OEM vs Retail XP Pro

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Matt writes:
>
>> Show me an example.
>
> Intel.

Intel is heavily involved in Linux.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Linux fans bend over backwards to hide the fact that the desktop is not
> part of Linux.
>
> Come to think of it, practically the entire OS is not part of Linux,
> either, but I don't see anyone working to keep that in the minds of
> users.

Because we point out that what makes Linux...Linux is the Linux kernel. If
it had the Mach kernel, or some other kernel, it's not Linux. Just about
every other part of Linux turns up in FreeBSD and other Unix flavors.
However, Linux is Linux only because it uses the Linux kernel.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38026.htm
>>
> You've not answered the question. All that article says is some people
> from MS turned up to have a look.
>
> I'll ask again.
>
> What ideas have Microsoft taken from KDE and incorporated into their
> Longhorn desktop?
>
> OTOH there's a long list of stuff in KDE thats in Win9x.

Draw your own conclusions. I don't have anything specific because I haven't
seen the final Longhorn desktop. If MS is snooping at the KDE booth,
looking at the desktop, they're looking to a) copy something b) develop an
alternative c) get some ideas. They're not there for no reason at all.

There is a very, very long list of stuff Win9x has that Apple had long ago.
There's no secret that KDE came long after the Mac and Windows, and used
them as models to quickly build a usable GUI, but current versions of KDE
far outstrip Windows GUI, IMHO.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <c537f$4273bd76$422aaa66$25146@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Matt writes:
> >
> >> Show me an example.
> >
> > Intel.
>
> Intel is heavily involved in Linux.
>
We weren't on about Intel being involved in Linux, we were discussing
companies who ignore 10% of the world market.

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> >> Show me an example.
>> >
>> > Intel.
>>
>> Intel is heavily involved in Linux.
>>
> We weren't on about Intel being involved in Linux, we were discussing
> companies who ignore 10% of the world market.

My mistake. I thought you were saying Intel was ignoring 10% of the market
by ignoring Linux.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <c4b68$4273c16a$422aaa66$7228@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> >> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38026.htm
> >>
> > You've not answered the question. All that article says is some people
> > from MS turned up to have a look.
> >
> > I'll ask again.
> >
> > What ideas have Microsoft taken from KDE and incorporated into their
> > Longhorn desktop?
> >
> > OTOH there's a long list of stuff in KDE thats in Win9x.
>
> Draw your own conclusions. I don't have anything specific because I haven't
> seen the final Longhorn desktop.

<wriggle wriggle>

Plenty of previews on windows enthusiast sites.


> There is a very, very long list of stuff Win9x has that Apple had long ago.
> There's no secret that KDE came long after the Mac and Windows, and used
> them as models to quickly build a usable GUI, but current versions of KDE
> far outstrip Windows GUI, IMHO.
>
Really? Will KDE even start with 32MB of RAM?

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> Draw your own conclusions. I don't have anything specific because I
>> haven't seen the final Longhorn desktop.
>
> <wriggle wriggle>
>
> Plenty of previews on windows enthusiast sites.

Sorry, haven't seen them, not being a Windows enthusiast... Windows is
boring and nothing to get enthusiastic about. I do run it, but don't get on
that machine that much, as I have a perfectly good machine running Debian
Sarge right next to it. 😱)

>> There is a very, very long list of stuff Win9x has that Apple had long
>> ago. There's no secret that KDE came long after the Mac and Windows, and
>> used them as models to quickly build a usable GUI, but current versions
>> of KDE far outstrip Windows GUI, IMHO.
>>
> Really? Will KDE even start with 32MB of RAM?

Haven't tried it. It has run on 128MB of RAM, which I previously ran it with
on my old P3 Dell machine. I somehow doubt if WinXP actually does run on 32
MB of RAM that it's actually usable. It was using my swap file quite a bit
in the P3 with 128MB of RAM and slowing down as a result. When I installed
SuSE Linux 8.1 on it (running KDE 3.0), it had quite a bit more pop to it.
Linux executed much faster than WinXP ever did on that machine. Now, Win98
also had a bit more pop to it, as well.

Now, I'm running an Athlon XP 2800+ machine and Debian Linux with a kernel
pre-compiled for the K7 architecture, and it seems to be faster in
execution than my 2.6 GHz P4 Northwood machine that's been OC'd to 3 GHz
running WinXP Professional.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> Plenty of previews on windows enthusiast sites.

Okay, I finally went and looked at the Longhorn desktop @ this site:

http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/longhorn/

The information bar that sits to the right of the desktop heavily favors one
of the many SuperKaramba themes such as these:

http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=22606&file1=22606-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&name=Krystal_Clear
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=22618&file1=22618-1.png&file2=&file3=&name=%22Stylus+Sysinfo%22+superkaramba+theme
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=19827&file1=19827-1.jpg&file2=19827-2.jpg&file3=&name=kstatus+superkaramba+theme
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=20847&file1=20847-1.jpg&file2=20847-2.jpg&file3=20847-3.jpg&name=hds+kubicaramba
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=23375&file1=23375-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&name=fantastik%2Bsystemtux
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=23238&file1=23238-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&name=awesome_karamba
http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=23318&file1=23318-1.jpg&file2=23318-2.jpg&file3=&name=sysALYZER
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Intel is heavily involved in Linux.

So?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> My mistake. I thought you were saying Intel was ignoring 10% of the market
> by ignoring Linux.

No, that would have been 0.3% of the market (for desktops, at least).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <9419$427428d0$4275e16e$8440@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> >> Draw your own conclusions. I don't have anything specific because I
> >> haven't seen the final Longhorn desktop.
> >
> > <wriggle wriggle>
> >
> > Plenty of previews on windows enthusiast sites.
>
> Sorry, haven't seen them, not being a Windows enthusiast... Windows is
> boring and nothing to get enthusiastic about. I do run it, but don't get on
> that machine that much, as I have a perfectly good machine running Debian
> Sarge right next to it. 😱)
>
> >> There is a very, very long list of stuff Win9x has that Apple had long
> >> ago. There's no secret that KDE came long after the Mac and Windows, and
> >> used them as models to quickly build a usable GUI, but current versions
> >> of KDE far outstrip Windows GUI, IMHO.
> >>
> > Really? Will KDE even start with 32MB of RAM?
>
> Haven't tried it. It has run on 128MB of RAM, which I previously ran it with
> on my old P3 Dell machine. I somehow doubt if WinXP actually does run on 32
> MB of RAM that it's actually usable.

Windows XP won't but Windows 95 will run on 8MB and still allow you to
run programs as well. Windows NT4 required only 24MB. Sort of puts the
whole X server/desktop/window manager hash up Linux uses into
perspective.




--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> Windows XP won't but Windows 95 will run on 8MB and still allow you to
> run programs as well. Windows NT4 required only 24MB. Sort of puts the
> whole X server/desktop/window manager hash up Linux uses into
> perspective.

What's minimally required, and what actually required to make is usable are
not one in the same.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <9419$427428d0$4275e16e$8440@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
>
>>Conor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Draw your own conclusions. I don't have anything specific because I
>>>>haven't seen the final Longhorn desktop.
>>>
>>><wriggle wriggle>
>>>
>>>Plenty of previews on windows enthusiast sites.
>>
>>Sorry, haven't seen them, not being a Windows enthusiast... Windows is
>>boring and nothing to get enthusiastic about. I do run it, but don't get on
>>that machine that much, as I have a perfectly good machine running Debian
>>Sarge right next to it. 😱)
>>
>>
>>>>There is a very, very long list of stuff Win9x has that Apple had long
>>>>ago. There's no secret that KDE came long after the Mac and Windows, and
>>>>used them as models to quickly build a usable GUI, but current versions
>>>>of KDE far outstrip Windows GUI, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Will KDE even start with 32MB of RAM?
>>
>>Haven't tried it. It has run on 128MB of RAM, which I previously ran it with
>>on my old P3 Dell machine. I somehow doubt if WinXP actually does run on 32
>>MB of RAM that it's actually usable.
>
>
> Windows XP won't but Windows 95 will run on 8MB and still allow you to
> run programs as well. Windows NT4 required only 24MB. Sort of puts the
> whole X server/desktop/window manager hash up Linux uses into
> perspective.

Win95 and NT4 will let you run in that little memory but it isn't practical.

And on the Linux side of the coin, comparing to KDE isn't fair. Icewm,
fvwm95, blackbox, etc., will run in small memory footprints.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <85aa6$4274c28f$4275e16e$5066@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > Windows XP won't but Windows 95 will run on 8MB and still allow you to
> > run programs as well. Windows NT4 required only 24MB. Sort of puts the
> > whole X server/desktop/window manager hash up Linux uses into
> > perspective.
>
> What's minimally required, and what actually required to make is usable are
> not one in the same.
>
Guess I've been into PCs a bit longer than you. Windows 95 was very
usable with 8MB. Believe it or not, when Windows 95 came out, 8MB was
the average RAM for a computer. RAM back then cost around 500 times
more than it does now. 1MB would set you back £25.

I'd go as far as to say, from my experience, that Windows 95 on a P100
with 8MB RAM felt as fast as Linux does running KDE 3.x on an Athlon
XP200+ with 256MB RAM.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> What's minimally required, and what actually required to make is usable
>> are not one in the same.
>>
> Guess I've been into PCs a bit longer than you. Windows 95 was very
> usable with 8MB. Believe it or not, when Windows 95 came out, 8MB was
> the average RAM for a computer. RAM back then cost around 500 times
> more than it does now. 1MB would set you back £25.
>
> I'd go as far as to say, from my experience, that Windows 95 on a P100
> with 8MB RAM felt as fast as Linux does running KDE 3.x on an Athlon
> XP200+ with 256MB RAM.

Maybe Windows PC's, but I was using a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III back in
1982, followed by an Apple IIe, Apple IIGS, PowerComputing Macintosh clone,
then my first Windows PC, which was a Dell XPS T-600. I first installed
Linux on my brother's computer, which was a Compaq with a 450 MHz P2, and
it was Red Hat 5.2. Talk about crude... Linux today is a far cry from that
release of Red Hat. I now build my own systems and for my friends. Current
machines are a Soyo SY-KT600 Dragon Plus 1.0/Athlon XP 2800+ machine that
Linux rides on and a Gigabyte GA-8IRXP/Pentium 4 Northwood 2.6 (OC'd to
3.0) machine that WinXP rides on. I'll probably build myself a new machine
again when the dual core Athlon 64 processors are widely available and
sorted out.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> What's minimally required, and what actually required to make is usable are
> not one in the same.

But since that's true for every OS, it's irrelevant.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic 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.

Yeah, we'll probably need one of those wide screen 23" monitors just to have
space to work before long.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> Mxsmanic 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.
>
>
> Yeah, we'll probably need one of those wide screen 23" monitors just to have
> space to work before long.
>

Ain't that the truth.

However, I predict that after the initial complaints it's little more than
a morass of useless toys all over the desktop people will end up loving it
because it's a morass of neat toys all over the desktop.

What a difference one word makes 😉
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> And on the Linux side of the coin, comparing to KDE isn't fair. Icewm,
> fvwm95, blackbox, etc., will run in small memory footprints.

If you want to see Linux or UNIX running truly blazingly fast, just yank
out all that GUI junk. Then you'll appreciate just how fast modern
hardware really is.

I ran a little test. I did a "find /" at the console on my UNIX system.
In three seconds it listed just under 200,000 files. Then I tried the
same thing from an SSH session running under Windows. That took 92
seconds. In other words, Windows require 89 seconds of processor time
just to display the file names on the GUI, whereas walking the entire
file structure for a quarter-million files on the server required less
than three seconds of processor time (and most of that was probably
video management, too, since the console is a VGA in text mode). And
no, it wasn't network traffic; on my LAN at 100 Mbps, the entire
transfer takes less than a second to complete.

If I hide most of the SSH window on the Windows machine, the find
completes in 38 seconds. So nearly a full minute of processor time is
saved just by removing the GUI processing.

This demonstrates just how much processor time is wasted and burned by
GUIs. Now, if you are running a server, it means that your total system
capacity is reduced by orders of magnitude if you are running an active
GUI on the machine, because so much time is required to drive the GUI.
Yet another reason to never run a GUI on a server. (Of course, if you
have a Windows server, there's no choice, which is why you need more
hardware to get the same job done on a Windows server).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>And on the Linux side of the coin, comparing to KDE isn't fair. Icewm,
>>fvwm95, blackbox, etc., will run in small memory footprints.
>
>
> If you want to see Linux or UNIX running truly blazingly fast, just yank
> out all that GUI junk. Then you'll appreciate just how fast modern
> hardware really is.

I am aware that the GUI takes processor time but I use the features a GUI
provides.

> I ran a little test. I did a "find /" at the console on my UNIX system.
> In three seconds it listed just under 200,000 files. Then I tried the
> same thing from an SSH session running under Windows. That took 92
> seconds. In other words, Windows require 89 seconds of processor time
> just to display the file names on the GUI, whereas walking the entire
> file structure for a quarter-million files on the server required less
> than three seconds of processor time (and most of that was probably
> video management, too, since the console is a VGA in text mode). And
> no, it wasn't network traffic; on my LAN at 100 Mbps, the entire
> transfer takes less than a second to complete.
>
> If I hide most of the SSH window on the Windows machine, the find
> completes in 38 seconds. So nearly a full minute of processor time is
> saved just by removing the GUI processing.
>
> This demonstrates just how much processor time is wasted and burned by
> GUIs. Now, if you are running a server, it means that your total system
> capacity is reduced by orders of magnitude if you are running an active
> GUI on the machine, because so much time is required to drive the GUI.
> Yet another reason to never run a GUI on a server. (Of course, if you
> have a Windows server, there's no choice, which is why you need more
> hardware to get the same job done on a Windows server).
>

A server isn't using the GUI for server functions. By that I mean, there is
no 'GUI' involved in, for example, searching a data base going out over the
network.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Yeah, we'll probably need one of those wide screen 23" monitors just to have
> space to work before long.

Not so much a bigger monitor, but more pixels. I used to think that
1600x1200 was a lot, but today it's just barely enough.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Thanks everyone for all your replies. I just got back into town and
didn't realize this thraad kept on as long as it did. I would keep 98 as
you suggest, but I work from home as a consultant, and my employer is
requiring that I upgrade. I do "enough" as you mentioned, so I'm not a
total novice, but I too don't want to support Microsoft anymore than I
have to, and also wanted to make sure that the OEM versions wouldn't
cause me any future problems--I just built the computer that I have
about 6 months ago and already feel like I'm getting bored with it, and
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.
As far as Linux goes, I *am* planning to eventually set up a dual boot
and get familiar with it.

John Doe wrote:
> jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
>
>>John Doe wrote:
>
>
>>>I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install
>>>with the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway
>>>(maybe once a long time ago), so OEM is fine.
>>>In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is
>>>any difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations
>>>with the retail version, you are more likely to run into
>>>problems. Doing clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to
>>>you.
>>>This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the
>>>real way to install Windows is to make incremental backup
>>>copies and keep copies you can revert to when things go wrong.
>>>Even now with XP's stability, I wouldn't do without a disk
>>>manager.
>>
>>Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing
>>pretty good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I
>>do some work online with various companies and they are starting
>>to require a more updated os for the security aspect of it.
>>Think I should wait for Longhorn?
>
>
> I put my personal computer to the test, persistently. Currently, I
> am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
> recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
> to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
> Windows dance on my verbal command.
>
> Even if you do little with your computer, a disk manager probably
> is useful. Apparently you do enough, since you are concerned
> enough to ask about OEM versus retail versions of Windows XP.
>
> If you don't mind the hassles, stick with Windows 98. I wouldn't
> recommend Windows XP because I want to increase Microsoft's
> wealth. You just have to keep paying personal computer user dues
> if you want a smooth running system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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.

> If... but you don't.

Well, you do on Windows. 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.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt writes:

> Do tell where you got that number.

From server logs.

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