"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:22ivu4-73b.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dan D. Lyons
> <DanLyons@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
> <471cfd8d$0$26424$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram
>>> | from Newegg.com. Everything arrived fine, I installed
>>> | the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it involves
>>> | talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and
>>> | then to install the second stick you just have to remove
>>> | the back panel. I stuck in a Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit
>>> | version and started the install. Everything went fine,
>>> | Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
>>> | point. It rebooted after successful install, was loading
>>> | into windows and then blue screened. I was devastated lol.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/
>>
>>
>> --- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows
>> fine, installed the small patch, restarted, stuck additional
>> stick back in and yay! it didn't blue screen going into windows.
>> If you ask me, this update should be part of the Vista install,
>> and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having trouble
>> with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I
>> hope it helps you."
>>
>> And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even
>> consider using linux.
>>
>
> What, precisely, is the reason (or, if one prefers,
> a good set of reasons) someone should use Linux?
It's one of the questions that a product maker must ask itself. Who is our
target customer? Why would they choose this product over product X? And
other questions like this. Amateurs laugh and think this is a childish
exercise. Senior management calls it product focus and knowing your market.
> If we advocates can't answer that, Linux is doomed to die,
> and rightfully so; a user must *want* Linux, and thus
> far Linux (or many of the distributions surrounding it)
> is merely a carbon copy of the "innovative" Windows...at
> least as far as I can see from the publications focusing
> thereon, and the ignorance of users in general.
It's a question that people don't ask... but they should. Because it is
exactly the question that customers (NEW users) will be asking themselves.
(Customers does not imply having to pay for the product.)
> (Some of
> them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
> which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
> standing still here.)
Windows is plenty reliable for 99% of users. The only place where people
complain and whine about the urban legend of needing to reboot Windows ever
hour is here in COLA. It certainly isn't like that out in the real world.
As long as the "advocates" here think that they've won because people will
pick linux to avoid "rebooting every hour" then they are more clueless than
previously imagined.
> Not that that is anywhere near true, but does Joe Business
> User really care if Linux uses open() or CreateFile()
> in its internals? Not even close; the user cares about
> accurate presentation of a document/spreadsheet (or the
> GUI representation thereof) and its printout. Windows is
> adequate (though hardly spectacular) therein, and therefore
> Joe User is satisfied.
For Joe user the "internals" doesn't matter. Not one bit. It's a matter of
what they can do with the computer that counts... not how the computer does
things internally. Users think about the "applications" not OS.
> And in the above case, Joe User was quite satisfied
> after the patch. These things happen with both systems.
> Clearly, once repaired, Vista is more than adequate for
> the task at hand (though at this point the task is simply
> to stay up for more than 5 seconds while booting itself;
> if a system can't do that, it's very very doomed).
The article didn't mention what the "task" was that the user was going to
do. But he felt that Windows was the OS to do it with.
> There is, of course, the question of acquisition cost,
> but that's not the whole problem -- and I'm frankly not
> sure how much of the problem acquisition cost is.
It matters for places like schools that are on a tight budget. But for a
company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years (which they buy in bulk
anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay employees. They'd
save more by switching to cheaper brand of coffee in the kitchen.
> The question of reliability is an interesting one, and
> Linux does appear to be more reliable in that realm;
> it either works 99.9999% or it fails all the time.
> With Windows, one gets some interesting randomicity (if
> that's a word). IE in particular is not guaranteed to show
> the user's homepage (it occasionally goes to its update
> site), and even Mozilla is slightly infected in that realm,
> though only if Mozilla's been updated previously.
Linux may be slightly more reliable but to most people there is no
difference between linux being 99.999% reliable and Windows being 99.99%
reliable. If you were comparing linux to Win98 there'd be an advantage.
> --
> #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
> It's a question of when.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
