Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 11:37:37 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 12:56:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 07, 1999 at 02:15:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On December 07, 1999 at 00:23:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 06, 1999 at 17:47:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 05, 1999 at 21:11:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 05, 1999 at 16:42:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>>>>The problem with Microsoft is that you'll never get a reliable operating system: >>>>>>you get a system that almost works, but has many bugs. When you want to fix >>>>>>them, you have to get the next version of the OS, which is fatter, does not run >>>>>>anymore on your computer (allegedly because your 1 year old computer is already >>>>>>outdated) and brings a lot more bugs than what it fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't want to be part of this crazyness. But nobody offers an alternative. >>>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>>I think Christophe mentions a good point here. With the release of >>>>windows2000 m$ clearly is gonna buy linux some time to improve, >>>>as the beta releases of windows2000, >>>>I killed directly after i saw that they were eating over 60mb of my >>>>RAM... ...so basically needing machines with like 256mb at least... >>>>...they should buy some stocks in that area... >>> >>> >>>I knew that. I have read nothing about Win2000, but my guess was that it would >>>take more RAM and more disk space. >>> >>>Consider that Microsoft earns money each time a PC is sold, because most PCs >>>come with Windows. They make several (hundreds?) million dollars with this. So >>>it's their interest to force you to buy a new computer each year. >>> >>>A basic install of W95B takes about 80Mb on my computers. W98 takes about 200Mb. >>>I guess W2000 will take something like 400 to 600Mb? >>> >>>With W95B, 16Mb of memory is the minimum (well I run it on a 5Mb computer, but >>>it's really slow). With W98, I noticed 32Mb was the minimum. >>> >>>It sounds logical that 64Mb is the minimum for W2000. >>> >>>I bet W2000 on a 450MHz computer is as slow as W95B on a 100MHz computer. >>> >>>I bet that to do simple word processing tasks on W2000 you need at least a >>>450MHz computer equipped with 128Mb of RAM. >>> >>>Nice move, Micro$oft! >>> >>>I guess their biggest technical problem when they think about a new OS is: "what >>>could we load in memory at boot this time to take twice the memory size needed >>>by our former OS?". >>> >>>That's why we need an alternative OS as soon as possible. But something >>>everybody can use! >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I have a hard time believing that people can complain about an operating system >>taking up 200 megs. Do a full install of Red Hat. That will blow a gigabyte, >>no problem. Even your average game today (first-person 3D games, not chess >>software ;-) take more than 200 megs today. >> >>A 14 gig drive is what, $170 US? So 200 megs?... big deal. >> >>Dave > > >I see that you have accepted the money philosophy. > >What if I have bought a computer last year? Then you probably have several gigs free. Last year's hard drives were 6-10 Gb. >Every year I should upgrade my hard disk and my RAM? Every three years. >Having a 14Gb hard disk costs me twice its price. It costs me the price of the >current disk I have, and that I can throw to the trash can, PLUS the price of >the new hard disk. You don't have to throw it in the trash. Most computers have four IDE connections. One will be taken up by a CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM), another by the original hard drive. That means there's two free spots left. >Tell me why a very good operating system could not fit in 100Mb? Our definition of a "very good operating system" has changed from 30 years ago. If you want CICS, I'm sure you can fit that into 100 megs no problem. :-) >The price for us is the price of a computer each year. Computers cost much more >than what people think generally. The average guy buying a computer in a >supermarket or in a store does not realize how much this is going to cost him. That's because most of the price is software, not hardware, but people tend to look at the big sticker at the beginning (not that I blame them.) >This cost is increased artificially by companies like Microsoft. If you are suggesting that they deliberately write their software to use far more resources than it requires, then I will have to disagree with you. > Christophe Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.