Please Make It More Like Linux!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
Homer
> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
The Windows fanboy wishlist for Vole's Next Big Thing®:
#1 Go back to XP
End.
As far as Kingsley-Hughes' list is concerned, the phrase "if wishes
were horses..." comes to mind. The chances of anything even remotely
useful appearing in number 8 is slim to none, and Slim just left town.
It'll run on ARM, barely. Just like "Phone 7" does, only much slower.
Meanwhile Linux has run on ARM for the last 17 years, since it was
ported to the Acorn A5000 by Russell King in 1994, and it's currently
distributed on over 350,000 ARM devices every day, by way of Android,
and God knows how many other devices in their Billions per year.
Other than that, the only reason for number 8 is to try and split
another chunk off the XP diehards, all 60% of them. Maybe by the time
number 10 comes out, in about 2018, they'll have squeezed the XP share
down to under half of all Windows users. Maybe. Assuming they haven't
all just switched to Mac or Linux (or some new OS) by then, of course.
--
K. | "...if there's already data on the drive, the
http://slated.org | files apparently get put in a 'Lost + Found'
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | folder during the format." ~ the idiot, DFS.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 14 days | http://tinyurl.com/doofygoofs2
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>
> The Windows fanboy wishlist for Vole's Next Big Thing®:
>
Windows 7 performs FAR better on decent hardware than Windows XP ever
did.
I get lower latency, more effects, less drop outs etc on the same i7
system than I ever got with XP.
Sounds like you are a liar and are picking people with their P4 who are
complaining.
Get with the program Homo.
Gordon
>
> Other than that, the only reason for number 8 is to try and split
> another chunk off the XP diehards, all 60% of them. Maybe by the time
> number 10 comes out, in about 2018, they'll have squeezed the XP share
> down to under half of all Windows users.
XP comes out of ALL support in 2014 - so I can't see all the corporate
users staying with it...
Homer
Yeah well, wasn't XP supposed to have died once already, before it was
magically resurrected to save Vole from the backlash against Fista, and
to squeeze some monopoly juice into netbooks?
Gordon
> Verily I say unto thee, that Gordon spake thusly:
>> On 01/03/11 11:02, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>> Other than that, the only reason for number 8 is to try and split
>>> another chunk off the XP diehards, all 60% of them. Maybe by the time
>>> number 10 comes out, in about 2018, they'll have squeezed the XP
>>> share down to under half of all Windows users.
>>
>> XP comes out of ALL support in 2014 - so I can't see all the corporate
>> users staying with it...
>
> Yeah well, wasn't XP supposed to have died once already, before it was
> magically resurrected to save Vole from the backlash against Fista, and
> to squeeze some monopoly juice into netbooks?
>
Absolutely - but it's getting pretty tired and long in the tooth now
though, isn't it?
flatfish+++
Yet it still has and always did have more users than desktop Linux ever
will.
Homer
Sure, but then it was that 4 years ago when Vole released Fista, and was
still that a year and a bit ago when they released Fista 7, and yet here
we are, one decade later, with 60% of Windows users still using it, and
the rest probably wishing they were, instead of the dysfunctional and
incompatible bloatware preloaded onto whatever equipment they bought.
Meanwhile Vole is losing acolytes faster than the Moonies, and two very
expensive attempts to reinvent the Church of Windows have spectacularly
failed. Third time a charm? I don't think so.
Yes, Microsoft will eventually have to pull the plug on the XP Luddites,
but at what cost to its userbase?
Tricky.
flatfish+++
And all the while desktop Linux remains free yet has so few users.
It must really suck to be a Linux advocate.
How do you advocate something virtually nobody wants?
JEDIDIAH
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:02:33 +0000, Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>
>> The Windows fanboy wishlist for Vole's Next Big Thing®:
>>
>
> Windows 7 performs FAR better on decent hardware than Windows XP ever
> did.
No. Not really. The only way that Win7 could "run better" is there is
some aspect of the hardware that's simply not supported by XP like the
number of cores or amount of RAM.
Windows 7 is the same kind of pig that increases the minimum hardware
requirements like any other version of Windows ever was.
--
"If I give you a pfennig, you will be one pfennig richer and
I'll be one pfennig poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will |||
have a new idea, but I shall still have it, too." / | \
~ Albert Einstein
amicus_curious
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
Does it? Well, that can be argued, certainly, but in the end there is no
one who matters who really cares. Get a clue. People want to see
improvements to Windows and they will wait for those improvements and when
they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase the updates. They do not
want a better Linux nor do they want to change to Linux. They want the
improved Windows and all else is ersatz.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>
> Does it? Well, that can be argued, certainly, but in the end there is no
> one who matters who really cares. Get a clue. People want to see
> improvements to Windows and they will wait for those improvements and when
> they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase the updates. They do not
No they won't.
They will simply get the current shipping version of the MS-DOS monopoly
when they buy a PC. If anything, they will go out of their way to avoid the
latest version of Windows that might have developed itself a bad reputation.
> want a better Linux nor do they want to change to Linux. They want the
> improved Windows and all else is ersatz.
If "they want it more like Linux" that is pretty easy to quantify and to
trace back to Linux. The same goes for MacOS.
--
MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2011-03-01, flatfish+++ <flat...@marianatrench.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:02:33 +0000, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>>><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>>
>>> The Windows fanboy wishlist for Vole's Next Big Thing??:
>>
>> Windows 7 performs FAR better on decent hardware than Windows XP ever
>> did.
*LMAO*
> No. Not really. The only way that Win7 could "run better" is there is
> some aspect of the hardware that's simply not supported by XP like the
> number of cores or amount of RAM.
>
> Windows 7 is the same kind of pig that increases the minimum hardware
> requirements like any other version of Windows ever was.
All you have to do to see that 7 is slower than XP is to load each of them
into a virtual machine on Linux. Now play with them a bit.
I've done that experiment on an 8-core 8-Gb 64-bit machine. XP runs
amazingly well; 7 treats me to the rotating ring of wait.
--
One of your most ancient writers, a historian named Herodotus, tells of a
thief who was to be executed. As he was taken away he made a bargain with
the king: in one year he would teach the king's favorite horse to sing
hymns. The other prisoners watched the thief singing to the horse and
laughed. "You will not succeed," they told him. "No one can."
To which the thief replied, "I have a year, and who knows what might
happen in that time. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.
And perhaps the horse will learn to sing.
-- "The Mote in God's Eye", Niven and Pournelle
amicus_curious
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnimrcc...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-02, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>
>> Does it? Well, that can be argued, certainly, but in the end there is no
>> one who matters who really cares. Get a clue. People want to see
>> improvements to Windows and they will wait for those improvements and
>> when
>> they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase the updates. They do
>> not
>
> No they won't.
>
> They will simply get the current shipping version of the MS-DOS
> monopoly
> when they buy a PC. If anything, they will go out of their way to avoid
> the
> latest version of Windows that might have developed itself a bad
> reputation.
>
Spin reality as you wish, Jedidiah, but the net result is that virtually all
the PCs in all the stores supply Windows and people buy them in ever
increasing volumes every year. They don't buy Linux machines and so Linux
machines are not even offered in most venues.
>> want a better Linux nor do they want to change to Linux. They want the
>> improved Windows and all else is ersatz.
>
> If "they want it more like Linux" that is pretty easy to quantify and to
> trace back to Linux. The same goes for MacOS.
>
Real people do no want Windows "more like Linux" at all. That is why it is
not offered in normal channels.
chrisv
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> Windows 7 performs FAR better on decent hardware than Windows XP ever
>>> did.
>
>*LMAO*
Really. What a bald-faced lie.
Micro$oft surprised even its detractors, with the rise in bloat and
inefficiency ushered-in with Visduh.
--
"Windows servers are used far more than Unix and Linux in businesses
around the world with little if any problem." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnimrcc...@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-02, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>>
>>> Does it? Well, that can be argued, certainly, but in the end there is no
>>> one who matters who really cares. Get a clue. People want to see
>>> improvements to Windows and they will wait for those improvements and
>>> when
>>> they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase the updates. They do
>>> not
>>
>> No they won't.
>>
>> They will simply get the current shipping version of the MS-DOS
>> monopoly
>> when they buy a PC. If anything, they will go out of their way to avoid
>> the
>> latest version of Windows that might have developed itself a bad
>> reputation.
>>
> Spin reality as you wish, Jedidiah, but the net result is that virtually all
It's not "spin". It's just the way it is.
Most people simply aren't "geeky" enough to care about what version of
Windows they have. Those that are, are just as likely to avoid the new.
> the PCs in all the stores supply Windows and people buy them in ever
> increasing volumes every year. They don't buy Linux machines and so Linux
> machines are not even offered in most venues.
>
>>> want a better Linux nor do they want to change to Linux. They want the
>>> improved Windows and all else is ersatz.
>>
>> If "they want it more like Linux" that is pretty easy to quantify and to
>> trace back to Linux. The same goes for MacOS.
>>
> Real people do no want Windows "more like Linux" at all. That is why it is
> not offered in normal channels.
"more like Linux" and "Linux" aren't quite the same thing.
It's interesting how this sort of thing makes you uncomfortable.
--
Apple: because you really don't want to take any more video |||
than your camera can hold. Really. / | \
chrisv
> rat wrote:
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote:
>>>
>>> They will simply get the current shipping version of the MS-DOS
>>> monopoly
>>> when they buy a PC. If anything, they will go out of their way to avoid
>>> the
>>> latest version of Windows that might have developed itself a bad
>>> reputation.
I see that rat, after all these years, *still* hasn't figured-out how
to stop his monopoly crapware from mangling quotes...
>> Spin reality as you wish, Jedidiah, but the net result is that virtually all
>
> It's not "spin". It's just the way it is.
>
> Most people simply aren't "geeky" enough to care about what version of
>Windows they have. Those that are, are just as likely to avoid the new.
If we need a Windwoes machine at work, we buy refurbished XP machines
with P4's or early C2D's. There's just no reason to spend 3X to get a
new Win7 machine of equivalent performance.
flatfish+++
> JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2011-03-01, flatfish+++ <flat...@marianatrench.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:02:33 +0000, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>>>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>>>><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>>>
>>>> The Windows fanboy wishlist for Vole's Next Big Thing??:
>>>
>>> Windows 7 performs FAR better on decent hardware than Windows XP ever
>>> did.
>
> *LMAO*
It's true O slimey one.
Lower latency.
Lower DPC.
More tracks and effects.
Same machine that was running XP.
>> No. Not really. The only way that Win7 could "run better" is there is
>> some aspect of the hardware that's simply not supported by XP like the
>> number of cores or amount of RAM.
>>
>> Windows 7 is the same kind of pig that increases the minimum hardware
>> requirements like any other version of Windows ever was.
>
> All you have to do to see that 7 is slower than XP is to load each of them
> into a virtual machine on Linux. Now play with them a bit.
I'm talking about natively.
I don't care what Windows does in a VM.
You really are a slippery one Liarmutt.
> I've done that experiment on an 8-core 8-Gb 64-bit machine. XP runs
> amazingly well; 7 treats me to the rotating ring of wait.
You are full of crap because that's the machine I am running on now.
amicus_curious
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnimsqa...@nomad.mishnet...
That doesn't seem to slow down sales of Windows computers in any way,
Jedidiah. Look at the results.
>> the PCs in all the stores supply Windows and people buy them in ever
>> increasing volumes every year. They don't buy Linux machines and so
>> Linux
>> machines are not even offered in most venues.
>>
>>>> want a better Linux nor do they want to change to Linux. They want the
>>>> improved Windows and all else is ersatz.
>>>
>>> If "they want it more like Linux" that is pretty easy to quantify and
>>> to
>>> trace back to Linux. The same goes for MacOS.
>>>
>> Real people do no want Windows "more like Linux" at all. That is why it
>> is
>> not offered in normal channels.
>
> "more like Linux" and "Linux" aren't quite the same thing.
>
> It's interesting how this sort of thing makes you uncomfortable.
Where do you get the idea that I am uncomfortable in any way? Does it make
you feel better to think that I am?
JEDIDIAH
Now you are moving the goalposts.
Your claim also works the other way.
MS-DOS never slowed down the sale of WinDOS computers in any way either.
[deletia]
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>
> ... but in the end there is no one who matters who really cares.
Yeah, right. Nobody has expressed any interest in this. Nobody has posted
any followups commenting on the significance of my posting.
Nobody who is anybody, anyway.
> People want to see improvements to Windows and they will wait for those
> improvements and when they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase
> the updates.
Have you noticed that practically nobody has purchased Windows upgrades in
the last 10 years? Essentially all of Microsoft’s Windows sales have come
from preinstallations with new machines.
I guess that shows how much people really care about Windows.
Big Steel
Where are you coming up with this BS? So somewhere how much they care
about Linux.
amicus_curious
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:ilp2ng$mb2$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <4d6d9465$0$23954$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>>> Funny how this Windows 8 wishlist
>>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/what-would-you-like-to-see-in-windows-8/11645>
>>> looks so much like a list of features already in Linux...
>>
>> ... but in the end there is no one who matters who really cares.
>
> Yeah, right. Nobody has expressed any interest in this. Nobody has posted
> any followups commenting on the significance of my posting.
>
It's not the quantity, but the quality, Larry! LOL! Get a clue.
You can get tons of follow-ups just by mentioning linonut 's wife, don't you
know?
> Nobody who is anybody, anyway.
>
>> People want to see improvements to Windows and they will wait for those
>> improvements and when they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase
>> the updates.
>
> Have you noticed that practically nobody has purchased Windows upgrades in
> the last 10 years? Essentially all of Microsoft’s Windows sales have come
> from preinstallations with new machines.
>
> I guess that shows how much people really care about Windows.
You could take it that way, but you would be wrong. Certainly Microsoft
does get a few billion in sales of a new release as part of the hubbub they
create and that does pale in comparison to the tens of billions they get
annually from the OEM channel. But don't look upon that as a lack of
interest in Windows. Rather you should observe that OEM channel sales are
the mainstay of the desktop OS platform software market and that any attempt
to capture significant market share has to be directed at that channel. It
is the massive prior investment in Windows technology by the OEMs such as
Dell and HP that provide the continuity of Microsoft Windows.
Preach all you want to the Linux choirboys here and howl at the masses of
Windows users worldwide, but nothing is going to change unless you can find
a way to change the OEM market. There is, of course, no way to do that,
short of ultimately replacing PCs with some other product, so you can see
where you are doomed to a life of continued frustrations. When the last PC
ever made ships, it will have Windows pre-installed.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:ilp2ng$mb2$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <4d6d9465$0$23954$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>> news:ikidjt$acn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>
>>> People want to see improvements to Windows and they will wait for those
>>> improvements and when they occur, they will eagerly install or purchase
>>> the updates.
>>
>> Have you noticed that practically nobody has purchased Windows upgrades in
>> the last 10 years? Essentially all of Microsoft’s Windows sales have come
>> from preinstallations with new machines.
>>
>> I guess that shows how much people really care about Windows.
>
> You could take it that way, but you would be wrong. Certainly Microsoft
> does get a few billion in sales of a new release as part of the hubbub they
These are not really "new" sales though.
They're just milking the same old cash cow that they have been milking
since the days of MS-DOS. For all practical purposes, Windows 7 is just the
latest version of MS-DOS.
[deletia]
No one is interested in Windows itself. It's just part of the furniture.
Of course you can't handle this fact because it's contrary to all of the
nonsense you Lemmings try to spew to denigrate anything else.
--
Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
/ | \
amicus_curious
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnio1in...@nomad.mishnet...
Well, sure it is, Jedidiah! That's my whole point!
There is certainly some technical quibble about the practical purpose of
Windows 7 vs MS-DOS, but the essence of it all is that the latest Microsoft
OS, today Win7, is what just about everyone expects to be provided with
their new computers.
> [deletia]
>
> No one is interested in Windows itself. It's just part of the
> furniture.
>
> Of course you can't handle this fact because it's contrary to all of
> the
> nonsense you Lemmings try to spew to denigrate anything else.
>
I think that you are grasping at straws here, Jedidiah. My view is that you
are a complete fool to think that what you admit is "part of the furniture"
is ever going to go away because some silly dweeb rants about having
"freedom" or that a mostly home-made copycat product is ever going to take
over from the real thing. I am certainly not dismayed by the unconscious
acceptance of Windows by the buying public.
I would rather think that you would be totally frustrated by the fact that
you cannot do anything about it.
JEDIDIAH
Most people have no expectations at all.
Infact, the younger people don't even percieve differences in operating
systems at all. They are not brand fixated like some old codger and they
aren't stymied by being presented with a different brand of the same type
of app. They barely notice.
[deletia]
Very few people care about new versions of monopolyware. They certainly
aren't going to be clamouring for it. If anything, they will be trying to
figure out how they can avoid it or barring that cleaning up after it.
Vista and Ribbon are both great examples of this.
--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...
When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.