On Aug 14, 7:21 am, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
> >> The biggest Blue Screen of Death ever
>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >>> Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the Beijing
> >>> Olympics committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games, had
> >>> deliberately chosen to run XP operating system on the games' PC
> >>> because they didn't trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have
> >>> trusted XP either, but they should have known that. Best of all,
> >>> Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had chosen not to use
> >>> Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some problems."
>
> >>> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see
> >>> that line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium,"
> >>> just remember: They're lying.
> >> `----
>
> >>http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
>
> >> This "recommends" thing should be illegalised. It's false
> >> advertising. It's paid for. It's misleading and corrupt.
>
> > It's an interesting point. One wonders if this should be taken up
> > with the ASA?
>
> While you're at it, can you ask them to investigate Canonical, who claims atwww.ubuntu.comthat Linux is "perfect for laptops, desktops and servers."
Probably should be revised to "Perfect for most laptops, desktops, and
servers" since there are still some "flatfish configurations" that
still don't work.
It seems that there is a new generation of 64 bit 4 core "super-
laptops" and "super-desktops" that have been designed to make Vista
run almost as fast as Linux on the ASUS EEE. These machines have quad-
core 64 bit Intel 2 ghz cores, 8 gigabytes of RAM, and dual SAS or
SATA drives in RAID configuration. I guess that's what it takes to
run fast enough to to not look painfully slow when you are running
Vista with Office and the typical suite of "real world" corporate
applications.
Of course, these machines can also run Linux, in fact, with that much
horsepower, you could run a 64 bit Linux kernel as the hypervisor, run
Vista or XP as a VM, AND have a fully functional Linux system, all
running on your laptop or desktop CONCURRENTLY. And you can do it at
speeds that are still almost twice as fast as "native mode" XP on a
Core2 Duo.
Of course, Linux will still run circles around Windows because of the
more effecient disk and memory management, but XP running under Linux
VM would also runny pretty darned fast.
In fact, just putting Vista on the desktop or laptop would be really
"ho hum, yawn", but putting Linux AND Vista on the same machine might
actually make it a machine worth paying the $2400 to $5000 price tag.
This might be one of those cases where the OEMs might have to tell
Microsoft, "we'll pay for the license but we will control the
configuration, even if we have to pay the extra $5 to do so".
Let's face it, Apple is getting $2200 for desktop and laptop machines
running UNIX and Windows concurrently, or even UNIX and Vista
concurrently. Meanwhile, sales of Vista-only machines are very
sluggish even at $500 for a laptop and $300 for a desktop machine.
The problem is that the cost of a machine that will actually RUN Vista
and any typical Vista applications is close to $400 per desktop and
$600 per laptop. The only way the vendor can even break even is to
sell extended warrantees, accessories, and upgrades, via the Web. The
retailers have to try and convince customers who decide to plop down
the $300 or $500 to pay another $300 to $500 to have Geek Squad
install additional RAM. But the Geek Squad folks STILL can't
configure a Linux/Vista system, and purchasers of Vista Home premium
STILL can't call Vista libraries from Linux WINE. At least Microsoft
will permit the end users to configure Vista as the client to a Linux
hypervisor.
Vendors may "Reccomend Vista" but what they REALLY want to market is a
machine that runs BOTH Linux AND Vista so that Apple won't keep taking
their market share and profits. At this point, Apple is poised to
overtake Dell or HP and move into the #2 position among the OEMs by
dollar volume, and is already in the #3 position in terms of units
sold per quarter.
We've seen in in review after review. Vista is really pretty, has
some impressive graphics, but non-Microsoft applications don't work
very well. All things considered, I'd rather have a Mac ( with OS/X).
Microsoft still has the "bragging rights" because most Macs are sold
with OS/X AND Windows in a virtualized desktop that allows Mac users
to run OS/X and Vista at the same time.
The problem for Microsoft is that they have betrayed the OEMs who have
stayed loyal all those years, by keeping the OEMs in a hog-tie thanks
to Microsoft restrictions on configurations (can't install both
Windows and Linux concurrently). As a result, outside the US, HP,
Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and other relative newcomers like Asus and C4 are
now offering Linux on their PCs, and offering them for about 1/2 the
price of a properly configured Vista system. After all, it's really
not good for customer relations to sell a computer that you know is
not going to work properly, just so that you can offer it at a price-
point, above which customers won't buy.
Remember, most of these "cheap PCs" have 1-2 gigabytes of RAM, dual 2
ghz CPUs, and 5400 RPM hard drives, which will barely run Vista, let
alone Office 2000. That same configuration is plenty to run Linux,
Open Office or Symphony, browser, skype, e-mail, chat, streaming
video, and 20-30 other popular applications, all at the same time.
What Linux users most often want is higher resolution screens, and
7200 RPM hard drive. The power users also want 4 gig of RAM so that
they can run Linux as the primary OS and XP (NOT VIsta) as a
Virtualized client. This also seems to be a configuration that is
desirable to corporate customers, most of whom have significant
investments in XP technology, but are looking to Linux/Unix as their
future desktop platform after years of very positive experience with
Linux and UNIX servers as well as server virtualization.
They've also had about 10 years worth of experience with Windows
servers, and while Windows severs have had their place, it has become
quite obvious that Windows servers are substantially more expensive to
manage, maintain, update, backup, recover, and support than Linux or
UNIX servers, often 8 times more expensive over a 10 year period.
|
|
