[Rival] Windows 7 Slow as Molasses at Copying Files
High Plains Thumper
Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
that Vista did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
multiple files.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e420a3a
Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
--
HPT
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
> [quote]
> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
>
> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
>
> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
>
> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
> that Vista did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
> multiple files.
> [/quote]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e420a3a
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
>
> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
Did it copy you moron? No one you moron goes around copying damn files
over the place all the damn time. And I don't believe any thing from a
COLA clown such as yourself.
It's much ado about nothing you idiot.
Vaughn Bode
<ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> > [quote]
> > Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
> > exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
> > core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
> > 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
> > cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
>
> > Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
>
> > Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
>
> > Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
> > that Vista did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
> > multiple files.
> > [/quote]
>
> XP is dead.
>
>
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
>
> > Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
> Did it copy you moron?
Good point! He should have wasted another few hours doing a file-
compare to make sure Windows really did copy the files. Trusting
Windows to faithfully copy files like he did was a terrible lapse in
judgement.
> No one you moron goes around copying damn files
> over the place all the damn time.
Right again! Using a computer to copy data is just silly. Besides,
HPT became a software pirate by publishing a benchmark without the
written permission of Microsoft, as the EULA requires. We do not want
to conspire with HTP and break any Microsoft laws so we should ignore
any claims he made. Lets just close our eyes and pretend all this
never happened.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
I copy files sometimes from Vista to my portable USB HD lots of files
back and forth. I am not sitting there patting my feet about it either.
Posting the BS here doesn't mean a damn thing it really doesn't. He
could post it to a MS NG or NG(s), but he doesn't have the balls to do it.
So it's a moot post.
Gordon
> [quote]
> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
>
> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
>
> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
>
> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
> that Vista did.
Agree. Same thing here. Dual boot Ubuntu 9.10 with Windows 7. I.e on the
SAME hardware. Windows 7 takes FAR longer to copy the SAME files than
Ubuntu does.
Hadron
What is it with you "advocates" and "copying files". It seems to be all
you morons do.
High Plains Thumper
Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man" wrote:
> Vaughn Bode wrote:
>> Same prolific nymshifter/nymthief "Gregory Shearman is aka General
>> Greg She-Man" wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have
>>>> installed the exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both
>>>> my Mac Pro and my 4 core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have
>>>> the EXACT same model number 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is
>>>> a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4 cores. The Dell also has 4
>>>> cores.
>>>>
>>>> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec Dell (Win 7) Time
>>>> To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!! Win 7 has the same
>>>> sluggish performance transferring thousands of files that Vista
>>>> did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with multiple
>>>> files.
>>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>> XP is dead.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
>>>>
>>>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>>> Did it copy you moron?
>>
>> Good point! He should have wasted another few hours doing a file-
>> compare to make sure Windows really did copy the files. Trusting
>> Windows to faithfully copy files like he did was a terrible lapse
>> in judgement.
>>
>>> No one you moron goes around copying damn files over the place
>>> all the damn time.
>>
>> Right again! Using a computer to copy data is just silly. Besides,
>> HPT became a software pirate by publishing a benchmark without the
>> written permission of Microsoft, as the EULA requires. We do not
>> want to conspire with HTP and break any Microsoft laws so we should
>> ignore any claims he made. Lets just close our eyes and pretend all
>> this never happened.
[quote]
# No benchmarks allowed. As in previous beta releases of Microsoft
operating systems, the license agreement includes a prohibition on speed
tests:
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the
software to any third party without Microsoft�s prior written approval.
[quote]
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=624
Benchmarking is a way to compare features with competition. Since
Microsoft cannot compete in an open market fairly, they place such
draconian measures.
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
>>> And I don't believe any thing from a COLA clown such as
>>> yourself. It's much ado about nothing you idiot.
>
> I copy files sometimes from Vista to my portable USB HD lots of files
> back and forth. I am not sitting there patting my feet about it
> either.
>
> Posting the BS here doesn't mean a damn thing it really doesn't. He
> could post it to a MS NG or NG(s), but he doesn't have the balls to
> do it.
>
> So it's a moot post.
[quote]
8 Linux's BSD cousins.
Much of what is covered in this FAQ and Primer that is not too Linux
specific and is not COLA specific also applies to the other free unixes
such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Each of these unix operating
systems runs mostly the same software as Linux. The user environment is
mostly the same, with the exception of some features of Linux that is
not yet available on the BSD's. Each of these other unix operating
systems are similar to Linux in many ways, so that often an ordinary
non-root user, who is not a programmer and is not involved in the lower
systems level operations would be hard pressed to know whether he is on
a Linux or a BSD host, unless it is a hardware platform that Linux
supports and the BSD's do not, or vice versa.
We are all friends, in fact many who run Linux also run a BSD. As
long as the fans and advocate of a BSD or other unix do not behave as
anti-Linux propagandists do, they are welcome in COLA, as hopefully
Linux advocates are just as welcome to visit their newsgroups.
[/quote]
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer
--
HPT
Peter Köhlmann
Well, explain then *why* Windows is so extremely slow at copying files.
After all, it is by far not the only thing it is slow at
Be precise
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Chris Ahlstrom
Is "Hadron" serious? One of the most common activities in computing, and
"Hadron" is defending the slowness of Win 7 at this activity?
Where does "Hadron" live? Denmark?:
--
Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
-- Shakespeare
Vladez is coming.
<snipped>
Again you moron, your little bullshit post means nothing. You should
gets some balls and post it to some MS Win 7 forums about what you did.
JEDIDIAH
Why not?
Got movies? Got mp3s? Got Photos? Got software in zip files?
Ever do backups?
[deletia]
--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \
Peter Köhlmann
Backups? who needs stinking backups?
"The Bee" is way to stupid to even know what "backups" are
He is a wintendo luser
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
Lusotec
> Gordon wrote:
>>Agree. Same thing here. Dual boot Ubuntu 9.10 with Windows 7. I.e on the
>>SAME hardware. Windows 7 takes FAR longer to copy the SAME files than
>>Ubuntu does.
>
> just file copies using the Windows shell.
Copying *many* files with the Windows Vista/7 GUI is notably slower than
with the CLI. When I use the GUI to copy lots of files and directories it
takes some time to actually start the operation. The GUI seams to first make
some accounting of the files and directories that will be copied. In the
case of many directories and files this can take some time, mainly due to
disk seeks. With the CLI, the copy starts immediately and ends sooner. This
is not a fundamental performance issue with the system but an issue with the
Windows shell it self.
With KDE4's Dolphin, there is also a wait before the copy operations starts
but is smaller that Windows 7 and only really noticeable when copying very
many files and directories.
One curious thing I noticed with Windows 7 is that when copying files over
SMB the CPU usage is very irregular with CPU usage spikes. Both Windows XP
and Mandriva GNU/Linux keep a mostly constant CPU usage during the copying.
I noticed this when playing a 3D shooter game while copying a large batch of
files. The frames per second (fps) would be mostly high and constant but
once in a while there would be some sudden fps drops that lasted a few
seconds and ended with me being killed. :)
Regards.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Alec Lourmier wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>>>Agree. Same thing here. Dual boot Ubuntu 9.10 with Windows 7. I.e on the
>>>SAME hardware. Windows 7 takes FAR longer to copy the SAME files than
>>>Ubuntu does.
>>
>> I'd like to know if it's the actual disk writes that are slower, or
>> just file copies using the Windows shell.
>
> Copying *many* files with the Windows Vista/7 GUI is notably slower than
> with the CLI. When I use the GUI to copy lots of files and directories it
> takes some time to actually start the operation. The GUI seams to first make
> some accounting of the files and directories that will be copied. In the
> case of many directories and files this can take some time, mainly due to
> disk seeks. With the CLI, the copy starts immediately and ends sooner. This
> is not a fundamental performance issue with the system but an issue with the
> Windows shell it self.
I've noticed that, and I use either the DOS window or Cygwin's bash to copy
files if I get the frickin' hourglass (XP and Win 7).
> With KDE4's Dolphin, there is also a wait before the copy operations starts
> but is smaller that Windows 7 and only really noticeable when copying very
> many files and directories.
However, with Win XP/7, you can have real delays involving only a single
file.
> One curious thing I noticed with Windows 7 is that when copying files over
> SMB the CPU usage is very irregular with CPU usage spikes. Both Windows XP
> and Mandriva GNU/Linux keep a mostly constant CPU usage during the copying.
>
> I noticed this when playing a 3D shooter game while copying a large batch of
> files. The frames per second (fps) would be mostly high and constant but
> once in a while there would be some sudden fps drops that lasted a few
> seconds and ended with me being killed. :)
--
You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.
Rex Ballard
> [quote]
> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
There could be a slight variation between 2 2-core chips and 1 4-core
chip, giving slightly higher memory bandwidth in cache, but that's not
really the issue.
> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
It would have been nice to see how many gigabytes you were copying.
Both Mac OS/X (BSD Unix) and Linux have much higher disk I/O
throughput because they manage file allocation using i-nodes rather
than a file allocation table. This means one i-node can be used to
allocate up to a 1/4 megabyte at a time, without going back to the
hard drive to find more storage. In addition, the read-ahead and
write-behind feature and separate read and write threads can make the
I/O very fast. In addition, SAS and SATA drives can read multiple
concurrent blocks at a time, so if the I-node has contiguous blocks
(which it usually does) several blocks can be read in a single
rotation, up to an entire cylinder. When writing, the process will
normally write a series of blocks and then write the updated I-node
back.
Both Linux and BSD-Unix can achieve speeds as high as 2 megabytes/
second using 1k blocks. This is typically the optimal block size for
Linux and Unix, even though this would be 2 sectors at a time.
> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
Microsoft has to be very careful to make sure that multiple allocation
tables are all updated correctly because each cluster, usually 4k, has
to be updated in those tables each time the disk is read. Reading is
easier since you don't have to seek back to a single allocation table,
but writing may take
> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
> that Vista did.
Microsoft does have a way to doctor the benchmarks. They make the
files to be copied exact multiples of the cluster size, again, usually
4k. They also copy the largest files first to an empty drive, to
eliminate the issues of fragmentation. Fragmentation exists on Unix/
Linux, but because it's at the i-node level (as space is freed it's
put back into the i-node containing nearby or adjacent free sectors.).
Microsoft has been promising an improved file system - to compete with
the various file systems available to Unix/Linux. Unix/Linux has
different file systems optimized for different types of files and
access. For example, ext3 is good at handling lots of smaller files,
XFS and JFS are good for keeping reliable database storage.
> Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
> multiple files.
> [/quote]
The XP implementation of NTFS had a few minor issues, one being that
if you shrank the size of a partition, it would try to allocate space
that wasn't there when the drive was full. When the invalid locations
were put back into the free pool, it could show up anywhere. This was
why a completely full drive was usually followed by an unbootable PC a
few weeks later.
XP NTFS also had a problem with power failures and killed tasks. If
you pulled the plug on your desktop machine, or held the button down
on your laptop for 10 seconds because XP had hung (usually as a result
of garbage collection combined with virus scanning), there was a risk
that XP wouldn't update all of the allocation tables before it died.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e42...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Manus Aarsdrek
news:hhva2q$add$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Violaters of the so called "Wintroll"boycott are:
"High Plains Thumper"
Marti van Lin
Peter Kohlmann
Chris Ahlstrom
Homer
Terry Porter
7
RonB
Rick
Tattoo Vampire
none of your business
AZ nomad
Armin von Roon (known nymshift of Don Zeigler)
William Poaster
Alexis Machine (new nymshift of HPT)
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
Again, when you, you worthless piece of junk you get a paycheck from
Linux and not MS, hell will freeze over.
And fool Kholmann, I was doing backups on Novell servers, when I first
goto in client/server in 1996 as a client server programmer. Not only
did I do my programming assignments during core working hours for
applications on the Windows desk, I as a programmer rotated to do batch
processing on off hours on the Novell servers for each book of business
for Midland Life Insurance Co.
All programmers had to rotate, and were jack of all trades master of
none, and we were gods in that company.
The good thing is that I could sit at home and remote in to do the
processing. And I came to work the next day too.
I am not even going to go into my IBM mainframe days, as a Computer
Operations all shifts supervisor carrying that ball and chain beeper in
the 70(s). And yes, back-ups were and are being done on the mainframe
platform.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
> On 2010-01-05, Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [quote]
>>> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
>>> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
>>> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
>>> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
>>> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
>>>
>>> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
>>>
>>> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
>>>
>>> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
>>> that Vista did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
>>> multiple files.
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>> XP is dead.
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e420a3a
>>>
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
>>>
>>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>>>
>> Did it copy you moron? No one you moron goes around copying damn files
>> over the place all the damn time. And I don't believe any thing from a
>
> Why not?
They are doing it once in a blue moon.
>
> Got movies? Got mp3s? Got Photos? Got software in zip files?
>
> Ever do backups?
I have a lot of .NET programs emails, contractor's resume and what
not(s) setting on a USB 40gig HD. The area is quite large on the <D>
drive on the Vista machine, but I don't have the bullshit you're talking
about on the HD of this laptop trying to back it up to the USB. And the
rest of my computers are sitting storage.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
Be precise? I'll give it to you. Normal computer users don't give a shit
about it.
ChiTown
I have a strange problem with Windows 7/64 pausing when doing certain
file operations.
Sometimes even just opening a folder, or emptying the trashcan, it
will pause for about 3-5 seconds and then it will take off.
It's almost like it's waiting for the drive to spin up or something
but this is a desktop, it happens on both drives and they are not in
power saving mode or anything like that.
It's also very intermittent but does happen at least once a day.
Other than that I find Windows 7/64 to be at least as fast as XP
copying large amounts and large sized files, like video or jpg files.
It doesn't seem any faster or slower than my Ubuntu system.
Peter Köhlmann
Translation: You know that Win7 is slow as molasses at copying. It is also
slow as molasses on a lot of other stuff.
And you can't provide a real good answer *why* it is that way.
Instead you use the idiots copout. Well, you should. After all, you are
truly an idiot. DumbFullShit looks like a genius compared to you
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
You dumbass clown, I don't know that Win 7 is slow, since I am not using
it moron. And I don't trust the Core COLA loons about anything. And
normal people and you're not one of them don't give shit about it.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
<snipped>
And one other thing you worthless POS, you're no smarter than a blade of
grass.
JEDIDIAH
I dunno. Have you seen how fast a modern digital camera or a handicam
can generate bulk?
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
Chris Ahlstrom
> Violaters of the so called "Wintroll"boycott are:
Who fucking cares, dude?
--
Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits.
-- William Shakespeare, "As You Like It"
Chris Ahlstrom
> I have a strange problem with Windows 7/64 pausing when doing certain
> file operations.
> Sometimes even just opening a folder, or emptying the trashcan, it
> will pause for about 3-5 seconds and then it will take off.
> It's almost like it's waiting for the drive to spin up or something
> but this is a desktop, it happens on both drives and they are not in
> power saving mode or anything like that.
> It's also very intermittent but does happen at least once a day.
> Other than that I find Windows 7/64 to be at least as fast as XP
> copying large amounts and large sized files, like video or jpg files.
> It doesn't seem any faster or slower than my Ubuntu system.
Here's the Win 7 boners I noticed today:
1. Right click on the desktop, and arrange the icons by name.
Are they in alphabetical order? Not according to any alphabet I know
about.
2. There's an applet that draws a network map for a given network
interface. Run it on the wireless and wired connections.
Each shows a diagram like this in a large window:
My computer --------- Router ----------- Network
or something like that. Jesus!
To be fair maybe it is because our site hasn't yet drunk the
Windows Server 2008 Kool-Aid, so that Microsoft's aim to
"fuck with Samba" more strongly fucks the happiness of
older Windows networks.
3. Lots of little instances of sluggish response. Incredible.
The "number 1" computer company in the world, and they can't
even build a fast, nimble product.
--
"I wonder", he said to himself, "what's in a book while it's closed. Oh, I
know it's full of letters printed on paper, but all the same, something must
be happening, because as soon as I open it, there's a whole story with people
I don't know yet and all kinds of adventures and battles."
-- Bastian B. Bux
Chris Ahlstrom
> Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man wrote:
>
>> Be precise? I'll give it to you. Normal computer users don't give a shit
>> about it.
>
> Translation: You know that Win7 is slow as molasses at copying. It is also
> slow as molasses on a lot of other stuff.
I agree with that assessment.
> And you can't provide a real good answer *why* it is that way.
> Instead you use the idiots copout. Well, you should. After all, you are
> truly an idiot. DumbFullShit looks like a genius compared to you
Oddly enough, at this moment no one else I know of, in the circle of people
whose hands I can shake, is using Win 7.
--
Are you sure the back door is locked?
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-01-05, Stupid Troll insulting someone's good name wrote:
>>
>> Be precise? I'll give it to you. Normal computer users don't give a shit
>> about it.
>
> I dunno. Have you seen how fast a modern digital camera or a handicam
> can generate bulk?
Well, those copies would be kind of slow anyway. No one expects a camera
to copy fast.
--
I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know.
-- Mark Twain
Sinister Midget III
> Oddly enough, at this moment no one else I know of, in the circle of people
> whose hands I can shake, is using Win 7.
I only know 2, and both of those try to be at the edge where they can
fall off frequently. One of them is comeptent enough to recover from
7's foibles (meaning not anything like a typical home user). The other
will pester the hell out of everyone he can find when he has a problem,
and I do mean pester. His stuff will get fixed if it breaks, too. But
there will be hundreds of people who wish he would die when he calls
them for problems (most of them working for or at Microslop).
--
Windows: Using yesterday's technology to solve today's problems, tomorrow
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Debian testing
Friends don't let friends use Windows
Chris Ahlstrom
> Here's the Win 7 boners I noticed today:
>
> 1. Right click on the desktop, and arrange the icons by name.
>
> Are they in alphabetical order? Not according to any alphabet I know
> about.
>
> 2. There's an applet that draws a network map for a given network
> interface. Run it on the wireless and wired connections.
>
> Each shows a diagram like this in a large window:
>
> My computer --------- Router ----------- Network
>
> or something like that. Jesus!
>
> To be fair maybe it is because our site hasn't yet drunk the
> Windows Server 2008 Kool-Aid, so that Microsoft's aim to
> "fuck with Samba" more strongly fucks the happiness of
> older Windows networks.
>
> 3. Lots of little instances of sluggish response. Incredible.
> The "number 1" computer company in the world, and they can't
> even build a fast, nimble product.
Almost forgot this one. I plug in a thumb drive. It appears in Windows
Explorer.
I then unplug it. A couple of minutes later, I plug it back in and wait.
And wait. And wait.
Finally, I kill the Windows Explorer window and re-open it. Now the
thumb drive appears.
I'm starting to think that Win 7 is buggier than XP ever was.
I can't compare it to Vista, though, as I used that for only an hour or so
before I wiped it.
--
Love is in the offing. Be affectionate to one who adores you.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
Core COLA Loons review of any O/S other than Linux is worthless. It's
not going to stop anyone from using an O/S -- idiots.
Vaughn Bode
> > <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> >>> [quote]
> >>> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
> >>> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
> >>> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
> >>> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
> >>> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
> >>> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
> >>> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
> >>> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
> >>> multiple files.
> >>> [/quote]
> >> XP is dead.
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e42...
> >>> orhttp://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
> >>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
> >> Did it copy you moron?
>
> > Good point! He should have wasted another few hours doing a file-
> > compare to make sure Windows really did copy the files. Trusting
> > Windows to faithfully copy files like he did was a terrible lapse in
> > judgement.
>
> >> over the place all the damn time.
>
> > HPT became a software pirate by publishing a benchmark without the
> > written permission of Microsoft, as the EULA requires. We do not want
> > to conspire with HTP and break any Microsoft laws so we should ignore
> > any claims he made. Lets just close our eyes and pretend all this
> > never happened.
>
>
> >> It's much ado about nothing you idiot.
>
> I copy files sometimes from Vista to my portable USB HD lots of files
> back and forth. I am not sitting there patting my feet about it either.
>
> Posting the BS here doesn't mean a damn thing it really doesn't. He
> could post it to a MS NG or NG(s), but he doesn't have the balls to do it.
I am not familiar with what goes on in the MS newsgroups. If HPT
posted his tale of woe over there, would some kind soul dig into the
source code and provide a patch to fix the problem?
Gordon
>
> Ever do backups?
>
Of course he doesn't The vast majority of Windows users don't. Just
browse the MS news groups.... ;-)
Snit
af4d6471-bb7d-4738...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
11:58 AM:
>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
> Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
> security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
> everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>
> The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
> while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
> diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4:27 PM:
>>> Well, explain then *why* Windows is so extremely slow at copying files.
>>> After all, it is by far not the only thing it is slow at
>>>
>>> Be precise
>>
>> Be precise? I'll give it to you. Normal computer users don't give a shit
>> about it.
>
> Translation: You know that Win7 is slow as molasses at copying. It is also
> slow as molasses on a lot of other stuff.
> And you can't provide a real good answer *why* it is that way.
> Instead you use the idiots copout. Well, you should. After all, you are
> truly an idiot. DumbFullShit looks like a genius compared to you
I have not seen anything that shows *task* completion, in general is faster
(or slower) for Linux than it is for Windows. I have seen comparisons
between OS X and Windows, but they are old enough to no longer be reliable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rex Ballard
This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
and personal tastes and trade-offs of the user. This also means that
it is possible for applications to be accessed remotely, to use
multiple X11 servers and displays with a single mouse and keyboard,
and to access dozens of *nix machines as if they were the local
machine. Many Linux "servers" are actually running applications that
are actually "desktop" interfaces. The only thing needed to have
these applications display on a PC (or a Mac) is an X11 "server"
application. X11 servers are cheap, even free. xming, cygwin/X11,
and hummingbird are good example of software that can give you an X11
interface, allowing you to put an entire Linux desktop on your
desktop, and still have Windows when you need it.
This can be a problem for Linux though. After all, if I need Linux
and I can get full desktop functionality just by adding X11 to my XP
based PC, and I can share that Linux box with 4-5 other users who also
get full desktops, there is less pressure to put Linux on the PC.
Ironically, it may be that Vista/Windows 7 will drive the migration to
Linux on the desktop, because the file system is faster, and when smb
mounted Linux directories are use instead of NTFS filesystems, the
performance of Windows improves substantially. In additon,
virtualization assures that corporate customers can keep using XP for
another 4-5 years if necessary, and take their time in transitioning
to either Windows 7 or Linux.
Hadron
> On Jan 5, 5:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>> af4d6471-bb7d-4738-af55-21d6a05b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
>> 11:58 AM:
>> >> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
>> > Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
>> > security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
>> > everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>
>> > The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
>> > while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
>> > diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
>> In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
>> but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
>
> This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
> Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
Uh oh. More bullshit.
> completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
More types does not == more powerful.
> and personal tastes and trade-offs of the user. This also means that
> it is possible for applications to be accessed remotely, to use
> multiple X11 servers and displays with a single mouse and keyboard,
> and to access dozens of *nix machines as if they were the local
> machine. Many Linux "servers" are actually running applications that
> are actually "desktop" interfaces. The only thing needed to have
> these applications display on a PC (or a Mac) is an X11 "server"
> application. X11 servers are cheap, even free. xming, cygwin/X11,
> and hummingbird are good example of software that can give you an X11
> interface, allowing you to put an entire Linux desktop on your
> desktop, and still have Windows when you need it.
>
> This can be a problem for Linux though. After all, if I need Linux
> and I can get full desktop functionality just by adding X11 to my XP
> based PC, and I can share that Linux box with 4-5 other users who also
> get full desktops, there is less pressure to put Linux on the PC.
>
Huh? I thought it was because of this "Monopoly"! Make up your mind.
> Ironically, it may be that Vista/Windows 7 will drive the migration to
> Linux on the desktop, because the file system is faster, and when smb
> mounted Linux directories are use instead of NTFS filesystems, the
If people get it to work. Have you read the forums?
> performance of Windows improves substantially. In additon,
> virtualization assures that corporate customers can keep using XP for
> another 4-5 years if necessary, and take their time in transitioning
> to either Windows 7 or Linux.
Rex, almost no one is moving to Linux. Sad but true. Wake up man.
Manus Aarsdrek
news:hi0mag$a3e$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Manus Aarsdrek pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Violaters of the so called "Wintroll"boycott are:
>
> Who fucking cares, dude?
>
You care, cos you replied more than once!
< in Marti's plunk bucket, you go! >
--
Violaters of the so called "Wintroll"boycott are:
Chris Ahlstrom
Marti van Lin
Peter Kohlmann
Homer
Terry Porter
7
RonB
Rick
Tattoo Vampire
none of your business
AZ nomad
Armin von Roon (known nymshift of Don Zeigler)
William Poaster
Alexis Machine (new nymshift of HPT)
"High Plains Thumper"
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> schreef in bericht
> news:hi0mag$a3e$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Manus Aarsdrek pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Violaters of the so called "Wintroll"boycott are:
>>
>> Who fucking cares, dude?
>
> You care, cos you replied more than once!
You're confused about what I care about. I don't care about the boycott
(though I'm happy with it). I do care that you make hay about who doesn't
follow the boycott. Who cares? :-D
--
Your aims are high, and you are capable of much.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 5, 5:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>>> af4d6471-bb7d-4738-af55-21d6a05b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
>>> 11:58 AM:
>>> >> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>>
>>> > Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
>>> > security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
>>> > everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>>
>>> > The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
>>> > while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
>>> > diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
>>
>>> In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
>>> but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
>>
>> This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
>> Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
>
> Uh oh. More bullshit.
>
>> completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
>> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
>
> More types does not == more powerful.
Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
[deletia]
...and yes being able to tailor the interface to the individual
end user or task is more powerful. It allows flexibility that need
not compromise on usability even for the more clueless novice.
--
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> 3. Lots of little instances of sluggish response. Incredible.
>>> The "number 1" computer company in the world, and they can't
>>> even build a fast, nimble product.
>>
>> Almost forgot this one. I plug in a thumb drive. It appears in Windows
>> Explorer.
>>
>> I then unplug it. A couple of minutes later, I plug it back in and wait.
>> And wait. And wait.
>>
>> Finally, I kill the Windows Explorer window and re-open it. Now the
>> thumb drive appears.
>>
>> I'm starting to think that Win 7 is buggier than XP ever was.
>>
>> I can't compare it to Vista, though, as I used that for only an hour or so
>> before I wiped it.
>>
>
> Core COLA Loons review of any O/S other than Linux is worthless. It's
> not going to stop anyone from using an O/S -- idiots.
>
Of course not. Windows has been shoved down peoples throats every
where they were prone to look since it was MS-DOS that was being shoved
down their throats.
The MS-DOS based Microsoft hegemony was what that Apple commercial
from 1984 was complaing about.
JEDIDIAH
With ubiquitous bulk external storage you really don't have any
excuse these days. Get yourself a bus powered 500G hard drive and
have at it. Once the drive is mounted you can just drag and drop with
impugnity. You don't even need a "special app" or any grody command
line.
Cameras store 8G these days. There are phones with 32G in them.
There's plenty of opportunity for "normal people" to copy what
just a few years ago would have been considered great gobs of stuff.
Jodocus Ooievaayer
schreef in bericht news:IPudnVZT9-zOTd7W...@earthlink.com...
lol ! Pete Lietard never used Win7, he has XP to do his Windows programming
(for the buck)!
Vista was slow on copying files, before SP2. Win7, which I use sometimes,
has not been "slow" on copying files.
As always Pete Kohltard is talking out of his arse again!
Snit
7:25 AM:
> On Jan 5, 5:58�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>> af4d6471-bb7d-4738-af55-21d6a05b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
>> 11:58 AM:
>>>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
>>> Mac runs BSD-Unix. �Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
>>> security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. �Almost
>>> everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>
>>> The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
>>> while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
>>> diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
>> In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
>> but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
>
> This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
Flexible - yes. Powerful - in some ways yes but in other ways clearly not.
> Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
> completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
> and personal tastes and trade-offs of the user.
Well, one *can* use X11 and other UI paradigms on OS X, but it is rare - OS
X users pretty much demand that any app that gains any popularity on OS X is
made better (for OS X users) by being done with Aqua. OpenOffice is a good
example of this.
> This also means that it is possible for applications to be accessed remotely,
> to use multiple X11 servers and displays with a single mouse and keyboard, and
> to access dozens of *nix machines as if they were the local machine. Many
> Linux "servers" are actually running applications that are actually "desktop"
> interfaces. The only thing needed to have these applications display on a PC
> (or a Mac) is an X11 "server" application. X11 servers are cheap, even free.
> xming, cygwin/X11, and hummingbird are good example of software that can give
> you an X11 interface, allowing you to put an entire Linux desktop on your
> desktop, and still have Windows when you need it.
Well, I use virtualization to run Linux and Windows... but those can be
resource hogs (obviously) and I do not run foreign *applications* per se,
but the whole foreign environment. I can fake running just apps with
"coherence" mode, but for the most part I think this is a gimmick (though
there are times it is a usability benefit - those times are not common).
For the most part, having the context-switch to use Windows applications
leads to a better overall UI experience.
> This can be a problem for Linux though. After all, if I need Linux
> and I can get full desktop functionality just by adding X11 to my XP
> based PC, and I can share that Linux box with 4-5 other users who also
> get full desktops, there is less pressure to put Linux on the PC.
>
> Ironically, it may be that Vista/Windows 7 will drive the migration to
> Linux on the desktop, because the file system is faster, and when smb
> mounted Linux directories are use instead of NTFS filesystems, the
> performance of Windows improves substantially. In additon,
> virtualization assures that corporate customers can keep using XP for
> another 4-5 years if necessary, and take their time in transitioning
> to either Windows 7 or Linux.
Apple took the risk of supporting Windows on Macs - and supporting the folks
who provide virtualization. Allows many to transition. Really works well
for Apple.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> On 2010-01-05, Gordon <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ever do backups?
>>>
>>
>> Of course he doesn't The vast majority of Windows users don't. Just
>> browse the MS news groups.... ;-)
>
> With ubiquitous bulk external storage you really don't have any
> excuse these days. Get yourself a bus powered 500G hard drive and
> have at it. Once the drive is mounted you can just drag and drop with
> impugnity. You don't even need a "special app" or any grody command
> line.
>
> Cameras store 8G these days. There are phones with 32G in them.
>
> There's plenty of opportunity for "normal people" to copy what
> just a few years ago would have been considered great gobs of stuff.
Thats strange as when I said the same and suggested the excellent
rsnapshot etc etc I was called a "liar" and that buring to CD "whenever
you felt like it" was fine ....
COLA - caught out lying again.
Hadron
> On 2010-01-06, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 5:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>>>> af4d6471-bb7d-4738-af55-21d6a05b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
>>>> 11:58 AM:
>>>> >> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>>>
>>>> > Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
>>>> > security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
>>>> > everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>>>
>>>> > The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
>>>> > while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
>>>> > diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
>>>
>>>> In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
>>>> but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
>>>
>>> This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
>>> Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
>>
>> Uh oh. More bullshit.
>>
>>> completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
>>> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
>>
>> More types does not == more powerful.
>
> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
What? How does Unix make this any easier than anything else? There are
heaps of server centric apps with thin clients for Windows too.
> efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
> machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
>
> [deletia]
>
> ...and yes being able to tailor the interface to the individual
> end user or task is more powerful. It allows flexibility that need
> not compromise on usability even for the more clueless novice.
So you wont have a problem with giving me an example?
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnhk9fh...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2010-01-06, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> completely separate from the application. As a result it is possible
>>> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
>>
>> More types does not == more powerful.
>
> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
> efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
> machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
>
It's not that simple. A few points in no particular order:
1 - Remote desktop works remarkably well. It's very, very fast because of
various low-level hooks and optimizations that MS was able to add to it. It
also lets n00bs seemlessly connect their "local printer" to the remote
session without having to jump through hoops. The same applies to remotely
mounting hard-drives as well.
2 - Many/most users will find a *full* remote desktop more useful. They are
used to running apps from the "start menu" and they would rather click on
the menu and run their applicationS (plural) than have to start them
manually by remembering the actual name of the executable. They want to be
able to click on the Applications->Office->OpenOffice Writer to start an
app. This they do know. They don't know that they need to launch
"ooffice -writer" to run the word-processor or "ooffice -calc" to run the
spreadsheet.
3 - In nearly all cases people simply want remote access to another machine
that they own or use. It's not a matter of "taking over the remote machine
entirely" - it's already their remote machine. They want remote access to
their computer/desktop - not remote access to one application.
Snit
11:06 AM:
I would like a specific example, too.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lusotec
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
>> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
>
> What? How does Unix make this any easier than anything else? There are
> heaps of server centric apps with thin clients for Windows too.
Any X application can show its GUI remotely, not just those tailored as a
thin on the client and thick on the server. This can be very useful on
enterprise setups with thin clients and application servers.
regards.
Lusotec
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
>> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
>> efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
>> machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
>
> It's not that simple. A few points in no particular order:
>
> 1 - Remote desktop works remarkably well. It's very, very fast because of
> various low-level hooks and optimizations that MS was able to add to it.
> It also lets n00bs seemlessly connect their "local printer" to the remote
> session without having to jump through hoops. The same applies to remotely
> mounting hard-drives as well.
For a home/private user, a remote desktop is most likely better than remote
applications mainly because what the users want is access to their remote
machine as a whole.
For an enterprise, thin clients and application servers may be a better
solution than full remote desktops.
On a purely performance perspective, remote applications are better than
full remote desktops for the client, the server and the network.
> 2 - Many/most users will find a *full* remote desktop more useful. They
> are used to running apps from the "start menu" and they would rather click
> on the menu and run their applicationS (plural) than have to start them
> manually by remembering the actual name of the executable. They want to be
> able to click on the Applications->Office->OpenOffice Writer to start an
> app. This they do know. They don't know that they need to launch
> "ooffice -writer" to run the word-processor or "ooffice -calc" to run the
> spreadsheet.
Remote applications can be launched from a menu just like any other
application. A command like "ssh hostname ooffice" will run open office on
the hostname machine. In a LAN with correctly setup file systems the users
will not notice the difference.
As a side note, one way to extend the life of old machines is to run heavier
applications (e.g. openoffice) on a remote more powerful machine.
> 3 - In nearly all cases people simply want remote access to another
> machine that they own or use. It's not a matter of "taking over the remote
> machine entirely" - it's already their remote machine. They want remote
> access to their computer/desktop - not remote access to one application.
Yes, most home users want access to their whole machine but in the
enterprise remote applications may be better than remote desktops in many
scenarios.
Regards.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> performance of Windows improves substantially. In additon,
>> virtualization assures that corporate customers can keep using XP for
>> another 4-5 years if necessary, and take their time in transitioning
>> to either Windows 7 or Linux.
>
> Rex, almost no one is moving to Linux. Sad but true. Wake up man.
By "no one", "Hadron" means, of course, "consumers who don't know much about
computers". A rather sizeable group, of course, but it does ignore a
very significant number of "techie" users, such as, it is said, "Hadron".
--
This life is yours. Some of it was given to you; the rest, you made yourself.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-01-06, Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>> I'm starting to think that Win 7 is buggier than XP ever was.
>>>
>>> I can't compare it to Vista, though, as I used that for only an hour or so
>>> before I wiped it.
>>
>> Core COLA Loons review of any O/S other than Linux is worthless. It's
>> not going to stop anyone from using an O/S -- idiots.
But... but... "Hadron" said I make my living by Windows programming!
Surely I must know a fair amount about Windows!
> Of course not. Windows has been shoved down peoples throats every
> where they were prone to look since it was MS-DOS that was being shoved
> down their throats.
>
> The MS-DOS based Microsoft hegemony was what that Apple commercial
> from 1984 was complaing about.
--
After all, all he did was string together a lot of old, well-known quotations.
-- H. L. Mencken, on Shakespeare
Ezekiel
"Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
news:hi2mvs$9u7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
>>> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
>>> efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
>>> machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
>>
>> It's not that simple. A few points in no particular order:
>>
>> 1 - Remote desktop works remarkably well. It's very, very fast because of
>> various low-level hooks and optimizations that MS was able to add to it.
>> It also lets n00bs seemlessly connect their "local printer" to the remote
>> session without having to jump through hoops. The same applies to
>> remotely
>> mounting hard-drives as well.
>
> For a home/private user, a remote desktop is most likely better than
> remote
> applications mainly because what the users want is access to their remote
> machine as a whole.
>
> For an enterprise, thin clients and application servers may be a better
> solution than full remote desktops.
My example was enterprise users. Our sales people and field consultants are
out on the road and they need to access something on their desktop. They
don't want to ssh in and then remember that name of the 'Lotus Notes'
executable is actually nlnotes.
> On a purely performance perspective, remote applications are better than
> full remote desktops for the client, the server and the network.
The problem with X11 is that poorly written applications can be a total pig
over remote connections. Some applications behave well but others are
unusably slow. With remote desktop I haven't seen this problem. I suspect
the difference is that with X11 *all* drawing operations are sent to the
server, even those that are outside of the clip region. From what I've
experienced with RDP - it seems to coalesce the writes until they all finish
and eliminate what's redundant.
Running Firefox remotely over X11 for example seems really, really slow.
>> 2 - Many/most users will find a *full* remote desktop more useful. They
>> are used to running apps from the "start menu" and they would rather
>> click
>> on the menu and run their applicationS (plural) than have to start them
>> manually by remembering the actual name of the executable. They want to
>> be
>> able to click on the Applications->Office->OpenOffice Writer to start an
>> app. This they do know. They don't know that they need to launch
>> "ooffice -writer" to run the word-processor or "ooffice -calc" to run the
>> spreadsheet.
>
> Remote applications can be launched from a menu just like any other
> application.
Correct but where does this "menu" come from? When you first open up an ssh
tunnel to the remote machine you have a simple shell prompt after you log
in.
> A command like "ssh hostname ooffice" will run open office on
> the hostname machine. In a LAN with correctly setup file systems the users
> will not notice the difference.
This will start OO but then the user needs to run some other app. They know
where it is on the 'menu' but they have no idea what the name of it is.
That's where having the entire desktop available is a benefit.
> As a side note, one way to extend the life of old machines is to run
> heavier
> applications (e.g. openoffice) on a remote more powerful machine.
>
>> 3 - In nearly all cases people simply want remote access to another
>> machine that they own or use. It's not a matter of "taking over the
>> remote
>> machine entirely" - it's already their remote machine. They want remote
>> access to their computer/desktop - not remote access to one application.
>
> Yes, most home users want access to their whole machine but in the
> enterprise remote applications may be better than remote desktops in many
> scenarios.
Mainly in the scenario where someone wants/needs to run one specialized
application remotely it's a better solution to run just one app. But from my
experience both home and enterprise users generally want to connect to their
"remote PC" and run apps on it. They want to see the same menus, same icons
on the desktop and etc that they have when they're sitting locally behind
the keyboard.
I'm not saying that connecting to a remote X-client and running apps isn't
useful or a powerful or useful thing. But from the vast majority of what
I've seen, what people are looking for is remote access to their
*computer* - as in the entire desktop, menus, desktop-icons, etc. I know of
several people who use remote-desktop or VNC because it gives them the
entire desktop "remote computing" experience.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
>>> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
>>> efficiency and flexibility. You don't have to take over the remote
>>> machine entirely. You can "just run an app".
...why would a home user be running apps remotely unless they were
pretty geeky to begin with. The home user interested in running
apps remotely is probably much more like an enterprise corporate
user than the usual n00b.
>
> Remote applications can be launched from a menu just like any other
...or you can just run the whole start menu of the remote machine.
Modularization is really handy this way.
> application. A command like "ssh hostname ooffice" will run open office on
> the hostname machine. In a LAN with correctly setup file systems the users
> will not notice the difference.
>
> As a side note, one way to extend the life of old machines is to run heavier
> applications (e.g. openoffice) on a remote more powerful machine.
>
>> 3 - In nearly all cases people simply want remote access to another
>> machine that they own or use. It's not a matter of "taking over the remote
>> machine entirely" - it's already their remote machine. They want remote
It takes less resources to one a single program rather than attempting
to simulate an entire desktop across the network. It simply represents a
lot of really unecessary overhead that makes the entire task remarkably
more bother than it needs to be.
>> access to their computer/desktop - not remote access to one application.
>
> Yes, most home users want access to their whole machine but in the
> enterprise remote applications may be better than remote desktops in many
> scenarios.
>
> Regards.
>
JEDIDIAH
Hadron
Yes I know. And use it. But its far from usable most times even on a
high bandwidth link. ssh in and screen etc are wonderful however. Its
super handy to have x forwarding no doubt bu most people dont care.
And you do know people can do the same on Windows dont you? not as clean
and well designed I grant you.
Hadron
I found that this evening running google-chrome over an ssh link. Had to
wait about 3 minutes for each click to register and refresh the screen -
even doing something like selecting a check box. The networkin monitor
indicated network was very very heavy.
vnc is often a much better choice.
Peter Köhlmann
> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>> Unix can allow for the remote use of a single application rather
>>>> than an entire desktop. This creates a remarkable improvement in
>>>
>>> What? How does Unix make this any easier than anything else? There are
>>> heaps of server centric apps with thin clients for Windows too.
>>
>> Any X application can show its GUI remotely, not just those tailored as
>> a thin on the client and thick on the server. This can be very useful
>> on enterprise setups with thin clients and application servers.
>>
>> regards.
>
> Yes I know. And use it.
You use shit, not remote X
> But its far from usable most times even on a
> high bandwidth link.
Quit lying, Hadron Snot Quark. You will not notice any difference in speed
on any typical X application, local or remote. I use that feature
practically every day, as several apps ar elocated on a server.
Your claim again shows that you have never actually used it
> ssh in and screen etc are wonderful however. Its
> super handy to have x forwarding no doubt bu most people dont care.
"Most" people run windows. They don't even *have* that feature
> And you do know people can do the same on Windows dont you? not as clean
> and well designed I grant you.
It is incredibly shitty compared to *nix. They can't do "the same" on
windows. It is a half baked crap "solution"
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Peter Köhlmann
And you want to be taken seriously? VNC has *much* higher bandwidth needs
than X will ever have
Just stop pretending that you have *ever* used linux. You clearly have not
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
chrisv
>>
>> Thats strange as when I said the same and suggested the excellent
>> rsnapshot etc etc I was called a "liar" and that buring to CD "whenever
>> you felt like it" was fine ....
Stop lying, asshole Quack.
>> COLA - caught out lying again.
Apparently, this is a new stratagy from the "true Linux advocate" - to
use "COLA" to apply to all the advocates. A dishonest twist of a
single advocate's words can thus be used to smear the entire group of
advocates as "liars" or whatever.
Arend van der Berigheid
news:bcs9k5t393a69o0t5...@4ax.com...
>> lying asshole "Hadron" quacked:
>>>
>>> Thats strange as when I said the same and suggested the excellent
>>> rsnapshot etc etc I was called a "liar" and that buring to CD "whenever
>>> you felt like it" was fine ....
>
> Stop lying, asshole Quack.
Violaters of the so called "Wintroll" boycott are:
*chrisv*
Marti van Lin
Peter Kohlmann
Chris Ahlstrom
Homer
Terry Porter
7
RonB
Rick
Tattoo Vampire
none of your business
AZ nomad
Armin von Roon (known nymshift of Don Zeigler)
William Poaster
Alexis Machine (new nymshift of HPT)
"High Plains Thumper"
(more to come)
Hadron
Most "advocates" are liars.
Peter Köhlmann
All thos e"violators" where "signed up" without them knowing anything by
that "Arend van der Berigheid" coward
You are a fine example of a species which has managed to survive without
ever developing anything resembling a "brain".
Isn't nature just very "inventive"?
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Peter Köhlmann
Only if they are "true linux advocates", "true linux advocate", "kernel
hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru",
"USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader magician",
"hardware maven", "time coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard",
"Pulseaudio rockstar", "XORG sorcerer", "filesystem pro" and "OSS culling
committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka
Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
JEDIDIAH
...besides. If I objected to anything it would have been one of those
monsterous 3.5 based units that needs a wall wart that is prone to be
lost.
Thus, my very precise terminology.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
Lotus notes is a distributed sort of "database" type system.
Why would your employees need to access their desktop?
Why are field consultants even using desktops?
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>> lying asshole "Hadron" quacked:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats strange as when I said the same and suggested the excellent
>>>>> rsnapshot etc etc I was called a "liar" and that buring to CD
>>>>> "whenever you felt like it" was fine ....
>>>
>>> Stop lying, asshole Quack.
>>>
>>>>> COLA - caught out lying again.
>>>
>>> Apparently, this is a new stratagy from the "true Linux advocate" - to
>>> use "COLA" to apply to all the advocates. A dishonest twist of a
>>> single advocate's words can thus be used to smear the entire group of
>>> advocates as "liars" or whatever.
>>
>> Most "advocates" are liars.
...I prefer the term Zealot.
>
> Only if they are "true linux advocates", "true linux advocate", "kernel
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
> news:hi2mvs$9u7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> For an enterprise, thin clients and application servers may be a better
>> solution than full remote desktops.
>
> My example was enterprise users. Our sales people and field consultants are
> out on the road and they need to access something on their desktop. They
> don't want to ssh in and then remember that name of the 'Lotus Notes'
> executable is actually nlnotes.
Sad, really, when people lose the ability to "master" the abstraction called
an "executable".
>> On a purely performance perspective, remote applications are better than
>> full remote desktops for the client, the server and the network.
>
> The problem with X11 is that poorly written applications can be a total pig
> over remote connections. Some applications behave well but others are
> unusably slow. With remote desktop I haven't seen this problem. I suspect
> the difference is that with X11 *all* drawing operations are sent to the
> server, even those that are outside of the clip region. From what I've
> experienced with RDP - it seems to coalesce the writes until they all finish
> and eliminate what's redundant.
>
> Running Firefox remotely over X11 for example seems really, really slow.
Never noticed that, really.
Have seen some text-based apps lag a bit, but that's due to the connection,
not the app.
>> A command like "ssh hostname ooffice" will run open office on
>> the hostname machine. In a LAN with correctly setup file systems the users
>> will not notice the difference.
>
> This will start OO but then the user needs to run some other app. They know
> where it is on the 'menu' but they have no idea what the name of it is.
> That's where having the entire desktop available is a benefit.
Tunnelled VNC.
> Mainly in the scenario where someone wants/needs to run one specialized
> application remotely it's a better solution to run just one app. But from my
> experience both home and enterprise users generally want to connect to their
> "remote PC" and run apps on it. They want to see the same menus, same icons
> on the desktop and etc that they have when they're sitting locally behind
> the keyboard.
Depends on their level of "expertise".
> I'm not saying that connecting to a remote X-client and running apps isn't
> useful or a powerful or useful thing. But from the vast majority of what
> I've seen, what people are looking for is remote access to their
> *computer* - as in the entire desktop, menus, desktop-icons, etc. I know of
> several people who use remote-desktop or VNC because it gives them the
> entire desktop "remote computing" experience.
I use mutt, slrn, and lynx partly because I want to *avoid* remote GUIs.
--
Wagner's music is better than it sounds.
-- Mark Twain
Chris Ahlstrom
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> vnc is often a much better choice.
>
> And you want to be taken seriously? VNC has *much* higher bandwidth needs
> than X will ever have
>
> Just stop pretending that you have *ever* used linux. You clearly have not
Seems like it for "Googleboi".
If one *must* use an app over the internet, tunneling through ssh is the way
to go.
One question I've not pondered is the latency added by VPN.
--
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One. He gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to the earlier joke.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Most "advocates" are liars.
Bullshit.
> Only if they are "true linux advocates", "true linux advocate", "kernel
> hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru",
> "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader magician",
> "hardware maven", "time coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard",
> "Pulseaudio rockstar", "XORG sorcerer", "filesystem pro" and "OSS culling
> committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka
> Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
"Hadron" is the watchword for "lie". Time-proven.
--
I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a
week sometimes to make it up.
-- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"
Chris Ahlstrom
"Hadron" practises the jujitsu of lying.
Say, maybe "Hadron" can resurrect his hilarious "COLA outings". LOL.
--
Don't worry. Life's too long.
-- Vincent Sardi, Jr.
GreyCloud
> On Jan 5, 5:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>> af4d6471-bb7d-4738-af55-21d6a05b8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 1/5/10
>> 11:58 AM:
>>>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>
>>> Mac runs BSD-Unix. Linux and BSD-Unix are very similar, in terms of
>>> security, API compatibility, performance, and stability. Almost
>>> everything you see in the Mac commercials can be said of Linux.
>
>>> The biggest difference is that Mac doesn't give cryptic messages,
>>> while Linux gives cryptic messages that can be used to actually
>>> diagnose the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
>> In terms of file copying, which was the context here, that may be the case -
>> but overall, the UI issues between OS X and Linux are *very* different.
>
> This is very true. The Linux UI is much more powerful and flexible.
> Because Linux uses X11, and xgl/fglx, the display functionality is
> to use several different desktop interfaces, based on the technical
> it is possible for applications to be accessed remotely, to use
> multiple X11 servers and displays with a single mouse and keyboard,
> and to access dozens of *nix machines as if they were the local
> machine. Many Linux "servers" are actually running applications that
> are actually "desktop" interfaces. The only thing needed to have
> these applications display on a PC (or a Mac) is an X11 "server"
> application. X11 servers are cheap, even free. xming, cygwin/X11,
> and hummingbird are good example of software that can give you an X11
> interface, allowing you to put an entire Linux desktop on your
> desktop, and still have Windows when you need it.
>
> This can be a problem for Linux though. After all, if I need Linux
> and I can get full desktop functionality just by adding X11 to my XP
> based PC, and I can share that Linux box with 4-5 other users who also
> get full desktops, there is less pressure to put Linux on the PC.
>
> Ironically, it may be that Vista/Windows 7 will drive the migration to
> Linux on the desktop, because the file system is faster, and when smb
> mounted Linux directories are use instead of NTFS filesystems, the
> performance of Windows improves substantially. In additon,
> virtualization assures that corporate customers can keep using XP for
> another 4-5 years if necessary, and take their time in transitioning
> to either Windows 7 or Linux.
>
Erm... OS X comes with X11. And of course one can also download
OpenMotif for OS X as well. Plus X11 can run rootless on OS X.
Or, I can login to >console and start up X and then start up your own
window manager.
Snit
1/6/10 5:15 PM:
But few people do because OS X offers, for most things, better solutions.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> Most "advocates" are liars.
Most Linux "advocate$" I've seen - both on and off cola - are liars and
Windows developers (or make 100% of their living with Windows).
ChiTown
How much does Microsoft pay you and your ass clown buddy Hadron to
post here? It must be a good chunk of change.
Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
> On Jan 4, 10:32 pm, Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
> <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Vaughn Bode wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 9:24 pm, Gregory Shearman is aka General Greg She-Man
>>> <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>> [quote]
>>>>> Just copyed 30,122 files to my Mac Pro From a DVD. I have installed the
>>>>> exact same model DVD writer from Pioneer in both my Mac Pro and my 4
>>>>> core Dell. The Dell and Mac Pro both have the EXACT same model number
>>>>> 1.5TB Seagate disk. The Mac Pro is a June 2007 Dual Processor with 4
>>>>> cores. The Dell also has 4 cores.
>>>>> Mac Pro(10.6.2) Time To Transfer: 19min:32sec
>>>>> Dell (Win 7) Time To Transfer 1:03:12 (Over ONE HOUR!!!
>>>>> Win 7 has the same sluggish performance transferring thousands of files
>>>>> that Vista did. Total SLUGGISH POS. Win XP is FAAR faster with
>>>>> multiple files.
>>>>> [/quote]
>>>> XP is dead.
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/efc577dd3e42...
>>>>> orhttp://tinyurl.com/yz662ur
>>>>> Mac runs *nix under the hood, interesting case in point.
>>> Good point! He should have wasted another few hours doing a file-
>>> compare to make sure Windows really did copy the files. Trusting
>>> Windows to faithfully copy files like he did was a terrible lapse in
>>> judgement.
>>>> No one you moron goes around copying damn files
>>>> over the place all the damn time.
>>> Right again! Using a computer to copy data is just silly. Besides,
>>> HPT became a software pirate by publishing a benchmark without the
>>> written permission of Microsoft, as the EULA requires. We do not want
>>> to conspire with HTP and break any Microsoft laws so we should ignore
>>> any claims he made. Lets just close our eyes and pretend all this
>>> never happened.
>>>> And I don't believe any thing from a
>>>> COLA clown such as yourself.
>>>> It's much ado about nothing you idiot.
>> I copy files sometimes from Vista to my portable USB HD lots of files
>> back and forth. I am not sitting there patting my feet about it either.
>>
>> Posting the BS here doesn't mean a damn thing it really doesn't. He
>> could post it to a MS NG or NG(s), but he doesn't have the balls to do it.
>
> I am not familiar with what goes on in the MS newsgroups. If HPT
> posted his tale of woe over there, would some kind soul dig into the
> source code and provide a patch to fix the problem?
>
All HPT would get is the same treatment that MS people would get here.
DFS
$0.00 per post, dumbass.
Kadaitcha Man
> ChiTown wrote:
>> How much does Microsoft pay you and your ass clown buddy Hadron to post
>> here? It must be a good chunk of change.
>
> $0.00 per post, dumbass.
Oh, you're an MVP.
--
Test signature
"The Great One"
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
> Some scab-laden cornhole named PJR ejaculated:
>
> > I suck dick.
>
> Oh, you're a LDS?
>
> --
> "Whitey" Mather
Yes he' like you.....a Licking Dick Sucker !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ
GreyCloud
There are enough that Apple has an X11 newsfeed for those that want it.
I get quite a few articles on what is going on with Apples X11.
The whole idea with X11 on Apple is to first get some other UNIX X11 app
to run on a Mac. Then the next step is to port it over to OS X. There
are a lot of scientific X11 programs out there.
Snit
1/6/10 11:02 PM:
>>> Erm... OS X comes with X11. And of course one can also download
>>> OpenMotif for OS X as well. Plus X11 can run rootless on OS X.
>>> Or, I can login to >console and start up X and then start up your own
>>> window manager.
>>
>> But few people do because OS X offers, for most things, better solutions.
>>
>>
>
> There are enough that Apple has an X11 newsfeed for those that want it.
> I get quite a few articles on what is going on with Apples X11.
> The whole idea with X11 on Apple is to first get some other UNIX X11 app
> to run on a Mac. Then the next step is to port it over to OS X. There
> are a lot of scientific X11 programs out there.
Sure... and this is true of more popular apps as well. Look at OpenOffice -
first an X11 app, but ported to be a true OS X app.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Ask ChinaClown to post one link to me advocating Windows.
Alexis Machine
> Ask ChinaClown to post one link to me advocating Windows.
He did not say you were advocating Windows. He seems to think you're here to
disrupt and nothing more. Reading your bluster for the past several days I am
inclined to agree. You add nothing of value to this group. Every post of
yours is an insult, a snide remark, a flame or a troll.
Hadron
Nice nym!
Try something - post something of technical merit where you dont tell
lies. You will be treated just fine.
COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
Willy Poaster, Chrisv. Some of us reply in kind.
Alexis Machine
> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
> Willy Poaster, Chrisv. Some of us reply in kind.
Another damned lie. It's you and your ilk that start 98% of the garbage
threads in this newsgroup, or turn good threads into shit.
Hadron
Provably false.
The bit you went wrong was the "good thread" bit.
As I said "Alexis", read their posts. Off you go. Good "lad" ....
Kadaitcha Man
The problem with your assertion is that as soon as "Willy Poaster" and
"chrisv" get their "facts" shoved down their throats, they yell, "I CAN
SMELL TROLL SHIT!" then they run and hide behind mummy's skirt, also
known as a krillfile.
As for Köhlmann, he'll just shove his head up his anus and describe the
world as seen through a sewer pipe.
Perhaps you could spend time encouraging those you put on a completely
undeserved pedestal of god-like hero-worship to come down from the lofty
heights you placed them in rather than you trying to put over bare-faced
bullshit on people who know better?
I mean, really, if you want kudos, get your human gods to live up to your
capricious and far-fetched expectations. Hell. Even I would give you the
accolades you don't deserve and will never obtain.
--
Test signature
Kadaitcha Man
> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
> Willy Poaster, Chrisv.
The problem with your assertion is that as soon as "Willy Poaster" and
"chrisv" get their "facts" shoved down their throats, they yell, "I CAN
SMELL TROLL SHIT!" then they run and hide behind mummy's skirt, also
known as a krillfile.
As for Köhlmann, he'll just shove his head up his anus and describe the
world as seen through a sewer pipe.
Perhaps you could spend time encouraging those you put on a completely
undeserved pedestal of god-like hero-worship to come down from the lofty
heights you placed them in rather than you trying to put over bare-faced
bullshit on people who know better?
I mean, really, if you want kudos, get your human gods to live up to your
capricious and far-fetched expectations. Hell. Even I would give you the
accolades you don't deserve and will never obtain.
> Some of us reply in kind.
How convenient that you should include yourself in the set of those who
do not count.
--
Test signature
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
Exactly. He's best filtered.
--
"Have you tried Bing? I quite like it." - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> Mainly in the scenario where someone wants/needs to run one specialized
>> application remotely it's a better solution to run just one app. But from my
>> experience both home and enterprise users generally want to connect to their
>> "remote PC" and run apps on it. They want to see the same menus, same icons
>> on the desktop and etc that they have when they're sitting locally behind
>> the keyboard.
>
>Depends on their level of "expertise".
Don't you see?
When it's the "shortcomings" of OSS that's being discussed, like OO
not properly handling that 0.001% of MSO documents that have
scripting, it's a tragedy.
When it's the shortcomings of Micro$oft software, it's "plenty good
for most people".
Chloro-4-4-4-Hydroxy-4-Cyanopropyl-Fatty-Bohrium-3-Hydroxy-2-Tetrahydrate
news:78qbk5dp0sl7krs82...@4ax.com:
> Exactly. He's best filtered.
You must be the real chrisv. Only the real chrisv would label anyone who
disagrees with their one-eyed, Cyclops-like view of the Linux Only World
as a troll to be filtered.
So, chrisv, when was the last time you posted your "Posters who have
Opinions Never to be Countenanced" list and bragged about it? Last week?
Last month? Six months ago?
It must be time for a repost, hey.
--
A test sig
chrisv
>Alexis Machine wrote:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>
>>> Ask ChinaClown to post one link to me advocating Windows.
>>
>>He did not say you were advocating Windows. He seems to think you're here to
>>disrupt and nothing more. Reading your bluster for the past several days I am
>>inclined to agree. You add nothing of value to this group. Every post of
>>yours is an insult, a snide remark, a flame or a troll.
>
>Exactly. He's best filtered.
On the other hand, a quick strike of the delete key works, for cretins
who use pseudo-random name generators, like the "chemical", whose post
was deleted, unread.
Kadaitcha Man
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:27:15 +0545, Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>wrote:
>
>>Some sudanese yahoo named Hadron cheeped:
>>
>>> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
>>> Willy Poaster, Chrisv.
>>
>>The problem with your assertion is that as soon as "Willy Poaster" and
>>"chrisv" get their "facts" shoved down their throats, they yell, "I CAN
>>SMELL TROLL SHIT!" then they run and hide behind mummy's skirt, also
>>known as a krillfile.
>
> LOL torlling the COLA fuckwits.
They call me flatfish.
--
Test signature
Chris Ahlstrom
In fact, "Hadron" embarked on a deliberate campaign, almost from his first
post here, to insult and denigrate me. And he does it to others.
It marks him as an asshole and crank.
--
You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, but only because your
brakes are defective.
chrisv
>Alexis Machine pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 07 Jan 2010, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
>>> Willy Poaster, Chrisv. Some of us reply in kind.
>>
>> Another damned lie. It's you and your ilk that start 98% of the garbage
>> threads in this newsgroup, or turn good threads into shit.
>
>In fact, "Hadron" embarked on a deliberate campaign, almost from his first
>post here, to insult and denigrate me. And he does it to others.
>
>It marks him as an asshole and crank.
Indeed. He's the type who continually insults, needles, lies, and
misrepresents (i.e. a fscking asshole), then, when someone finally
gets fed-up and call him a fscking asshole, he calls the innocent
party a "potty mouth" or attacks the innocent party as someone who
"calls other people fscking assholes".
Whattaguy, that "Hadron". A genuine piece of shit, and proud of it,
apparently...
Hadron
> Alexis Machine pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 07 Jan 2010, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
>>> Willy Poaster, Chrisv. Some of us reply in kind.
>>
>> Another damned lie. It's you and your ilk that start 98% of the garbage
>> threads in this newsgroup, or turn good threads into shit.
>
> In fact, "Hadron" embarked on a deliberate campaign, almost from his first
> post here, to insult and denigrate me. And he does it to others.
>
> It marks him as an asshole and crank.
It marks me as someone who got pissed off with you sucking up to
"advocates", telling lies and generally bigging yourself up. I also got
pissed off with you being a smarmy hypocrite who insults Windows users
and Windows and yet you make your money from it and closed source SW. I
also got pissed off with you calling OSS developers "fuckheads", others
"cunts" and generally being a two faced little fraud. And then taking it
on yourself to "review" Jorge Shillings C code despite not even knowing
you cant dereference a null pointer in C. And you yuck yucking behind
the more detestable poasters like Dumb Willy, chrisv and Koehlkopf who I
see is showing himself up again in a tech thread about cross platform
programming and QT.
When it comes to insults, you led the way. I offered a fresh start last
year and you pooh poohed it.
The occasional "aw shucks" from you and whatever you think passes as
"cutesy mateism" does not cover up the fact that you
're a two faced hypocrite who is quick to go running to mummy when he's
handed back a bit of what he gives out.
As DFS suggested - grow a set.
You will find, as you know full well, when you post the truth and
discuss technical issues truthfully I will do like.
"The Great One"
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message news:3e1idi....@news.alt.net...
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:27:15 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
> <an...@no.email>wrote:
>
> >
> >> COLA *is* about snide remarks. Dont believe me? Read Peter Koehlmann,
> >> Willy Poaster, Chrisv.
> >
> >The problem with your assertion is that as soon as "Willy Poaster" and
> >"chrisv" get their "facts" shoved down their throats, they yell, "I CAN
> >SMELL TROLL SHIT!" then they run and hide behind mummy's skirt, also
> >known as a krillfile.
>
> pisswits not being able to take what they dish out. Well come to think
> about it they really can't dish it out either so they're just neutered
> cunts like me!
>
> ...heh
> --
> "Neutered-Fat-Nasty" Plow
Then why do you chuckle..."heh",fuckwit ??
--
HJ