On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:>AZ Nomad schreef: >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <pippo@pluto.com> wrote: >>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in >>> news:slrngb7slo.a7u.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net: >> >>>> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed >>>> two steps ahead of available hardware. Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of >>>> memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low >>>> performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an >>>> incredible feat. >>>> >>>> Just think. In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will >>>> still make them dog slow. >> >>> That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming. >> >> It is only microsoft. Other companies have no problem using OO >> programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time.>Only Microsoft? You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine >example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets >buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every >new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot >more bloated over the years.Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit. Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise it's a steaming mountain of pig shit. And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive. If MS wrote it, you could count on it being unable to run on such hardware. A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where vista won't run at all.
Affordable PCB Layout Software ???
Started by ●July 30, 2008
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote:>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:>> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.>Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrngb7slo.a7u.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed twosteps> ahead of available hardware. Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of memory just todraw a> desktop and run a few relatively simply low performance applications likea word> processor and web browser is an incredible feat.Not to mention the 4 seconds it takes on a multiple GHz machine to empty the recycle bin with only one tiny file in it.... Meindert
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
On Aug 27, 9:11=A0am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosow...@gm=ail.nospam> wrote:> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote: > >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able > >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does. > >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. > > And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.But what they produce is called clogware, not software. :-) Didi ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
Robert Baer wrote:> > The *idea* of a registry seems to be OK, but in WinDoze, it is a > veritable garbage can. > I think that each program should have its own *findable* (and > readable) registry in the same directory that the program is stored. > That might make it easier to !totally! remove a program...And screw up all file associations. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
AZ Nomad wrote:> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: > >AZ Nomad schreef: > >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <pippo@pluto.com> wrote: > >>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in > >>> news:slrngb7slo.a7u.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net: > >> > >>>> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed > >>>> two steps ahead of available hardware. Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of > >>>> memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low > >>>> performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an > >>>> incredible feat. > >>>> > >>>> Just think. In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will > >>>> still make them dog slow. > >> > >>> That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming. > >> > >> It is only microsoft. Other companies have no problem using OO > >> programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time. > > >Only Microsoft? You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine > >example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets > >buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every > >new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot > >more bloated over the years. > > Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit. > > Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise > it's a steaming mountain of pig shit. > > And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop > with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive. If MS wrote it, you could count on it > being unable to run on such hardware. > > A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where > vista won't run at all.Who WANTS to run Vista on a five year old computer? -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
AZ Nomad wrote:> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: > >>AZ Nomad schreef: >> >>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <pippo@pluto.com> wrote: >>> >>>>AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in >>>>news:slrngb7slo.a7u.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net: >>> >>>>>The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed >>>>>two steps ahead of available hardware. Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of >>>>>memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low >>>>>performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an >>>>>incredible feat. >>>>> >>>>>Just think. In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will >>>>>still make them dog slow. >>> >>>>That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming. >>> >>>It is only microsoft. Other companies have no problem using OO >>>programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time. > > >>Only Microsoft? You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine >>example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets >>buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every >>new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot >>more bloated over the years. > > > Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit. > > Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise > it's a steaming mountain of pig shit. > > And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop > with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive. If MS wrote it, you could count on it > being unable to run on such hardware.Consider that Adobe needs 100MB hard disk space for just a reader, where others can produce a PDF reader that takes less than 1 MB and starts at least 10x faster, and you still believe Adobe is producing efficient software? Ever tried Lotus Notes, or CM Synergy (nowadays both IBM), or Borland C++ Builder and still believe Microsoft is the only company that produces crap software.> A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where > vista won't run at all.And sometimes you can't get Linux to install at all, or only without wireless, ACPI...etc. Your hate towards Microsoft has apparently blinded you. I don't like Microsoft, or their products, but the fact is most software companies produce utter crap (especially the bigger ones), and some manage to produce even worse crap than Microsoft. And let's face it Windows sucks, Linux sucks, they only suck in different ways. Choose your poison.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
AZ Nomad wrote:> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote: > >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote: > > >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able > >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does. > > >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. > > And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the Commodore 128. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:>AZ Nomad wrote: >> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote: >> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able >> >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does. >> >> >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. >> >> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.> The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the >Commodore 128.no wonder it was a failure. The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that couldn't run any commadore 64 software.
Reply by ●August 27, 20082008-08-27
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:55:25 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:>AZ Nomad wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >> >AZ Nomad schreef: >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <pippo@pluto.com> wrote: >> >>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in >> >>> news:slrngb7slo.a7u.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net: >> >> >> >>>> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed >> >>>> two steps ahead of available hardware. Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of >> >>>> memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low >> >>>> performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an >> >>>> incredible feat. >> >>>> >> >>>> Just think. In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will >> >>>> still make them dog slow. >> >> >> >>> That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming. >> >> >> >> It is only microsoft. Other companies have no problem using OO >> >> programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time. >> >> >Only Microsoft? You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine >> >example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets >> >buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every >> >new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot >> >more bloated over the years. >> >> Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit. >> >> Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise >> it's a steaming mountain of pig shit. >> >> And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop >> with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive. If MS wrote it, you could count on it >> being unable to run on such hardware. >> >> A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where >> vista won't run at all.> Who WANTS to run Vista on a five year old computer?Who wants to run vista on any machine?
