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?
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. (Some of
them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
standing still here.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
--
#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
|
|
