My X server beats Vista in memory usage!!!
Aquila Deus
Vista => http://www.stardock.com/brad/vista/Bootup.PNG (look at
dwm.exe)
Mine => http://static.flickr.com/44/149418144_2afb294c08_o.png
VM Size: 200m/124m
RES: 159m/74m
:))
flatfish+++
Using the same excuse the Linvocates use, the debug code is still in Vista
so all bets on speed, memory usage and so forth are off until the final
product is release, whatever decade that is :).....
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Aquila Deus
eh???
Aquila Deus
Heh, I just realized you didn't look at the pics at all - the one with
200m RAM is my X server not vista ;)
You're a blind flatfish!
flatfish+++
Like I said, who cares?
It's not released yet.
All bets are off.
Aquila Deus
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:07:34 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
>
> > flatfish+++ wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:32:20 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
> >>
> >> > Look at this:
> >> >
> >> > Vista => http://www.stardock.com/brad/vista/Bootup.PNG (look at
> >> > dwm.exe)
> >> > Mine => http://static.flickr.com/44/149418144_2afb294c08_o.png
> >> >
> >> > VM Size: 200m/124m
> >> > RES: 159m/74m
> >> >
> >> > :))
> >>
> >> Using the same excuse the Linvocates use, the debug code is still in Vista
> >> so all bets on speed, memory usage and so forth are off until the final
> >> product is release, whatever decade that is :).....
> >
> > Heh, I just realized you didn't look at the pics at all - the one with
> > 200m RAM is my X server not vista ;)
> >
> >
> > You're a blind flatfish!
>
> Like I said, who cares?
> It's not released yet.
> All bets are off.
what bets?? are you insane??
flatfish+++
Yep, here comes the discredit routine.
No, I am not insane.
However, I am smart enough not to try and compare something that is not
even released yet, with something that is.....
You can flap your lips all you like about Vista, but until it is released
anything you flap about is pure speculation on your part.
The Ghost In The Machine
<aquil...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 19 May 2006 14:10:36 -0700
<1148073035.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Apparently, flatfish is claiming that any comparisons
(memory, performance, beauty, number of BSODs/month, etc.)
between Linux and Vista are invalid until the final version
of Vista, stripped of all debug code and optimized for
speed, memory usage, and profits, comes out. :-)
At least, that's how I read flatfish's logic. Whether
that's accurate logic or not, I for one cannot say at all,
although it looks reasonable prima facie.
In any event, the actual X server can run in as low as 16
megs (system RAM, not video card RAM). It won't run all
that *well*, of course ... but it will run.
(One easy test, if one has more than one box: run nothing but an
X server and maybe a very lightweight window manager such as twm
on the one box, and have the clients running on another box.)
[Followups to comp.os.linux.advocacy exclusively.]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Ken Dorfmann
Idiot. Figures a lintard moron like you would try to compare a shipping
product against a beta with debug code in it.
Ken Dorfmann
Idiot. Figures a lintard moron like you would try to compare a shipping
Tim Smith
Dorfmann wrote:
> Idiot. Figures a lintard moron like you would try to compare a shipping
> product against a beta with debug code in it.
So, do you think that when they take out the debug code, the memory usage
will go up? (Hint: maybe you should actually understand what someone is
saying before you call them a moron).
--
--Tim Smith
flatfish+++
> Apparently, flatfish is claiming that any comparisons
> (memory, performance, beauty, number of BSODs/month, etc.)
> between Linux and Vista are invalid until the final version
> of Vista, stripped of all debug code and optimized for
> speed, memory usage, and profits, comes out. :-)
>
> At least, that's how I read flatfish's logic. Whether
> that's accurate logic or not, I for one cannot say at all,
> although it looks reasonable prima facie.
That is correct.
TheLetterK
Woah. Even XGL is lower than that.
>
> :))
chrisv
It's /always/ permissible to call a luser/lintard an 'idiot'.
Roy Schestowitz
Haha! Thanks for the chuckle. By the way, in KDE (I know that you prefer
GNONE), there is a nice graphical front end to top and its siblings.
CTRL+ESC to bring it up.
Here'e my usage in real time (10 minutes between refreshes):
http://baine.smb.man.ac.uk:8001/caption.txt
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Y |-(1^2)|^(1/2)+1 K
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:10am up 22 days 11:07, 11 users, load average: 3.86, 2.72, 1.97
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Aquila Deus
You're an idiot too, my x server is the one that use 200m, not vista's
dwm.
Screw yourself!
Aquila Deus
Yes, there seems to be serious leak from nvidia's x driver. It begines
with 29MB but increase up to 150m+ RES and then crashes, so now I have
to restart xorg at least every week, not to mention frequent crash of
the xfwm svn snapshot, too bad none of the win-idiots understand what
I'm talking about :)
>
> >
> > :))
flatfish+++
> Yes, there seems to be serious leak from nvidia's x driver. It begines
> with 29MB but increase up to 150m+ RES and then crashes, so now I have
> to restart xorg at least every week, not to mention frequent crash of
> the xfwm svn snapshot, too bad none of the win-idiots understand what
> I'm talking about :)
We don't have to.
Out Nvidia driver works fine.
Aquila Deus
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:24:04 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, there seems to be serious leak from nvidia's x driver. It begines
> > with 29MB but increase up to 150m+ RES and then crashes, so now I have
> > to restart xorg at least every week, not to mention frequent crash of
> > the xfwm svn snapshot, too bad none of the win-idiots understand what
> > I'm talking about :)
>
> We don't have to.
> Out Nvidia driver works fine.
You're not running a translucent desktop, clueless dickhead!
flatfish+++
True to form here comes the name calling.
You COLA nuts act just like rats when cornered.
FWIW, you are correct I am not running a translucent desktop and the
reason why is because it is totally counterproductive to getting any work
done.
The concept might be interesting from an eye candy POV but working on such
a desktop is ridiculous.
Kier
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 07:51:11 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
>
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:24:04 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Yes, there seems to be serious leak from nvidia's x driver. It begines
>>> > with 29MB but increase up to 150m+ RES and then crashes, so now I have
>>> > to restart xorg at least every week, not to mention frequent crash of
>>> > the xfwm svn snapshot, too bad none of the win-idiots understand what
>>> > I'm talking about :)
>>>
>>> We don't have to.
>>> Out Nvidia driver works fine.
>>
>> You're not running a translucent desktop, clueless dickhead!
>
> True to form here comes the name calling.
You're in no position to complain about name-calling, flatty.
>
> You COLA nuts act just like rats when cornered.
See what I mean?
--
Kier
flatfish+++
I give it right back to them.....
flatfish+++
You should let your ISP know that they have an open port problem.
nmap 220.135.10.97
Starting Nmap 4.03 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-05-20 11:15 CDT
Interesting ports on 220-135-10-97.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.135.10.97):
(The 1662 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
23/tcp open telnet
80/tcp open http
113/tcp open auth
135/tcp closed msrpc
443/tcp open https
3306/tcp open mysql
3389/tcp open ms-term-serv
8080/tcp closed http-proxy
9999/tcp open abyss
10000/tcp closed snet-sensor-mgmt
Very bad security on that one.
TheLetterK
> __/ [ TheLetterK ] on Saturday 20 May 2006 00:46 \__
>
>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:32:20 -0700, Aquila Deus wrote:
>>
>>> Look at this:
>>>
>>> Vista => http://www.stardock.com/brad/vista/Bootup.PNG (look at
>>> dwm.exe)
>>> Mine => http://static.flickr.com/44/149418144_2afb294c08_o.png
>>>
>>> VM Size: 200m/124m
>>> RES: 159m/74m
>>
>> Woah. Even XGL is lower than that.
>>
>>>
>>> :))
>
> Haha! Thanks for the chuckle. By the way, in KDE (I know that you prefer
> GNONE), there is a nice graphical front end to top and its siblings.
> CTRL+ESC to bring it up.
>
> Here'e my usage in real time (10 minutes between refreshes):
>
> http://baine.smb.man.ac.uk:8001/caption.txt
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
That's way over what I'm getting, even under load (though I'm not
currently doing anything that intensive, so the screenshot is
only representing my normal desktop usage).
chrisv
>Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> So, do you think that when they take out the debug code, the memory
>> usage will go up? (Hint: maybe you should actually understand what
>> someone is saying before you call them a moron).
>
>It's /always/ permissible to call a luser/lintard an 'idiot'.
Ignore the forger.
relic
You just won't give up, will you forger.
*PLONK*