OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Yeah, all those engineers probably didn't know or care that most of the
> world's top 500 supercomputers run Linux.

The supercomputers have to run something, and it doesn't much matter
what it is. Traditionally they have run UNIX, although early ones ran
proprietary operating systems.

Remember, supercomputer companies just build the hardware. They don't
care much about the software.

> Linux now has become so technically powerful that it lays claim to a
> prestigious title--it runs more of the world's top supercomputers than
> any other operating system.

No, Linux is not "technically powerful"; it's just that ...

> "Linux is easy to get, has no licensing costs, has all the
> infrastructure in place, and runs on pretty much every single relevant
> piece of hardware out there."


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Which server logs? Please provide links.

I don't publish my logs, but here's the relevant section of a recent
report:

Windows . . . . . . . . . . 93.5 %
Macintosh . . . . . . . . . 4.9 %
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 %
Linux . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 %

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> On the other hand you have companies like Microsoft who have no choice
> but to ignore non-Intel architectures because, unless I am wrong, their
> cost to port Windows to other instruction sets would be monumental.

You're wrong. It's relatively straightforward to port Windows to other
hardware, and Microsoft has already done so on several occasions.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>You aren't supposed to use a server as a workstation too.
>
>
> I know that, and you know that, but a lot of people don't know that.

Hehe. Well, those folks aren't going to be familiar with the command line
either and it's easier to teach someone "don't use this server as a
workstation" than it is to teach Linux and the command line.


>>If... but you don't.
>
>
> Well, you do on Windows.

Well, you snipped the context but, no, you don't. Network access is network
access and does not 'use the GUI'.

> That's one of the big handicaps of Windows for
> server environments. There is just no way to administer Windows servers
> with just a CLI.

Administration is a different matter than 'network data base access'.

The GUI is there to make it 'simple' to administer but you're not sitting
there 'administering' the thing 24/7 (or else you have bigger problems than
worrying about the GUI) so the GUI load is irrelevant 99% of the time.

Now, I'm not saying that is necessarily the 'correct' solution for a server
but that's Microsoft's basic philosophy: to, stealing a phrase, make it "so
simple even a caveman could do it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Matt writes:
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand you have companies like Microsoft who have no
>>> choice but to ignore non-Intel architectures because, unless I am
>>> wrong, their cost to port Windows to other instruction sets would be
>>> monumental.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're wrong. It's relatively straightforward to port Windows to other
>> hardware, and Microsoft has already done so on several occasions.
>>
>
> Please give evidence of a version of Windows that ran on a CPU that
> didn't support the Intel instuction set.

The initial release of Windows NT supported the x86 and MIPS architecture.
Support for the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) Alpha AXP was added
shortly thereafter. Support for a fourth processor architecture, the
Motorola PowerPC, was added in Windows NT 3.51.

By the time Windows 2000 rolled out there was little incentive to support
those any more, other than x86, and they were dropped.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>> I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on
>> the desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:
>>
>> http://www.macworld.com/news/2001/12/19/linux/
>
> That's almost three and a half years old.

Exactly. Mr. Mxsmanic claims that it only has .3% marketshare. A poor
estimate of .25% marketshare was estimated almost 3 and a half years ago.
It shows just how full of it that estimate is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:

> I've read about some horror stories about when XP is installed
> there might be a big hassle "reactivating??" it when one changes
> major components such as motherboards, etc.--too big a monopoly
> in my opinion.

WPA_Kill.exe

A little freedom Americans can re-import.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Your logs.

Yes, from my Web site. I get about 300,000 unique visitors per month,
roughly a couple million individual page hits.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ruel Smith writes:

>> Okay, I finally went and looked at the Longhorn desktop @ this
>> site:
>> http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/longhorn/
>
> Interesting. Each new release of Windows wastes more and more
> space on the desktop. But that seems to be true for a lot of
> GUIs.

Windows XP looks exactly like Windows 99 here, with a few
exceptions that don't require screen space.

Currently, the only non-program window stuff on my main monitor is a
single row taskbar which includes two quick launch icons, program
buttons, and five system tray icons.

Multiple monitors increases screen space dramatically. My secondary
monitor has three program Windows and that's all.

Speech control eliminates the need for program icons.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored by MS
> c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who got them
> from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.

They are based on browser identifications.

> I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on the
> desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:

And what's wrong with that?

> Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003, and
> that it's higher than the Mac's:
>
> http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P723

And where did they get their numbers?

> There are conflicting marketshare studies all over the net. Like I've said
> before, I've read that it could be as high as 13%.

Yes, and I may already be a winner of Publisher's Clearinghouse
Sweepstakes.

> That figure was considering solo Linux boxes, dual boot machines, and
> LiveCD (like Knoppix) ran Linux deployments.

And where did those numbers come from?

> That means, most of those same users also run Windows.

How much time do they spend running Windows, and how much time do they
spend running Linux?

> That makes it difficult to get a true figure on just how many
> people are running Linux even on an occasional basis.

I agree.

> If Linux had only a .3% worldwide marketshare on the desktop, the chances
> of me running into a Linux user would be slim, let alone running into one
> somewhere at a gym working out lifting weights.

Not really. That's still 1 in 300.

> That figure has to be complete FUD.

Because you say so? What about the figures for the Macintosh and
Windows? Are they FUD as well? If not, why not?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored by
>> MS c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who got
>> them from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.
>
> They are based on browser identifications.

Which, again, are totally false, and I showed you why. You can't base it on
browser identification because Konqueror can appear as another browser on
another operating system altogether. You can't base it on sales because
most Linux installations are from totally free places like Debian, Gentoo,
Slackware, and even free versions of SuSE, Fedora (Red Hat), and Mandrake.
Also, that would be accounting for many computers that are sold with a
Windows license that get wiped in place of Linux. There simply is no way to
accurately measure Linux marketshare.

>> I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on
>> the desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:
>
> And what's wrong with that?

I've showed you before, and I'll show you again:

http://home.fuse.net/ruelsmith/SnapshotBrowserIdent.png

That's my system with Konqueror open and the menus dropped to show you where
you can set Konqueror to identify itself as Internet Explorer running on
Windows. It even lets you identify yourself as a number of versions of IE
running on different versions of Windows and even the Mac. It'll also allow
you to be identified as running Mozilla, Opera, Safari, or Netscape
Navigator on Windows or Mac as well.

Now, unless you're in total denial, you can see why browser hits isn't an
accurate measurement at all.

>> Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003, and
>> that it's higher than the Mac's:
>>
>> http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P723
>
> And where did they get their numbers?

Don't know, and don't care. Again, an accurate measurement isn't possible at
all.

>> There are conflicting marketshare studies all over the net. Like I've
>> said before, I've read that it could be as high as 13%.
>
> Yes, and I may already be a winner of Publisher's Clearinghouse
> Sweepstakes.

Congratulations... Bill will be pleased to get more of your money, since you
have more to give him...

>> That figure was considering solo Linux boxes, dual boot machines, and
>> LiveCD (like Knoppix) ran Linux deployments.
>
> And where did those numbers come from?
>
>> That means, most of those same users also run Windows.

Yes, but how often? If 10% of the population runs Linux 50% of the time and
Windows 50% of the time, are they counted as Linux user or Windows user? I
have a Windows machine, but spend about 10% of my time on it. Should I be
counted as a Windows statistic _and_ a Linux statistic, or should each
person count once?

> How much time do they spend running Windows, and how much time do they
> spend running Linux?
>
>> That makes it difficult to get a true figure on just how many
>> people are running Linux even on an occasional basis.
>
> I agree.
>
>> If Linux had only a .3% worldwide marketshare on the desktop, the chances
>> of me running into a Linux user would be slim, let alone running into one
>> somewhere at a gym working out lifting weights.
>
> Not really. That's still 1 in 300.

No, 3 tenths of 1% is equal to 1 in 3000. Regardless, I run into Linux users
much more frequently than Mac users. You'd think that if the Mac had a
larger share of the market, I'd run into more of them instead.

>> That figure has to be complete FUD.
>
> Because you say so? What about the figures for the Macintosh and
> Windows? Are they FUD as well? If not, why not?

Show me a figure that is accurate and prove to me how it is accurate and
I'll believe it. Until then, you're full of it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

>> On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling,
>> from 3% today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground.

That would make it 50% more popular than the Mac, which is pure fantasy,
even in 2007.

>> Put it all together, and Linux has become the strongest rival
>> that Microsoft has ever faced.

No, the Mac is the strongest rival that Windows has ever faced.

> In servers, researcher IDC predicts Linux' market share based
> on unit sales will rise from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared
> with 59% for Windows -- essentially keeping Microsoft at its
> current market share for the next three years and squeezing
> its profit margins.

It's not about sales, it's about users.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Please give evidence of a version of Windows that ran on a CPU that
> didn't support the Intel instuction set.

Windows NT.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Lets see, I have a Mac running MAC OS, a MAC server running A/UX, 2
PC's 1 XP 1 ME., and a Linux box. Now the Linux box doesn't boot it just
there to beat up every time my other boxes don't run.(just my way of venting
frustration that its never helped in anyway to save the planet) Anyway, I
can't even think in the picture of stats where that would figure in.
Statistics are, as you have demonstrated, fuzzy misinformation givers on a
good day. You would have to ask the server for more room to post the
exceptions and rules of information acquisition..





"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:65098$42769caa$4275e04e$26150@FUSE.NET...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >> Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored
by
> >> MS c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who
got
> >> them from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.
> >
> > They are based on browser identifications.
>
> Which, again, are totally false, and I showed you why. You can't base it
on
> browser identification because Konqueror can appear as another browser on
> another operating system altogether. You can't base it on sales because
> most Linux installations are from totally free places like Debian, Gentoo,
> Slackware, and even free versions of SuSE, Fedora (Red Hat), and Mandrake.
> Also, that would be accounting for many computers that are sold with a
> Windows license that get wiped in place of Linux. There simply is no way
to
> accurately measure Linux marketshare.
>
> >> I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on
> >> the desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:
> >
> > And what's wrong with that?
>
> I've showed you before, and I'll show you again:
>
> http://home.fuse.net/ruelsmith/SnapshotBrowserIdent.png
>
> That's my system with Konqueror open and the menus dropped to show you
where
> you can set Konqueror to identify itself as Internet Explorer running on
> Windows. It even lets you identify yourself as a number of versions of IE
> running on different versions of Windows and even the Mac. It'll also
allow
> you to be identified as running Mozilla, Opera, Safari, or Netscape
> Navigator on Windows or Mac as well.
>
> Now, unless you're in total denial, you can see why browser hits isn't an
> accurate measurement at all.
>
> >> Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003,
and
> >> that it's higher than the Mac's:
> >>
> >> http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P723
> >
> > And where did they get their numbers?
>
> Don't know, and don't care. Again, an accurate measurement isn't possible
at
> all.
>
> >> There are conflicting marketshare studies all over the net. Like I've
> >> said before, I've read that it could be as high as 13%.
> >
> > Yes, and I may already be a winner of Publisher's Clearinghouse
> > Sweepstakes.
>
> Congratulations... Bill will be pleased to get more of your money, since
you
> have more to give him...
>
> >> That figure was considering solo Linux boxes, dual boot machines, and
> >> LiveCD (like Knoppix) ran Linux deployments.
> >
> > And where did those numbers come from?
> >
> >> That means, most of those same users also run Windows.
>
> Yes, but how often? If 10% of the population runs Linux 50% of the time
and
> Windows 50% of the time, are they counted as Linux user or Windows user? I
> have a Windows machine, but spend about 10% of my time on it. Should I be
> counted as a Windows statistic _and_ a Linux statistic, or should each
> person count once?
>
> > How much time do they spend running Windows, and how much time do they
> > spend running Linux?
> >
> >> That makes it difficult to get a true figure on just how many
> >> people are running Linux even on an occasional basis.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >> If Linux had only a .3% worldwide marketshare on the desktop, the
chances
> >> of me running into a Linux user would be slim, let alone running into
one
> >> somewhere at a gym working out lifting weights.
> >
> > Not really. That's still 1 in 300.
>
> No, 3 tenths of 1% is equal to 1 in 3000. Regardless, I run into Linux
users
> much more frequently than Mac users. You'd think that if the Mac had a
> larger share of the market, I'd run into more of them instead.
>
> >> That figure has to be complete FUD.
> >
> > Because you say so? What about the figures for the Macintosh and
> > Windows? Are they FUD as well? If not, why not?
>
> Show me a figure that is accurate and prove to me how it is accurate and
> I'll believe it. Until then, you're full of it.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> Well, you snipped the context but, no, you don't. Network access is network
> access and does not 'use the GUI'.

You can't administer a Windows server without a GUI.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>Well, you snipped the context but, no, you don't. Network access is network
>>access and does not 'use the GUI'.
>
>
> You can't administer a Windows server without a GUI.
>

Network access is not 'administering'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Which, again, are totally false, and I showed you why. You can't base it on
> browser identification because Konqueror can appear as another browser on
> another operating system altogether.

If there are millions of Linux users out there who deliberately choose
to pretend to be something else, that's their problem, not mine. It
requires quite a leap of faith to assume that so many users who appear
to be using Windows or the Mac are in fact Linux users in the total
absence of evidence. Prove to me that they are actually running Linux,
and I'll believe it, but I won't accept it as an article of faith.

> You can't base it on sales because
> most Linux installations are from totally free places like Debian, Gentoo,
> Slackware, and even free versions of SuSE, Fedora (Red Hat), and Mandrake.

Endless millions of copies of Windows are pirated, too, and so they
don't count in sales, either, especially in Asia.

> Also, that would be accounting for many computers that are sold with a
> Windows license that get wiped in place of Linux. There simply is no way to
> accurately measure Linux marketshare.

Which means there is no way to support your assertion that Linux has a
larger market share than browser statistics would indicate.

> That's my system with Konqueror open and the menus dropped to show you where
> you can set Konqueror to identify itself as Internet Explorer running on
> Windows. It even lets you identify yourself as a number of versions of IE
> running on different versions of Windows and even the Mac. It'll also allow
> you to be identified as running Mozilla, Opera, Safari, or Netscape
> Navigator on Windows or Mac as well.

Maybe Windows and Mac users are identifying themselves as Linux, too,
which would artificially _inflate_ the Linux figures.

> Now, unless you're in total denial, you can see why browser hits isn't an
> accurate measurement at all.

There's nothing more reliable at the moment.

> Don't know, and don't care. Again, an accurate measurement isn't possible at
> all.

So there's no reason to not believe browser numbers, because nothing
else is available.

> Yes, but how often? If 10% of the population runs Linux 50% of the time and
> Windows 50% of the time, are they counted as Linux user or Windows user? I
> have a Windows machine, but spend about 10% of my time on it. Should I be
> counted as a Windows statistic _and_ a Linux statistic, or should each
> person count once?

Unless we have accurate numbers on how much time they spend with each
OS, there is no way to say. Nor is there any reason to speculate that
Linux somehow is more widely used than the available numbers imply.

> No, 3 tenths of 1% is equal to 1 in 3000.

No, three tenths of 1% is equal to one in 300. 1/0.003 = 333.

I think I'm beginning to see the problem.

> Regardless, I run into Linux users much more frequently than Mac users.

The people you run into are a much less reliable measure of Linux
penetration than the browser numbers in my logs, which are not subject
to bias.

> You'd think that if the Mac had a larger share of the market, I'd
> run into more of them instead.

That depends on the company you keep.

> Show me a figure that is accurate and prove to me how it is accurate and
> I'll believe it. Until then, you're full of it.

I'll take my browser figures over your circle of friends.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ruel Smith writes:

>> Which, again, are totally false, and I showed you why. You
>> can't base it on browser identification because Konqueror can
>> appear as another browser on another operating system
>> altogether.
>
> If there are millions of Linux users out there who deliberately
> choose to pretend to be something else, that's their problem,
> not mine. It requires quite a leap of faith to assume that so
> many users who appear to be using Windows or the Mac are in fact
> Linux users in the total absence of evidence. Prove to me that
> they are actually running Linux, and I'll believe it, but I
> won't accept it as an article of faith.

You can figure Linux users are more likely (than Windows users)
skilled and maybe motivated enough to do that.

That's hardly conclusive, it's just the first related argument
that came to my mind.

Have fun anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> You can figure Linux users are more likely (than Windows users)
> skilled and maybe motivated enough to do that.

On what basis?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Doe writes:
>
>
>>You can figure Linux users are more likely (than Windows users)
>>skilled and maybe motivated enough to do that.
>
>
> On what basis?
>

Would seem we've cycled back around to Linux being more difficult therefor
users of it must be more skilled 😉

But why those who have fled the devil's own O.S. would then chose to have
their new pure of heart browser identified as satan's pawn remains more of
a mystery.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> No, 3 tenths of 1% is equal to 1 in 3000.

> No, three tenths of 1% is equal to one in 300. 1/0.003 = 333.

Yes, you got me on that one. I wasn't thinking correctly while writing the
response. However, the rest of your response what complete utter bullshit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> But why those who have fled the devil's own O.S. would then chose to have
> their new pure of heart browser identified as satan's pawn remains more of
> a mystery.

Because there are numerous sites that identify your browser and decide
whether or not you view the page or get a "browser not supported" page
instead. Personally, I only do it when I reach those particular sites.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Is your site best viewed using Internet Explorer?

No, it will work with any standards-conformant browser. I use Firefox
myself, but it looks practically identical with MSIE and Opera. It can
even be navigated with Lynx.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[ken]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:00:49 -0400, Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com>
wrote:

> >> Linux definitely has more marketshare than .3% on the desktop. I run into
> >> Linux users now and then, most of them are so geeky they're easy to spot,
> >> but I've never run into a Mac user that wasn't shopping in the Mac
> >> section at either Micro Center or CompUSA.
> >
> >
> > I believe those are the relevent sections of his logs, not a study or
> > report.
>
> Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored by MS
> c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who got them
> from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.
>
> I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on the
> desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:
>
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2001/12/19/linux/
>
> Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003,
> and that it's higher than the Mac's:

Statistics from my homepage since 5 March 2005.
Linux/Unix: 4.17% Unique Visitors: 28679
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=snowback
(Swedish homepage)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>But why those who have fled the devil's own O.S. would then chose to have
>>their new pure of heart browser identified as satan's pawn remains more of
>>a mystery.
>
>
> Because there are numerous sites that identify your browser and decide
> whether or not you view the page or get a "browser not supported" page
> instead. Personally, I only do it when I reach those particular sites.

And you run across 'numerous' sites that don't support Netscape? Because
that's what Konqueror defaults to for identification, at least on Suse.

Besides MS update, which I doubt a Linux user cares about, I've only run
into one place that wanted to force me into IE and that was an ISP that
also wanted to force me to use 'their software' and plied their home page
with IE 'features'. Didn't work as I didn't care for their 'features' anyway.