightmare ... ;-)

>
>
> "Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just a little updating on that but two distros seem to take care of
> > that....
> >
> > Gentoo: emerge <software-name>
> > Debian: apt-get <software-name>
> >
> > Both take care of most configuration, dependencies, and Gentoo will even
> > compile it on your system for you after retrieving _all_ the sources.
> > Not every distro is that easy, and (of course) there is some software
> > that will act up with those systems, but the ability is there.
> >
> > Then again, there's nothing like trying to install legacy software on a
> > new Windows system, or even trying to install patches and a certain
> > programs from Microsoft.
> >
> > Not everything in Windows installs well. Many apps will fail during
> > installation but people generally write it off because of how huge
> > Microsoft it.
> >
> > As to Linux, yeah there some problems at times with 'legacy' apps, but
> > only due to compatibility with newer software. There's little stopping
> > you from installing the older software it is compatible with along side
> > the new software you wish to use in order to use it.
> >
> > As to DirectX and other Microsoft APIs, there are several ways to get
> > around that. (a) Run VMware with Windows installed; (b) run programs
> > like Win4Lin. Not all are fully there, but they are mostly more there
> > than their open source equivalents because they signed NDAs or whatever.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > BRM
> >
> > "Early 2 Riz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have
> > to
> > > rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then
> > have
> > > to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters.
> > Then
> > > games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run
> > natively in
> > > Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively
> > in
> > > Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ...
> > But
> > > again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than
> > it does
> > > in Windows.
> > >
> > > Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common
> > user.
> > > Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that
> > figure
> > > is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best
> > Buy, and
> > > see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY
> > OTHER
> > > platform. Get the picture??
> > >
> > >
> > > "Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]_s54...
> > > > Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> > > > stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and
> > Intel
> > > > Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for
> > Sony
> > > > Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
> > definitely
> > > > brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
> > still
> > > > struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of
> > you
> > > have
> > > > already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to
> > a
> > > > 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
> > anyone
> > > > how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
> > > 32-bit
> > > > Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> > > > Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
> > > utilities
> > > > source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case,
> > any
> > > > effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
> > definitely
> > > > means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
> > > releases
> > > > of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it
> > is
> > > these
> > > > bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
> > release.
> > > > Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
> > other
> > > > OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using
> > his
> > > PS2
> > > > to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both
> > Linux
> > > > distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
> > > awesome
> > > > considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
> > > 128-bit
> > > > Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02
> > GFLOPs
> > > > (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
> > > dropping
> > > > to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a
> > 128-bit CPU
> > > > architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and
> > $$ for
> > > > the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
> > > > whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mazi
> > > >
> > > > "Jacob" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at
> > Microsoft
> > > HQ
> > > > i
> > > > > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64
> > commercials.
> > > (Not
> > > > > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jacob
> > > > >
> > > > > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2.
> > But
> > > WinXP
> > > > > 64
> > > > > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA
> > (Windows
> > > > > Product
> > > > > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD
> > has
> > > WPA.
> > > > > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of
> > Windows XP
> > > > 64
> > > > > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
> > > serial....
> > > > > To
> > > > > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market
> > seriously.
> > > And
> > > > > that
> > > > > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option
> > to
> > > many
> > > > of
> > > > > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no
> > place
> > > > in
> > > > > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
> > > > > bandwidth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact
> > that
> > > > > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Arnfiin Haraldsen
June 15th 04, 03:28 AM
"Randy Howard" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
> > Most people that use computers don't care about Linux.
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>

looks like he was right.

Arnfiin Haraldsen
June 15th 04, 03:45 AM
> Do you have a computer or a game box?

Do i really have to choose? Oh you're talking from a linux user perspective
:-)


> > Give it up. Linux is not a Desktop OS, at least not yet. As a
> > web-server, it is my choice, as it is many others.
> >
> I wish you would have told me that 3 years ago when I switched to Linux.
> Please tell me what I'm missing by not running windows, except the
> viruses. I don't really miss them.:-)

full suppeort for the latest hardware, like dynamic overclocking in the OS.
3D sound in games, incredible games that run with any emulator mess.

the lack of reading through endless HOW-TO just to change the refresh rate,
the bitrate of a ethernet card, and plenty of problems that should be in a
FAQ.

An overloaded start menu and _really_ bad start bar doesnt make it any
better.


Get your butt to work instead of trashing down on us Micro$soft sheep, I
want a simple, super-userfriendly (think Windows XP start menu), OpenGL
accellerated desktop and full support for the latest hardware and games.

get Half Life 2 to linux
explain to people why Window$ and DRM and M$ should never be on its own out
there, and why Linux can be much better then windows.

Most people know Winblows get faster after a format/reinstall, tell them it
can be done better.
http://jooh.no/prog_winxp.html

Arnfiin Haraldsen
June 15th 04, 03:53 AM
> Give it upp??? You've got to be kidding or are just woken up from a long
> nightmare. When the Windows and/or DOS were still an infant or even in
their
> conception, the words "Desktop" and "Workstation" have already been around
> for quite sometimes used under Unix, VMS, etc. OSes. As with Linux, it is
> basically a Unix OS; thus, Linux can definitely be designated as either a
> "Desktop", "Workstation" and/or "Server/Client". When DOS/Win3 came out,
the
> computer used such an OS was not even clear to name as a "Desktop" until
> win95 (mind you Linux came out in 1991).
>
> Please go to sleep to have more nightmare ... ;-)

I'm afraid most Windows users (read: microsoft sheep) are afraid to loose
their efficient and userfriendly (READ: good GAMEPLAY) GUI and forced on the
Linux desktop.

But they should not be afraid, hopefully Linux will be just as userfriendly
and simple as Winblows but with the lack of registry hell and DLL hell
workaround and driver mess ups that require clean reinstalls.

comon guys dont fight, get the PC better.

Early 2 Riz
June 15th 04, 05:12 AM
"Arnfiin Haraldsen" > wrote in message
...
> > Give it upp??? You've got to be kidding or are just woken up from a long
> > nightmare. When the Windows and/or DOS were still an infant or even in
> their
> > conception, the words "Desktop" and "Workstation" have already been
around
> > for quite sometimes used under Unix, VMS, etc. OSes. As with Linux, it
is
> > basically a Unix OS; thus, Linux can definitely be designated as either
a
> > "Desktop", "Workstation" and/or "Server/Client". When DOS/Win3 came out,
> the
> > computer used such an OS was not even clear to name as a "Desktop" until
> > win95 (mind you Linux came out in 1991).
> >
> > Please go to sleep to have more nightmare ... ;-)
>
> I'm afraid most Windows users (read: microsoft sheep) are afraid to loose
> their efficient and userfriendly (READ: good GAMEPLAY) GUI and forced on
the
> Linux desktop.
>
> But they should not be afraid, hopefully Linux will be just as
userfriendly
> and simple as Winblows but with the lack of registry hell and DLL hell
> workaround and driver mess ups that require clean reinstalls.
>
> comon guys dont fight, get the PC better.
>
>

You forgot to mention the times spent doing clean install of Linux when all
you did was select all of the updates listed in the update program just to
find not only can't you start X-Windows, but the OS dies during startup and
asks you to reboot.

What about chmod a+x just to get a binary to run? Or how about su root to
be able to run an RPM file? No, Linux is not a Desktop OS for the casual
user.

General Schvantzkoph
July 6th 04, 12:23 AM
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:33:21 +0000, Only NoSpammers wrote:

> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This definitely
> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is still
> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you have
> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to anyone
> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure 32-bit
> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting utilities
> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture definitely
> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the releases
> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is these
> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final release.
> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with other
> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.

Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant that
it wasn't possible for it to collect any processor specific
"optimizations" that make it difficult to port it to a new architecture.
Linux runs on both little endian machines line X86 and Alpha and big
endian machines line PPC and SPARC. It has also run on 64 bit machines for
years like Alpha, SPARC, MIPS and IBM Power. As a result there was no
possiblity of any gotchas when they ported it to AMD64. All that was
needed was a version of GCC that puts out AMD64 code and some fiddling
with the memory manager.

Windows NT was always an x86 only OS. There was a port to Alpha in the
early days but they only shipped a tiny number of copies so it was never
well supported. The Alpha version died with NT4 (or possible 3.5) and
since then NT/2K/XP focused entirely on the x86. The side effect has been
that it has accumlated thousands of lines of code that will only work on a
32 bit architecture. Microsoft has to hunt down every aliased pointer and
every ponter that's buried in a structure somewhere and fix them. Even
with Microsoft's vast resources it's going to take them a while before
they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.

Steven Kinch
July 6th 04, 12:46 AM
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:43:13 -0500, Early 2 Riz wrote:

> Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have to
> rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then have
> to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters. Then
> games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run natively in
> Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively in
> Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ... But
> again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than it does
> in Windows.
>
> Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common user.
> Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that figure
> is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best Buy, and
> see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY OTHER
> platform. Get the picture??
>
>
> "Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s54...
>> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
>> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
>> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
>> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This definitely
>> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is still
>> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you
> have
>> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
>> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to anyone
>> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
> 32-bit
>> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
>> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
> utilities
>> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
>> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture definitely
>> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
> releases
>> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is
> these
>> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final release.
>> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with other
>> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
>>
>> Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using his
> PS2
>> to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both Linux
>> distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
> awesome
>> considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
> 128-bit
>> Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02 GFLOPs
>> (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
> dropping
>> to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a 128-bit CPU
>> architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and $$ for
>> the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
>> whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
>>
>> --
>> Mazi
>>
>> "Jacob" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at Microsoft
> HQ
>> i
>> > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials.
> (Not
>> > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
>> >
>> > - Jacob
>> >
>> > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> > ...
>> > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But
> WinXP
>> > 64
>> > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
>> > >
>> > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
>> > Product
>> > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has
> WPA.
>> > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows XP
>> 64
>> > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
> serial....
>> > To
>> > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously.
> And
>> > that
>> > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to
> many
>> of
>> > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no place
>> in
>> > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
>> > bandwidth.
>> > >
>> > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
>> > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>Rubbish. It is as easy or complicated as you want it to be. You can
>point and click at an rpm in most distros. You will be asked your root
>(admin) password and it installs without a fuss. If you want command
>line you have it. My Mum has had Win XP for over a year and is still too
frightened to install any software.

Pseudo Namen
July 6th 04, 01:30 AM
"Steven Kinch" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:43:13 -0500, Early 2 Riz wrote:
>
>> Linux is still not an OS meant for the lay user. As long as you have to
>> rpm -ivh *.rpm and find you don't have the correct libraries, and then
>> have
>> to hunt them on the Internet, etc... That is just for starters. Then
>> games like Command & Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 don't run natively
>> in
>> Linux, ... actually, there are very few DX9 games that work natively in
>> Linux... Linux is ok for doing spreadsheets, word processing, ... But
>> again, it still takes more to install a simple program in Linux than it
>> does
>> in Windows.
>>
>> Just because an OS runs in 64bit, doesn't mean it is for the common user.
>> Windows is used in more than 80% of the world's PC's today. And that
>> figure
>> is not likely to change anytime soon. Heck, go into your local Best Buy,
>> and
>> see how much software is written for the Windows Platform, versus ANY
>> OTHER
>> platform. Get the picture??
>>
>>
>> "Only NoSpammers" > wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]_s54...
>>> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
>>> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
>>> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
>>> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
>>> definitely
>>> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
>>> still
>>> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you
>> have
>>> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
>>> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
>>> anyone
>>> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
>> 32-bit
>>> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
>>> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
>> utilities
>>> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
>>> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
>>> definitely
>>> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
>> releases
>>> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is
>> these
>>> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
>>> release.
>>> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
>>> other
>>> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
>>>
>>> Here is a bit OT from the OP. A friend has demonstrated to me using his
>> PS2
>>> to run the Sony as well as Debian BlackRhino Linux OS distros. Both
>>> Linux
>>> distros run very well and their performance, under KDE, was really
>> awesome
>>> considering the PS2 only runs on a 300MHz clock, not to mention the
>> 128-bit
>>> Emotion CPU used by the PS2 is capable of delivering a whoping 6.02
>>> GFLOPs
>>> (Giga Floating Point Operations per second). With the price of PS2
>> dropping
>>> to US$150, I might consider to join the bandwagon going with a 128-bit
>>> CPU
>>> architecture instead of wasting more time for the Windows64 OS and $$
>>> for
>>> the 64-bit CPU as well as its mobo that may not be able to deliver a
>>> whopping 6.02 GFLOPs. YMMV.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mazi
>>>
>>> "Jacob" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> > I do think that Microsoft takes the Win64 seriously. I was at
>>> > Microsoft
>> HQ
>>> i
>>> > Seattle in March. Their cafeteria was filled with Win64 commercials.
>> (Not
>>> > that it proves anything, but interresting though)
>>> >
>>> > - Jacob
>>> >
>>> > "Pon Fart" > skrev i en meddelelse
>>> > ...
>>> > > Everyone knows that Longhorn is more than a year off, maybe 2. But
>> WinXP
>>> > 64
>>> > > Extended edition is supposed to be released this year.
>>> > >
>>> > > However, the Longhorn Beta of Longhorn, build 4074 has WPA (Windows
>>> > Product
>>> > > Activation), but neither XP 64 or XP 64 2003 Server for the AMD has
>> WPA.
>>> > > Further more, there is only one serial for every version of Windows
>>> > > XP
>>> 64
>>> > > Extended edition, whether it is version 1069 or 1184.... same
>> serial....
>>> > To
>>> > > me, this means Microsoft isn't taking the AMD 64 market seriously.
>> And
>>> > that
>>> > > doesn't bode well for the Windows users. Linux is not an option to
>> many
>>> of
>>> > > users because most of the hardware and software they run have no
>>> > > place
>>> in
>>> > > Linux. So don't recommend it, you will only be wasting time, and
>>> > bandwidth.
>>> > >
>>> > > The main purpose of this post is to draw attention to the fact that
>>> > > Microsoft is taking this project way too lightly.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>Rubbish. It is as easy or complicated as you want it to be. You can
>>point and click at an rpm in most distros. You will be asked your root
>>(admin) password and it installs without a fuss. If you want command
>>line you have it. My Mum has had Win XP for over a year and is still too
> frightened to install any software.
>

Garbage. Try and install an RPM when the required libraries are not
installed. Then you download the libraries, and then are told that it
conflicts with an installed library.... Not easy by any means. You must not
use Mandrake, correct? And Mandrake is the easiest version for people to
use. And if it is still that hard with Mandrake, then forget it for the
common user.

Next, do you think Grandma could install a new kernel in Mandrake? or
Redhat?

Pseudo Namen
July 6th 04, 01:31 AM
"General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:33:21 +0000, Only NoSpammers wrote:
>
>> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
>> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and Intel
>> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for Sony
>> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This definitely
>> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is still
>> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of you
>> have
>> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS to a
>> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to anyone
>> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its pure
>> 32-bit
>> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
>> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
>> utilities
>> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the case, any
>> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
>> definitely
>> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
>> releases
>> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it is
>> these
>> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final release.
>> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with other
>> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
>
> Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant that
> it wasn't possible for it to collect any processor specific
> "optimizations" that make it difficult to port it to a new architecture.
> Linux runs on both little endian machines line X86 and Alpha and big
> endian machines line PPC and SPARC. It has also run on 64 bit machines for
> years like Alpha, SPARC, MIPS and IBM Power. As a result there was no
> possiblity of any gotchas when they ported it to AMD64. All that was
> needed was a version of GCC that puts out AMD64 code and some fiddling
> with the memory manager.
>
> Windows NT was always an x86 only OS. There was a port to Alpha in the
> early days but they only shipped a tiny number of copies so it was never
> well supported. The Alpha version died with NT4 (or possible 3.5) and
> since then NT/2K/XP focused entirely on the x86. The side effect has been
> that it has accumlated thousands of lines of code that will only work on a
> 32 bit architecture. Microsoft has to hunt down every aliased pointer and
> every ponter that's buried in a structure somewhere and fix them. Even
> with Microsoft's vast resources it's going to take them a while before
> they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.
>

Garbage. Microsoft is releasing Windows XP 64bit Extended edition in the
next few months. And it is a truly 64bit OS, only it allows running of many
32bit programs, just as Mandrake 10 64bit does.

Ben Meyer
July 6th 04, 04:41 AM
"Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
...
> "General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:33:21 +0000, Only NoSpammers wrote:
> >> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
> >> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and
Intel
> >> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for
Sony
> >> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
definitely
> >> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
still
> >> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of
you
> >> have
> >> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS
to a
> >> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
anyone
> >> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its
pure
> >> 32-bit
> >> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
> >> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
> >> utilities
> >> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the
case, any
> >> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
> >> definitely
> >> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
> >> releases
> >> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it
is
> >> these
> >> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
release.
> >> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
other
> >> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
> > Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant
that
> > it wasn't possible for it to collect any processor specific
> > "optimizations" that make it difficult to port it to a new
architecture.
> > Linux runs on both little endian machines line X86 and Alpha and big
> > endian machines line PPC and SPARC. It has also run on 64 bit
machines for
> > years like Alpha, SPARC, MIPS and IBM Power. As a result there was
no
> > possiblity of any gotchas when they ported it to AMD64. All that was
> > needed was a version of GCC that puts out AMD64 code and some
fiddling
> > with the memory manager.
> > Windows NT was always an x86 only OS. There was a port to Alpha in
the
> > early days but they only shipped a tiny number of copies so it was
never
> > well supported. The Alpha version died with NT4 (or possible 3.5)
and
> > since then NT/2K/XP focused entirely on the x86. The side effect has
been
> > that it has accumlated thousands of lines of code that will only
work on a
> > 32 bit architecture. Microsoft has to hunt down every aliased
pointer and
> > every ponter that's buried in a structure somewhere and fix them.
Even
> > with Microsoft's vast resources it's going to take them a while
before
> > they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.
> Garbage. Microsoft is releasing Windows XP 64bit Extended edition in
the
> next few months. And it is a truly 64bit OS, only it allows running
of many
> 32bit programs, just as Mandrake 10 64bit does.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp

Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any time
soon.

Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time ago, and
until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their products
are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft would
be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
there and will simply take the market.

Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So will
anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will programmers
who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to use
PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit computing,
especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't run
Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able to. It
is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft put
Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally used,
specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be able
to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already there
and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will continue to
be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
Windows is simply a vapor in the past.

Later,

BRM

Pseudo Namen
July 6th 04, 04:59 AM
"Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> "Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:33:21 +0000, Only NoSpammers wrote:
>> >> Unlike Windows users, Linux users have well enjoyed the power and
>> >> stabilities of a different 64-bit CPU architecture, i.e. AMD64 and
> Intel
>> >> Itanium 64 CPUs for quite some times, not to mention the Linux for
> Sony
>> >> Playstation2 (PS2) that is on a 128-bit CPU architecture. This
> definitely
>> >> brings up an interesting question why a giant OS company like M$ is
> still
>> >> struggling to release its OS for a 64-bit CPU architecture? Some of
> you
>> >> have
>> >> already said that M$ isn't serious enought to port its Windows OS
> to a
>> >> 64-bit CPU architecture and beyond. However, does it ever occur to
> anyone
>> >> how long did it take for the M$ to completely come out with its
> pure
>> >> 32-bit
>> >> Windows OSes to replace its predecessors?
>> >> Perhaps, the design of M$ Windows kernel as well as its supporting
>> >> utilities
>> >> source only works on a 32-bit CPU architecture. If that is the
> case, any
>> >> effort to port such a source to a higher/wider CPU architecture
>> >> definitely
>> >> means to overhaul the source code and that will not only delays the
>> >> releases
>> >> of Windows 64-bit OS, but also creating lots of bugs. I believe it
> is
>> >> these
>> >> bugs that prompt M$ to still test its 64-bit OS before its final
> release.
>> >> Sure, any delay and new bugs is costing M$ some $$$ to compete with
> other
>> >> OSes, i.e. Linux, BSD, etc. Just my $0.02.
>> > Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant
> that
>> > it wasn't possible for it to collect any processor specific
>> > "optimizations" that make it difficult to port it to a new
> architecture.
>> > Linux runs on both little endian machines line X86 and Alpha and big
>> > endian machines line PPC and SPARC. It has also run on 64 bit
> machines for
>> > years like Alpha, SPARC, MIPS and IBM Power. As a result there was
> no
>> > possiblity of any gotchas when they ported it to AMD64. All that was
>> > needed was a version of GCC that puts out AMD64 code and some
> fiddling
>> > with the memory manager.
>> > Windows NT was always an x86 only OS. There was a port to Alpha in
> the
>> > early days but they only shipped a tiny number of copies so it was
> never
>> > well supported. The Alpha version died with NT4 (or possible 3.5)
> and
>> > since then NT/2K/XP focused entirely on the x86. The side effect has
> been
>> > that it has accumlated thousands of lines of code that will only
> work on a
>> > 32 bit architecture. Microsoft has to hunt down every aliased
> pointer and
>> > every ponter that's buried in a structure somewhere and fix them.
> Even
>> > with Microsoft's vast resources it's going to take them a while
> before
>> > they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.
>> Garbage. Microsoft is releasing Windows XP 64bit Extended edition in
> the
>> next few months. And it is a truly 64bit OS, only it allows running
> of many
>> 32bit programs, just as Mandrake 10 64bit does.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp
>
> Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
> link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any time
> soon.
>
> Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time ago, and
> until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
> relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their products
> are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
> independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
> Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft would
> be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
> rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
> meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
> there and will simply take the market.
>
> Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
> business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So will
> anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will programmers
> who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to use
> PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit computing,
> especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't run
> Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able to. It
> is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft put
> Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally used,
> specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be able
> to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already there
> and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will continue to
> be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
> Windows is simply a vapor in the past.
>
> Later,
>
> BRM
>
>

Go to Best Buy, Frys Electronics, CompUsa, etc... see how much space is
devoted to Non-Windows platforms... Windows 2000 was never purported to be
a 64bit system, despite what some asshole wrote. It couldn't be 64bit as
there were no 64bit cpu's at the time.

Ben Meyer
July 12th 04, 04:28 AM
"Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
...
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp
> > Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
> > link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any
time
> > soon.
> > Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time ago,
and
> > until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
> > relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their
products
> > are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
> > independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
> > Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft
would
> > be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
> > rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
> > meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
> > there and will simply take the market.
> > Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
> > business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So
will
> > anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will
programmers
> > who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to
use
> > PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit
computing,
> > especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't
run
> > Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able to.
It
> > is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft
put
> > Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally used,
> > specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be
able
> > to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already
there
> > and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will
continue to
> > be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
> > Windows is simply a vapor in the past.
> Go to Best Buy, Frys Electronics, CompUsa, etc... see how much space
is
> devoted to Non-Windows platforms... Windows 2000 was never purported
to be
> a 64bit system, despite what some asshole wrote. It couldn't be 64bit
as
> there were no 64bit cpu's at the time.

1) There have been 64-bit and greater CPUs since before 2000, when
Windows 2000 was released. There were just no _INTEL_ or _AMD_ 64-bit
CPU's at the time, except for the early release to software developers
of early products, which several Linux developers received, e.g. Linus
Torvalds whose been running an Opteron for a few years now.

2) A company like Microsoft does not make money by catching up to
technology - though Microsoft has done a great deal of that (actually,
they've done far more of that than they have been on the forefront of
technology). They make money by being close enough to the forefront of a
technology that they can have a competitive advantage, especially when
it comes to something like an architecture change, e.g. 32-bit to
64-bit. Microsoft while proclaiming to be innovative really gave up
being on the forefront of technology a long time ago, and started
relying instead on their massive market share to carry them. forward.
That would be fine if they stayed at the forefront of architecture
changes, which they are not. With the 16-bit to 32-bit switch, Microsoft
was playing both games; now they are only playing on game and they will
lose (Yeah!) to Linux and other multi-architecture systems. Microsoft
will try to fight it, only they will enter the battle too late.

If you haven't noticed, Best Buy, CompUSA and numerous other places are
carrying 64-bit systems (if not only through their online sites), namely
AMD64. Thereby, the market is already forming, and right now that means
forming around Linux since Microsoft has no product available. Linux can
run on 64-bit systems in production, while Microsoft is still 2 years
out before a beta will be of any value.

Later,

BRM

P.S. BTW, I can pick up an AMD64 based system from my local CompUSA. ;-)
It's about the same price as a 32-bit system.

Bojo
July 12th 04, 04:43 AM
"Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> "Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp
> > > Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
> > > link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any
> time
> > > soon.
> > > Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time ago,
> and
> > > until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
> > > relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their
> products
> > > are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
> > > independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
> > > Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft
> would
> > > be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
> > > rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
> > > meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
> > > there and will simply take the market.
> > > Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
> > > business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So
> will
> > > anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will
> programmers
> > > who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to
> use
> > > PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit
> computing,
> > > especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't
> run
> > > Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able to.
> It
> > > is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft
> put
> > > Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally used,
> > > specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be
> able
> > > to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already
> there
> > > and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will
> continue to
> > > be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
> > > Windows is simply a vapor in the past.
> > Go to Best Buy, Frys Electronics, CompUsa, etc... see how much space
> is
> > devoted to Non-Windows platforms... Windows 2000 was never purported
> to be
> > a 64bit system, despite what some asshole wrote. It couldn't be 64bit
> as
> > there were no 64bit cpu's at the time.
>
> 1) There have been 64-bit and greater CPUs since before 2000, when
> Windows 2000 was released. There were just no _INTEL_ or _AMD_ 64-bit
> CPU's at the time, except for the early release to software developers
> of early products, which several Linux developers received, e.g. Linus
> Torvalds whose been running an Opteron for a few years now.
>
> 2) A company like Microsoft does not make money by catching up to
> technology - though Microsoft has done a great deal of that (actually,
> they've done far more of that than they have been on the forefront of
> technology). They make money by being close enough to the forefront of a
> technology that they can have a competitive advantage, especially when
> it comes to something like an architecture change, e.g. 32-bit to
> 64-bit. Microsoft while proclaiming to be innovative really gave up
> being on the forefront of technology a long time ago, and started
> relying instead on their massive market share to carry them. forward.
> That would be fine if they stayed at the forefront of architecture
> changes, which they are not. With the 16-bit to 32-bit switch, Microsoft
> was playing both games; now they are only playing on game and they will
> lose (Yeah!) to Linux and other multi-architecture systems. Microsoft
> will try to fight it, only they will enter the battle too late.
>
> If you haven't noticed, Best Buy, CompUSA and numerous other places are
> carrying 64-bit systems (if not only through their online sites), namely
> AMD64. Thereby, the market is already forming, and right now that means
> forming around Linux since Microsoft has no product available. Linux can
> run on 64-bit systems in production, while Microsoft is still 2 years
> out before a beta will be of any value.
>
> Later,
>
> BRM
>
> P.S. BTW, I can pick up an AMD64 based system from my local CompUSA. ;-)
> It's about the same price as a 32-bit system.
>
>

He wasn't talking about 64bit systems. Read it again. He was talking about
Microsoft based pc software versus Apple or Linux in CompUsa, Bestbuy,
etcetera

Spore
July 21st 04, 03:04 AM
Yea, I was buy Best Buy and half the pcs on display had Linux 64. "gag
reflux", choke, vomit. lol. Face it the average person buying a pc at Best
Buy, CompUsa, etc., would not be able to do much with a linux based pc. Not
to mention all of the games, software you would miss out on.


"Bojo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp
> > > > Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
> > > > link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any
> > time
> > > > soon.
> > > > Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time ago,
> > and
> > > > until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
> > > > relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their
> > products
> > > > are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
> > > > independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
> > > > Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft
> > would
> > > > be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
> > > > rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
> > > > meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
> > > > there and will simply take the market.
> > > > Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
> > > > business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So
> > will
> > > > anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will
> > programmers
> > > > who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to
> > use
> > > > PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit
> > computing,
> > > > especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't
> > run
> > > > Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able to.
> > It
> > > > is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft
> > put
> > > > Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally used,
> > > > specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be
> > able
> > > > to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already
> > there
> > > > and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will
> > continue to
> > > > be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
> > > > Windows is simply a vapor in the past.
> > > Go to Best Buy, Frys Electronics, CompUsa, etc... see how much space
> > is
> > > devoted to Non-Windows platforms... Windows 2000 was never purported
> > to be
> > > a 64bit system, despite what some asshole wrote. It couldn't be 64bit
> > as
> > > there were no 64bit cpu's at the time.
> >
> > 1) There have been 64-bit and greater CPUs since before 2000, when
> > Windows 2000 was released. There were just no _INTEL_ or _AMD_ 64-bit
> > CPU's at the time, except for the early release to software developers
> > of early products, which several Linux developers received, e.g. Linus
> > Torvalds whose been running an Opteron for a few years now.
> >
> > 2) A company like Microsoft does not make money by catching up to
> > technology - though Microsoft has done a great deal of that (actually,
> > they've done far more of that than they have been on the forefront of
> > technology). They make money by being close enough to the forefront of a
> > technology that they can have a competitive advantage, especially when
> > it comes to something like an architecture change, e.g. 32-bit to
> > 64-bit. Microsoft while proclaiming to be innovative really gave up
> > being on the forefront of technology a long time ago, and started
> > relying instead on their massive market share to carry them. forward.
> > That would be fine if they stayed at the forefront of architecture
> > changes, which they are not. With the 16-bit to 32-bit switch, Microsoft
> > was playing both games; now they are only playing on game and they will
> > lose (Yeah!) to Linux and other multi-architecture systems. Microsoft
> > will try to fight it, only they will enter the battle too late.
> >
> > If you haven't noticed, Best Buy, CompUSA and numerous other places are
> > carrying 64-bit systems (if not only through their online sites), namely
> > AMD64. Thereby, the market is already forming, and right now that means
> > forming around Linux since Microsoft has no product available. Linux can
> > run on 64-bit systems in production, while Microsoft is still 2 years
> > out before a beta will be of any value.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > BRM
> >
> > P.S. BTW, I can pick up an AMD64 based system from my local CompUSA. ;-)
> > It's about the same price as a 32-bit system.
> >
> >
>
> He wasn't talking about 64bit systems. Read it again. He was talking about
> Microsoft based pc software versus Apple or Linux in CompUsa, Bestbuy,
> etcetera
>
>
>
>

Pseudo Namen
July 21st 04, 03:24 AM
The BestBuy that I go to in Fort Worth, Texas has NO PC's on display using a
64bit version, or any version whatsoever of Linux. Maybe this has to do
with your local BestBuy? But don't knock 64bit Linux. Even the buggy
Mandrake 10 RC1 is faster than Mandrake 10 32bit version. <g>

Even though I like Mandrake, I still won't give up on my Windows. I say, use
whatever you want, and don't worry about what others think. If you're happy
and you know it do all three, if you're happy and you know it do all three
..... :o)


"Spore" > wrote in message
...
> Yea, I was buy Best Buy and half the pcs on display had Linux 64. "gag
> reflux", choke, vomit. lol. Face it the average person buying a pc at Best
> Buy, CompUsa, etc., would not be able to do much with a linux based pc.
> Not
> to mention all of the games, software you would miss out on.
>
>
> "Bojo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ben Meyer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Pseudo Namen" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode005/default.asp
>> > > > Microsoft tried to claim Win2k was 64-bit ready in 2000 (see above
>> > > > link). Truth be told, it isn't, nor will it or WinXP be ready any
>> > time
>> > > > soon.
>> > > > Face it, Microsoft lost the multi-architecture race a long time
>> > > > ago,
>> > and
>> > > > until Microsoft realizes that they are the only ones feeding their
>> > > > relationship with Intel (i.e. Intel could care less if their
>> > products
>> > > > are supported by Microsoft) and start trying to be architecturally
>> > > > independent, then they won't get any where close to winning. If the
>> > > > Software world switched to requiring 64-bit computing, Microsoft
>> > would
>> > > > be out of business for two years while they scramble to either (a)
>> > > > rewrite Windows or (b) write a whole new operating system. In the
>> > > > meantime, Linux and numerous other 64-bit ready systems are already
>> > > > there and will simply take the market.
>> > > > Little Billy G is just hedging his bets that the consumer and small
>> > > > business market will never go to 64-bit computing. Gamers will. So
>> > will
>> > > > anyone dealing with graphics and video rendering. So will
>> > programmers
>> > > > who want to enjoy latest technology. So will anyone that wants to
>> > use
>> > > > PCI-X and AGP >16x. Server farms are already going to 64-bit
>> > computing,
>> > > > especially data centers where massive memory is a must. They won't
>> > run
>> > > > Windows because Windows can't do the job. (It never will be able
>> > > > to.
>> > It
>> > > > is architecturally incapable of it. And don't go quoting Microsoft
>> > put
>> > > > Win2k on Hotmail.com because they created their own internally
>> > > > used,
>> > > > specialized version of Win2k just for that purpose. You'll never be
>> > able
>> > > > to buy that version.) They'll run Unix, or Linux, which is already
>> > there
>> > > > and has been for years, and is a proven technology that will
>> > continue to
>> > > > be around for years to come, years after Microsoft dissipates and
>> > > > Windows is simply a vapor in the past.
>> > > Go to Best Buy, Frys Electronics, CompUsa, etc... see how much space
>> > is
>> > > devoted to Non-Windows platforms... Windows 2000 was never
>> > > purported
>> > to be
>> > > a 64bit system, despite what some asshole wrote. It couldn't be
>> > > 64bit
>> > as
>> > > there were no 64bit cpu's at the time.
>> >
>> > 1) There have been 64-bit and greater CPUs since before 2000, when
>> > Windows 2000 was released. There were just no _INTEL_ or _AMD_ 64-bit
>> > CPU's at the time, except for the early release to software developers
>> > of early products, which several Linux developers received, e.g. Linus
>> > Torvalds whose been running an Opteron for a few years now.
>> >
>> > 2) A company like Microsoft does not make money by catching up to
>> > technology - though Microsoft has done a great deal of that (actually,
>> > they've done far more of that than they have been on the forefront of
>> > technology). They make money by being close enough to the forefront of
>> > a
>> > technology that they can have a competitive advantage, especially when
>> > it comes to something like an architecture change, e.g. 32-bit to
>> > 64-bit. Microsoft while proclaiming to be innovative really gave up
>> > being on the forefront of technology a long time ago, and started
>> > relying instead on their massive market share to carry them. forward.
>> > That would be fine if they stayed at the forefront of architecture
>> > changes, which they are not. With the 16-bit to 32-bit switch,
>> > Microsoft
>> > was playing both games; now they are only playing on game and they will
>> > lose (Yeah!) to Linux and other multi-architecture systems. Microsoft
>> > will try to fight it, only they will enter the battle too late.
>> >
>> > If you haven't noticed, Best Buy, CompUSA and numerous other places are
>> > carrying 64-bit systems (if not only through their online sites),
>> > namely
>> > AMD64. Thereby, the market is already forming, and right now that means
>> > forming around Linux since Microsoft has no product available. Linux
>> > can
>> > run on 64-bit systems in production, while Microsoft is still 2 years
>> > out before a beta will be of any value.
>> >
>> > Later,
>> >
>> > BRM
>> >
>> > P.S. BTW, I can pick up an AMD64 based system from my local CompUSA.
>> > ;-)
>> > It's about the same price as a 32-bit system.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> He wasn't talking about 64bit systems. Read it again. He was talking
>> about
>> Microsoft based pc software versus Apple or Linux in CompUsa, Bestbuy,
>> etcetera
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Ed Light
July 21st 04, 07:01 AM
No need to choose Win or Linux. Just do both. One way: bootitng.com


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Wes Newell
July 21st 04, 08:17 AM
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:04:58 -0500, Spore wrote:

> Yea, I was buy Best Buy and half the pcs on display had Linux 64. "gag
> reflux", choke, vomit. lol. Face it the average person buying a pc at Best
> Buy, CompUsa, etc., would not be able to do much with a linux based pc. Not
> to mention all of the games, software you would miss out on.
>
And the average Linux user couldn't do much of anything with a machine
loaded with win since it doesn't come with anytihng except a basic bug
ridden, virus atracting OS. But if you got more money than brains, just
keep on paying Billy Bob. He won't complain.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm