Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Linus Torvalds on IA-64

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2002 7:27:15 PM

This really angers me. Linus Torvalds doesn't know a thing about hardware. Check out this <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963447.html" target="_new">link</A> about Linux 2.6 and Torvald's opinion on IA-64. Here's a quote:

Quote:
<b>Said by Linus Torvalds</b><i>
"I really dislike IA-64. I think it's a losing strategy," Torvalds said. "My personal hope is that IA-64 withers and dies because there's no point. It performs badly; it's expensive; it's an all-new instruction set."

"The reason Intel was so hugely successful was they went for the mass market, for normal users. They went for all the things that Intel stands for today," he said. AMD is staying truer to that philosophy, he said. "I find AMD's approach a lot more interesting, which is to replace a 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit Athlon...They come from below and eat up all the high-performance big computers."

</i>

Low performing? "I hope it whithers and dies"? This is incredible. He doesn't even know whathe's talking about. He's been hypnotized by AMD fanboys about the so called "bad" performance of IA-64. Wow Linus, I wonder how "bad" it could be considering the Itanium 2 is currently one of the world's highest performing CPU's. And I really love this quote:

<i>"They went for all the things that Intel stands for today"</i>

So, Linus, you're saying Intel stands for "mass market"? It's like he totally ignores the fact that Intel made alot of success with it's Xeons in the corporate & server world, not to mention that Intel is known for it's high quality CPU's, not to mention very reliable and very stable components. Seriously, I believe Linus doesn't even know what he's talking about.

I'm not that surprised really. Most Linux users despise Intel. In fact, alot of rabid AMD fanboys use Linux, since it's free, and open-source.

i know that this is one big ramble, but I would just like to point out that how misinformed some people in the industry really are.



- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>

More about : linus torvalds

October 29, 2002 8:25:13 PM

Linus is a fraud and a thief he stole the uniqueness of Unix and perverted it with Linux. And the plague is moving to Microsoft with Lindows and many other rip off imitation breeds. I personally would punch the dude in the head and tell him to find a more constructive hobby than stealing ideas and technologies and hiding it all behind the open source crap.

MS is right Linux is a cancer that is ever growing. It's imitation crap and that’s all it will ever be.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 29, 2002 8:30:38 PM

it's quite easy to understand Torvald's statement, as he says he rather codes for some additional 64-bit extensions as rewriting the whole linux kernel for the ia-64.

That's all to understand. Concerning the 64-bit performance, there is no existing or upcoming CPU matching the speed of the Itanium II. The only problem (although a major one) is that Itaniums are expensive to buy and to code for since no one really has much experience in this domain. Unfortunately though because this CPU could be killer CPU if right software support was there.

AMD and Linux have indeed some close relation together since both are cheap to get...
October 29, 2002 8:51:42 PM

I would also like to point out how happy I am with Mandrake 9.0RC2 on a P266 laptop.

I'm also quite happy with WinXP on my GA-7VAXP system.

Ntel is my bitch. So is AMD, msft, and Linus.

I make them *ALL* suck it down...

"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser
October 29, 2002 9:15:15 PM

Many a same person has said the same about Microsoft stealing the Mac OS system many many years ago. :) 


:cool: Save heating costs on your home, overclock your PC!!! :cool:
October 29, 2002 9:17:40 PM

Then what the hell are Alpha, SPARC, MIPS, and POWER going for 12 bucks those CPU's cost a heck of a lot more than a bloddy Itaimium. Thats Intels thing right now they are undercutting these larger (as in dominate server market CPU's) to get their foot in the door.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 29, 2002 9:38:05 PM

It's kinda surprising seeing someone who's spent considerable time in assembly to praise anything x86. If anything he should be blessing whatever powers there be that something has finally come along that doesn't offer as many headaches as x86. I think he may be just pissed because IA-64 goes away from the concept of having asm programmers hand-code and insteads leans towards better compilers.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 29, 2002 10:43:18 PM

Good point!!!

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 29, 2002 11:22:16 PM

Quote:
It's kinda surprising seeing someone who's spent considerable time in assembly to praise anything x86. If anything he should be blessing whatever powers there be that something has finally come along that doesn't offer as many headaches as x86. I think he may be just pissed because IA-64 goes away from the concept of having asm programmers hand-code and insteads leans towards better compilers.

Linus doesn't care too much for hand-coded assembly. That's why most of the Linux kernel is in C.

As for leaning towards better compilers, where are "good compilers" going to come from?

Maybe you haven't noticed this, but gcc (the de facto open-source compiler) is kind of a dog for architecture-specific optimizations, and that's just with its most common target, x86. With other architectures, optimization is even worse.

Sure, Intel makes a very good x86 Linux compiler, but people using it for the purpose of making money have to pay for it. It's the same for Compaq's Linux-targeted Alpha compiler. It's likely to be the same for Intel's IA64 compiler.

People using free open-source software are reluctant to pay for a compiler to build this software from source. Their software cost is already zero, and there's a mental block that bean-counters have against going from zero cost on something to even a few dollars. Some people are reluctant to build from source anyhow, since it takes a lot more time, tools, and disk space than just installing a precompiled binary.

This leaves a lot of open-source developers <i>having</i> to hand-code assembly to get halfway-decent performance out of IA64, just because the majority of their target userbase isn't going to be using a good optimizing compiler. Maybe that's what worries Linus...

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
October 29, 2002 11:52:20 PM

Woah man chill, you're about to get an epilepsy after someone badmouthed something from Intel!

While I agree the guy doesn't seem to be right, after all x86 is just not flexible really, if the guy is the one who made his own open source OS, then perhaps, JUST perhaps he knows and may have experienced to know that x86 is still the best architecture for his software. I mean the guy should know more than anybody about his creation.

However his words are clearly harsh, and he should restrain and be more professional than wishing a good architecture to die.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 30, 2002 1:38:16 AM

Well, you kind of have to realize that the name of the game is to steal the good technology to replace old/aging/bad technology. Windows stole its GUI from Apple, and Apple stole it from Xerox. Intel practices such cutthroat business strategies; most recently the "theft" of certain logic designs from Intergraph for the Itanium 2. AMD lived off of Intel for years until the K7 (K6 really wasn't much to be proud of, besides the fact that it was not a strict clone of the 586), and much of the designs for the K7 came from a company that was bought and looted by AMD. Industral espionage, reverse engineering, and dirty tricks are what allows the strong to seperate themselves from the weak. Is it wrong? Morally, I'd say yes, but it does consolidate the power into an elite few who are so hellbent on domination that they will fight all the harder to stay ahead of whats left of the competition (or in the case of MS, prevent competition from appearing). Those are traits we look for in our business leaders, so to condemn such actions brands us all hypocrites.

As to the assertion that Linux is a cancer, I disagree. MS is its current form is more of a cancer, as it hides behind EULAs and shady legal manuvers to prevent anyone from even getting a glimpse of what the Windows OS is. Add to that the overly destructive business practices of MS over the last decade (well... even earlier, but mostly stuff that went on in the 90s), and we are stuck with one OS that just adequately performs. Yes, I realize that OSes are hard to code, etc., but DOS was a stable OS (as far as I remember). Competition, my friend, is what gives you processors that are hitting 3GHz, and technologies like Hyperthreading (another stolen/liberated technology), Hypertransport (a technology developed by a group then hijacked by AMD), and x86-64 and IA-64 (both of which have dubious roots, at least in terms of who is responsible for them originally).

The fact that Linux builds are getting more Windows like in terms of user interface is both bad and good. Command-line OSes seem to be the most stable and secure OSes, and adding GUIs always complicates matters and compromises security (it's so much easier to find and fiddle with "hidden" functions in a GUI enviroment than a command-line enviroment). The fact that Linux GUIs resemble Windows is a testament to the near univeral saturation of Windows in the computer world, and the comfort people have with using it. MS, who should see this as a noble challenge to their throne, would be better served to meet this challenger in such a way that benefits the end-user in terms of security, performance, and features. Instead they resort to namecalling and mudslinging, much like school childern or politicians. There is nothing wrong with open-source. It empowers people, as well as makes the more paranoid among us feel secure, since they can add their own changes.

And as to Linus, I thought that UNIX was open-source anyway, used by universities and companies to communicate freely without having to worry about compatability problems. Therefore, what Linus did was not theft, but what any other person with source code would do. Make it better.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.
October 30, 2002 1:57:22 AM

Two more little things... apparently, RealNetworks announced today (10/29) that they will be opening up the source code for some products <A HREF="http://www.realnetworks.com/index.html?lang=en&loc=us&s..." target="_new">here</A>.

And the US Military was told by it's consulting group that FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is a viable alternative to anything else out there.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.
October 30, 2002 3:54:46 AM

I would like to see all technical crap die. IA-64, Rambus, DVD Audio, SACD (Super Audio CD) all are crap. Rambus is already dead. IA-64 must die like Rambus.

What Audio Compression Technology you use for storing music? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Tell Here</A>
October 30, 2002 3:56:36 AM

Linux is not a cancer. If there's any cancer in the software industry that is MS. It's unfortunate that Linux is not the AMD for MS. I hope Linux or any free/very cheap OS to be 100% compatible with Windows apps in near future.

What Audio Compression Technology you use for storing music? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Tell Here</A>
October 31, 2002 3:59:03 PM

Should I even bother? Who knows... This reply isn't to anyone in specific. I just wanted to throw out a few things.

1) Windows wasn't stolen, Mac wasn't stolen, Amiga Workbench (that's the right name, right?) wasn't stolen, etc., etc. At the time that GUIs were being started, the concept for them had been around and around on all sorts of platforms in all sorts of incarnations. Even my C=64 had a GUI built into one of my carts. Do you know how many OEMs practiacally sold their machines through the use of customized DOS shells? (The ASCII-based and/or CGA, mcga, etc.-based predecessors to Windows.) You can't say that ANY <b>one</b> organization invented the GUI. It was just a concept that spread like wildfire one day and <b>everyone</b> rushed to develop theirs and make theirs the best. Some survived by coming out first. Some survived by being well designed. Some just survived due to lack of competition. None of them were stolen though. They were all uniquely developed.

2) Linux on the other hand is a lot of 'stolen' technology. Only the technology was free, so it's hard to call that stolen. Linux was the direction that Unix feared to tread. It was a good idea. Too bad there's so much squabbling amongst the Linux community that it's taken Linux so long to even get where it is today. Chances are, it'll still take a while before it can really match Windows.

3) Believe it or not, Microsoft actually has done a <b>LOT</b> to improve both security and stability. The problem is that these are both things that aren't readily visible and can be easily compramised by third-party products. Software, hardware, drivers, these can all kill both security and stability if you use crap. If you look at Windows 2000 compared to Windows 95, you'll notice one hell of an improvement in both security and stability. WinXP is even better. (Though not by much.)

The difference between Windows and Linux is that Windows has been significantly re-written (in part or in whole) for almost every release of Windows. (Almost because 95b and 98SE were primarily just bug fixes.) Linux has generally remained the same code base, just slowly upgraded over the years. So each new version of Linux isn't a significant code change over the last version.

MS has put an awful lot more manhours into Windows code than Linux programmers have put into Linux. It shows. (Though lately is starting to show less and less.) <b>That's</b> why Windows is so commonly used.

4) Linus Torvalds can go suck himself for all I care. So long as real programmers work on both the x86-64 and IA-64 side of things, I'm content.

IA-64 has it's merits and to whine so much means he obviously doesn't have a clue. Especially when it's x86-64 that he's praising. He only likes x86-64 because even a braindead stoned monkey could program for it if they already know enough to slap out a 32-bit x86 program. If he were to actually try using IA-64, he'd have to bother learning and maybe even thinking for a change. So it's no wonder he's opposed.

5) No matter how much MS tries, Windows will always suck compared to what it could/should be. Why? Because Gates has always been a fool and the whole company is founded on that. He may be a rich fool, but he's still a no-talent hack that never really had a clue what he was doing. He just got lucky was all.

6) Chocobos rule!

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 31, 2002 5:26:33 PM

No talent hack... I strongly disagree with you there slvr. Bill Gates less all his faults and mistakes is a perfect example of what Corporate America should be. Cut throat, aggressive, undermining, and deceptive. He has us on a leash with every new feature in Windows causes us to drool at the mouth. His business tactics and maneuvers are world class. He is as far as I’m concerned a business genius and world class CEO.

-Jeremy


<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 31, 2002 5:55:15 PM

1) <i>Ippon, phoenix-san.</i>

2) Actually, Linux development is <i>fast</i>. In just a few years, it went from having almost no SMP support to having very good SMP that scales well to 4 CPUs (and even scales a bit to 8-way)--thus surpassing Windows NT in the one of the few areas where Windows could claim a performance advantage. It's leapfrogging the BSDs already; with 2.6 (linuxthreads2, even better VM, maybe Reiser4), that leapfrog will be complete.

3) Hmmmm...<i>wazari</i> for you, phoenix-san. Win2K is a big improvement; it's a rock-solid piece of software which (for the most part) is secure if you just stay on top of patches. Trusted Computing is more-or-less a joke, but most of us knew it was just marketing.

WinXP is not really much of an improvement though, and it lacks the maturity of Win2K.

4) That doesn't really wash, because the kernel supports some fourteen-odd other architectures besides x86.

This goes back to my last post. IA64 needs excellent C/C++ compilers to perform well, or it needs hand-coded assembly. And if compilers have to be uber-intelligent to wring performance out of IA64, imagine how hand-coded assembly will have to be.

Not to mention which, nobody seems to want IA64 much. Some people get interested, try it, then most turn it down for various reasons (usually power-related reasons--Itanium2 is still dreadfully inefficient in this regard). Linus has quite enough work on his plate without being pressured to support yet another approach to the same old problems, especially when that approach is having a hard time finding a niche.

"Hello, Dave. How would you like to skin your cat today?"

5) <i>Ippon.</i>

6) <i>...Wazari</i>. I remember having to chase those bastards around in FFVIII. :tongue:

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
October 31, 2002 8:54:44 PM

I hope you never become IT manager.

Now what to do??
October 31, 2002 9:25:54 PM

Wow.

I must say, I pretty much read the first post, and chalked it up on my "Troll Post" list. Made my standard troll reply, and bailed.

But this has turned into a full fledged discussion. I'm like, feeling harshed over here.

Everyone has brought up good points. About the only "real" thing I can say is Linus did the whole GPL thing for a reason. Of course he's going to say he doesn't like IA-64.

But when the market decides what to do with IA-64, you can bet Linux kernals will go with the decision.

"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser
November 1, 2002 2:52:12 PM

Ach, Japanese! I suddenly feel so culturally inept. I haven't even watched any subtitled anime in years. (Though I did just recently watch an English-dubbed Project A-Ko. That movie is just too darn funny.)

Quote:
2) Actually, Linux development is fast. In just a few years, it went from having almost no SMP support to having very good SMP that scales well to 4 CPUs (and even scales a bit to 8-way)--thus surpassing Windows NT in the one of the few areas where Windows could claim a performance advantage. It's leapfrogging the BSDs already; with 2.6 (linuxthreads2, even better VM, maybe Reiser4), that leapfrog will be complete.

It has sped up recently, which I suspect is due largely to corporate investment into Linux. It's still lagging behind in a few areas though. (Mostly in apps, but still a few things in the OS that need work too.) I bet in a couple more years Linux will finally be ready to replace Windows, but that might just be an insane hope.

Quote:
Trusted Computing is more-or-less a joke, but most of us knew it was just marketing.

Heh heh. Only more or less? I thought that it <i>was</i> a joke! :) 

Quote:
WinXP is not really much of an improvement though, and it lacks the maturity of Win2K.

I thought that WinXP was mostly the Win2K kernel with some added eye candy, user management, and a dash of new communication protocol improvements. True, I suppose it isn't much of an improvement for people who are using Win2K. Since it's heavily targetted at home users though, I think it is a pretty solid improvement over 9x and ME. But I suppose you're right, it's really more like just an enhancement to 2K.

Quote:
4) That doesn't really wash, because the kernel supports some fourteen-odd other architectures besides x86.

You do have a point there and frankly that has left me a bit puzzled. However, I suspect that most if not all of those architectures follow certain primary functionality rules that are similar to x86 so that for the most part, all you need is either a compiler for that platform or at most a few minor code changes. IA-64 on the other hand sounds a lot more complex to crossover to.

Quote:
Not to mention which, nobody seems to want IA64 much. Some people get interested, try it, then most turn it down for various reasons (usually power-related reasons--Itanium2 is still dreadfully inefficient in this regard). Linus has quite enough work on his plate without being pressured to support yet another approach to the same old problems, especially when that approach is having a hard time finding a niche.

I suppose that's true enough. Itanum still has to work out a few hardware issues. Still, if you have entire software development teams devoted to putting Linux on the Dreamcast or an XBox then I don't see why supporting IA-64 should be ignored or put down just because there aren't many people who would use it. I think the unnoficial motto for Linux has been "We're better because we can do ANYTHING when we put our minds to it." So to turn around and shun IA-64 seems rather ... odd.

Quote:
6) ...Wazari. I remember having to chase those bastards around in FFVIII.

FF Tactics is the nastiest when it comes to Chocobos. Those little buggers can be nasty. Still, I like 'em. I also love how every version of FF has had specialized chocobo music based on the original chocobo music. That's just cool. I should burn a CD of just variations on the same chocobo music. :) 

It makes one wonder though... I mean FF has had the dragoon/lancer concept for pretty much as long as they've had the concept for the chocobo. Yet I can't recall them ever being combined. I wonder why you never see a chocobo knight with a lance, doing charges and jumps to shove that lance in hard...

**shrug**

Oh well.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
November 1, 2002 3:19:24 PM

Quote:
No talent hack... I strongly disagree with you there slvr. Bill Gates less all his faults and mistakes is a perfect example of what Corporate America should be. Cut throat, aggressive, undermining, and deceptive. He has us on a leash with every new feature in Windows causes us to drool at the mouth. His business tactics and maneuvers are world class. He is as far as I’m concerned a business genius and world class CEO.

Well, I disagree. Microsoft started out by stealing other people's code and disassembling it. This continued on through MS DOS6. Heck, most of the good features of MS DOS were contracted out instead of developed in house. On top of that plenty of other versions of DOS were considerably better. There were even versions of DOS that allowed multitasking while MS DOS didn't. That doesn't sound much like talent to me.

Windows was quite possibly the first time that MS even did something halfway right. However there MS just plain got lucky. There were other GUI projects from other companies, but for some reason Windows was the one that stuck.

Ever since then MS has been in a unique position with hardly a challenge to their presence. That's not skill. That's not talent. That's just plain dumb luck. Microsoft got lucky at <i>just</i> the right time and has been riding the wave of that luck since. If any company in the world had even close to the same resources and wanted to take over the x86 software world, they'd be able to do so. Why? Because MS is so mis-managed and poorly run. They piss off their customers. They put out faulty products. It can't go on like that for too much longer before something finally changes.

That's not genius. That's not being a world-class CEO. That's just plain dumb luck. That's how I see it anyway. MS is mostly just a company of clowns in charge of some probably very good software engineers, and Gates is just the red-nosed floppy-shoed ring leader.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
November 1, 2002 3:22:38 PM

Quote:
But when the market decides what to do with IA-64, you can bet Linux kernals will go with the decision.

Very true. As I said, I really don't care what Linus says or does because in the end, he's mostly just a figure head and at some time, someone <i>will</i> pick up any balls that he drops.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
November 1, 2002 4:48:31 PM

Quote:
Well, I disagree. Microsoft started out by stealing other people's code and disassembling it. This continued on through MS DOS6. Heck, most of the good features of MS DOS were contracted out instead of developed in house. On top of that plenty of other versions of DOS were considerably better. There were even versions of DOS that allowed multitasking while MS DOS didn't. That doesn't sound much like talent to me.


DOS was bought with full rights.

Quote:
Well, I disagree. Microsoft started out by stealing other people's code and disassembling it. This continued on through MS DOS6. Heck, most of the good features of MS DOS were contracted out instead of developed in house. On top of that plenty of other versions of DOS were considerably better. There were even versions of DOS that allowed multitasking while MS DOS didn't. That doesn't sound much like talent to me.


M$ was the only one to mass-market a GUI-based OS to IBM's now open design philosophy (nowadays known as PC's). Apple kept their OS closed and exclusive to their own computers and so did many other companies.

Quote:
Ever since then MS has been in a unique position with hardly a challenge to their presence. That's not skill. That's not talent. That's just plain dumb luck. Microsoft got lucky at just the right time and has been riding the wave of that luck since. If any company in the world had even close to the same resources and wanted to take over the x86 software world, they'd be able to do so. Why? Because MS is so mis-managed and poorly run. They piss off their customers. They put out faulty products. It can't go on like that for too much longer before something finally changes.


As I said above, Windows was marketed correctly and it goes a long way towards why it was accepted. You'll find that in business, the business part usually means a lot more than the quality of products part. If you can market something better, it doesn't have to be the best product to sell. Bill Gates, for all his flaws as an engineer, is a great business man. While Steve Jobs recklessly sold his stock and later got kicked out of Apple, Gates has always been in full command of his company. He hired the right business people to help them compete on a marketing level with other companies and has not once let someone else gain control. That's not luck, that's the type of greedy, cut-throat and dare I say it, genius type of tactic that is the epitome of a capitalistic (and yes that's what we are, don't let any afterschool special tell you otherwise) society.
The fact that Windows isn't the best product out there means almost nothing. It's marketed well, it's got enough shiny things with every release to get people interested and it manages to require you to use it despite the fact that you are not entirely satisfied with it. In the end, the business end means much more. And for that, Gates has performed magnificently.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
November 1, 2002 6:07:26 PM

Quote:
DOS was bought with full rights.

Uh huh. And that's why Microsoft was in court time and time again and even after DOS 6 had to release a sudden 'upgrade' (actually downgrade) to DOS 6.22 because they had illegally labelled and distributed other people's works.

MS DOS was founded on thievery and misrepresentation of other people's work, and ended in the same way. And through it all, MS was contracting out the parts that they either couldn't do or didn't want to learn to do. So not only did MS engage in quasi-legal to illegal practices from the very beginning, but they didn't even have the skill and manpower to do all of their own work.

Quote:
M$ was the only one to mass-market a GUI-based OS to IBM's now open design philosophy (nowadays known as PC's).

Actually, that's not true. Others also tried to sell GUI-based DOS shells. (As opposed to the miriad of ASCII-based DOS shells that had existed long before Windows.) Some of the ones that existed when Windows first came out weren't as robust, this is true. And some of the ones that came out afterwords weren't as buggy. Why Windows survived and caught on where others just remained quaint toy utilities baffled people then, and still baffles those who remember it now. It was a fluke that gave MS the resources to improve their GUI exponentially faster than everyone else's DOS shells, graphical or text based. And that's all that Windows was up until Win95 was just a gloridied DOS shell. Until then it was just an added layer upon the actual operating system, MS DOS.

Quote:
Apple kept their OS closed and exclusive to their own computers and so did many other companies.

Apple, Amiga, and even Microsoft have kept their OS closed and exclusive to specific hardware types. You can't load Windows onto an Amiga. You can't load Workbench onto a Mac. It wasn't the 'openness' of the OS that won PCs over everything else. It was the hardware. You can't go and praise Microsoft for PCs becoming widespread when it wasn't even a matter of software. Gates had <i>nothing</i> to do with that.

Quote:
As I said above, Windows was marketed correctly and it goes a long way towards why it was accepted. You'll find that in business, the business part usually means a lot more than the quality of products part. If you can market something better, it doesn't have to be the best product to sell. Bill Gates, for all his flaws as an engineer, is a great business man. While Steve Jobs recklessly sold his stock and later got kicked out of Apple, Gates has always been in full command of his company. He hired the right business people to help them compete on a marketing level with other companies and has not once let someone else gain control. That's not luck, that's the type of greedy, cut-throat and dare I say it, genius type of tactic that is the epitome of a capitalistic (and yes that's what we are, don't let any afterschool special tell you otherwise) society.

Sorry, but that's an overly-idealistic way of looking at it. Windows for some reason caught on where other graphical and text DOS shells hadn't. It wasn't marketting. It wasn't the product's superiority. It just happened because the stars happened to be right one day or something equally unfathomable. Windows 1.0 just caught on because <i>someone</i> had to be the standard and it fell into Microsoft's lap.

With the resources that they got from the increase of sales they were able to make better and better versions than Windows 1.0. Soon this re-investment back into development allowed them to outpace the development of all of the other shells and that just gave MS even more sales. By then, yes, MS was doing well in both marketting and product development. But then what company <i>wouldn't</i> do well? As the Windows snowball kept rolling down that hill, outpacing the other snowballs, it became a monster that no one could stop. Any idiot could have run a company to do that had they gotten the same break. It doesn't take skill to ride a winning horse.

Quote:
The fact that Windows isn't the best product out there means almost nothing. It's marketed well, it's got enough shiny things with every release to get people interested and it manages to require you to use it despite the fact that you are not entirely satisfied with it. In the end, the business end means much more. And for that, Gates has performed magnificently.

That's why there are tons of people who didn't sign up with Microsoft's latest upgrade regime. That's why so many people are purposely avoiding Windows XP. That's why so many Windows XP users are growing more and more frustrated with Microsoft. That's why most people haven't upgraded Windows or Office in ages. For most people, the prices are too high and the actual benefit that they get out of the upgrade just isn't worth it.

That snowball's run is petering out. Microsoft itself is pissing off so many customers that many of their former customers are now happy to either not upgrade at all or switch to Linux. The only real areas where Microsoft is still winning is OEM sales, and even many OEMs are getting awfully sick of the Microsoft bullying and paying for licenses that they can't even sell.

No, Microsoft has been slowly but surely run into the ground over the last two years, if not longer. They've made bad management decision after bad management decision. At this rate, various flavors of Linux (probably mostly ones like Lindows, Xandros, etc. that support Windows software to some degree) will start to take away massive market share from Microsoft in five years or less, depending on both how well Linux improves to become easy to install and use, and how badly Microsoft pisses people off.

The reaction has already started. It just depends upon what catalysts occur before critical mass is reached. And why is this? Because Gates isn't the veritable managerial god that some people see him as. He's human, just like the rest of us. He makes mistakes. He gets taken in by greed and power and believes that he's less replacable than he actually is.

**shrug** It happens.

If Gates were every bit as good as you think he is though, then Linux wouldn't even be a threat. It would be just as much a threat as BSD, Unix, Solaris, Mac OS, etc. (Or in other words, it wouldn't be any threat at all.)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
November 1, 2002 7:07:49 PM

Thank you for someone else that can see good business. Some people are soo hopped up on thir opinion over something or someone they cant see the real person or product for what it is.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
November 1, 2002 7:40:16 PM

Slvr, I am with imgod2u and Spud on this, Gates has done many mistakes but he did what a capitalistic company needed to do to succeed. If MS began in Canada, you bet as hell it would never be this way. Is that a good thing?
To me, as much as I love my country, being in Canada would've drastically reduced the Microsoft innovation over the years.
I strongly disagree with how you see it.
I won't comment below on the MSDOS history, as I've little to no knowledge of what happened back then to debate.

Quote:
It was the hardware. You can't go and praise Microsoft for PCs becoming widespread when it wasn't even a matter of software. Gates had nothing to do with that

You are right in that being non-related to Gates. However, I believe it was the dedication of Gates to create Windows to comply to many hardware companies' products. SOMETHING must have been done in order to let the companies trust MS, and know something will run it well, THAT's where Gates had something to do in it.

Quote:
Sorry, but that's an overly-idealistic way of looking at it. Windows for some reason caught on where other graphical and text DOS shells hadn't. It wasn't marketting. It wasn't the product's superiority. It just happened because the stars happened to be right one day or something equally unfathomable. Windows 1.0 just caught on because someone had to be the standard and it fell into Microsoft's lap.

That could be why, however at that time, Windows 1.0 was barely heard of. I for one, lived through the 1995 era and I can clearly tell you, even back then Win95 was not that frequent, on my 486, I used Norton Commander and MSDOS to run stuff. I had Win3.1 which I rarely accessed!
All I know, is that Microsoft actually was determined. Even a small feature could've done this. I don't beleive in that sudden luck thing unless something triggers it. This is not a roulette!

Quote:
Soon this re-investment back into development allowed them to outpace the development of all of the other shells and that just gave MS even more sales. By then, yes, MS was doing well in both marketting and product development. But then what company wouldn't do well? As the Windows snowball kept rolling down that hill, outpacing the other snowballs, it became a monster that no one could stop.

I fail to see what was wrong here, this is exactly why MS was succesful. It's not about being dumb, no sir.

Quote:
That's why there are tons of people who didn't sign up with Microsoft's latest upgrade regime. That's why so many people are purposely avoiding Windows XP. That's why so many Windows XP users are growing more and more frustrated with Microsoft. That's why most people haven't upgraded Windows or Office in ages. For most people, the prices are too high and the actual benefit that they get out of the upgrade just isn't worth it.

I am sorry but that is not entirely true. The majority of people I know, simply love WindowsXP, for its simplicity (one got cable internet, just plugged the modem, opened IE and could surf). I myself think this is a significant improvement over any OS MS ever did. I am sorry you could not see this, but MS has power to convince, and this OS was damn honest in convincing, as it holds truth. Stability may not be the absolute best, but that's Win2K's job, as WinXP has some Win9x architecture in it.
I honestly have never seen anything greater and easier to use than WinXP, and that's not just the eye candy saying this. I've really enjoyed how everything was easy to setup, rare crashes, no BSODs (except that nv4_disp.dll loop bug which no longer happens, I assume new chipset and graphics drivers did this).

Your claim of users of WinXP being frustrated is rather false. As I said, I have over 5 people in real life that I know, who have used and enjoyed WinXP, rare are the ones who couldn't find their place in it. Aside from moving away from DOS, this OS has little disadvantages, from my POV it has none in fact. It improves over everything Win9X had faults in.

Quote:
No, Microsoft has been slowly but surely run into the ground over the last two years, if not longer.

I think they are reacting back. Just recently MS announced a huge extension of warranty from 6 months, to 5 years to their products, including support for Win98, and WinXP being warranted for 2007 or so. They clearly are noticing the public's view, and are trying to win them back.

In short, I don't see why you see MS like that, or Gates, but I am with spud and imgod2u, Gates was not just lucky but he knew the real deal back in the 1980s. Ok not a visionary with his 640K oughta be enough quote, but still.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 1, 2002 7:41:26 PM

Over time when a company is too succesful, people see it as evil. Tons around me hate MS for no reason.
People see Intel as evil as well, though the number has reduce dramatically.

I don't see MS as evil to be honest, I simply fail to.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 1, 2002 8:45:33 PM

I'm with Eden on this one (mark that up as a first).

Business is Hell, where whimps eat flaming plasma death. If you can't handle it, your genes are wiped from the pool, and the strong survive.

It's been this way since the 1500's. Burn the ships and all that.


America made Microsoft. And Intel. And AMD. And Sun. And IBM.

It wasn't the Russians. It wasn't the Germans, the Afghans, or the Peruvians.




Business is War. Deal with it.

[edit: Strictly to clear up any doubt, this is not sarcasm. I would have used html to denote the areas, if it was.]
"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser
November 1, 2002 9:19:38 PM

While I'll say that MS is being run the way many people want to see in their CEO, the lack of competition and challenges (outside of the courtroom, that is) has made MS go soft. They developed a certain outlook at the PC market around the time of Win95, and haven't looked back. The IE integration fiasco (which at the time was an inferior product to Netscape, but has grown into a usable product in its own right), bundling of other software not related to the OS, but there cause it had the MS name on it, and other things have given the company an air of arrogance and disdain for their end-users. I myself us WinXP Pro, but if the current plans of MS pan out, I might stick with it for a while. Longhorn sounds more like bloat and pointless DRM crap than actual innovation. And RedHat 8.0 and Mandrake 9.0 both look like very serious contenders in the GUI OS front. They already have strong support in terms of an office suite (which can use many MS Office formats) and internet and A/V programs (not to mention its perennial strengths). All it's missing, in terms of my own needs, is gaming support. Yes, there are more and more games being created with Linux in mind, and Nvidia has pretty damn good support in terms of drivers. But my sound card has limited support (no EAX and D3D sound, nor 5.1 support), and the games I happen to play seem to be absent from the list of Linux supporting games. There are software houses out there that contract with the original publisher to make Linux ports, but many of those have gone belly-up recently, not to mention that usually the games get ported about 6-9 months after they were originally released.

I don't like MS, I'll say that. Their business practices, while sound in terms of staying on top, are given a dull edge when there is no competition to hone them on. All it will take is a strong challenge by Linux and/or Apple (there are "rumors" of future Apple OSes being usable on x86 processors, though they are rumors, and I think those kind have been following Apple for years), or someone else with a Bill Gates-esq approach to the coding world, to upset the giant. I don't see MS lasting in it's current position any more than 3 years.


Oh, and the settlement announced today was too weak. I mean, I want to be able to remove those damn programs, not just hide the icons.


One more thing. You'll notice that Apple OSes are far cheaper to buy than MS OSes, even though they both, in effect, have a monopoly on their respective systems.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.
November 2, 2002 12:17:05 AM

Quote:
Oh, and the settlement announced today was too weak. I mean, I want to be able to remove those damn programs, not just hide the icons.

As far as I am concerned, SP1 does just that, letting you remove, disable completly what you don't need, and that includes IE an MP8, as well as MSN. However to me, all three are important, they are excellent integrated tools and I don't need fancy browsers, as IE6 is just great, no crashes whatsoever. MSN, well I do remember some instabilities, but overall this is the best messenger program out there. And as for Media Player 8, it's fine, filled with many multimedia supported formats and types of playbacks, however I've switched to WinAMP for music, while videos are still a Media Player strengh.

Quote:
One more thing. You'll notice that Apple OSes are far cheaper to buy than MS OSes, even though they both, in effect, have a monopoly on their respective systems.

I disagree, the majority of users purchase OEM OSs, you rarely will see someone shelling out about 200$ US for a WinXP Pro Retail copy, just for the support and manual. That means the average price for WinXP Home OEM which I legally bought and am happy with such decision, is 99$, when I compare that to FutureShop's Mac OSX at 200$ CDN which is about 120$ US, therefore you are partially wrong with that statement.

I will agree that the lack of competition certainly does dull things out. I don't like what I hear in the court's claims of MS' antitrust acts, however I then think: In 1995, wasn't Intel crushing its CPU opponents one by one until AMD was the last active one? And then didn't AMD come back striking with its might, despite being over 10 times smaller, delivering a CPU which actually for the first time ever, steal over 20% of the market share, putting Intel at or below 80%?

Although this isn't directed to you, you should also take in mind that Intel has been around for over 30 years, MS has been here since 22 years, or around it. Yet MS has jumped so far since, that they are now considered a monopoly, have such a strong user base following its OS, and continue to launch products, which to me have always been satisfying, which includes nice MS Games like FSim, Midtown Madness (although not entirely developped by them), and many more, as well as Office Suites, etc.
MS has done aggressively, even more than Intel, and they succeeded. Did they put people on the streets? I honestly do not know, I haven't heard such, I have heard of assimilations, as in mergers. However, with the huge database of software for Windows, as well as over billions of users which are Joes, who simply know Windows as Pentium, will need a huge beating of adds before any other OS ever picks up. Think about it, if Dell sold Linux boxes to Joes, without being aware, and they notice they can't use their programs on it, that'll be the day many will realize, MS has done a lot, and to think they won't last with Windows much longer in terms of competition, is indeed as Slvr suggested, an insane hope.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 2, 2002 5:11:33 AM

Mostly, I would have liked to remove MSN Messenger, since I have no use for it, my messenger of choice is AIM. Since thats what my friends have, it's what I have. I used to use WMP for video, but then WinAmp 3 came out, and when you add in the Divx Player, generally speaking, I have all that I need. WMP has been relegated to the closet, used only if required (such as WMV). I used IE6 exclusively, and don't mind it, as it has matured quite well since it was initially introduced in Win95. Then it was just a clunky piece of crap that crashed more often the not. In general, I enjoy WinXP, but not because of the features (the burning software was disabled from day one... Nero and CloneCD are my preferred programs). Indexing is crap, and the built in hard drive defragmenter and scan disk are just as bad, as has always been the case. I love admin tools, mainly because I can have more control over the various remote access portals to my system, and user functions (as it stands, nothing is activated, and all links, including MS's user profiles, are disabled and/or deleted.)

And then there is the stability. Going from Win98SE to WinXP Pro was wonderful. But still, I am always concerned with the continuos security holes, especially when they get pissed off at people for discovering them, telling MS over and over, getting no response or fix, then posting it on the web. Seems to be the only way to get them to fix things... as if they don't have the time to fix security flaws (remember the UPnP hole? Case in point). I guess I feel there isn't enough tranparency to the whole thing. Certain "features" are hidden away, where only the most dedicated can find, things like backdoors for MS to download programs they deem you need (part of the new EULA...). Just stuff like that. Since I don't have a packet sniffer on my line, I couldn't tell you if WinXP Pro was phoning home even though I tell it not to in every way I can. I'm sure it is, though.

As to prices of OSes, I noticed that the OSX 10.2 is going for 119.99 at Newegg, without hardware purchases nessicary, while the OEM version of WinXP Pro is going for 93.00. So, even if you buy some cheap piece of hardware for the discount, you're still paying about the same. Personally, I like education discounts, which college students are eligible for. I got WinXP Pro Upgrade for $88, and while Newegg.com doesn't show a education discount, edu.com has OSX 10.2 for ~$65, much cheaper. And, I feel that retail-wise (which, unless people buy computers, is where people get upgrades) MS is gouging people by offering a product at the $100 price-point that doesn't even have the networking features (Novell Netware comes to mind, required at my school) of Win98SE and Win95, and in other ways, is just a really stripped down version of it. WinXP Pro, the <i>real</i> WinXP, is going for the $200 dollar price point. And you'll also notice that Win98SE and Win2000 still sell for their debut prices, 2-5 years after they are released. There's something not right about that. At least Apple has the decency to pull the old version of the OS (not that they have much else going for them). Both are pigopolies, trying to squeeze as much out of the consumer as possible. It's the name of capitalism. I guess what bothers me about both is that they are so ingrained in their respective market segments, that there is no longer the laws of supply and demand. It's all artifical, and they have complete control over it. And, they can charge prices that are much to high. I mean, I can't remember hearing about MS even coming close to posting a break even report for profits, even in this latest slump. There's something wrong when a company that is dealing with a commodity instead of a nessesity, and is able to be considered recession-proof. That's just wrong.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.
November 2, 2002 6:03:05 AM

Quote:
WinXP has some Win9x architecture in it.

NEVER.

The programs that run only in Win9x and don't run in Win2000, will never run in WinXP. I have some older games that works only in Win9x. They don't run in Win2000, WinXP gives same result. What WinXP does for adding Win9X compatibility is adding a cheating feature in .exe file properties dialogue box that. This only reports the program that this comp is running 95/98 or Me. This only works with some progrms that can work in Win2000, but they refuse to run if they see the OS is not Win9X. You can do this cheat with Win2000 also, a program is available in the Win2000 CD for this purpose.

Quote:
Your claim of users of WinXP being frustrated is rather false.

I am frustated and swithched back to Win2000. WinXP is nothing but a Win2000 with a candy coated interface and some useless features like error reporting, system restore (at least to me). Almost every Win2000 user will feel like me. People who are really happy with WinXP, they were former Win9x and Me user.

Anyway, it does't matter for MS or other software companies what I use, because I get any software for $0 to max $3. :cool:

Submit your opinions and comment in my latest poll <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What is Bangladesh </A>
November 2, 2002 9:46:31 AM

Quote:
Indexing is crap, and the built in hard drive defragmenter and scan disk are just as bad, as has always been the case.


I can't agree with you here. Win2000/XP disk defragmenter is quite good, especially compared to Win95/98/Me disk defragmenter. And Win2000/XP checkdisk (Commandline) doesn't offer surface scan like scandisk, but in terms of standard scanning, it is better than scandisk. It is faster and lets you to unmount a volume before scanning. Scandisk doesn't offer it, it restarts scanning frequently in this case.

Submit your opinions and comment in my latest poll <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What is Bangladesh </A>
November 2, 2002 11:27:34 AM

OK I've skimmed and read many of the posts about how MS gained market momentum and retained it. It seems that many here have forgotten a MAJOR reason why MS gained it's momentum. It made great distribution licenses with many hardware manufacturers. Those licenses basically said that the OEM must purchase a copy of Windows OS for EVERY PC it sold, even if Windows was NOT included. Because MS made such sweetheart deals with the OEMS ($10-$20 per machine for software bundles) other companies could not compete with their aggressive pricing. Where Microsoft made up for this significant undercutting was in the upgrades and add ons. Microsoft eleased upgrades every couple years, for which they charged consumers significant and profitmaking amounts.

If Microsoft hadn't set such restrictive licenses in the early to mid 90's I suspect there could even to tis day, be other competition. MS likely would not be nearly as large as they are today.

When Microsoft made their settlement with the DOJ in the mid 90's they already had 90+% of the PC market and there were no competitors in sight, so modifying the license to remove the Pay for it even if you don't include it clause had no tangible effect since the damage was already done.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
November 2, 2002 12:59:48 PM

Quote:
NEVER.

The programs that run only in Win9x and don't run in Win2000, will never run in WinXP. I have some older games that works only in Win9x. They don't run in Win2000, WinXP gives same result. What WinXP does for adding Win9X compatibility is adding a cheating feature in .exe file properties dialogue box that. This only reports the program that this comp is running 95/98 or Me. This only works with some progrms that can work in Win2000, but they refuse to run if they see the OS is not Win9X. You can do this cheat with Win2000 also, a program is available in the Win2000 CD for this purpose.

I am not so sure on this. I have many programs which needed the "cheat" to work, and not necessarily because they didn't run on Win2k that they won't on WinXP. Take AutoCAD 2000, could not run or install from CD in WinXP, and it seems to me it works perfectly in Win2000. I had to make it run in Win2K or Win9X mode (the install file from the CD!) so I could install and run it for my dad.

Quote:
I am frustated and swithched back to Win2000. WinXP is nothing but a Win2000 with a candy coated interface and some useless features like error reporting, system restore (at least to me). Almost every Win2000 user will feel like me. People who are really happy with WinXP, they were former Win9x and Me user.

I could not debate a Win2000 user. Why?
I know it from experience, users who use Win2000, specifically for server purposes, will obviously prefer Win2000 over WinXP. In a technical POV, Win2K is superior to WinXP. It's one of the most stable OSs ever, I and probably you have heard of people running it for over 3 months with no restart. However for a Win9X generation user like me, WinXP makes all the difference and would definitly be better than Win2K, as its home features are aplenty for me. But I cannot disagree with a Win2k user who tried WinXP and shifted back to Win2k, as it holds truth to how respected Win2000 is. But, to claim Win9X users are frustrated with WinXP, I will disagree, and say it depends on the applications they used which to me seems to support the majority, including SOME DOS programs too!
I was nearly able to run Doom II DOS on it, but the Sound IRQ assignment didn't allow, so I got ZDOOM, the windows emulated version, works like a charm with my SB Live.

So let us keep this to an opinion level, rather than argumentative on which OS is better, as it'll never end, because of real facts which put each OS in light.


--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 2, 2002 5:07:21 PM

Quote:
But, to claim Win9X users are frustrated with WinXP, I will disagree


I never claimed such. I want to mean that there was no need of WinXP with so little improvement. Most home users didn't used Win2000, not for that reason it was harder to use. In fact, it was 0% more harder than Win98. Microsoft didn't advertised it as a home OS, that is the reason. Win9X users don't mind using XP, but they are not interested about Win2000. WinXP would have same fate even after microsoft's promotional activities to make it accepteble for home use. This is the candy coated interface which made Win9x users to switch to XP (in more than 90% case).

Another little MS trick to make people beleive that XP has some Win9x architecture, the default installation directory is WINDOWS instead of classic WINNT of WinNT/2000.

MS cheats us to beleive that XP boots faster than other Windows (including Windows 2000). This is true that WinXP loads very quickly after first installation. Thios continues for few days. But after installing various softwares and using windows for many days, bootup time increases. In a position, it will take longer than Win2000 to boot. No optimization can prevent it, including defrangmenting disk frequently. This doesn't happen in Win2000, it takes same time to boot after first installation and 3-4 months after first installation.

Afterall, we must admit that MS is a cheater.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>
November 2, 2002 5:34:39 PM

I disagree on the WinXP bootup.
Yes it can become absurdly long, but there are tools specifically that optimize this:
Microsoft BootVis, a tool you can use to reduce the startup time at the splash screen. It is neat, and reduces my "number of green bars scrolled" from 11 to 6-8, and can go further.
You also have the excellent DiskKeeper 7 defragmenter, which is also WinXP's defrag program, albeit a castrated less performing one. Get DK7, then use the Boot-Time Defragmenter, and it will also help startups as well as speeding up load times of programs. Finally defragmenting the drive with DK7 will also improve performance.

WinXP has the prefetch algorithm, if you didn't notice. You can have about 10 icons to load in the tray, and 150MB worth of commit charge at a STARTUP, not when you open and start using WinXP, and the OS will load em all in little I/O operations, which means it takes about 5-10 seconds, and everything is loaded. Often it takes that for me.
To boot WinXP, it takes me less than a minute, more like 30-40 seconds, and that's fine by me.
Yes Shut downs are longer, but I think MS did the right thing including a Saving Settings phase during Shut Downs, as it helps reduce any loss of settings or documents, but personally I do not mind shut down times in WinXP, as long as you have properly configured the system with stable drivers and no bloatware programs in the background, it will shut down in less than 15 seconds, which is more than ok to me if it includes file security measures.

Again WinXP contains a lot of features that compel any user to switch, not just for the interface. The automatic configuration of the system when a new device is found is simply inviting. As I gave an example before, about a friend getting cable internet, plugging the cable into the NIC card, and then opening IE and surfing already, there are many things WinXP will include with itself in the event you did not get the proper software. For example it includes an extremly simple and easy to use webcam software, found in My Computer when a webcam is detected, you simply go there, it loads the cam, you can start filming or taking still pics. WinXP also has the revert driver feature which also helps, or you can system restore, which again to me has been a lifesaver. Really, WinXP is a Windows 2000 with a slick interface and very user-friendly features. If it had the Win2K stability and the Win2K server possibilities (right up to Advanced Server 32), it would possibly be a competition killer. Windows is fine as it is, I ain't switching to no other OS' yet for a long time.
Sorry to have said you claimed Win9X users are frustrated with WinXP, I meant it towards those who said that, including Slvr.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 2, 2002 5:51:44 PM

Torvalds doesn't know about hardware? Huhh? That's a ridiculous statement. Torvalds had a great deal to do with the delevopment of Transmeta.

Torvalds knows exactly what he's talking about. You don't!

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
November 2, 2002 6:42:36 PM

LOL.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 2, 2002 7:28:31 PM

Well, from my personal experience, WinXP Pro has got faster since initial installation (surprising as it may seem). In fact, usually the longest part of bootup is logging onto the network here, and that has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with the time of day I log on. Average boot time from the POST beep to the logon screen is 15, maybe 20 seconds, and another 10 seconds after logon (depends on how quickly the network accpets my connection). I have never seen an OS load that fast. Here, the Win2000 machines (sadly, based on P3 Celerons... the original versions) take near a minute to load, and don't get me started on how long Macs take to load from cold boot (shudder). I think it would be safe to say that my machine is one of the fastest loading systems out there. I can't really see them loading much faster.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.
November 2, 2002 8:16:31 PM

Actually WinXP builds a database of prefetches, in order to make programs load faster. From ExtremeTech's conclusions, the more you open your programs in WinXP, the more they will be faster to load later on. That's not to say you go now and load the program over 100 times, but over time things will feel faster if you keep the system well cleaned and stable.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 2, 2002 8:47:35 PM

"well cleaned and stable."

Ummmm.

Those two are mutually exclusive, with Microsoft.

"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser
November 3, 2002 7:29:16 AM

Quote:
From ExtremeTech's conclusions, the more you open your programs in WinXP, the more they will be faster to load later on. That's not to say you go now and load the program over 100 times, but over time things will feel faster if you keep the system well cleaned and stable.


This works in Win2000 also, should also work in Win98/Me. The theory is actually-the more you open your programs in Windows, the more they will be faster to load later on. This theory works if you load a app (MSWORD for example) and quit it and do light tasks for few minutes and load Word again, it will load faster than first time. But you loaded word and closed it, then used WinRAR 3.0 to compress for one hour with all memory hungry settings (like 4096 KB dictionary), this theory will never work regardless it is Win2000 or XP. WinRAR will eat all memory you have. Windows will send back MSWORD data from memory to HD. It will take same time to load MSWORD compared to first load. I am saying this thing from my personal experience.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>
November 3, 2002 5:17:09 PM

No that is not what I meant. You are thinking about cache, I am talking about prefetching and rearrangement of the layout.
WinXP DOES have a special layout algortithm it does while you are using your computer, hence the Task Monitor service. (or some other name)
I suggest you go check Extreme Tech's Windows XP introduction to read on this, otherwise you will not be on the same page with me here.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 3, 2002 6:54:20 PM

I have read the first half of that article. This prefetching sounds good theoritically. But practically it has minimal or no effect. I used WinXP for few months. I was unable to feel that there's something special like it inside the kernel.

Does this prefetching need tons of Ram? I have used XP with 224 MB ram with my old K6-2 450 and with 120 MB with my current Duron 1 GHz.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>
November 3, 2002 8:03:37 PM

Lol, I think you do need a serious boost in RAM!
256MB is the bare minimal in my opinion in WinXP, it is already slow in that. 512MB makes a whole difference.

I noticed occasional speed-ups with the prefetching tricks, OE6 would open blazingly fast, so as IE. Of course I had to do a boot-time defrag, then 3 days later it worked. You just have to make sure your directories are often consolidated, not laid out everywhere messing all disk access.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 3, 2002 8:05:21 PM

Quote:
with 120 MB

Sounds to me like some Intel EXTREME GRAPHICS'-based motherboard or OEM computer, so that it ate 8MBs away! :wink:

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden
November 4, 2002 4:29:59 AM

I felt 120 MB is too little when I was running WinXP. Now I am back to Win2000, ram isn't a serious problem now. Still it is a problem when I can't play today's memory hungry games, edit audio files and create rar archives. I was able to play MOHAA in WinMe with 300 MB fixed minimum virtual memory. Now I have money to add 128 MB ram, but I want to add 256 MB, so I will wait few months. 376 MB ram + Win2000 should be as fast as 512 MB ram + WinXP.

Quote:
I noticed occasional speed-ups with the prefetching tricks, OE6 would open blazingly fast, so as IE

IE6.0 load was noraml in my case, not a bit faster than my Win2000+IE5 SP3 load. OE6.0 experience with WinXP was horrible. OE6.0 took normal time to load for few days after a fresh install, but continued to slowdown day by day. In a position, OE6.0 load experience was such-- windows "chord" sound, then 5-8 second delay, finally OE6.0 load with message "You are currently working offline, do you want to go online now?". Defrag helped very little in that case.

Quote:
Sounds to me like some Intel EXTREME GRAPHICS'-based motherboard or OEM computer, so that it ate 8MBs away!

It's not a OEM box. I am running Duron 1 GHz with a MSI K7N420-Pro (nForce 420-D). I have very little ammount of ram, so I share 8 MB for video instead of default 32 MB.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>
November 4, 2002 5:48:11 AM

I forgot to tell one thing that I found much faster in WinXP-- Hibernate. WinXP hibernates at least 5 times faster than Win2000. That was useful for me because I often use hibernate.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>
!