In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<nospam@xxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:02:21 -0500
<VDx7j.12513$k27.8689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Microsoft's Big Problem in a Small Box
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> Vista is a big operating system that demands monster graphics and
>>>> dual-core processors.
>
>
> This is the lie that feeds cola's idiocy, day after day. Vista does not
> demand monster graphics and dual-core processors (though it does benefit a
> lot from monster 2gb system memory, which is an absurd amount of memory to
> smoothly run a desktop OS).
Feh. DOS used to run in 128k, and even then, that was a
little bloated compared to some environments. For example,
ENIAC at one point had 18,000 vacuum tubes, though it's
not clear how much of them were used for storage; the
Wiki suggests 20 10-digit accumulators and 6,000 switches
(its version of ROM, presumably). Granted, neither DOS
nor ENIAC had quite the same number of features as a
modern desktop.
During my high school (late 70's) we used the 2100 series
(our 2114B was affectionally, if slightly unimaginatively,
named "Num Num"). This was an HP unit that had ferrule
core RAM, about 16 kB by modern standards (organized as 8k
words of 16 bits each, each bit being a little toroid).
The clock speed was apparently 600-625 kHz, but each
instruction took only 1 cycle unless the indirect bit was
set [+]. There was no disk as such for most of my time
there, though when I left high school they did acquire one
from HP, but hadn't gotten around to hooking it up yet
when I graduated. The machine had absolutely no stack,
unless one wrote code that handled the return address
and put it somewhere. Nevertheless, it could drive 3-4
teletypes with a variant of BASIC, though the error codes
were ridiculously cryptic ("ERROR 76" for out of data; we
had a number of pamphlets running around explaining these)
and there were only about 276 variables, named A0-Z9,
plus A-Z.
We also had an Apple ][, which maxed out at 64k and had
a 4 MHz clock; I won't bore you with the 6502's details
except that Page Zero (0x0000-0x00FF) was very crowded.
In retrospect, Num Num's days were numbered, even back
then...
The Amiga could run in as little as 256k; prototypes ran
with 128k. Atari had comparable specs but I'd have to
look.
The IBM PC could use 64k and dedicated about 4k ROM (IIRC)
to a BASICA interpreter in ROM; the other 4k was for BIOS.
At one point Debian could be installed in 4 megabytes;
the minimum is now more like 14, last I checked.
Compared to the admittedly antique artifacts, a modern
Vista system is mondo giganto, and even the modern Linux
distros could stand to lose a little weight. Of course
desktops are far more efficient too; ENIAC required 150 kW,
ran at 100 kHz (though the actual machine cycle was more
like 5 kHz) took up a room, and required quite a bit of
forced-air cooling.
>
>
>
>> Interesting. I don't know if the current trend of lightweight
>> desktops and sub-notebooks will be as market shaking as this
>> article implies, but whatever the impact it certainly favors
>> Linux over Windows.
>
> It might favor Linux over Windows if Linux was an acceptable
> alternative to Windows.
That depends on the audience, methinks -- and that's where
marketing comes into play.
Linux: little marketing, high capability, doomed [*].
Windows: lots of marketing, just enough capability, ubiquitous.
Same thing happened with OS/2 and with Amiga (though the
Amiga might have had the additional problem of incompetence
at high levels, resulting in Commodore having a heart
attack).
So what's more important in a computer today, technical
capability or marketing? Chances are, it's marketing.
Not the best of answers but only a very few humans like
myself are even close to technically inclined; most people
probably don't know what goes into a light switch, let
alone a modern desktop computer unit.
>
>
>> With Vista, MS has basically rolled out
>> a gas guzzling SUV when the market was asking for hybrids.
>
> Aside from the fact that Vista is not a 'gas guzzler',
> big SUVs are still selling extremely well in a $3/gallon
> market. And they always will.
>
> Not everyone is hysterically cheap and/or broke - cost is
> not nearly a good enough reason to switch to Linux.
>
Depends on what one is costing, admittedly. Microsoft SQL
Server has one of the best performance/cost ratios [%]
in the business, but that doesn't mean it'll beat Oracle
or SAS anytime soon in terms of raw performance.
[+] This effectively limited available address space to
32 kW, presumably. Apparently we only had half that.
[*] Well, we'll see. I for one hope not, but certainly
Microsoft isn't anywhere near dead, and is still
getting $54B/year revenue and about $15B/year profits,
with 23% quarterly earnings growth year-on-year.
This is not a dying company -- yet -- though it does
seem to have a certain propensity of aiming at its
own feet and shooting one of them on a regular basis.
However, bad press is occasionally touted as better
than no press at all; the problem (for Microsoft)
is that Linux has gotten quite a bit of press, much
of it very good indeed.
[%] http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/ArticleID/96943/96943.html
(requires subscription to view full article).
Not sure if this includes zero-price options such
as PostgreSQL, MySQL, or Hypersonic (part of JBoss).
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
