Microsoft is Exactly Like a Fermenting Jug of Grape Juice...
Brian Richards
existance is relatively large? Most Unix take up at least 80+ megs, OS/2
will take about the same, BeOS is still rather lite, but it will hork up a
good chunk of disk space already, as does most everything else.
Have you looked at how large programs like SmartSuite are?
Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote in message
715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
>A scientish in Denmark discovered how to use a scanning tunneling
>microscope to cause one atom to hold a bit of data. Theoretically, a
>single chip could hold a million CD-ROMs worth of data, 660 terabytes!
>
>OK, you say, we can't possibly as individual users ever use that up, but
>think again. A mere 10 years ago, nobody would ever think we'd have PCs as
>powerful as an early Cray, but barely usable for word processing.
>
>We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
>computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
>18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
>juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
>population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
>discovery.
>
>It turns out that if you know the doubling rate of a bacterium, like the
>yeast, you can calculate the time an entire jug will finish fermenting, no
>matter the size. Just as a brewer knows the doubling rate of the yeast, we
>know the doubling rate of MS-Bloat(tm). The doubling rate of MS-Bloat is
>18 months.
>
>With this chip, it's sort of like calculating how long it would take to
>ferment a jug the size of the moon after you add a pinch of yeast. Let's
>see what we get with the chip...
>
>The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
>million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
>doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
>more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
>exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
>even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
>
>The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat growth.
>
>--
>CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
>
>3222839 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
joseph
>
> I suppose it hasn't occured to you that virtually *EVERY* modern OS in
> existance is relatively large?
That has NOT occured to me because it is false.
NCI took NetBSD and X and made a small, thin cable box OS and Network
Computer.
Quantum Leaper
Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote in message
715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
>A scientish in Denmark discovered how to use a scanning tunneling
>microscope to cause one atom to hold a bit of data. Theoretically, a
>single chip could hold a million CD-ROMs worth of data, 660 terabytes!
>
discovery, either way.
>OK, you say, we can't possibly as individual users ever use that up, but
>think again. A mere 10 years ago, nobody would ever think we'd have PCs as
>powerful as an early Cray, but barely usable for word processing.
>
Yes but with the Cray, you ran the computer with 90%+ cpu time being used,
unlike PCs, Macs, etc. with 90% of the cpu time going to make the computer
responsive to the user.
>We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
>computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
>18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
>juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
>population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
>discovery.
>
Moore's law states that the number of transistors will double every 18
months, which has been true for the last 20 years or so. Moore and other
state that it may continue for another 50 years or more. The number of
transistor doesn't directly relate to speed of the CPU. If you double the
transistors, you may only get 1.5 times the speed or 4 times the speed,
depends on how they design the chip. My PII 400 is about 8 times as fast as
my P75, which should be only 4 times differnece (18 months X2), using your
theroem. Also Win98 is only a 100 megs more when you install it, Win95
installed to about 250megs (with alot of stuff) and Win98 installed to about
350megs (with alot of stuff). So with your math 250X2 =350? I guess it
must be the NEW math they teach in school.
>It turns out that if you know the doubling rate of a bacterium, like the
>yeast, you can calculate the time an entire jug will finish fermenting, no
>matter the size. Just as a brewer knows the doubling rate of the yeast, we
>know the doubling rate of MS-Bloat(tm). The doubling rate of MS-Bloat is
>18 months.
>
MS doesn't double its OS size every 18 months, if it did you would need
almost a 1gig to install Win98, considering Win95 install in 250 megs and 3
year difference. Also the size the HDs have more than doubled in that
time, my P75 had 700 meg HD (one of the bigger HD, available), my new PII
400 has a 6.4 gig HD (it wasn't even close to the biggest). Both were
within a reasonable cost, yes I know you can buy 18G HDs, and quite big
ones 3 years ago.
>The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
>million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
>doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
>more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
>exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
>even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
>
Windows 95 and Windows 98 both fill ONE CD, if you thereom was correct, you
would need 4 CD to fit Windows 98, with a 3 years difference. (1X2 first
18 months - 2X2 second 18 months = 4 CDs)
>The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat growth.
My conclusion is you need to take a 'intro to mathematics' class.
Bloody Viking
A scientish in Denmark discovered how to use a scanning tunneling
microscope to cause one atom to hold a bit of data. Theoretically, a
single chip could hold a million CD-ROMs worth of data, 660 terabytes!
OK, you say, we can't possibly as individual users ever use that up, but
think again. A mere 10 years ago, nobody would ever think we'd have PCs as
powerful as an early Cray, but barely usable for word processing.
We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
discovery.
It turns out that if you know the doubling rate of a bacterium, like the
yeast, you can calculate the time an entire jug will finish fermenting, no
matter the size. Just as a brewer knows the doubling rate of the yeast, we
know the doubling rate of MS-Bloat(tm). The doubling rate of MS-Bloat is
18 months.
With this chip, it's sort of like calculating how long it would take to
ferment a jug the size of the moon after you add a pinch of yeast. Let's
see what we get with the chip...
The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat growth.
--
Bloody Viking
: Have you looked at how large programs like SmartSuite are?
Yep, that's my whole point. No matter how much disk space we have, it
_WILL_ be filled up, resulting in piss-poor performance. Just like the
fermenting jug of grape juice.
Ciaran
Brian Richards wrote in message ...
>I suppose it hasn't occured to you that virtually *EVERY* modern OS in
>will take about the same, BeOS is still rather lite, but it will hork up a
>good chunk of disk space already, as does most everything else.
Most UNIXes would only be this big if you install a lot of crap. You could
probably
install a 10 meg, fairly useful linux. I am also a QNX programmer and that
is only
about a 10 meg install for the lot. It looks rather lonely on 3 gig hard
disk :)
Cheers,
Ciaran
Michael Tobis
Dont forget the the Palm Pilot OS in your deliberations, which
please don't cross-post to sci.environment, where they are off-topic.
Thanks.
mt
Bloody Viking
: Dont forget the the Palm Pilot OS in your deliberations, which
: please don't cross-post to sci.environment, where they are off-topic.
I originally crossposted to sci.environment becuse of the Hanson-esque
way I described it for humour. Jay Hanson, a denizen of sci.environment
often takes text out of his web site to make his points, normally of a
style of microbes in a jar or similar. (pirahna in a feeding frenzy, a
family running out of firewood, etc.) To see for yourself, check out his
site http://www.dieoff.com for some entertainment.
The situation of Microsoft bloat and computing power reminded me of one of
his things like microbes in a jar, hence the title.
JS/PL
Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
Bloody Vicking wrote: The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat
growth.
and: This growth of bloat is
>exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
>even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
>My conclusion is you need to take a 'intro to mathematics' class.
My conclusion is that the yeast level of his jug is already critically high.
Bloody Viking
: My conclusion is that the yeast level of his jug is already critically high.
My conclusion is that the brain cell population in your head used up all
the nutrients and are undergoing a die-off.
Bernard B. Yoo
wrote:
[snip]
> We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
> computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
> 18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
> juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
> population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
> discovery.
[snip]
This analogy may be more appropriate than you think. In a jug of
fermenting grape juice, the yeast eventually dies in its own waste,
leaving wine! The waste that MS is leaving behind is a legacy of
broken promises, former allies, and bitter enemies. It is now dying
in its waste. The wine that will be left? An explosion of open
source software.
LShaping
<lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote in message
>715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
><snip>
>theroem. Also Win98 is only a 100 megs more when you install it, Win95
>installed to about 250megs (with alot of stuff) and Win98 installed to about
>350megs (with alot of stuff). So with your math 250X2 =350? I guess it
>must be the NEW math they teach in school. <snip>
Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
LShaping.
"The Internet, another innovative product from Microsoft"
JS/PL
Bernard B. Yoo <yo...@NO-SPAM.ibm.net> wrote in message
BQR22WjxSn3V-p...@slip-32-100-79-130.ca.us.ibm.net...
I thought the yeast died because it ran out of sugar (food).
j
JS/PL
>In sci.environment JS/PL <wauseon.@stopat.com> wrote:
>
>: My conclusion is that the yeast level of his jug is already critically
high.
>
>My conclusion is that the brain cell population in your head used up all
>the nutrients and are undergoing a die-off.
"Undergoing a die-off" is that another scientific term?
j
LShaping
wrote:
><snip>
>We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
>computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
>18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
>juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
>population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
>discovery. <snip>
A minimal install of Windows 95 = 30 megabytes.
A minimal install of Windows 98 = 143 megabytes.
(I just now proved this.)
Boris
Boris
Mark Nixon /PMF
>And you are exactly like an asshole.
Are you Vic Healey on 'ludes?
>Boris
Mark Nixon
Un montrealais living in Denmark
thatoneoldguy
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:05:56, Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
> > computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
> > 18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
> > juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
> > population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
> > discovery.
>
> This analogy may be more appropriate than you think. In a jug of
> fermenting grape juice, the yeast eventually dies in its own waste,
> leaving wine! The waste that MS is leaving behind is a legacy of
> broken promises, former allies, and bitter enemies. It is now dying
> in its waste. The wine that will be left? An explosion of open
> source software.
Except that when the yeast kills itself by eating all the sugar and
creating large quantities of waste it's vinegar, which might give your
analogy even one more apropos twist.
--
-Mike List
Jack Troughton
wrote:
> And you are exactly like an asshole.
>
> Boris
>
>
Well, we all know that Boris gets a close up view of many an asshole,
so I guess he knows what he's talking about.
Jack Troughton ICQ:7494149
http://207.96.209.68:8000/
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jaft at adan.kingston.net
Montréal PQ Canada
Jeff Kay
> In sci.environment Brian Richards <bri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> : Have you looked at how large programs like SmartSuite are?
>
> Yep, that's my whole point. No matter how much disk space we have, it
> _WILL_ be filled up, resulting in piss-poor performance. Just like the
> fermenting jug of grape juice.
>
> --
> CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
>
> 3222839 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
I doubt they're like fermenting grape juice since it would eventually turn
into something very nice..... wine. Dont see anything nice ( OS wise ) that
would suggest they they are improving with age.
:-)
Quantum Leaper
LShaping <NoS...@flash.net> wrote in message
363bb489...@news.flash.net...
>
>><snip>
>>theroem. Also Win98 is only a 100 megs more when you install it, Win95
>>installed to about 250megs (with alot of stuff) and Win98 installed to
about
>>350megs (with alot of stuff). So with your math 250X2 =350? I guess it
>>must be the NEW math they teach in school. <snip>
>
>Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
>LShaping.
>
installed Win95. So I believe Win95 took the other 250 megs was reasonable.
You call everything BS, LShaping, even when you have no idea what the your
taking about. I did do a custom install, but I kept most of the stuff it
wanted to install and I even added some extra stuff. I have seen Win95
installed with Netscape (not much else) on a 100 meg HD with compression.
Quantum Leaper
>On 28 Oct 1998 02:05:56 GMT, Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com>
>wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
>>computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
>>18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
>>juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
>>population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the
Danish
>>discovery. <snip>
>
>A minimal install of Windows 98 = 143 megabytes.
>(I just now proved this.)
>LShaping.
>
megs.
Earl Malmrose
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:06:45 -0600, "Quantum Leaper"
><lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote in message
>>715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
>><snip>
>>theroem. Also Win98 is only a 100 megs more when you install it, Win95
>>installed to about 250megs (with alot of stuff) and Win98 installed to
about
>>350megs (with alot of stuff). So with your math 250X2 =350? I guess it
>>must be the NEW math they teach in school. <snip>
>
>Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
Why? Win95 contains about 80 megs of compressed .cabs. Installing everything
you could should be under 250 megs easily.
JS/PL
Earl Malmrose <earl.m...@nospam.sierra.com> wrote in message
717lc7$601$1...@plo.sierra.com...
Kenneth Cramer
> >In sci.environment JS/PL <wauseon.@stopat.com> wrote:
> >
> >: My conclusion is that the yeast level of his jug is already critically
> high.
> >
> >My conclusion is that the brain cell population in your head used up all
> >the nutrients and are undergoing a die-off.
>
> "Undergoing a die-off" is that another scientific term?
>
> j
Am Not!!
Are Too!!
Am Not!!
Are Too!!
My dad can beat up your dad!
Can not!
Can too!
.
.
.
This is getting a little childish isn't it?
Kenneth Cramer
> >
> >A scientish in Denmark discovered how to use a scanning tunneling
> >microscope to cause one atom to hold a bit of data. Theoretically, a
> >single chip could hold a million CD-ROMs worth of data, 660 terabytes!
> >
> discovery, either way.
>
> >think again. A mere 10 years ago, nobody would ever think we'd have PCs as
> >powerful as an early Cray, but barely usable for word processing.
> >
> unlike PCs, Macs, etc. with 90% of the cpu time going to make the computer
> responsive to the user.
>
> >computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
> >18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
> >juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
> >population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the Danish
> >discovery.
> >
> months, which has been true for the last 20 years or so. Moore and other
> state that it may continue for another 50 years or more. The number of
> transistor doesn't directly relate to speed of the CPU. If you double the
> transistors, you may only get 1.5 times the speed or 4 times the speed,
> depends on how they design the chip. My PII 400 is about 8 times as fast as
> my P75, which should be only 4 times differnece (18 months X2), using your
> installed to about 250megs (with alot of stuff) and Win98 installed to about
> 350megs (with alot of stuff). So with your math 250X2 =350? I guess it
> must be the NEW math they teach in school.
Linux can install the complete OS, plus all the source code in less than
300 meg.
> >It turns out that if you know the doubling rate of a bacterium, like the
> >yeast, you can calculate the time an entire jug will finish fermenting, no
> >matter the size. Just as a brewer knows the doubling rate of the yeast, we
> >know the doubling rate of MS-Bloat(tm). The doubling rate of MS-Bloat is
> >18 months.
> >
> MS doesn't double its OS size every 18 months, if it did you would need
> almost a 1gig to install Win98, considering Win95 install in 250 megs and 3
> year difference. Also the size the HDs have more than doubled in that
> time, my P75 had 700 meg HD (one of the bigger HD, available), my new PII
> 400 has a 6.4 gig HD (it wasn't even close to the biggest). Both were
> within a reasonable cost, yes I know you can buy 18G HDs, and quite big
> ones 3 years ago.
Does each release at least double the system requirments? I would bet
that it does.
Also, I don't really consider win 98 a new release. It's win95 with a
little makeup.
> >The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
> >million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
> >doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
> >more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
> >exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
> >even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
> >
> Windows 95 and Windows 98 both fill ONE CD, if you thereom was correct, you
> would need 4 CD to fit Windows 98, with a 3 years difference. (1X2 first
> 18 months - 2X2 second 18 months = 4 CDs)
You just said that moores law has nothing to do with mass storage,
rather with the number of transistors.
> >The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat growth.
>
> My conclusion is you need to take a 'intro to mathematics' class.
Although win 95, and win98 have only 100 megs difference (a lot
considering that yo can run a decent linux installation off of a zip
disk), what seems to more that double every 18 months with winblows is
the amount of system resources. With win 3.1, I had 16 megs of ram.
This was just after win95 came out. This was twice as much as was
generally needed. Now just to run most software you need at least 32
megs ram. Three years later, Win 95 on a PII 400 with 32 megs is slower
than a P90 with 16 megs running win 3.1
Sorry if you don't like simplicity, but it is a fact that Microsoft
products actually expand the required memory faster than the 18 month
doubling rate. Apparently some people feel the need to support
microsoft despite all rationality.
An operating system that takes up 250 or 350 megs with a standard
install is BLOATED. I just redid my linux installaton. I installed far
more than I needed. There were something like 300 megs used. I have 5
or 6 window managers, about four email programs, several games, and even
netscape communicator 4.0(something). I installed nearly everything.
That barely beat win 98 as far as space, and I got far far more than
anyone ever gets with win 98.
If you can't install the entire OS in under 100 megs it's bloated. If
you can't run the os usably in under ten, it's bloated.
If I need to have the latest and most expensive hardware to use your os,
it's unacceptable. Linux with X can run acceptably well on a 386 with 8
or so megs of ram. I have heard of it happening with far less, but it's
a little nasty. Can win 98 do that? Not hardly.
Microsoft is by far the greatest offender of bloat. One of the only
reasons linux gets so big is because it no only gives you the entire OS,
but it gives you the source code for the enire OS. Let' see MS do that.
They won't not because they are afraid that someone will copy their
code, that's not that difficult anyway, but because they are afraid that
someone may actually recognize where their code came from. I think that
it would be very interesting to compare microsoft source code with
several amazingly similar products.
If the code were well written, and followed certian standards for the
entire OS, the whole thing should install in half of what it does, and
run twice as fast. Since each little piece seems to follow it's own
standard, mothing works well together.
How do you get off saying that it isn't MS causing the bloat? MS is
nearly a monopoly in the PC market. Over 90% of the computers out there
have loose 95 installed, Who else could cause the OS bloat. Can't blame
Linux, it can run from a zip disk. Can't blame apple, the mac isnt a
PC.
As far as I can tell you are defending MS without even thinking about
what you are saying.
Kenneth Cramer
> Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
I hadn't thought of this. I just checked the c:\windows directory, and
that alone takes up almost 400 meg. The other crap scattered arount the
hard drive by wincrap likely push it over 500. I posted earlier
assuming that the 250 (already far too much) was correct, but now I'd be
willing to bet that the total is closer to 500.
Maybe the minimum install is 250? that sounds more like it.
russell martin
> An operating system that takes up 250 or 350 megs with a standard
> install is BLOATED. I just redid my linux installaton. I installed far
> more than I needed. There were something like 300 megs used. I have 5
> or 6 window managers, about four email programs, several games, and even
> netscape communicator 4.0(something). I installed nearly everything.
> That barely beat win 98 as far as space, and I got far far more than
> anyone ever gets with win 98.
>
> If you can't install the entire OS in under 100 megs it's bloated. If
> you can't run the os usably in under ten, it's bloated.
>
> If I need to have the latest and most expensive hardware to use your os,
> it's unacceptable. Linux with X can run acceptably well on a 386 with 8
> or so megs of ram. I have heard of it happening with far less, but it's
> a little nasty. Can win 98 do that? Not hardly.
Agreed. I have Coherent running on a 16 MHz 386SX with 4 meg of ram.
It takes up about 10 Meg of drive, and ran ok with 2 meg of ram, but
I needed to upgrade to 4 meg to run some Win 3.1 stuff which is on the
other partition. Granted it is a little dated, but it has never locked up,
unlike Win95, and it shows what can be done. Too bad Mark Williams
got bought out, so I've heard.
> Microsoft is by far the greatest offender of bloat. One of the only
> reasons linux gets so big is because it no only gives you the entire OS,
> but it gives you the source code for the enire OS. Let' see MS do that.
> They won't not because they are afraid that someone will copy their
> code, that's not that difficult anyway, but because they are afraid that
> someone may actually recognize where their code came from. I think that
> it would be very interesting to compare microsoft source code with
> several amazingly similar products.
>
> If the code were well written, and followed certian standards for the
> entire OS, the whole thing should install in half of what it does, and
> run twice as fast. Since each little piece seems to follow it's own
> standard, mothing works well together.
>
> How do you get off saying that it isn't MS causing the bloat? MS is
> nearly a monopoly in the PC market. Over 90% of the computers out there
> have loose 95 installed, Who else could cause the OS bloat. Can't blame
> Linux, it can run from a zip disk. Can't blame apple, the mac isnt a
> PC.
>
> As far as I can tell you are defending MS without even thinking about
> what you are saying.
Regards,
Russell Martin
Kenneth Cramer
Pinochet
Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3637666B...@isu.edu>...
>LShaping wrote:
>> Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
>I hadn't thought of this. I just checked the c:\windows directory, and
>that alone takes up almost 400 meg. The other crap scattered >arount the
hard drive by wincrap likely push it over 500. I posted >earlier assuming
that the 250 (already far too much) was correct, >but now I'd be willing to
bet that the total is closer to 500.
I'm sorry, but do you realize that there is more in the Windows directory
than just what the OS needs to run?? Even on average, it isn't. Now I
can't say how much of it is extra stuff(such as temp files,
stuff for other software, and even fonts), without looking at the contents,
but I can say it's not likely to be an accurate picture.
>Maybe the minimum install is 250? that sounds more like it.
No, it isn't.
TERENCE MURPHY
Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>A million is about 2 raised to the power of 24.
Sheesh. If raving and irrational Microsoft hatred wasn't enough,
this guy can't even do math. I think any one with a even a small
mattering of computer experience would not have made this error
(20 and 24 being some of the more important powers of two).
Regards,
Terry Murphy
Earl Malmrose
>LShaping wrote:
>
>> Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
>
>I hadn't thought of this. I just checked the c:\windows directory, and
>that alone takes up almost 400 meg. The other crap scattered arount the
>hard drive by wincrap likely push it over 500. I posted earlier
>assuming that the 250 (already far too much) was correct, but now I'd be
>willing to bet that the total is closer to 500.
>
You should check what is taking up that space. Might you have a couple
hundred megs dedicated to a swap file in there? Might you have put a bunch
of stuff in there that isn't part of Win95 (any items on the desktop are
inside the windows folder). Win95 alone cannot take up 500 megs. There just
isn't enough space in the installer's files to take up that much space.
BobO
wrote:
|The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
|million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
|doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
|more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
|exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
|even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
|
|The conclusion is that Microsoft must stop bloat growth.
|
So who do you figure will be the privileged party that gets to run the
only running copy of the "univeral" word processor? One thing for sure
it won't need backwards file compatibility. Perhaps that is why MS so
doggedly stays with this model, it is inevitable in the end.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Jeff Read
> I doubt they're like fermenting grape juice since it would eventually turn
> into something very nice..... wine. Dont see anything nice ( OS wise ) that
> would suggest they they are improving with age.
Unix seems to get better with age. :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft!
Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU!
All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stone
> In article <715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com>,
> Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>
> >A million is about 2 raised to the power of 24.
>
> Sheesh. If raving and irrational Microsoft hatred wasn't enough,
> this guy can't even do math. I think any one with a even a small
> mattering of computer experience would not have made this error
> (20 and 24 being some of the more important powers of two).
He said "about 2", you dimwit!
Do the numbers, if you can:
X ^24 = 1,000,000
Can you solve for X?
You will surely find that it is "about 2"...
Colin Day
Actually, Windows whatever might ferment int WINE :-).
Bill Frisbee
68mb TOTAL not including the swap file
RedHat 5.1 with Xwindows with most of the same stuff as running under Win98
62mb TOTAL not including the swap partition
Bill F.
LShaping wrote in message <3637d9a...@news.flash.net>...
>On 28 Oct 1998 02:05:56 GMT, Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com>
>wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>We all know that computing power doubles every 18 months, yet our
>>computers aren't one bit faster as Microsoft has doubled the bloat every
>>18 months to compensate! What we have is equivalent to a jug of grape
>>juice that doubles in size at the same rate as yeast doubles it's
>>population. Obviously, there's got to be a limit. That limit is the
Danish
>>discovery. <snip>
>
>A minimal install of Windows 95 = 30 megabytes.
>A minimal install of Windows 98 = 143 megabytes.
>(I just now proved this.)
>LShaping.
>
>
>
TERENCE MURPHY
>TERENCE MURPHY wrote:
>
>> In article <715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com>,
>> Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A million is about 2 raised to the power of 24.
>>
>> Sheesh. If raving and irrational Microsoft hatred wasn't enough,
>> this guy can't even do math. I think any one with a even a small
>> mattering of computer experience would not have made this error
>> (20 and 24 being some of the more important powers of two).
>
>He said "about 2", you dimwit!
Nope. He said "about (2 raised to the power of 24)". It is clear
that he was trying to make a point about the effects of doubling
(i.e. exactly 2) would lead to code being -about- 1,000,000 times
as bloated in 24 years. The approximate variable was the million,
not the two.
Regards,
Terry Murphy
Steve Turner
>
> And you are exactly like an asshole.
>
> Boris
Keep taking the pills Borris!
Steve Turner
>
[snip]
The only problem with this analogy is that most fermented grape juice
(wine) dosn't leave a bad taste in my mouth :-)
Steve
Con Tiki
thx.
je...@dementia.mishnet
> More like Ginger beer - it will blow it's self up sooner or later.
>thx.
Ginger beer is explosive? I had no idea...
Is the same true for root beer and sarsparilla too? '-)
--
Unix had startmenus and tasbars before Microsoft |||
even had a decent memory manager for DOS. / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Kinkster
<con-ti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> More like Ginger beer - it will blow it's self up sooner or later.
>thx.
Hopefully Gates' propensity to own and control everything software
related will be his undoing. I'd like to be able to understand his
mindset, he's worth 50 _BILLION_ dollars +/- but yet the way he runs
m$ you'd think he was near broke at the end of the month waiting for
his social security check to arrive.
Kenneth Cramer
>
> Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3637666B...@isu.edu>...
> >LShaping wrote:
>
> >> Your Windows 95 took up 250 meg? Bullshit.
>
> >I hadn't thought of this. I just checked the c:\windows directory, and
> >that alone takes up almost 400 meg. The other crap scattered >arount the
> hard drive by wincrap likely push it over 500. I posted >earlier assuming
> that the 250 (already far too much) was correct, >but now I'd be willing to
> bet that the total is closer to 500.
>
> than just what the OS needs to run?? Even on average, it isn't. Now I
> can't say how much of it is extra stuff(such as temp files,
> stuff for other software, and even fonts), without looking at the contents,
> but I can say it's not likely to be an accurate picture.
>
>
You are probably right on this point. Since I only access the internet
or the usenet from work (Where I have 100mbps ether) I am unable to
check on what the typical instillation is. If something goes wrong with
a machine, rather than fix it, we just restore it from the network.
Anything special you want to save goes in network space. Of course if
something needs to change the registry, you're screwed, since the
registry is restored each time someone loggs in.
JS/PL
Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3639E26E...@isu.edu>...
Funny that this article should be posted today as I just set up a new system
for my kid
Here's what a one day old machine has in the win directory: Not that it
matters because a fragmented HD will slow a system down much MUCH more than
the amount of data on the HD will. (which was the original topic of
conversation) The system came with over 1GB worth of installed programs and
is lightening quick. After the HD gets fragmented it will slow down which is
easilly fixable with a few clicks.
Volume in drive C has no label
Volume Serial Number is 322E-10F7
Directory of C:\WINDOWS
. <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a .
.. <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a ..
OPTIONS <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a OPTIONS
1STBOOT BMP 1,518 05-12-98 3:01a 1STBOOT.BMP
FPEXPLOR INI 698 10-30-98 11:09a FPEXPLOR.INI
ADDLFNPR REG 115 05-07-98 3:01a ADDLFNPR.REG
ASD EXE 61,440 05-12-98 3:01a ASD.EXE
ASPI2HLP SYS 1,105 05-12-98 3:01a ASPI2HLP.SYS
BACKGRND GIF 103,582 05-12-98 3:01a BACKGRND.GIF
CIRCLES BMP 190 05-12-98 3:01a Circles.bmp
CALC EXE 94,208 05-12-98 3:01a CALC.EXE
CATROOT <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a CATROOT
CDPLAYER EXE 106,496 05-12-98 3:01a CDPLAYER.EXE
CHARMAP EXE 17,408 05-12-98 3:01a CHARMAP.EXE
DOSSTART BAT 246 08-29-98 12:48p DOSSTART.BAT
CLEANMGR EXE 131,072 05-12-98 3:01a CLEANMGR.EXE
CLIPBRD EXE 18,432 05-12-98 3:01a CLIPBRD.EXE
CLOUD GIF 11,306 05-12-98 3:01a CLOUD.GIF
WAVEMIX INI 54 10-30-98 10:44a WAVEMIX.INI
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
CLSPACK EXE 53,248 05-12-98 3:01a CLSPACK.EXE
CMD640X SYS 24,626 05-12-98 3:01a CMD640X.SYS
CMD640X2 SYS 20,901 05-12-98 3:01a CMD640X2.SYS
COMMAND <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a COMMAND
COMMAND COM 93,880 05-12-98 3:01a COMMAND.COM
CONFDENT CPE 4,357 05-12-98 3:01a CONFDENT.CPE
CONFIG <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a CONFIG
CONFIG TXT 17,468 05-12-98 3:01a CONFIG.TXT
CONTENT GIF 248 05-12-98 3:01a CONTENT.GIF
CONTROL EXE 2,112 05-12-98 3:01a CONTROL.EXE
CONTROL INI 833 05-15-98 4:13p CONTROL.INI
CURSORS <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a CURSORS
CVT1 EXE 114,688 05-12-98 3:01a CVT1.EXE
CVTAPLOG EXE 77,824 05-12-98 3:01a CVTAPLOG.EXE
DBLBUFF SYS 2,614 07-08-98 3:57p DBLBUFF.SYS
DEFAULT BMP 2,359,352 11-26-97 12:35a DEFAULT.BMP
TELEPHON INI 225 08-29-98 11:11a TELEPHON.INI
DEFRAG EXE 253,952 05-12-98 3:01a DEFRAG.EXE
DIALER EXE 63,240 05-12-98 3:01a DIALER.EXE
DISPLAY TXT 20,045 05-12-98 3:01a DISPLAY.TXT
POWERPNT INI 60 10-30-98 10:44a POWERPNT.INI
DOSPRMPT PIF 545 05-12-98 3:01a DOSPRMPT.PIF
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
DOSREP EXE 89,147 05-12-98 3:01a DOSREP.EXE
DOSREP INI 865 05-12-98 3:01a DOSREP.INI
MSIMGSIZ DAT 16,384 10-30-98 10:29a MSIMGSIZ.DAT
DRVSPACE EXE 404,880 05-12-98 3:01a DRVSPACE.EXE
DRVSPACE INF 1,121 05-12-98 3:01a DRVSPACE.INF
DRWATSON <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a DRWATSON
DRWATSON EXE 139,264 05-12-98 3:01a DRWATSON.EXE
WEPUTIL DLL 19,200 08-29-98 11:15a WEPUTIL.DLL
EMM386 EXE 125,495 05-12-98 3:01a EMM386.EXE
NDISLOG TXT 0 10-30-98 10:44a NDISLOG.TXT
EXPLORER EXE 180,224 05-12-98 3:01a EXPLORER.EXE
EXPLORER SCF 80 05-12-98 3:01a EXPLORER.SCF
EXTRAC32 EXE 103,424 05-12-98 3:01a EXTRAC32.EXE
FAQ TXT 12,285 05-12-98 3:01a FAQ.TXT
FONTVIEW EXE 49,152 05-12-98 3:01a FONTVIEW.EXE
SYSTEM INI 2,050 10-30-98 11:21a SYSTEM.INI
FPXPRESS INI 68 08-29-98 11:14a FPXPRESS.INI
FREECELL EXE 28,576 05-12-98 3:01a FREECELL.EXE
FYI CPE 4,473 05-12-98 3:01a FYI.CPE
VBRUN100 DLL 271,264 08-29-98 11:15a VBRUN100.DLL
GENERAL TXT 39,907 05-12-98 3:01a GENERAL.TXT
GENERIC CPE 5,935 05-12-98 3:01a GENERIC.CPE
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
GRPCONV EXE 49,152 05-12-98 3:01a GRPCONV.EXE
GOCSERVE EXE 10,240 08-29-98 11:15a GOCSERVE.EXE
HARDWARE TXT 39,527 05-12-98 3:01a HARDWARE.TXT
HELP <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a HELP
HH EXE 40,960 05-12-98 3:01a HH.EXE
HIDCI DLL 3,216 05-15-98 4:12p HIDCI.DLL
HIMEM SYS 33,191 05-12-98 3:01a HIMEM.SYS
HLPBELL GIF 1,407 05-12-98 3:01a HLPBELL.GIF
HLPCD GIF 1,492 05-12-98 3:01a HLPCD.GIF
HLPGLOBE GIF 1,603 05-12-98 3:01a HLPGLOBE.GIF
HLPLOGO GIF 1,185 05-12-98 3:01a HLPLOGO.GIF
HLPSTEP1 GIF 1,107 05-12-98 3:01a HLPSTEP1.GIF
HLPSTEP2 GIF 1,154 05-12-98 3:01a HLPSTEP2.GIF
HLPSTEP3 GIF 1,249 05-12-98 3:01a HLPSTEP3.GIF
I21R25_E EXE 1,751,821 08-29-98 11:15a I21R25_E.EXE
HTMLHELP HTM 520 05-12-98 3:01a HTMLHELP.HTM
HTMLHELP INI 3,550 05-12-98 3:01a HTMLHELP.INI
HWINFO EXE 110,592 05-12-98 3:01a HWINFO.EXE
IFSHLP SYS 3,708 05-12-98 3:01a IFSHLP.SYS
INF <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a INF
IOS INI 12,327 05-12-98 3:01a IOS.INI
JAUTOEXP DAT 6,550 05-12-98 3:01a JAUTOEXP.DAT
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
JAVA <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a JAVA
JVIEW EXE 143,360 05-12-98 3:01a JVIEW.EXE
KODAKIMG EXE 528,384 05-12-98 3:01a KODAKIMG.EXE
KODAKPRV EXE 114,688 05-12-98 3:01a KODAKPRV.EXE
LICENSE TXT 31,149 05-12-98 3:01a LICENSE.TXT
LOGOS SYS 129,078 05-12-98 3:01a LOGOS.SYS
LOGOW SYS 129,080 05-12-98 3:01a LOGOW.SYS
MEDIA <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a MEDIA
INSTALL LOG 107 08-29-98 11:15a INSTALL.LOG
MM2ENT EXE 32,768 05-12-98 3:01a MM2ENT.EXE
MORICONS DLL 84,416 05-12-98 3:01a MORICONS.DLL
MOUSE TXT 5,735 05-12-98 3:01a MOUSE.TXT
MPLAYER EXE 159,744 05-12-98 3:01a MPLAYER.EXE
QUICKEN INI 722 08-29-98 11:17a QUICKEN.INI
MSBATCH INF 5,432 05-15-98 4:02p MSBATCH.INF
MSDOS SYS 1,646 05-07-98 3:01a MSDOS.SYS
MSDOSDRV TXT 45,488 05-12-98 3:01a MSDOSDRV.TXT
MSHEARTS EXE 122,240 05-12-98 3:01a MSHEARTS.EXE
MSNICON EXE 53,248 05-12-98 3:01a MSNICON.EXE
MSOFFICE INI 26 05-15-98 4:13p MSOFFICE.INI
NDDEAPI DLL 14,032 05-12-98 3:01a NDDEAPI.DLL
NDDENB DLL 10,976 05-12-98 3:01a NDDENB.DLL
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
NETDDE EXE 56,880 05-12-98 3:01a NETDDE.EXE
NETDET INI 7,885 05-12-98 3:01a NETDET.INI
NETWATCH EXE 73,728 05-12-98 3:01a NETWATCH.EXE
NETWORK TXT 34,382 05-12-98 3:01a NETWORK.TXT
NOTEPAD EXE 53,248 05-12-98 3:01a NOTEPAD.EXE
PACKAGER EXE 77,824 05-12-98 3:01a PACKAGER.EXE
PBRUSH EXE 20,480 05-12-98 3:01a PBRUSH.EXE
PIDGEN DLL 27,584 05-15-98 4:04p PIDGEN.DLL
PIDSET EXE 40,960 05-12-98 3:01a PIDSET.EXE
PIF <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a PIF
INTUADS INI 1,061 08-29-98 11:17a INTUADS.INI
PRINTERS TXT 24,555 05-12-98 3:01a PRINTERS.TXT
PROGMAN EXE 113,456 05-12-98 3:01a PROGMAN.EXE
PROGRAMS TXT 47,714 05-12-98 3:01a PROGRAMS.TXT
TILES BMP 578 05-12-98 3:01a Tiles.bmp
QTW INI 564 10-29-98 11:43a QTW.INI
RAMDRIVE SYS 12,663 05-12-98 3:01a RAMDRIVE.SYS
WININIT BAK 651 10-30-98 10:39a WININIT.BAK
README HTM 602 05-12-98 3:01a README.HTM
READM_01 HTZ 541 05-12-98 3:01a READM_01.HTZ
READM_02 HTZ 4,248 05-12-98 3:01a READM_02.HTZ
CWDAUDIO WCM 280 08-29-98 11:18a CWDAUDIO.WCM
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
REGEDIT EXE 118,784 05-07-98 3:01a REGEDIT.EXE
RG2CATDB EXE 40,960 05-12-98 3:01a RG2CATDB.EXE
MSO97 ACL 35,262 08-29-98 11:18a MSO97.ACL
RSRCMTR EXE 32,768 05-12-98 3:01a RSRCMTR.EXE
RUNDLL EXE 4,960 05-12-98 3:01a RUNDLL.EXE
RUNDLL32 EXE 24,576 05-12-98 3:01a RUNDLL32.EXE
RUNHELP CAB 6,325 05-12-98 3:01a RUNHELP.CAB
SAMPLES <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a SAMPLES
ARTGALRY CAG 2 08-29-98 11:18a ARTGALRY.CAG
SCANDSKW EXE 4,896 05-12-98 3:01a SCANDSKW.EXE
SCANREG INI 787 05-12-98 3:01a SCANREG.INI
SCANREGW EXE 86,016 05-12-98 3:01a SCANREGW.EXE
SCRIPT DOC 38,400 05-12-98 3:01a SCRIPT.DOC
SERVICES TXT 352 03-31-98 5:22p SERVICES.TXT
SETDEBUG EXE 53,248 05-12-98 3:01a SETDEBUG.EXE
SETVER EXE 18,939 05-15-98 4:13p SETVER.EXE
SFCSYNC TXT 1,735 05-12-98 3:01a SFCSYNC.TXT
PREFERRE PWL 688 08-29-98 11:21a PREFERRE.PWL
SIGVERIF EXE 131,072 05-12-98 3:01a SIGVERIF.EXE
SMARTDRV EXE 45,379 05-07-98 3:01a SMARTDRV.EXE
SNDREC32 EXE 110,592 05-12-98 3:01a SNDREC32.EXE
SNDVOL32 EXE 69,632 05-12-98 3:01a SNDVOL32.EXE
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
SOL EXE 171,392 05-12-98 3:01a SOL.EXE
UNKNET LOG 38,690 08-29-98 11:22a UNKNET.LOG
SUPPORT TXT 7,166 05-12-98 3:01a SUPPORT.TXT
SYSMON EXE 81,920 05-12-98 3:01a SYSMON.EXE
SYSTEM <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a SYSTEM
SYSTEM CB 86 08-29-98 11:08a SYSTEM.CB
ODBCINST INI 217 08-29-98 11:24a ODBCINST.INI
TEMP <DIR> 08-29-98 10:51a TEMP
SYSTEM32 <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a SYSTEM32
TASKMAN EXE 49,152 05-12-98 3:01a TASKMAN.EXE
TASKMON EXE 28,672 05-12-98 3:01a TASKMON.EXE
TASKS <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a TASKS
ODBC INI 147 08-29-98 11:24a ODBC.INI
TIPS TXT 12,104 05-12-98 3:01a TIPS.TXT
TOUR98 EXE 188,416 05-12-98 3:01a TOUR98.EXE
TUNEUP EXE 110,592 05-12-98 3:01a TUNEUP.EXE
TWAIN DLL 87,392 08-29-98 11:16a TWAIN.DLL
TWAIN_32 DLL 77,312 08-29-98 11:16a TWAIN_32.DLL
TWUNK_16 EXE 48,560 05-12-98 3:01a TWUNK_16.EXE
TWUNK_32 EXE 90,112 05-12-98 3:01a TWUNK_32.EXE
UPWIZUN EXE 57,344 05-12-98 3:01a UPWIZUN.EXE
URGENT CPE 4,345 05-12-98 3:01a URGENT.CPE
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
SWIODBC INI 0 08-29-98 11:24a SWIODBC.INI
USER PWL 728 10-30-98 10:49a USER.PWL
VCMUI EXE 45,056 05-12-98 3:01a VCMUI.EXE
SYSBCKUP <DIR> 08-29-98 11:03a SYSBCKUP
WIN INI 6,647 10-30-98 9:22a WIN.INI
WEB <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a WEB
WELCOME EXE 282,624 05-12-98 3:01a WELCOME.EXE
WIN COM 24,791 05-12-98 3:01a WIN.COM
MSINFO32 INI 0 10-30-98 10:41a MSINFO32.INI
WINFILE EXE 155,424 05-12-98 3:01a WINFILE.EXE
WINHELP EXE 2,416 05-12-98 3:01a WINHELP.EXE
WINHLP32 EXE 319,488 05-12-98 3:01a WINHLP32.EXE
WININIT EXE 41,973 05-12-98 3:01a WININIT.EXE
CYBERTWN ICO 766 11-09-93 2:11p CYBERTWN.ICO
WINLOGO GIF 1,434 05-12-98 3:01a WINLOGO.GIF
WINMINE EXE 24,176 05-12-98 3:01a WINMINE.EXE
WINREP EXE 438,272 05-12-98 3:01a WINREP.EXE
WINUPD ICO 10,134 05-12-98 3:01a WINUPD.ICO
WINVER EXE 3,648 05-12-98 3:01a WINVER.EXE
WRITE EXE 20,480 05-12-98 3:01a WRITE.EXE
WSCRIPT EXE 139,264 05-12-98 3:01a WSCRIPT.EXE
WUPDMGR EXE 65,536 05-12-98 3:01a WUPDMGR.EXE
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
GUS INI 164 01-21-94 11:04a GUS.INI
WIN386 SWP 37,748,736 10-30-98 11:21a WIN386.SWP
WINSOCK DLL 42,368 08-19-96 9:47a WINSOCK.DLL
PROTOCOL INI 120 08-29-98 11:04a PROTOCOL.INI
AIM95 <DIR> 10-30-98 6:49a aim95
PROTOCOL 800 05-11-98 8:01p PROTOCOL
SERVICES 6,007 05-11-98 8:01p SERVICES
SNMPAPI DLL 32,768 05-11-98 8:01p SNMPAPI.DLL
NETWORKS 407 05-11-98 8:01p NETWORKS
FTP EXE 45,056 05-11-98 8:01p FTP.EXE
HOSTS SAM 736 05-11-98 8:01p HOSTS.SAM
LMHOSTS SAM 3,717 05-11-98 8:01p LMHOSTS.SAM
NETSTAT EXE 32,768 05-11-98 8:01p NETSTAT.EXE
PING EXE 28,672 05-11-98 8:01p PING.EXE
ROUTE EXE 32,768 05-11-98 8:01p ROUTE.EXE
TELNET EXE 77,824 05-11-98 8:01p TELNET.EXE
TRACERT EXE 20,480 05-11-98 8:01p TRACERT.EXE
WINIPCFG EXE 53,248 05-11-98 8:01p WINIPCFG.EXE
IPCONFIG EXE 53,248 05-11-98 8:01p IPCONFIG.EXE
NBTSTAT EXE 34,543 05-11-98 8:01p NBTSTAT.EXE
INETMIB1 DLL 53,248 05-11-98 8:01p INETMIB1.DLL
ARP EXE 28,672 05-11-98 8:01p ARP.EXE
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
SHELLNEW <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a ShellNew
MS-DOS~1 PIF 3,181 05-12-98 3:01a MS-DOS Mode for Games.pif
MS-DOS~2 PIF 3,372 05-12-98 3:01a MS-DOS Mode for Games wit
MS Support.pif
STRAWM~1 BMP 590 05-12-98 3:01a Straw Mat.bmp
BUBBLES BMP 2,118 05-12-98 3:01a Bubbles.bmp
CARVED~1 BMP 582 05-12-98 3:01a Carved Stone.bmp
WAVES BMP 190 05-12-98 3:01a Waves.bmp
HOUNDS~1 BMP 470 05-12-98 3:01a Houndstooth.bmp
PINSTR~1 BMP 578 05-12-98 3:01a Pinstripe.bmp
TRIANG~1 BMP 198 05-12-98 3:01a Triangles.bmp
BLUERI~1 BMP 194 05-12-98 3:01a Blue Rivets.bmp
BLACKT~1 BMP 182 05-12-98 3:01a Black Thatch.bmp
SETUP BMP 308,280 05-12-98 3:01a Setup.bmp
REDBLO~1 BMP 2,754 05-12-98 3:01a Red Blocks.bmp
CLOUDS BMP 307,514 05-12-98 3:01a Clouds.bmp
FOREST BMP 66,146 05-12-98 3:01a Forest.bmp
GOLDWE~1 BMP 32,850 05-12-98 3:01a Gold Weave.bmp
METALL~1 BMP 36,182 05-12-98 3:01a Metal Links.bmp
SANDST~1 BMP 32,854 05-12-98 3:01a Sandstone.bmp
STITCHES BMP 4,678 05-12-98 3:01a Stitches.bmp
CHANNE~1 SCR 84,032 05-12-98 3:01a Channel Screen Saver.SCR
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
MSAPPS <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a MsApps
APPLIC~1 <DIR> 08-29-98 10:14a Application Data
ALLUSE~1 <DIR> 08-29-98 11:07a All Users
DESKTOP <DIR> 08-29-98 11:07a Desktop
STARTM~1 <DIR> 08-29-98 11:07a Start Menu
SENDTO <DIR> 08-29-98 11:07a SendTo
SETUP OLD 81 10-30-98 10:44a setup.old
PROGMAN INI 0 08-29-98 11:07a progman.ini
RUNONC~1 TXT 17,843 08-29-98 11:10a RunOnceEx Log.txt
SUBSCR~1 <DIR> 08-29-98 11:09a Subscriptions
FAVORI~1 <DIR> 08-29-98 11:09a Favorites
DEFAULT SF0 70,232 05-12-98 3:01a Default.sf0
DEFAULT SFC 70,246 08-29-98 11:11a Default.sfc
WPLOG TXT 0 08-29-98 11:11a wplog.txt
SCHEDLOG TXT 1,077 10-30-98 10:44a SchedLog.Txt
RUNCD EXE 20,480 08-29-98 11:14a RunCD.exe
OCCACHE <DIR> 08-29-98 11:15a occache
CSERVE INI 148 08-29-98 11:15a CServe.ini
ISUNINST EXE 304,128 08-29-98 11:16a IsUninst.exe
PBINT INI 333 10-30-98 7:01a pbint.ini
SNINFO EXE 49,708 08-29-98 11:15a sninfo.exe
UNWISE EXE 34,864 08-29-98 11:15a unwise.exe
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
PSUITE INI 78 08-29-98 11:16a psuite.ini
WINMINE INI 178 08-29-98 11:16a winmine.ini
INTUIT <DIR> 08-29-98 11:16a Intuit
ICG32 DLL 40,448 08-29-98 11:17a icg32.dll
ICOADB32 DAT 5,776 08-29-98 11:17a icoadb32.dat
INTUPROF INI 18 08-29-98 11:17a intuprof.ini
SUPUNI~1 EXE 30,240 08-29-98 11:17a SupUninst.exe
ARKRADIO INI 4,329 08-29-98 11:18a arkradio.ini
UNTRAINR EXE 75,433 08-29-98 11:21a UnTrainr.exe
UNKNET EXE 103,024 08-29-98 11:22a UNKNET.exe
UNINST ISU 2,200 08-29-98 11:23a Uninst.isu
EZFIX INI 10,240 08-29-98 11:23a ezfix.ini
QRESTORE EXE 31,323 08-29-98 11:23a Qrestore.exe
PROGRESS EXE 6,743 08-29-98 11:23a Progress.exe
EXITTO~1 PIF 967 08-29-98 11:23a Exit To Dos.PIF
AOLUNINS EXE 188,082 08-29-98 11:24a aolunins.exe
USROBO~1 LOG 1,865 10-30-98 10:49a U.S. Robotics 56K Win INT.log
HH DAT 8,630 10-29-98 5:28p hh.dat
IN9810 LOG 49,959 10-30-98 11:28a in9810.log
UNINST EXE 299,520 04-08-97 8:08p uninst.exe
NSREG DAT 29,753 10-30-98 6:47a nsreg.dat
CD32 EXE 634,012 10-20-98 12:32p cd32.exe
Press any key to continue . . .
(continuing C:\WINDOWS)
RAUNINST EXE 76,800 10-30-98 6:47a RAUNINST.exe
INETSE~1 LOG 334 10-30-98 10:43a InetServer_Event.log
TMPDELIS BAT 122 10-30-98 10:34a tmpdelis.bat
FRONTPG INI 555 10-30-98 10:47a frontpg.ini
254 file(s) 54,253,549 bytes
32 dir(s) 933,724,160 bytes free
C:\WINDOWS>
Chris Welch
Isn't it beautiful the way windows doesn't even default to dir /o, much
less the more useful /o/p? Your Win directory is 53 MB. That's nice.
What about the sub dirs?
Colin Day
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3639E26E...@isu.edu>...
> > >Pinochet wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3637666B...@isu.edu>...
> > >> >LShaping wrote:
Forget about the subdirectories, what about the other top-level directories?
Stuff like Program Files, Netcmplt, and Quickenw?
Colin Day cd...@ix.netcom.com
Chris Welch
>
> Chris Welch wrote:
>
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3639E26E...@isu.edu>...
> > > >Pinochet wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Kenneth Cramer wrote in message <3637666B...@isu.edu>...
> > > >> >LShaping wrote:
>
> Stuff like Program Files, Netcmplt, and Quickenw?
>
> Colin Day cd...@ix.netcom.com
throws it up around 4-600MB.
Bloody Viking
: Nope. He said "about (2 raised to the power of 24)". It is clear
: that he was trying to make a point about the effects of doubling
: (i.e. exactly 2) would lead to code being -about- 1,000,000 times
: as bloated in 24 years. The approximate variable was the million,
: not the two.
Yep, you understood perfectly. Classic Jay Hanson and the yeast. The only
point you missed was doubling taking 18 months, not 12. Thus, the
doublings of bloat (like doubling of yeast population) will use up
resources in a definable amount of time, in the computer case with the
Danish chip being 36 years. And in another 18 months the filling of 2 such
chips! Classic exponential growth, a la Jay Hanson and the yeast in the
jug.
Consider this fun thing. Yeast (and most bacteria) takes 20 minutes to
double population. Starting from one yeast cell, it takes 12 hours to make
5 billion yeast cells, enough to max out 2 cubic centimetres of the grape
juice. Extrapolate for the jug of your choice! I found that out on the web
about microbiology, not Jay Hanson's dieoff page. ( http://www.dieoff.com
)
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
3240064 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Con Tiki
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:53:15 +1300, Con Tiki <con-ti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > More like Ginger beer - it will blow it's self up sooner or later.
> >thx.
>
> Ginger beer is explosive? I had no idea...
Yes. The gas expands until the stuff sends the bottle sky high.
>
> Is the same true for root beer and sarsparilla too? '-)
What's a sarsparilla, and what is root beer??
thx.
PS - Who on earth started posting this thread to sci.enviroment ???
>
>
> --
> Unix had startmenus and tasbars before Microsoft |||
> even had a decent memory manager for DOS. / | \
>
> In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
--
"Monkey see, Monkey do."
"OUCH~OUCH~OUCH" >>>>> C/T<<<<
mailto:con-ti...@geocities.com
See: http://www.linux.org
<script language="JavaScript">
if (window.navigator.appName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer") {
location.href = "http://msbc.simplenet.com/ierror"; }
</script>
Mozilla.org - For the good of the code !!!
http://www.netscape.com/download/
Quantum Leaper
Joel Stone <bo...@c-me.com> wrote in message 3638066C...@c-me.com...
>TERENCE MURPHY wrote:
>
>> In article <715u64$lq1$1...@hirame.wwa.com>,
>> Bloody Viking <nos...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A million is about 2 raised to the power of 24.
>>
>> Sheesh. If raving and irrational Microsoft hatred wasn't enough,
>> this guy can't even do math. I think any one with a even a small
>> mattering of computer experience would not have made this error
>> (20 and 24 being some of the more important powers of two).
>
>He said "about 2", you dimwit!
>
>
>X ^24 = 1,000,000
>
>Can you solve for X?
>
>You will surely find that it is "about 2"...
>
You do realize 2^24 is 16 million something, right. So I guess 16 million
is about 1 million, right?
Scott Nudds
: Unix seems to get better with age. :)
Unix is dying.
Market share continues to decline.
This is a <very> good thing.
Chris Welch
Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
Scott Nudds
: I suppose it hasn't occured to you that virtually *EVERY* modern OS in
: existance is relatively large? Most Unix take up at least 80+ megs, OS/2
: will take about the same, BeOS is still rather lite, but it will hork up a
: good chunk of disk space already, as does most everything else.
There is <NO> reason an OS can not be coded to reside in under one
megabyte. One of the primary reasons modern operating systems are large
is because they can be. Little of no effort is put into making them
small. High level languages are used that produce great code blote.
Pinochet
Chris Welch <899...@128.128.92.93> wrote in message
<363DF4CB...@128.128.92.93>...
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>> Unix is dying.
I've been having some monkeys at work on it for a while. I think they're
almost done. If not, who cares? It won't be any less usable.
Shane Steven Sturrock
>Jeff Read (bit...@geocities.com) wrote:
>: Unix seems to get better with age. :)
>
> Unix is dying.
Nice theory, wrong.
>
> Market share continues to decline.
Again, wrong. UNIX is gaining market share faster than NT and already has
more market share to begin with. Doesn't look like a dying system does
it?
> This is a <very> good thing.
Uh huh? Not entirely sure why that would be the case. You might as well
get used to the idea that UNIX will be around for a very long time to come.
--
Dr. Shane Sturrock - s...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk
kernel: Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 529.53 BogoMIPS
Mmmmmmmmmmm :-)
Christopher Browne
Quite a lot of effort has gone into keeping Linux's size from growing
too desparately fast; no doubt the same is true for the various BSDs.
One thing that the increasing footprints buy you is that the kernels
make increasing use of memory cacheing, which reduces I/O and increases
performance. Much of the increases come from increased buffering. On
small machines, it may not be worthwhile; it seems likely that it pays
off with better performance if you have more than about 8MB of RAM.
--
It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows,
`GPF' was better known for its usage in plumbing: "Gallons Per Flush"
-- dedm...@aw.sgi.com (Dean Edmonds)
cbbr...@hex.net- <http//www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
bgInc. - You'll go where we want you to go
> The chip can hold a million CDs of data, and Winblows already fills one. A
> million is about 2 raised to the power of 24. So, it would take 24
> doublings to fill the chip, or 36 years. After that, we'll need to add
> more (or bigger) chips to accomodate the bloat. This growth of bloat is
> exponential, like the above yeast in the jug, but the resource is finite -
> even if you used the entire universe for one chip.
>
bgInc. - his majesty is like a cream donut (loud).
--
Tom O'Toole - tom.o...@jhu.edu
Where do you want to go today..? If it was up your ass you'd know it!
You can hear bgInc. almost any day; singing shovez, shovez, shovez-vous?
'The Internet'... is not a valid Win32 application, bill. Boycott bg shoveware!
Michael Pelletier
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
>Jeff Read (bit...@geocities.com) wrote:
>: Unix seems to get better with age. :)
>
> Unix is dying.
>
>
Except perhaps for Microsoft, who then won't have any source
for new ideas for their crappy operating systems.
-Mike Pelletier.
--
--
"[It will] be very hard to increase browser share on the merits of
[Internet Explorer] alone. It will be more important to leverage
the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."
-- Christian Wildfeuer, a Microsoft Manager
Russell Martin
>
> In article <71jt75$hns$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
> Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
> >Jeff Read (bit...@geocities.com) wrote:
> >: Unix seems to get better with age. :)
> >
> > Unix is dying.
> >
> > Market share continues to decline.
> >
> > This is a <very> good thing.
>
> Except perhaps for Microsoft, who then won't have any source
> for new ideas for their crappy operating systems.
>
Ideas? We don't need no stinkin' ideas! We just need to make the
GUI look different periodically.
> -Mike Pelletier.
> --
> --
> "[It will] be very hard to increase browser share on the merits of
> [Internet Explorer] alone. It will be more important to leverage
> the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."
> -- Christian Wildfeuer, a Microsoft Manager
sci.environment snipped, dispite the argument that the computing
environment is the closest thing to an environment some of us
interact with :-)
Regards,
Russell Martin
Pinochet
Michael Pelletier wrote in message <71o36m$s76$1...@valhalla.comshare.com>...
>Except perhaps for Microsoft, who then won't have any source
>for new ideas for their crappy operating systems.
BeOS
Amiga's
MacOS
There's 3 sources they can steal ideas from.
Richard June
> Brian Richards (bri...@ibm.net) wrote:
> : I suppose it hasn't occured to you that virtually *EVERY* modern OS in
> : existance is relatively large? Most Unix take up at least 80+ megs, OS/2
> : will take about the same, BeOS is still rather lite, but it will hork up a
> : good chunk of disk space already, as does most everything else.
>
> There is <NO> reason an OS can not be coded to reside in under one
> megabyte. One of the primary reasons modern operating systems are large
> is because they can be. Little of no effort is put into making them
> small. High level languages are used that produce great code blote.
waaaiiiit, you just said you were happy UNIX was dying,(uh huh and I'm the
queen of sheba) and now you complain about bloated code??? since you dont' like
UNIX, and judging from your apparent dislike of bloated software you aren't to
found of MS, that must mean you use...... an Amiga? or maybe, a TRS-80? come on
help me out here...
Scott Nudds
: > Unix is dying.
: >
: > Market share continues to decline.
: >
: > This is a <very> good thing.
Chris Welch (899...@128.128.92.93) wrote:
: Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
Anything but Unix.
Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
magnitude larger than Unix.
Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
Today it is 1.7% and falling.
Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
James Cannon
:>
:> In article <71jt75$hns$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
:> Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
:> >Jeff Read (bit...@geocities.com) wrote:
:> >: Unix seems to get better with age. :)
:> > Unix is dying.
:> >
:> > Market share continues to decline.
:> >
:> > This is a <very> good thing.
:> Except perhaps for Microsoft, who then won't have any source
:> for new ideas for their crappy operating systems.
LOL
The final words of an independent software publisher:
"We have formed a strategic alliance with Microsoft."
--
Cheers,
James Cannon
Bangkok, OS/2 User Group
********************************************
email: mailto:can...@mozart.inet.co.th
homepage: http://www.inet.co.th/cyberclub/cannon
-OS/2 emx installation
-Access Internet Thailand with OS/2
********************************************
Allie Martin
wrote:
>: Scott Nudds wrote:
>: > Unix is dying.
>: >
>: > Market share continues to decline.
>: >
>: > This is a <very> good thing.
>
>Chris Welch (899...@128.128.92.93) wrote:
>: Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
>
> Anything but Unix.
>
> Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
>magnitude larger than Unix.
>
> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
>Today it is 1.7% and falling.
>
> Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
Be careful how you interpret those global market share figures. Win95/98 and
Win3.1 are in there. The growth of the computer userbase in general with
most of the new users being Windows based will make the market share of the
other operating systems fall if their userbases remain the same or are even
growing. The latter is true for Unix. The userbase is growing even the it's
global market share is dwindling.
Jim Frost
> >I suppose it hasn't occured to you that virtually *EVERY* modern OS in
> >existance is relatively large? Most Unix take up at least 80+ megs
> Most UNIXes would only be this big if you install a lot of crap. You could
> probably
> install a 10 meg, fairly useful linux.
You are wrong, though I thought so too. I did a minimal Red Hat install a few
months ago; it run around 80M, 110M with swap, and couldn't do much more than
IP routing. Since all I had was a 120M disk I gave up on that.
A reasonably functional Linux install is about 200M (that has all the typical
stuff and dev tools, plenty to be a server, but not a lot of the fancy
end-user GUI stuff). A well-featured one is more than 300M.
>I am also a QNX programmer and that
>is only about a 10 meg install for the lot.
QNX is a way different beast.
jim
Chris Welch
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Unix is dying.
> : >
> : > Market share continues to decline.
> : >
> : > This is a <very> good thing.
>
> Chris Welch (899...@128.128.92.93) wrote:
> : Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
>
> Anything but Unix.
>
> Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
> magnitude larger than Unix.
>
> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
> Today it is 1.7% and falling.
>
> Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
You've yet to say why it is good.
Bob the Sane
<chao...@digiscape.com> wrote:
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>>
>> : Scott Nudds wrote:
>> : > Unix is dying.
>> : >
>> : > Market share continues to decline.
>> : >
>> : > This is a <very> good thing.
>>
>> Chris Welch (899...@128.128.92.93) wrote:
>> : Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
>>
>> Anything but Unix.
>>
>> Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
>> magnitude larger than Unix.
>>
>> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
>> Today it is 1.7% and falling.
>>
Wait a minute, market share for what, desktops? SERVERS? Where the
hell did you pull your figures, out of your ass? Almost all
university systems are STILL unix, and will most likely remain that
way due to NT's lack of security. Most large corporations still use
Unix (at least in some capacity). Most ISPs still run Unix. And now
the desktop market is opening up and GAINING market share. For god's
sake, the Internet itself is still +/- 90% unix.
J.P. Pasnak
The last time I checked, 70% of the _worlds_ database holdings were
stored on IBM Mainframes. What are they running, DOS? :-)
J.P. Pasnak
Founder
Warped Users
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/warpedusers
"What do I care if life ain't fair,
If you look at me real sore.
I've paid my dues and you should too,
as a son-of-a-bitch to the core"
--Hard Core Logo--
Scott Nudds
: Again, wrong. UNIX is gaining market share faster than NT and already has
: more market share to begin with. Doesn't look like a dying system does
: it?
Bahahahah.... Unix has 1.7% of the market in terms of installed
operating systems world wide. NT has something like 17% as of one or two
years ago.
NT is clobbering Unix - for better or worse - and Over the same period.
Unix declined from just over 2% of the market to 1.7% last time I looked.
This is a very good thing.
Shane Sturrock wrote:
: Uh huh? Not entirely sure why that would be the case. You might as well
: get used to the idea that UNIX will be around for a very long time to come.
Undoubtedly. Many people would rather die than accept new and improved
things. We will have to wait for their death.
Scott Nudds
: waaaiiiit, you just said you were happy UNIX was dying,(uh huh and I'm the
: queen of sheba) and now you complain about bloated code??? since you dont' like
: UNIX, and judging from your apparent dislike of bloated software you aren't to
: found of MS, that must mean you use...... an Amiga? or maybe, a TRS-80? come on
: help me out here...
I don't like crap. Hence I don't like Unix. I also not a fan of
Microsoft's efforts. This is not a one or the other situation. Garbage
is garbage.
Jim Frost
> >> Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
> >> magnitude larger than Unix.
> >>
> >> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
> >> Today it is 1.7% and falling.
> >>
> Wait a minute, market share for what, desktops? SERVERS? Where the
> hell did you pull your figures, out of your ass? Almost all
> university systems are STILL unix, and will most likely remain that
> way due to NT's lack of security. Most large corporations still use
> Unix (at least in some capacity). Most ISPs still run Unix. And now
> the desktop market is opening up and GAINING market share. For god's
> sake, the Internet itself is still +/- 90% unix.
Whenever you look at these numbers you have to be real careful of exactly what
market you're talking about. His figures are spot-on if you're talking about
the computing market as a whole; UNIX has lost ground considerably. But then
it never really had very much.
Similarly, UNIX lost ground -- 11% drop in market share -- in the workstation
market, a traditional stronghold, in 1997. This is the first year it didn't
show growth since Sun started shipping workstations. Meanwhile NT's market
share grew by more than 20% in the same market, outpacing the overall market
growth. Only Sun managed to hold their market share in the workstation market
against NT. (These figures are from IDC via UNIX Review nee Performance
Computing.)
But in server systems UNIX is still growing. Then again, so is NT. The big
loser there has been the old proprietary systems (particularly NetWare), but
the market is still growing very fast. That won't last forever though.
The big problem for the traditional UNIX vendors is that proprietary hardware
is going to become a lot rarer over the next few years. Every passing year it
becomes possible to do things with PC-based systems that required larger, more
expensive machines before. Moore's Law suggests that that trend will
continue. Already we've seen casualties from this progression, and the worst
is yet to come: as unit sales of proprietary hardware dwindle their cost of
production will rise due to reduced economies of scale. Furthermore, R&D is
getting more expensive with every generation and that will help accelerate the
trend.
I don't beleive UNIX will die -- Linux provides way too strong a base for
that. But you sure are going to see NT on a lot more servers in the future as
both it and the hardware it runs on matures. A lot of people deny that but,
well, most of those people didn't think NT had a chance in the workstation
market either.
jim
Simon Kinahan
>
> Shane Steven Sturrock (s...@helix.wsn.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> : Again, wrong. UNIX is gaining market share faster than NT and already has
> : more market share to begin with. Doesn't look like a dying system does
> : it?
>
> Bahahahah.... Unix has 1.7% of the market in terms of installed
> operating systems world wide. NT has something like 17% as of one or two
> years ago.
Source ? this seems deeply improbable to me.
Simon
Jim Frost
> > Bahahahah.... Unix has 1.7% of the market in terms of installed
> > operating systems world wide. NT has something like 17% as of one or two
> > years ago.
>
> Source ? this seems deeply improbable to me.
He's mixing and matching his numbers. 1.7% is of the whole computing market,
while I believe 17% is only the server market. The comparable figure for NT
is circa 5% through 1997. That figure will be a lot bigger after 1998 though.
Also, the UNIX figure he gives is the commercial unit figure. Linux is kind
of screwing up the reliability of that measure.
jim
Bob the Sane
wrote:
>
> Bahahahah.... Unix has 1.7% of the market in terms of installed
>operating systems world wide. NT has something like 17% as of one or two
>years ago.
>
> NT is clobbering Unix - for better or worse - and Over the same period.
>Unix declined from just over 2% of the market to 1.7% last time I looked.
>
> This is a very good thing.
Ignore him, guys. He's just a troll. His numbers are made up out of
thin air, and he's looking to start an argument.
Can you say moron? I knew you could.
BobO
|I don't beleive UNIX will die -- Linux provides way too strong a base for
|that. But you sure are going to see NT on a lot more servers in the future as
|both it and the hardware it runs on matures. A lot of people deny that but,
|well, most of those people didn't think NT had a chance in the workstation
|market either.
|
Really? You mean that indeed all those Dataquest polls were actually
phonies?
It sure seemed to me that the MS hype machine had most people believing
it would do far more than it has done by a huge margin. My memory is
sketchy but I think they had NT on 40% of all computers by now with
practically a complete replacement of Unix. When you look at who was
closer to being correct on this it was even the most strident of OS/2
advocates that were far closer to the actual outcome than the most
strident of NT advocates.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Toon Moene
> I don't beleive UNIX will die -- Linux provides way too strong a base for
> that. But you sure are going to see NT on a lot more servers in the future
as
> both it and the hardware it runs on matures.
Sure - it showed up half a year ago in our quarters too. The main problem to
be solved was that we needed a server to fill in the travel expenses forms
that foolishly weren't Web based, but developed for MS OS's.
Of course, shortly after its introduction it was off the air for about a week
to seek and destroy a virus that was inadvertently introduced by one of my
co-workers bringing in a floppy from a befriended Institute.
--
Toon Moene (mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: mailto:for...@gnu.org; egcs: mailto:egcs...@cygnus.com
Clancy Dalebout
Organization: Aracnet Internet
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Frost <ji...@frostbytes.com> wrote:
> Bob the Sane wrote:
>> >> Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
>> >> magnitude larger than Unix.
>> >>
>> >> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
>> >> Today it is 1.7% and falling.
>> >>
>> Wait a minute, market share for what, desktops? SERVERS? Where the
>> hell did you pull your figures, out of your ass? Almost all
>> university systems are STILL unix, and will most likely remain that
>> way due to NT's lack of security. Most large corporations still use
>> Unix (at least in some capacity). Most ISPs still run Unix. And now
>> the desktop market is opening up and GAINING market share. For god's
>> sake, the Internet itself is still +/- 90% unix.
> Whenever you look at these numbers you have to be real careful of exactly
> what
> market you're talking about. His figures are spot-on if you're talking about
> the computing market as a whole; UNIX has lost ground considerably. But then
> it never really had very much.
Does the computing market as a whole count my Teddy Ruxpin and Talking
Barney? That may give Microsoft a significant boost.
> Similarly, UNIX lost ground -- 11% drop in market share -- in the workstation
> market, a traditional stronghold, in 1997. This is the first year it didn't
> show growth since Sun started shipping workstations. Meanwhile NT's market
> share grew by more than 20% in the same market, outpacing the overall market
> growth. Only Sun managed to hold their market share in the workstation market
> against NT. (These figures are from IDC via UNIX Review nee Performance
> Computing.)
I've seen the IDC report. Just because MS calls one version of NT
"Workstation" don't necessarily make it so. Replacing 95 with NT does
not suddenly make a pentium-166 PC "high-end".
> But in server systems UNIX is still growing. Then again, so is NT. The big
> loser there has been the old proprietary systems (particularly NetWare), but
> the market is still growing very fast. That won't last forever though.
> The big problem for the traditional UNIX vendors is that proprietary hardware
> is going to become a lot rarer over the next few years. Every passing year it
> becomes possible to do things with PC-based systems that required larger, more
> expensive machines before. Moore's Law suggests that that trend will
> continue. Already we've seen casualties from this progression, and the worst
> is yet to come: as unit sales of proprietary hardware dwindle their cost of
> production will rise due to reduced economies of scale. Furthermore, R&D is
> getting more expensive with every generation and that will help accelerate the
> trend.
Sun is moving away from their proprietary hardware with the Darwin,
abandoning sbus in favor of PCI, meaning I can use a Millennium II
with it. I hope that trend (if you can call it that) continues.
> I don't beleive UNIX will die -- Linux provides way too strong a base for
> that. But you sure are going to see NT on a lot more servers in the future as
> both it and the hardware it runs on matures. A lot of people deny that but,
> well, most of those people didn't think NT had a chance in the workstation
> market either.
Anyone want to debate wether Linux "commodotizes" processors?
I think this is the first time in my life I've had the opportunity
to have my choice of processors without changing my OS. (keeping in mind
I don't have $1200 to spend on NT).
--
Clancy Dalebout | xmsho@!spam!nein!yahoo.com
"With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears."
-- Henry Kissinger
"Tactical nukes? We don't need no stinkin' tactical nukes!" -- Larry Wall
Steve Mading
: Shane Steven Sturrock (s...@helix.wsn.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Again, wrong. UNIX is gaining market share faster than NT and already has
: : more market share to begin with. Doesn't look like a dying system does
: : it?
: Bahahahah.... Unix has 1.7% of the market in terms of installed
: operating systems world wide. NT has something like 17% as of one or two
: years ago.
:
: NT is clobbering Unix - for better or worse - and Over the same period.
: Unix declined from just over 2% of the market to 1.7% last time I looked.
: This is a very good thing.
Those figures only come out that way if you choose as your "market", all
computers ever sold. If you narrow the market to just large servers,
NT isn't a major force. While Unix has a small percentage, that
percentage is concentrated at the higher end. It's like looking at
the ratio of passenger cars to Semi-trucks and concluding that semi-trucks
must be useless because there are so few of them compared to cars.
Plus, your figure is not taking into account Linux, which is impossible
to really count.
: Shane Sturrock wrote:
: : Uh huh? Not entirely sure why that would be the case. You might as well
: : get used to the idea that UNIX will be around for a very long time to come.
: Undoubtedly. Many people would rather die than accept new and improved
: things. We will have to wait for their death.
I would rather die than accept the propaganda that NT is new and improved
compared to Unix. It isn't. Compared what most Windows users are used
to it is a great improvement, but that's not saying much.
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
Jim Frost
> |I don't beleive UNIX will die -- Linux provides way too strong a base for
> |that. But you sure are going to see NT on a lot more servers in the future as
> |both it and the hardware it runs on matures. A lot of people deny that but,
> |well, most of those people didn't think NT had a chance in the workstation
> |market either.
>
> phonies?
>
> It sure seemed to me that the MS hype machine had most people believing
> it would do far more than it has done by a huge margin. My memory is
> sketchy but I think they had NT on 40% of all computers by now with
> practically a complete replacement of Unix.
Let me tell you something about those analyses. First, they're paid for by
the vendors, they're in no way shape or form an objective view of the market.
The only reliable data you'll get out of those companies is historical.
Want to know what I thought? It's online at
http://world.std.com/~jimf/papers/nt-unix/nt-unix.html. That's an article I
wrote for SunExpert in June 1995.
Snipped from the conclusion:
-- cut here --
Because of these limitations NT will probably not have any effect whatsoever
on the UNIX server market in the near future. While
NT has excellent file server capabilities it does not support the wide array
of midrange and high-end hardware UNIX customers
have become accustomed to, and the lack of distributed graphics cripples its
usefulness as a compute server.
Its near-term prospects as a desktop workstation are a bit better. The lack of
X11 and NFS support on NT is easily corrected using
relatively inexpensive (and in some cases free) software, and a great many
applications traditionally found on UNIX workstations
have already migrated to NT. This makes the replacement of desktop UNIX
systems with NT feasible, and the low cost of PC
hardware and the dramatically simpler management of NT systems makes it worth
consideration.
Will NT be on your desktop soon? Probably not, but it will almost certainly
find its way into many organizations in increasing numbers
over the next few years. It's not UNIX, but it's a lot better than most of us
expected from Microsoft.
-- cut here --
Now, as I saw how Microsoft pushed Win95 into the market, I realized that they
could seriously leverage the preload channel to push NT out. I considerably
incraesed my guess, as stated in a posting in this newsgroup:
-- cut here --
From: ji...@world.std.com (jim frost)
Subject: Re: DATAPRO say UNIX up 8%, NT declines through year 2000
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:21:41 GMT
her...@vivilo.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann) writes:
>While NT grew a lot last year (>100% I believe) its overall size was less
>then the groth of the UNIX market in absolute terms, in relative terms
>things always look differently..
NT's growth exceeded that of UNIX growth, both in absolute terms, by a
factor of just under two in 1995. In relative terms (percentage
growth of each relative to their current markets) it was a factor of
between five and ten, depending on whose numbers you believe. NT's
total market size exceeded UNIX' unit growth by a factor of about
three, quite the contrary to your statement. UNIX still holds about
four times the market share of NT, but only Sun's market share exceeds
that of NT at this point and that will not hold through 1996 even if
NT's unit growth slows dramatically (currently it's speeding up).
Even so, these numbers are still very small potatos to the market, and
it's not likely 1996 is going to be a spectacular year for NT compared
to anything but UNIX. The year to watch is 1997 as Microsoft tries to
take NT mainstream through preloading and price cutting. My guess,
assuming NT 4.0 ships by the end of 1996, is 15-20M units in 1997,
with only marginal growth in 1998.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
-- cut here --
Hey, my crystal ball is a bit off, they didn't do an all-out push of NT4.
Even so, they did ~10M units in 1997 without price cutting and with only
marginal amounts of preloading. I thought the market would level off, but I'm
definitely going to be wrong about that.
In contrast, here was a fairly typical statement from an OS/2ite,
nick...@chauvet.com (Nick Marc), from 19 Jan, 1996:
"And we still see NT as a dead operating system beyond 1996."
Well, looks like I underestimated things in 1995, overcorrected in 1996, and
the OS/2 guy was dead wrong.
jim
Jim Frost
> > Similarly, UNIX lost ground -- 11% drop in market share -- in the workstation
> > market, a traditional stronghold, in 1997. This is the first year it didn't
> > show growth since Sun started shipping workstations. Meanwhile NT's market
> > share grew by more than 20% in the same market, outpacing the overall market
> > growth. Only Sun managed to hold their market share in the workstation market
> > against NT. (These figures are from IDC via UNIX Review nee Performance
> > Computing.)
>
> I've seen the IDC report. Just because MS calls one version of NT
> "Workstation" don't necessarily make it so. Replacing 95 with NT does
> not suddenly make a pentium-166 PC "high-end".
They didn't count all NT/W sales as workstations, only a fraction of them. I
don't know how they determined the fraction, maybe by asking vendors. The
P166 comment is stupid -- the P166 machines were shipping in 1995, a year in
which NT didn't make any impact at all against UNIX.
Whether or not you believe that NT/W can be a UNIX workstation replacement is
pretty much moot. Workstation users are buying it now, and in large numbers.
Just you go ask those workstation application vendors what they're selling
now. Or read Computer World. Or go read Sun's press releases -- most of the
recent low-end machines specifically mentioned that they were trying to rebuff
NT.
> > The big problem for the traditional UNIX vendors is that proprietary hardware
> > is going to become a lot rarer over the next few years. Every passing year it
> > becomes possible to do things with PC-based systems that required larger, more
> > expensive machines before. Moore's Law suggests that that trend will
> > continue. Already we've seen casualties from this progression, and the worst
> > is yet to come: as unit sales of proprietary hardware dwindle their cost of
> > production will rise due to reduced economies of scale. Furthermore, R&D is
> > getting more expensive with every generation and that will help accelerate the
> > trend.
>
> Sun is moving away from their proprietary hardware with the Darwin,
> abandoning sbus in favor of PCI, meaning I can use a Millennium II
> with it. I hope that trend (if you can call it that) continues.
They're trying to reduce cost by using some common backplane items. That's
laudable, but largely a moot point. The problem is that they have to amortize
the R&D of SPARC CPUs over only a few hundred thousand units, while Intel does
it over tens of millions. That gives Intel a huge, huge competitive advantage
-- the CPUs can be cheaper even though they pour more R&D into them.
Now, perhaps Sun can keep their performance lead indefinitely, but they can't
do it at competitive prices. And, as the performance of the cheaper systems
improves, many people who used to have to buy the more expensive systems will
find that the cheaper ones now do the job. You think they'll still keep
buying expensive ones?
> Anyone want to debate wether Linux "commodotizes" processors?
> I think this is the first time in my life I've had the opportunity
> to have my choice of processors without changing my OS. (keeping in mind
> I don't have $1200 to spend on NT).
Yea, but are you really going to go buy one of those Darwins and run Linux on
it? Or will you buy a cheap PC?
I bought cheap PCs. I can buy a whole bunch of them for the same cost as one
Darwin, and they still get the job done. And that's the basic problem that
Sun's having at the low end. It's only going to get worse as the PCs get
better.
jim
Scott Nudds
: > Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
Chris Welch (chao...@digiscape.com) wrote:
: You've yet to say why it is good.
It's good when crap dies..
That Unix is crap is self evident to those who have used it.
BobO
Without price cutting? I got my NT for less than I would have had to
pay for a Win95 upgrade, and David McCoy got his for even less.
Preloading probably made up the majority of NT sales and sales of
non-preloaded discounted preload copies probably made up the majority of
the rest of the sales. NT hasn't been moving at all at retail outlets.
They have dusty copies on the shelves there where they are asking around
$250 for a copy. You would have to be a complete fool to pay that much
for NT workstation which probably explains the dusty copies.
|In contrast, here was a fairly typical statement from an OS/2ite,
|nick...@chauvet.com (Nick Marc), from 19 Jan, 1996:
|
|"And we still see NT as a dead operating system beyond 1996."
|
|Well, looks like I underestimated things in 1995, overcorrected in 1996, and
|the OS/2 guy was dead wrong.
|
|jim
Hey, June 95 predictions were a low point of NT. It had already been
out for nearly 2 years and for longer than that people knew it wasn't
going to meet its hype, it just took people like Dataquest and others to
own up to it. But by Jun95 even Bill Gates was saying that if you
needed NT you already knew why. I was referring to predictions made in
1992 and 1993. My prediction then and now is that NT would find a niche
as a workstation product, light server use, and very little desktop use
outside of corporations. I also predicted it would stay that way until
Microsoft converged Windows and NT into a single product. The
prediction I missed was OS/2. I thought it would continue to grow but I
didn't suspect in my wildest dreams that its maker would suddenly become
enamored with open systems and call a truce in the OS wars.
Simon Kinahan
> Plus, your figure is not taking into account Linux, which is impossible
> to really count.
His figures are just plain wrong. He is an infamous troller of various
different newsgroups. Ignore him and hope he goes away.
Simon
Roger Christie
That you're a drooling idiot is self evident to those
who have read you.
BobO
|
|> Anyone want to debate wether Linux "commodotizes" processors?
|> I think this is the first time in my life I've had the opportunity
|> to have my choice of processors without changing my OS. (keeping in mind
|> I don't have $1200 to spend on NT).
|
|Yea, but are you really going to go buy one of those Darwins and run Linux on
|it? Or will you buy a cheap PC?
|
|I bought cheap PCs. I can buy a whole bunch of them for the same cost as one
|Darwin, and they still get the job done. And that's the basic problem that
|Sun's having at the low end. It's only going to get worse as the PCs get
|better.
|
|jim
But look at the fragmentation occuring in the PC market. Look at how
Celeron is gutting Intel's premium chip sales and the competition from
AMD and others.
The highend will always be there and the commodization of low end chips
is not allowing a lot of money to seep up to the top. The only question
is which processes are moving faster than others.
A lot of hype is being extended to the 64 bit processors from HP and
Intel, but what they could end up as is a processor that appeals to
neither the high end or the low end. With the ability of Java to link
processors one has to wonder if there will ever be a market for a hybrid
product in silicon because even in silcon there needs to be some sort of
logic that puts the current software together with whatever software is
going to be designed differently to scale up Intel products.
The issues are whether the old software actually runs faster in an Intel
chip that has new properties than it does in some AMD 6D chip or
whatever to start paying for all that high end research. It is not a
foregone conclusion that Intel holds all the cards. I think they don't
as long as they and Microsoft are forced to compete fairly and not
allowed to force inferior technologies on the public one byte at a time.
Allie Martin
<rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>That you're a drooling idiot is self evident to those
>who have read you.
Yes, Unix and it's history speaks for itself. The guy is indeed totally off
key.
Allie Martin (Mr.)
<all...@kasnet.com>
Kingston, Jamaica
=======
Steve Mading
: : Scott Nudds wrote:
: : > Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
: Chris Welch (chao...@digiscape.com) wrote:
: : You've yet to say why it is good.
: It's good when crap dies..
: That Unix is crap is self evident to those who have used it.
Moron. You are posting to many newsgroups composed almost
exclusively of people who (1) use Unix, and (2) think it is
not crap. That's like posting to talk.origins (a group about
evolution) and saying everbody already knows the earth is only
6000 years old as stated in the Bible.
Damn trolls.
T. Max Devlin
GMT
>: Scott Nudds wrote:
>: > Unix is dying.
>: >
>: > Market share continues to decline.
>: >
>: > This is a <very> good thing.
>
>Chris Welch (899...@128.128.92.93) wrote:
>: Hahahahahahahaha. What do you want to replace it with? hahaha
>
> Anything but Unix.
>
>magnitude larger than Unix.
>
> Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
>Today it is 1.7% and falling.
>
I want anyone who wishes to rationally discuss the Microsoft issue
to know that I don't believe anything this lunatic says has any
bearing on your position or ideas. Not even the "Windows 2000
already has an installed base" bit. :-D
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Sun is moving away from their proprietary hardware with the Darwin,
>abandoning sbus in favor of PCI, meaning I can use a Millennium II
>with it. I hope that trend (if you can call it that) continues.
You can't call it a trend, because Sun has always done such things.
The way a former Sun employee explained it to me, Sun's strategy is
that if a standard exists that meets their needs, they use it. If
none exists, they build it. Then they standardize it.
When Sun was designing the Sparc, there wasn't a standard bus that
could provide them the kind of throughput they needed. So they
built sbus. Though it was never adopted outside the Sun market,
sbus was released as a standard.
Just about as soon as PCI was developed, which finally provided a
standard bus with the throughput that Sun desires, they started
replacing sbus. So it isn't quite a "trend", but a continuing
application of principle on Sun's part: standards are good.
Now, if you had to choose a company for your current and future
technology needs, would you rather a company that pushes proprietary
technology, or one with the confidence to use standards, knowing
that their value-add comes from real value, not lock-in?
>Anyone want to debate wether Linux "commodotizes" processors?
I just posted about that yesterday. If Linux gets popular on the
PC, the hardware architecture of the computer will be irrelevant
(except as an optimization strategy) within a decade. This
senseless marketing of chips to the end-user might even go away.
>I think this is the first time in my life I've had the opportunity
>to have my choice of processors without changing my OS. (keeping in mind
>I don't have $1200 to spend on NT).
Huh? $1200 for NT?
Scott Nudds
: Those figures only come out that way if you choose as your "market", all
: computers ever sold. If you narrow the market to just large servers,
: NT isn't a major force.
It continues to grow even there. But of course, if you narrow your
market to just Unix boxes, then Unix has 100% of the market.
Kinda reminds me of the recording industry that has a category for every
insignificant market for the express purpose of being able to label as #1,
as many records as possible.
: While Unix has a small percentage, that percentage is concentrated at
: the higher end.
Absolutely. And this is exactly why Unix continues to lose ground.
High end machines are constantly being replaced by "lower performance"
machines that typically do the same work, better, and more conveniently,
and at a lower cost.
There is no evidence that this will stop any time soon.
: It's like looking at
: the ratio of passenger cars to Semi-trucks and concluding that semi-trucks
: must be useless because there are so few of them compared to cars.
Have I said that Unix is "useless"? No. I have simply said that it is
crap - wrong headed at almost every level. User hostile, and therefore a
very bad model that is being rejected.
: Plus, your figure is not taking into account Linux, which is impossible
: to really count.
Actually, my figures come from a couple of years ago, when Linux was
young. However, we do know that the only way Linux is gaining market is
due to the fact that it has a windows emulation layer.
Jim Frost
> |I bought cheap PCs. I can buy a whole bunch of them for the same cost as one
> |Darwin, and they still get the job done. And that's the basic problem that
> |Sun's having at the low end. It's only going to get worse as the PCs get
> |better.
>
> Celeron is gutting Intel's premium chip sales and the competition from
> AMD and others.
>
> The highend will always be there and the commodization of low end chips
> is not allowing a lot of money to seep up to the top. The only question
> is which processes are moving faster than others.
I'm having a hard time understanding your point. The explosion of competition
in the Intel market can only be good for consumers and bad for vendors (e.g.
Sun) that make their money on the high-end systems.
jim
Jim Frost
> However, we do know that the only way Linux is gaining market is
> due to the fact that it has a windows emulation layer.
No it's not. WINE doesn't work well enough to be more than a toy, and given
the hypercomplexity and ever-growing nature of the Windows OS base that's not
likely to change any time soon.
Linux is gaining ground rapidly in educational and hobbyist markets, but its
real strength is as a small server or gateway. It's dirt cheap, really fast,
and quite robust.
jim
Bloody Viking
: Those figures only come out that way if you choose as your "market", all
: computers ever sold. If you narrow the market to just large servers,
: NT isn't a major force. While Unix has a small percentage, that
: percentage is concentrated at the higher end. It's like looking at
: the ratio of passenger cars to Semi-trucks and concluding that semi-trucks
: must be useless because there are so few of them compared to cars.
The high-end thing of UNIX is the mystique that draws people to Linux.
That's what got me interested in Linux. In real life, I often call it
"Linux UNIX" and describe it as "the OS of the mainframes of old". What's
really cool is that UNIX still is the OS of choice for high-end servers of
all flavours. Linux is simply a UNIX for the home PC owner who wants the
mainframe feel. It turns out that it's easier to network Linux boxes than
computers running that other (sorry excuse for an) OS. My own little LAN
works like a little "internet" with Linux running on both machines, but
trying to interface with that other (sorry excuse for an) OS, that's
another story. I never did get Samba to work to a 95 box. Oh, well.
Linux (and UNIX) is fun! I'm very happy with Linux and dual-booting. And
that's coming from a person who is NOT a computer/IT professional.
Instead, I'm a janitor by day-job trade. Winblows, well, blows!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
3256637 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Bloody Viking
: That Unix is crap is self evident to those who have used it.
I'm a home user of UNIX, and I think of it as my pet standard. (Slackware
Linux, actually.) Why did this janitor(!) make this choice? Well, price is
a major issue. Then, after learning UNIX, I found that it gives the best,
most efficient bang for the buck. I like freeware! No other OS can give
the performance of a fucking Mainframe on a PC like UNIX (and Linux) can.
Yes, you too, can have your own Mainframe to play with. :)
I use a UNIX Shell Account for Internet access on my ISP, becuse I LIKE
playing with UNIX becuse I learned some. With UNIX, you get to make email
bots, for example, like how I made my spam filter bot. Sure, it takes
learning some computer programming, but I don't care. I'll gladly learn by
trial and error, if necessary. You see my spamkill odometer in my .sig
file? That's "powered" by shell scripts, Perl, C, and Procmail, all
available with UNIX.
Now, I daresay that UNIX doesn't have all the latest "killer" apps, but in
my case, I don't care. If I were to run my own business, I'd use a
Linux/UNIX office app for the secretaries and hack up my own special-case
apps like barcode reading apps. I actually made an account on my box that
acts like a cash register at the command prompt for a keyboard-wedge
barcode reader. Not only that, but in a business environment, I could make
it make a file that ends up (by NFS) into a database easally enough. Sure,
my way of doing things is crude, but I can care less.
BobO
The point is that the stage is really set for a fragmentation of the PC
market. Intel has a tall order to fill. On one hand they need to
deliver new technology for the desktop in the form of low cost
commoditized chips for the sub $1,000 system market. This number has
already tightened to around $800 and it will go lower. When you
consider the basic components that go into a computer that don't perform
according to Moore's law like monitors, low level hard drives, and
cases, keyboards etc. Most of the money has to come out of the silicon.
And when you look at the silicon most of that has to come from the CPU.
So what I am saying is this market is losing its ability to support
significant amounts of R&D. On the other hand they need to still do a
lot of R&D work to even have a chip competitive in markets completely
unrelated to the competition going on at the commoditized level.
My prediction is that the competition at the low end will prevent any
sudden or dramatic change in this market. I don't see it likely that
people are going to start writing 64bit applications for the desktop as
I see no demand for it. Thus chips built for the 64 bit market will all
be competing for a very small pie. I am sure some folks would differ on
that opinion and expect a change to 64 bits to occur as in the same
manner that 16 to 32 did, but I don't see it in the near future.
This is a pretty typical scenario for maturing technology.
Thad Phetteplace
> My prediction is that the competition at the low end will prevent any
> sudden or dramatic change in this market. I don't see it likely that
> people are going to start writing 64bit applications for the desktop as
> I see no demand for it. Thus chips built for the 64 bit market will all
> be competing for a very small pie. I am sure some folks would differ on
> that opinion and expect a change to 64 bits to occur as in the same
> manner that 16 to 32 did, but I don't see it in the near future.
Ahh, but let us remember: Today's supercomputer is tomorrow's desktop PC.
The technology will trickle downhill to the desktop. Who would have ever
guessed that all that high end research into 3D CAD technology would
spin off into low cost 3d accelerated video cards and amazing VR video
games.
Thad
Scott Nudds
: That you're a drooling idiot is self evident to those
: who have read you.
Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you Roger.
Scott Nudds
: > Windows 2000 already has an installed base that is an order of
: >magnitude larger than Unix.
: >
: > Two years ago, Unix market share was less than 2% and falling rapidly.
: >Today it is 1.7% and falling.
: >
: > Unix is dying... This is a very good thing.
T. Max Devlin (mde...@eltrax.com) wrote:
: I want anyone who wishes to rationally discuss the Microsoft issue
: to know that I don't believe anything this lunatic says has any
: bearing on your position or ideas.
Max Devlin is a very bright man whom I respect completely and who
doesn't believe anything I say.
He should put some effort into showing what I have said is wrong rather
than attempting to support his Pro-Unix religion via personal attacks.
JS/PL
Thad Phetteplace <tdph...@ren.dias.net> wrote in message
news:36454...@199.170.176.9...
What about vioce and then video recognition?
I won't see it but I imagine my kids may have some type of box that can
"see" the stranger at the door before they answer, tell them who it is right
down to their place of birth, and have this information ready to convey
*before the doorbell is activated.
And it will cost comparably the same as a computer today.
Ohh the places you'll go...
Dr. Suess
j