Microsoft tolling fee from hard drive listening

[Lisandro_P]

Originally posted by Electro
Red Hat VS. Mandrake. They are both the same OS. Mandrake is more user friendly but Red Hat is mainly for intermediate to advanced users. Either LINUX distribution will work.

Nobody has never answer the question of my first post.

Yeah, to each one its own

About the article... well, i can't really say i'm surprised. I never thought SAP would become popular (accepted?), but the article does rise some valid points about the other issue ("the content of your hard drive no longer being yours but which is now held captive to Microsoft"). The RIAA too has been up to this sorta things for quite a while now.

I said it before, and i say it again. The only reason music industry is SO scared of mp3 and derved media is that the music that's been mass-marketed nowadays... well, sucks. Why would a kid spend $15-20 dollars on a CD with a couple of hits he'll listen for a few weeks, until MTV dictates what has to be sold then? On the long run, most people that REALLY like a band or artist end up buying the cd. MP3s are great in that sense to try out before opening your wallet.

Just my .02...

[Ren Hoek]

Yes, use Microsoft please so I keep making money fixing your computer.

Ren

[audio_cf]

I have been following this thread for a while and there is alot of talk about user friendly wich I find to be a little bit amusing.

Why would you ever want user friendly????

I want power user friendly!!! with awk, sed, shell scripting ... and so on and so on.

I want standard ansi C and C++ I want raw IP sockets I want ...

If you relly wanted user friendly you wouldnt make your own HIFI you would by it!!!! Get support and maintenence updates and so on and on.

Dont you get the similarities.


By the way There I work we have been using other own propiertery OS and CPUS for over 20 years for real time environments.

There has always been some work to try to swap our own stuff for cheapp standard sparc or intell CPUS running sokme embeded version of NT.

The only way possible to achieve this has been trough an inexpensive array of hosts(cluster)( untill recently when we merged our own OS with linux.



///CF

[Schaef]

Originally posted by Electro
Red Hat VS. Mandrake. They are both the same OS. Mandrake is more user friendly but Red Hat is mainly for intermediate to advanced users. Either LINUX distribution will work.

Nobody has never answer the question of my first post.

The question:

What do you have to say about this article or page?

http://www.vxm.com/Impact.LinuxAV.html

Okay, to answer this question at least. The author of the article is mis-placing the blame. It's not MS's fault (being the big baddie with SAP) or RealPlayer's either. They're doing this to simply protect themselves from being sued by the RIAA, and the MPAA. These two groups comprise about as much money and legal clout as MS, so why **** them off, when using your monopoly power (did I say that out loud???), you can simply quietly insert things into the players to make these two other monopolies (There's that word again...) happy. By blaming MS for capitulating, you're actually trying to get them to fight the battle you should be fighting. (With your wallet) Talk to your government officials, let them know what's REALLY going on in the industries, and tell them what you think!!!

P.S. - I run Mandrake on my desktop (An Athlon 500) and SuSE on my server (A SparcClassic) and find that they both have pluses and minuses....

[Digi]

OSX is more stable then Linux??? I guess you don't actually own a Mac.

[Lisandro_P]

Originally posted by audio_cf
I have been following this thread for a while and there is alot of talk about user friendly wich I find to be a little bit amusing.

Why would you ever want user friendly????

Because, well, lets face it, 90% of computer users are ignorant to plain idiots Most people get puzzled if you even move icons arround. You will never get an OS to be popular unless *anyone* can use it, thats a given. Actually, a Linux enviroment running KDE would feel pretty "usable" for a regular Windows user IMHO, but thats' another issue.

You know the joke... 99% of all computer problems are originated somewhere between the keyboard and the chair

[planet10]

Originally posted by Digi
OSX is more stable then Linux??? I guess you don't actually own a Mac.

Originally posted by peranders
[B]Noone talks about the UNIX system MacOS X. 5 million copies are running at his point and in a few years tenths of millions! Bigger the LINUX!

This reply started out yesterday, but the board software blew out, fortunetly i dragged the contents out of the edit window onto the desktop before it went blooey*... i could write a book (if i had time -- i'd rather be building speakers and amps & listening to music), but i will just hit a few semi-random high spots. And right up front -- i am a fervent Macevangilist.

*(try that in any other OS)

OS X is at least as stable as Linux -- a well tested version of OpenBSD 4.3 running on well-defined hardware (as opposed to you compile it yourself on whatever hack of a puter you are running), probably not as stable, yet, as some of the Suns, or SGIs -- it is only at version 1.1 after all -- early days.

OS X is a bright light in the future of computing. The solidity of an Open Source BSD 4.x/Mach kernal, the intuitive elegance of an upgraded Mac GUI, a killer graphics subsystem. All the power of a REAL easy to use GUI (Windoz is not friendly at all), with the ability to drop into a terminal window where you can use all those cryptic and powerful UNIX commands.

If not already the largest installed base of UNIX, it soon will be. And the fallout from that, even at this early stage in the game, is starting to ramp up big time. For example, the recent big drop in the price of Maya. And so many UNIX aps getting ported... think of all the really stellar UNIX only aps that now have a mass-market outlet.

And for all of you that think of Macs or have experience with Macs from the old days -- Apple hasn't been the same since it was taken over by NeXT. More innovation, more focus, better hardware (and generally cheaper than PCs0 and way better software.

Easiest to use Apache -- the built-in "personal" web server in OS X.

The best word processor -- Nisus (only available on the Mac) and it doesn't need the horsepower usually reserved for a full-featured CAD program to just run.

You can also count the best spreadsheet, total domination of the graphic arts, and the best version of Solitaire as something you have to have a Mac for.

I could go on and on, but in the word's of Douglas Adams (RIP) "Even though Mac Users may be only 10% of the market, always remember that we are the TOP 10%!" (and he didn't even get a chance to try out OS X which is a quantum step forward).

Microsoft in general builds third-rate software and usually has to buy up innovators (which usually kills the innovation dead in its tracks)... the XP update thing -- something that has been in the Mac OS for years and just shines in X when you have a broadband connection.

dave

OS X 10.1.4, (Pentium crushing) 450 MHz G4 w 1.25 GB RAM, 22" main monitor, 19" palette monitor.

[Electro]

I have used MACs from G3s to G4s. I had to save a simple document every few seconds or it will freeze. I also don't think MACs are faster. I can do the same stuff on my computer faster than I can do on a MAC. Though I have an AMD processor not a Pentium. Pentiums are slow in comparison to AMD processors. The Northwood Pentium 4 processor might seem fast but Athlon XP 2000+ beat a Northwood Pentium 4 going at 2400 Mhz. Athlons are being very limited on motherboard bandwidth. AMD's upcoming Optron processor might change all the chipset bandwidth limitations.

x86 motherboards can hold 6 or even 8 gigabtyes of memory but Windows limits this.

The reason why OS-X is very stable is that it is design for the G4 and next generation PowerPC chips. x86 based systems has different specs from one to another. The only best way to make a x86 system stable is re-compile the kernel to be optimized for the particular system after installing LINUX. There is a 1% chance that user will do this.

LINUX can start up in a few seconds but the user have to compile a kernel to do this. A fast boot time equals to a big optimized kernel.

The number one reason that I'm using LINUX in a dual boot config with Windows is to not to be different but to learn LINUX. For my future computers systems I will then use LINUX 98% of the time. The other 2% is using and installing Windows on other systems or in VMware.

Now I'm trying to get Xine to read DVDs, learn Apache, setup video capture under LINUX, and try to make LINUX output 6 audio channels from my sound card.

[planet10]

Originally posted by Electro
I have used MACs from G3s to G4s. I had to save a simple document every few seconds or it will freeze.

My original Mac 128 is holding up a corner of my coffee table. My current G4 hasn't crashed since i installed OS X (ie months now). I reboot for upgrades.

If you had to save every few seconds then your Mac was broken (even Netscape doesn't cause the old OSs to crash that often) -- i've had days like that (but once i serviced the machine it was fine). And if you are running stable aps, even the classic OS can be problem free. I've had stretches of 2, 3 weeks plus doing heavy graphics (only using Sketch, Illustrator, Photoshop) with no crashes.

I also don't think MACs are faster.

I'll race you anytime. Pick a task, see who gets finished 1st.

dave

[Digi]

Originally posted by planet10


This reply started out yesterday, but the board software blew out, fortunetly i dragged the contents out of the edit window onto the desktop before it went blooey*... i could write a book (if i had time -- i'd rather be building speakers and amps & listening to music), but i will just hit a few semi-random high spots. And right up front -- i am a fervent Macevangilist.

-I respect the fact that you are honest.

*(try that in any other OS)

OS X is at least as stable as Linux -- a well tested version of OpenBSD 4.3 running on well-defined hardware (as opposed to you compile it yourself on whatever hack of a puter you are running), probably not as stable, yet, as some of the Suns, or SGIs -- it is only at version 1.1 after all -- early days.

-I have used OS X, and frankly it is an innovative OS, but needs work. A few of my friends are ferverant Mac users and I get to play with they're Macs all the time. I have seen OS X crash more than a few times, and most of my Mac friends have gone back to OS 9.

OS X is a bright light in the future of computing. The solidity of an Open Source BSD 4.x/Mach kernal, the intuitive elegance of an upgraded Mac GUI, a killer graphics subsystem. All the power of a REAL easy to use GUI (Windoz is not friendly at all), with the ability to drop into a terminal window where you can use all those cryptic and powerful UNIX commands.

If not already the largest installed base of UNIX, it soon will be. And the fallout from that, even at this early stage in the game, is starting to ramp up big time. For example, the recent big drop in the price of Maya. And so many UNIX aps getting ported... think of all the really stellar UNIX only aps that now have a mass-market outlet.

And for all of you that think of Macs or have experience with Macs from the old days -- Apple hasn't been the same since it was taken over by NeXT. More innovation, more focus, better hardware (and generally cheaper than PCs0 and way better software.

Easiest to use Apache -- the built-in "personal" web server in OS X.

The best word processor -- Nisus (only available on the Mac) and it doesn't need the horsepower usually reserved for a full-featured CAD program to just run.

You can also count the best spreadsheet, total domination of the graphic arts, and the best version of Solitaire as something you have to have a Mac for.

I could go on and on, but in the word's of Douglas Adams (RIP) "Even though Mac Users may be only 10% of the market, always remember that we are the TOP 10%!" (and he didn't even get a chance to try out OS X which is a quantum step forward).

Microsoft in general builds third-rate software and usually has to buy up innovators (which usually kills the innovation dead in its tracks)... the XP update thing -- something that has been in the Mac OS for years and just shines in X when you have a broadband connection.

-Agreed

dave

OS X 10.1.4, (Pentium crushing) 450 MHz G4 w 1.25 GB RAM, 22" main monitor, 19" palette monitor.

-Your 450 G4 may be Pentium crushing but it can't hold a candle to an Athlon.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...aeshowdown.htm

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

-There are alot of links to support this, of course not having equivalant video cards hinders the gaming benchmarks.

-As far as hardware goes an Athlon PC wins, easily. The OS is a different story, I am suckered into having windoze only for the simple fact that Macs don't support most of the applications and games I have. I have an XP and a Mandrake box, both of them are fast as hell. The Mandrake box has never crashed. Oddly my XP box has crashed only a few times, only with poorly coded games, i.e. Ghost Recon. OS X is better than anything M$ has put out to date, Linux can be a mixed bag for the simple fact that it's not as user friendly.

TBC

Digi