On Jun 17, 4:06=A0am, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > Will the Mac run PC software like Linux does using something like WINE?
>
> Perfectly well using either Parallels or VMWare.

For small values of "perfectly" where special hardware is involved.
The MSP430 Windows USB-JTAG drivers, in particular, cause a kernel
panic when you attempt to use such hardware within Parallels or
VMWare.

MC wrote:
> Notice that although almost everybody is saying Vista is awful, they
> don't agree at all about what's awful about it.
> 

There are just so many things to choose from, that's all.  People won't 
agree on what's the nicest colour - but they'll mostly agree that colour 
is nice to have.

> I think Vista-bashing has become a fad.  If you know anything about
> OS architecture, read up on it.  You'll see that Vista corrects some
> of the main problems with XP, including inability to prioritize I/O.
> 

Prioritizing I/O is a good thing (Linux has had it for years), if you 
have multiple tasks that are all bottlenecked on I/O speed.  It's a 
useful feature for servers, but of little use for the average user on a 
desktop.

> 
> One thing I really like is that Vista is ready to respond to mouse
> clicks almost the moment it boots up; I don't have to wait for all
> the startup applications to finish before I can get responses to
> anything I do.  XP was notorious for sitting around 2 or 3 minutes
> with little things still starting up, not letting you do anything.
> With Vista, the startup apps may take the same 2 or 3 minutes but you
> can go ahead and get started doing your work.
> 

That's why Bill Gates invented morning coffee!

> Vista has a really major security improvement.  Even when running as
> administrator, you have to give explicit permission to change the
> system configuration.  This is like "sudo" in UNIX.  It protects you
> from malware.  Contrary to those Mac ads, it is NOT a pest.  If you
> see those prompts every day, something is wrong.  I see them about
> once a month.
> 

Avoiding Internet Explorer and Outlook Express (and Outlook) is the most 
important step to avoiding malware on Windows.  The other important 
method is to *think* a little about what you are doing.  These 
techniques work on all versions of Windows (and are even easier on 
non-Windows machines :-)

UAC is definitely a step towards avoiding accidental installation of 
malware or otherwise seriously messing up your machine, so it's a good 
idea (note that "sudo" on *nix is nearly 30 years old - three cheers for 
Microsoft's innovation!).  I can't really judge whether it is too much 
of a pest to be useful in normal usage - since I've only use Vista for 
testing purposes, I wanted to install a lot of stuff, and therefore 
found UAC a pain.  Certainly there is the risk that people will turn it 
off just to stop it bugging them - that happens to a great many 
firewalls on windows.

> I do not think Vista should be judged by how well it runs the
> software of 10 years ago.  Programs written for Windows NT, 2000, and
> XP all run just fine.  Programs written for Windows 95 require
> compatibility mode.  Unfortunately, lots of programmers have been
> writing Windows 95 software and selling it to XP users.
> 
> Of course, the embedded systems community is atavistic.  There are
> things in Microchip MPLAB, for instance, that aren't fully compatible
> with Windows 95 file naming, much less anything later.

Welcome to the real world.

For people using a home PC mainly for web and email, cataloguing their 
digital photographs, playing music, and some light office apps, they are 
faster, safer and cheaper using Linux.

For people using a PC for common business tasks, OpenOffice, FireFox, 
and Thunderbird or Evolution on any platform will cover most needs - 
Linux or XP are smaller, faster and cheaper than Vista.

For people using a PC for games, XP is currently the best platform.

For people doing more specialised work, compatibility with a range of 
software and/or hardware is critical.  Whether XP or Linux is the best 
choice will depend on the details of the work - but Vista is out.

Vista can and should be judged by how well it runs software that people 
need to run, and how well it supports hardware that people need to use. 
  That includes old programs and old hardware (and new hardware - Vista 
has had more than a few problems with lack of drivers for newer hardware).

rickman wrote:
> I have been looking to buy a new computer for a bit and I had just
> about decided on a Windows XP based system from Dell.  Today I called
> them and found that not only are they not going to sell XP machines
> after tomorrow, but the orders are flooding in!  It seems pretty crazy
> to me that if XP is still that popular, they would stop selling it.
> Is this something mandated by MicroSoft?
> 
> So the question is, is Vista ready for prime time?  I have heard
> nothing but bad about it and I know that a lot of software vendors
> have yet to support it... at least the last time I looked.  Are the
> rumors true of Vista being a PITA or just plain incompatible?  Is it
> time to switch to Linux?
> 
> What experiences have people had with Vista?
> Rick

Dell will provide a down converter process so that you can get back to XP, 
but you would have to do this process yourself.  And yes, Microsoft is driving
this termination of XP.

I've been using Vista Business for 3 months on a Lenovo T61 laptop.
Lenovo also provided the XP rollback process, which I haven't attempted.

Under Vista, a number of my old program would not install without complaining 
that they are not supported and would be at risk, so I had to update. For example, 
Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .Net 2003, Quickbooks.  Even TortoiseCVS has a know 
issue under Vista, but I've been using it without problem.  I've had no problems
with Open Office, but there was an installation issue with Matlab that I
had to call tech support about.   I still have a number of other applications
that I haven't gotten around to installing.

There are a number of things about Vista that I don't like, mainly because
they are changes from Win2K/XP without improvement. For example, searching
for a file or text within a file from Explorer is now a convoluted process
that you need to get retrained to do.  And the number of services running
under Vista is easily doubled compared to XP, which is why I got 3Gigs of Ram.

Also unless you are logged in a SysAdm, Vista locks you our of certain folders.
For example, as a non-SysAdm, you can't use the default "work" folder under
c:\Program Files\Matlab.

So yes, it has been a PITA, but it has to be done eventually if you plan 
to use Windows for whatever reason (mainly client compatibility issues).

Note: I am running Ubuntu Linux as a guest OS under Vista using VirtualBox 
so that I can work with Open Embedded for a Gumstix target.  So if you are
buying a new PC, get a lot of RAM and hard disk space if you want to run
dual operating systems.  This lets you do your Windows to Linux switch
gradually or use the best from both worlds without having to reboot.
And the tools (VirtualPC, VirtualBox, VmWare), are free or inexpensive.

(Sorry Google has made a balls of quoting today for some reason)

On Jun 17, 6:29=A0am, "MC" <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>;
wrote:

START QUOTE
> One thing I really like is that Vista is ready to respond to mouse clicks =
almost the moment it boots up; I don't have to wait for all the startup appl=
ications to finish before I can get responses to anything I do. =A0XP was no=
torious for sitting around 2 or 3 minutes with little things still starting =
up, not letting you do anything. =A0With Vista, the startup apps may take th=
e same 2 or 3 minutes but you can go ahead and get started doing your work.
END QUOTE

I pay regular visits to msconfig to keep my machine fresh. I've an
Intel Core Duo 1.83 GHz. My desktop appears quickly and I can start
clicking straight away. If your XP is polluted then Yes it can take a
couple of minutes. But if it's lean and clean, it's quick as
lightening.

START QUOTE
> Vista has a really major security improvement. =A0Even when running as adm=
inistrator, you have to give explicit permission to change the system config=
uration. =A0This is like "sudo" in UNIX. =A0It protects you from malware. =
=A0Contrary to those Mac ads, it is NOT a pest. =A0If you see those prompts =
every day, something is wrong. =A0I see them about once a month.
END QUOTE

I hate that stuff. For example, under Linux, I'm always logged in as
root. I have full control over what executables files I run, and I'm
not thick, so I don't have a problem.
And yes I do see those prompts every day, must just be the kind of
user I am.

larwe wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:06 am, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> Will the Mac run PC software like Linux does using something like WINE?
>> Perfectly well using either Parallels or VMWare.
> 
> For small values of "perfectly" where special hardware is involved.
> The MSP430 Windows USB-JTAG drivers, in particular, cause a kernel
> panic when you attempt to use such hardware within Parallels or
> VMWare.
> 

Using the closed source version of Virtual Box (it's closed source, but 
free for most practical uses), you can pass USB devices through to the 
guest system without the host having to have drivers.  I've not tried 
Virtual Box on the Mac, but I had no problems using a windows-only USB 
dongle from a Virtual Box windows guest on a Linux host.

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

> START QUOTE
>> Vista has a really major security improvement.  Even when running
>> as administrator, you have to give explicit permission to change
>> the system configuration.  This is like "sudo" in UNIX.  It
>> protects you from malware.  Contrary to those Mac ads, it is NOT a
>> pest.  If you see those prompts every day, something is wrong.  I
>> see them about once a month.
> END QUOTE
> 
> I hate that stuff. For example, under Linux, I'm always logged in as 
> root. I have full control over what executables files I run, and I'm 
> not thick, so I don't have a problem. And yes I do see those prompts
> every day, must just be the kind of user I am.

On Linux it is *so* easy to mix and match root and normal user work that
it's just plain daft to login as "root" for normal usage.  There is "su"
(or "sudo su -") for command lines, kdesudo or gsudo for use on KDE or
Gnome (most gui-controlled stuff that requires root runs these
automatically), and setuid bits for scripts.

If you are using Linux as a server, and most of your work is 
administration that requires root privileges, then logging in as root 
makes some sense, but even then you are best logging in as a user and 
using su (or "sudo su -") on your shell.

If you are working with a desktop, then it's silly to login as root - 
it's like removing the door to your house to avoid the minor 
inconvenience of opening it.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:53:29 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I have been looking to buy a new computer for a bit and I had just
>about decided on a Windows XP based system from Dell.  Today I called
>them and found that not only are they not going to sell XP machines
>after tomorrow, but the orders are flooding in!  It seems pretty crazy
>to me that if XP is still that popular, they would stop selling it.
>Is this something mandated by MicroSoft?
>
>So the question is, is Vista ready for prime time?  I have heard
>nothing but bad about it and I know that a lot of software vendors
>have yet to support it... at least the last time I looked.  Are the
>rumors true of Vista being a PITA or just plain incompatible?  Is it
>time to switch to Linux?
>
>What experiences have people had with Vista?
>
>Rick

It's a royal PITA, especially in the beginning, but workable for most
software I use. You can turn stuff off and make it a lot more like XP
than the default. It needs a bit more RAM than XP for the smme job,
even if you turn off eye candy options, but RAM is dirt cheap these
days. 

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that 32-bit Vista is easier to
live with than 64-bit XP for those of us who use a lot of different
bits of software. 

I still see random crashes perhaps once a week, that seem to be
graphics related, something I never see with Win2K and XP Pro. 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
s...@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Ammiravo la mia cresta allo specchio quando Tomás Ó hÉilidhe 
<t...@lavabit.com> ha detto :

> I
> tried to switch to Linux but I jut got pissed off with the bugs

KUbuntu is an awful Linux distribution. I wouldn't be surprised of bugs and 
similar. Try something more serious like Debian or, better for a desktop 
PC, Archlinux....you'll never find a bug using the proper repositories.

Anyway, Windows XP sp2 and Windows 2000 sp4 are two great products, there 
is no real need for Vista and it should be enough for not use it.

-- 
Nuno on zx-6r '04 & CRe 250 '99 working in progress...
Say you, say me...say 'na mignotta!
*** www.gladio.org ***

"MC" <for.address.look@ href="http://www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>" target=_blank rel="nofollow">www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>; wrote in message 
news:zXH5k.6820$P...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Notice that although almost everybody is saying Vista is awful, they don't 
> agree at all about what's awful about it.
>

The unzipping of files is now intolerably slow, OK not the OS but rather an 
application running on it, but it's still bundled with the Vista experience.

> I think Vista-bashing has become a fad.  If you know anything about OS 
> architecture, read up on it.  You'll see that Vista corrects some of the 
> main problems with XP, including inability to prioritize I/O.
>

I agree I don't like the OS bashing and I really do like XP and Vista a lot, 
so credit where it's due.

> One thing I really like is that Vista is ready to respond to mouse clicks 
> almost the moment it boots up; I don't have to wait for all the startup 
> applications to finish before I can get responses to anything I do.  XP 
> was notorious for sitting around 2 or 3 minutes with little things still 
> starting up, not letting you do anything.  With Vista, the startup apps 
> may take the same 2 or 3 minutes but you can go ahead and get started 
> doing your work.
>

No, I sill have to wait for Vista although it does seem faster than my XP 
machine, but then it should be with 4x the RAM.

> Vista has a really major security improvement.  Even when running as 
> administrator, you have to give explicit permission to change the system 
> configuration.  This is like "sudo" in UNIX.  It protects you from 
> malware.  Contrary to those Mac ads, it is NOT a pest.  If you see those 
> prompts every day, something is wrong.  I see them about once a month.
>
I see them most days and find them a little frustrating but you quickly get 
used to it, so no real bad there.

> I do not think Vista should be judged by how well it runs the software of 
> 10 years ago.  Programs written for Windows NT, 2000, and XP all run just 
> fine.  Programs written for Windows 95 require compatibility mode. 
> Unfortunately, lots of programmers have been writing Windows 95 software 
> and selling it to XP users.
>
> Of course, the embedded systems community is atavistic.  There are things 
> in Microchip MPLAB, for instance, that aren't fully compatible with 
> Windows 95 file naming, much less anything later.
>

I triple boot my machine with Vista, XP and Fedora.  Got XP to support some 
older apps and Fedora more as a new attempt at getting to grips with Linux. 
Don't really use Fedora much though apart from booting in now and again to 
get all the latest updates which are certainly much more frequent and larger 
in sixe than the XP or Vista updates!

Somebody also mentioned open office, I tried that a year ago and it kinda 
looked ok at first, but the more I used it the more inadequate I found it. 
I couldn't even create captions and references to those captions in the WP 
app so gave up as it made it useless for writing any sort of report. 
MSOffice is still way better than anything else I've seen and in my view for 
my business is well worth the money.

-- 
DaveN 

>I have been looking to buy a new computer for a bit and I had just
>about decided on a Windows XP based system from Dell.  Today I called
>them and found that not only are they not going to sell XP machines
>after tomorrow, but the orders are flooding in!  It seems pretty crazy
>to me that if XP is still that popular, they would stop selling it.
>Is this something mandated by MicroSoft?
>
>So the question is, is Vista ready for prime time?  I have heard
>nothing but bad about it and I know that a lot of software vendors
>have yet to support it... at least the last time I looked.  Are the
>rumors true of Vista being a PITA or just plain incompatible?  Is it
>time to switch to Linux?
>
>What experiences have people had with Vista?
>
>Rick
>

Rick I've run Vista for quite some time and although there are those who
absolutely despise it, if you approach it with an open mind its not nearly
as bad as what you've heard.  There are a bunch more "bells and whistles"
to turn off than XP had but Vista is capable of good performance. 
Somethings you will like better than XP somethings you will not.  There are
some incompatibilities just as their was when XP was new but these are
becoming less and less common.  There are few reasons to upgrade to Vista
but also few reasons to go back to XP.  It is the future and we'll all have
to get used to it eventually.