dave Inscribed thus:

On 11/07/2013 12:01 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO?
LEGOs? Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to
what some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry
pancakes.


Canon has very good Linux support. Do you really need Photoshop?
GIMP works fine for me and the price can't be beat. Linux
productivity apps are as good as they get. You just don't get
DirectX, which ****es me off.

I agree ! You can still play with your Lego toys. But why DirectX ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Les Cargill wrote:
dave wrote:

How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
their hands dirty.

I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...

I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
operating systems out of the market.

There's Solaris. And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front. And there's _sort of_ VMS
for a little while anyway.

But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use. There are some linux versions with
"soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
to a mere customer.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

BOTTOM POST QUESTION.

SOMEONE CLAIMED THEY USED TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT, IS IT TRUE THAT AT THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES THEY DID NOT USE WINDOWS ? (they use(d) Linux) ?

Or is that an urban legend ?

Seriously, I heard TWO people tell me that. Is it true, or WAS it ?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
dave wrote:

How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
their hands dirty.

I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...

I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
operating systems out of the market.

There's Solaris.

I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
to that.

And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front.

Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
package management problem in Linux still persists.

And there's _sort of_ VMS
for a little while anyway.


Not a big fan of VMS.


But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use.

Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
you really need is one free hardware timer.

The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
that can do all that as well.

It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
desktop/server/NAS.

If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.


There are some linux versions with
"soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
to a mere customer.


Since the demise of WindRiver, it's pretty much all been Linux that I
could tell.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.

There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.

I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.

And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?

--scott


--
Les Cargill

wrote in message ...


SOMEONE CLAIMED THEY USED TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT,
IS IT TRUE THAT AT THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES THEY DID
NOT USE WINDOWS ? (they use(d) Linux) ?
Or is that an urban legend ?
Seriously, I heard TWO people tell me that. Is it true, or WAS it ?

It simply isn't true. The last time I worked there was in 2011, I believe, and
Microsoft used Windows.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, wrote:

BOTTOM POST QUESTION.

SOMEONE CLAIMED THEY USED TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT, IS IT TRUE THAT AT THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES THEY DID NOT USE WINDOWS ? (they use(d) Linux) ?

Or is that an urban legend ?

Seriously, I heard TWO people tell me that. Is it true, or WAS it ?

Who knows.

But, don't forget that once upon a time, Microsoft was in the Unix
business. In the early eighties they had their own version, Xenix, and it
was a legit version of Unix, done in conjunction with SCO. You could get
it for Radio Shack's 68000 computer, and for 8086 (I think) computers.

I can certainly seem them using fancier computers for development.

Michael

I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

Scott


On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:25:26 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that
allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx,
etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows
Update now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started
receiving prompts to install security updates for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000
programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I
cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the
"Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I
assume) were buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got
error messages when I tried to print.

Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the
computer fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.

Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before
you leap, and all those other clichés.


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

"Side Job Scooter" wrote in message ...

I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

My situation has nothing whatever to do with Windows. Or any other operating
system. That should have been clear from what I posted.

Side Job Scooter wrote:
I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

Scott


I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them stiffies.

Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous) problem,
the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS!

Which is why I've stayed with Windows.

"dave" wrote in message
...
How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money?

Well I've never paid $200 for Windows, and I use a firewall. *IF* all the
software I choose to use was available for Linux, AND all the drivers were
available for the hardware I choose to use, I'd happily run Linux on my
computers. Been waiting for a couple of decades for that to happen, and not
holding my breathe though.


The Windows world is like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and
everyone has to get their hands dirty. I have a netbook with XP that I
need to talk to my iPod.

The Apple ipod itunes crap is the only problem, Windows works well with
every other MP3 player that I've ever used. But so does Linux for that
matter.

Trevor.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
operating systems out of the market.

There's Solaris. And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front. And there's _sort of_ VMS
for a little while anyway.

But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use. There are some linux versions with
"soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
to a mere customer.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.
Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough to
make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Trevor.

In article , Trevor wrote:

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
long is that going to continue?

Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough to
make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a lot
of analogue machines, but they're not out of the catalogue yet.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"geoff" wrote in message
...

I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them stiffies.

Yeh, I find it amusing too, just like those who get stiffies whenever Apple
comes out with an expensive new product. :-)


Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

Dead right. I'm not only amused but annoyed they find it necessary to mess
with the desktop interface every time they bring out an update, when all I
want is the fastest way to get to the applications (with support for all the
new hardware technolgy since the last release).
Windows 8 sure aint it IMO :-(

Trevor.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

There's Solaris.

I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
to that.

See, I would consider Solaris a lot more advanced, in terms of actually having
a solid kernel that has been well-debugged and is stable. Turn off the stupid
java gui and all that crap and you have a very solid OS that does not require
constant patching.

My complaint with Linux is mostly that the Linux community is constantly
changing things, and they often don't change them for the better or the
worse, they just change them for the sake of changing them. This seems like
misplaced effort on the part of developers, but what bothers me is that now
I have to change my stuff unnecessarily.

I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where someone sat
down and made a decision about what the thing was supposed to do and then
built it to do that and then removed bugs rather than added features.

But... when systems are built like that, they aren't systems for everything,
they are systems for the one thing the designer decided it was supposed to
do. And if that's not what you want... that should be fine because there
should be plenty of other systems out there to do other things.

It's the lack of those other systems that I am bemoaning.

And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front.

Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
package management problem in Linux still persists.

Every week someone finds some security vulnerability that needs to get
patched. Every week someone makes some unneeded change. If there is a
problem with a third-party device driver I can't call up DEC support
on a three-way call and have the DEC developers working with the third-party
guys to fix the problem.

But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use.

Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
you really need is one free hardware timer.

No, you don't just write drivers. If you want an actual hard realtime
system you either need to wrest control away from the OS and do everything
as one uninterruptable process, or you need an operating system with a
scheduler that assigns timeslices to processes based upon how much time
those processes need to make deadline. When you make a call to the operating
system, say open(), one of the parameters is how long you have to wait for
the OS to do the job, and the kernel will prioritize the call appropriately
to make sure all those calls return in time.

The alternative is just to throw CPU at the problem and hope everybody can
meet deadline. This is called "soft realtime" and sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. What is evil is that sometimes it's not always obvious
at the time that data is being lost because there is no way for the kernel
or the application to flag that it's missing deadlines in many cases.

The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
that can do all that as well.

Sure, but can I run a DAW on it?

It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
desktop/server/NAS.

If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.

Could be, but I'm still holding out for hard-realtime.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.

There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.

Which is a very, very cool idea. I just saw one being used for PA
applications not long ago!

I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.

And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?

They are, which is really BeOS inside, secretly.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it
was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track
audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go
down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
long is that going to continue?

Until the next "dark ages". Technology usually moves forward not backwards.


Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough
to
make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a
lot
of analogue machines

Exactly, I specifically said "*tape* machine". Where are the new models?
Can't justify the development costs would be my guess.

Trevor.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor
wrote:

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is
now, it was a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all
my multi-track audio work on generic computers for the last decade,
I'm not in a hurry to go down the expensive, locked in, hope they
might give you what you want/need someday path ever again. Because
so many others agree is why those systems no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works
fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But
how long is that going to continue?

Seems to be increasing true wrt audio, given the continued rate of increase
in CPU horsepower and RAM size versus software requirement on it. Even
CPU-hungry plugins don't seem to be the problem they used to be.

This applies to everything I've ever done, except for video-rendering which
is and probably always will be ever-expanding in the resource demand dept
......


geoff

Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...

I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them
stiffies.

Yeh, I find it amusing too, just like those who get stiffies whenever
Apple comes out with an expensive new product. :-)


Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

Dead right. I'm not only amused but annoyed they find it necessary to
mess with the desktop interface every time they bring out an update,
when all I want is the fastest way to get to the applications (with
support for all the new hardware technolgy since the last release).
Windows 8 sure aint it IMO :-(

Fortunately it's mostly easily-fixable for free.

www.classicshell.net .

geoff

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where
someone sat down and made a decision about what the thing was
supposed to do and then built it to do that and then removed bugs
rather than added features.

Chicken-egg thing really. Features need to be added because of commercial
really - other products may sport such features (sometimes even good and
truely useful ones !) , and 'whatever' OS needs to keep it's user base to
survive.

geoff

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

There's Solaris.

I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
to that.

See, I would consider Solaris a lot more advanced, in terms of actually having
a solid kernel that has been well-debugged and is stable. Turn off the stupid
java gui and all that crap and you have a very solid OS that does not require
constant patching.


It is solid.

My complaint with Linux is mostly that the Linux community is constantly
changing things, and they often don't change them for the better or the
worse, they just change them for the sake of changing them. This seems like
misplaced effort on the part of developers, but what bothers me is that now
I have to change my stuff unnecessarily.


Can't argue there.

I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where someone sat
down and made a decision about what the thing was supposed to do and then
built it to do that and then removed bugs rather than added features.

But... when systems are built like that, they aren't systems for everything,
they are systems for the one thing the designer decided it was supposed to
do. And if that's not what you want... that should be fine because there
should be plenty of other systems out there to do other things.

It's the lack of those other systems that I am bemoaning.


The general ... Leviathan nature of mass market computing means people
will adapt the general to the specific, because it costs much less than
designing for specific from the git-go.

And frankly, it's not something I'd consider a very real problem at
this writing. I can run a DAW in a VM at times ( because the VM is 32
bit ) and nary a glitch.

And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front.

Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
package management problem in Linux still persists.

Every week someone finds some security vulnerability that needs to get
patched. Every week someone makes some unneeded change. If there is a
problem with a third-party device driver I can't call up DEC support
on a three-way call and have the DEC developers working with the third-party
guys to fix the problem.


Well, you're not really a customer, you see...

But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use.

Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
you really need is one free hardware timer.

No, you don't just write drivers. If you want an actual hard realtime
system you either need to wrest control away from the OS and do everything
as one uninterruptable process, or you need an operating system with a
scheduler that assigns timeslices to processes based upon how much time
those processes need to make deadline. When you make a call to the operating
system, say open(), one of the parameters is how long you have to wait for
the OS to do the job, and the kernel will prioritize the call appropriately
to make sure all those calls return in time.


I am quite familiar with the distinction. I respectfully submit that
.... one can build "hard realtime" systems in the manner I have
suggested.

The alternative is just to throw CPU at the problem and hope everybody can
meet deadline. This is called "soft realtime" and sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. What is evil is that sometimes it's not always obvious
at the time that data is being lost because there is no way for the kernel
or the application to flag that it's missing deadlines in many cases.


There are perfectly good microsecond-resolution ( or better )
free running timers for measuring deadlines. time.h stuff...

The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
that can do all that as well.

Sure, but can I run a DAW on it?


I don't know. I don't imagine so until ALSA gets ported
to one. Then it would be a lot like a Linux machine.

It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
desktop/server/NAS.

If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.

Could be, but I'm still holding out for hard-realtime.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.

There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.

Which is a very, very cool idea. I just saw one being used for PA
applications not long ago!


Yeah, maybe that'll grow into what you want.

I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.

And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?

They are, which is really BeOS inside, secretly.
--scott



--
Les Cargill

I've been using Windows since 3.0. That version tended to crash for no obvious
reason. I've not had that problem with any later version.

Around 2004, "something" went wrong with my Windows 2000 installation. It
would boot, but its behavior was screwy. (This might have been due to a
malware attack, but I don't know for sure.) I was obliged to reinstall it, and
had no problems for the next eight years.

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often requires
reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've worked many jobs at
Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can only assume it's due to some sort
of user error, or badly written drivers.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've been using Windows since 3.0. That version tended to crash for no
obvious reason. I've not had that problem with any later version.

Around 2004, "something" went wrong with my Windows 2000 installation.
It would boot, but its behavior was screwy. (This might have been due to
a malware attack, but I don't know for sure.) I was obliged to reinstall
it, and had no problems for the next eight years.

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often requires
reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've worked many jobs
at Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can only assume it's due to
some sort of user error, or badly written drivers.

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his own desktop?

On Monday, November 11, 2013 6:29:05 PM UTC-5, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/7/13 2:30 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:

With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe...


YAWN.............

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...

I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them
stiffies.

Yeh, I find it amusing too, just like those who get stiffies whenever
Apple comes out with an expensive new product. :-)

Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

Dead right. I'm not only amused but annoyed they find it necessary to
mess with the desktop interface every time they bring out an update,
when all I want is the fastest way to get to the applications (with
support for all the new hardware technolgy since the last release).
Windows 8 sure aint it IMO :-(

Fortunately it's mostly easily-fixable for free.

www.classicshell.net .


Yes, not from MS of course, even the Win 8.1 update is pathetic, and Classic
shell is just a patch for a problem that should never have existed IMO. Give
touchscreen users the option by all means, but no need to remove what
already works for everybody else.

Trevor.

"Jay Hennigan" wrote in message
...
With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe...

Once upon a Tuesday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Installing the same version of Windows once more.
While I cursed the constant crashing, I made a fist and started bashing,
Started bashing the computer case and CD-ROM drive door.
"Piece of crap," I muttered, bashing the CD-ROM drive door,
"I will take this crap no more!"

Distinctly I do remember, when I bought my PC in December,
The marketing man said this software would crash no more.
Eagerly I wished to borrow a tool to inflict pain and sorrow
So that one day, perhaps tomorrow, I could go to my computer store
For the chance to make the salesman sell this crap no more.
Only this and nothing more.

So after wasting countless hours, I unplugged the beige mini-tower.
My day was looking very tragic like the old poetry of gothic lore,
But suddenly there came a tapping, rhymthic like the beats of rapping.
Actually, it sounded like flippers flapping, flapping at my apartment
door.
"That is very odd," I muttered, "the time is nearly half past four,
Who is knocking on my door?"

The door was opened but it only revealed a penguin standing quite lonely,
Standing with a bag of CD-ROMs on the stoop before my apartment door.
I thought at first it was a delusion, for I was wrought with great
confusion
Over the presence of a flightless Antarctic bird at my apartment door.
So I stood there, looking quite the fool, with my jaw down to the floor.
Then the bird said, "Pay no more!"

I thought to call the SPCA ... perhaps it escaped the zoo today.
But instead I brought the talking Aptenodytes forsteri inside my door.
He looked around, he looked at me ... and then he waddled to my PC.
I followed fast and I did see him place his disc in my drive door.
His program booted and began to install software I'd never seen before,
Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

He brought me LINUX to install, said it rarely crashed at all.
Then he showed me some books while the software installed some more.
The interface, it looked like UNIX ... but 'twas much cheaper than QNX.
In fact, the code was open, so the source of bugs was hidden no more
It made wonder about the penguin's disc, behind my CD drive door ...
And why the bird said, "Pay No More."

So I tried this new installation, at first with fear and trepidation,
But soon I found it more stable than the OS I used before.
The files were in different places, and I put Linux through its paces
And very rarely made odd faces ... it didn't crash like Windows did
before.
For this fat penguin made me see a way to use my computer as never before.
Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

So once upon a morning sunny, I installed Linux for no money,
With the CD-ROM brought by a penguin to my apartment door.
After cursing the old installation, I reduced my overall frustration
And with a bit of determination I removed the software I used before.
Now I read Linux books and Web sites to use my free operating system more.
Quoth the penguin, "Pay No More."

And use all your Windows software no more :-(
Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

Trevor.

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often
requires reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've
worked many jobs at Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can
only assume it's due to some sort of user error, or badly written
drivers.

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his
own desktop?

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact that it
needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?

PS: You didn't respond to my blueberry pancakes jokes. I was hurt.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his
own desktop?

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact that
it needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?


I took it as more of a suggestion that the owner and creator of
Microsoft didn't want to use a Microsft OS on his own machine.

Of course, it could just have been research to find out just how bad
OS/2 was....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , Trevor wrote:

And use all your Windows software no more :-(
Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on. With
Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step by
step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand,
with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box
at all and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only
get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
a solution. That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea
what is going on inside the box than you do, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey tastede følgende:
In article , Trevor wrote:

... Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
a solution.

Or often umpteen people with the same problem and no solution :-(

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

On 11/08/2013 10:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
dave wrote:

BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
here nowadays.

I'll take all you can get at that price. Prices on those machines are
actually rising... they hit rock bottom a few years ago but they now seem
to be getting snapped up by collectors. I have been getting a lot of repair
work from guys buying the things who don't know what they are buying.
--scott


I'll check. We had a pile of them at the last place I worked. We
replaced them with Fostex time code digital recorders and ProTools type
DAWs on laptops.

On 11/10/2013 12:22 PM, geoff wrote:
Side Job Scooter wrote:
I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

Scott


I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them stiffies.

Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous) problem,
the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

geoff


For me it is more economic than anything else. (I guess I'm a bad
American because money doesn't give me a stiffie.) I build my own
machines and I do not appreciate MSFT charging me over $200 for a crappy
OS that only has one workspace. Windows is slow and not inspiring.

The Mac fanbois are the worst. I will agree about them.

On 11/10/2013 04:53 PM, Trevor wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
...
How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money?

Well I've never paid $200 for Windows, and I use a firewall. *IF* all the
software I choose to use was available for Linux, AND all the drivers were
available for the hardware I choose to use, I'd happily run Linux on my
computers. Been waiting for a couple of decades for that to happen, and not
holding my breathe though.


The Windows world is like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and
everyone has to get their hands dirty. I have a netbook with XP that I
need to talk to my iPod.

The Apple ipod itunes crap is the only problem, Windows works well with
every other MP3 player that I've ever used. But so does Linux for that
matter.

Trevor.

If your IOS device detects you trying to read the files with a 3rd party
app it will brick your device. You have to refill it. Major Pain!

Most games are written in Linux then ported to Windows. DirectX graphics
are then required. If Windows didn't have the proprietary graphics
library it would have died 10 years ago.

On 11/10/2013 05:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
long is that going to continue?


What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.

On 11/10/2013 05:31 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it
was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track
audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go
down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
long is that going to continue?

Until the next "dark ages". Technology usually moves forward not backwards.


Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough
to
make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a
lot
of analogue machines

Exactly, I specifically said "*tape* machine". Where are the new models?
Can't justify the development costs would be my guess.

Trevor.


Nagra makes a digital recorder the same size as the old magnetic machines.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:07:28 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often requires
reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've worked many
jobs at Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can only assume it's
due to some sort of user error, or badly written drivers.

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his own
desktop?

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact that
it needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?

I'm saying that Gates used OS/2 for his own WindowsNT, which was not as
stable as the original. I still use OS/2, and have never had any but
minor problems. I also run the new version, called eComStation.

On 11/12/2013 05:59 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:

And use all your Windows software no more :-(
Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on. With
Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step by
step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand,
with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box
at all and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only
get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
a solution. That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea
what is going on inside the box than you do, though.
--scott


You are way more likely to need to fork over some moola to get the
answer with Win. The Linux ecosystem is not about generating profits; it
makes computing fun again. I'm about to install a 64 bit Mint customized
for Ham Radio on my friends old gaming machine. He is actually the one
who pays retail for Windows.,

On 11/12/2013 03:14 AM, John Williamson wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his
own desktop?

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact
that it needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?


I took it as more of a suggestion that the owner and creator of
Microsoft didn't want to use a Microsft OS on his own machine.

Of course, it could just have been research to find out just how bad
OS/2 was....


Creator of Microsoft? Gates helped write CPM, a little bit of BASIC.
Quick and Dirty Operating System was bought pretty much turnkey. Since
then it's been Bill and Steve as Mr and Mrs Pacman, gobbling up other
people's ideas.

On 11/11/2013 10:40 PM, Trevor wrote:


And use all your Windows software no more :-(
Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

Trevor.


Nobody said that, did they? It is easier to keep a Linux box running,
however. Ask anybody loving Android in their pocket or their PS3s in the
video game room.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, dave wrote:

On 11/12/2013 03:14 AM, John Williamson wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:27 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his
own desktop?

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact
that it needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?


I took it as more of a suggestion that the owner and creator of
Microsoft didn't want to use a Microsft OS on his own machine.

Of course, it could just have been research to find out just how bad
OS/2 was....


Creator of Microsoft? Gates helped write CPM, a little bit of BASIC. Quick
and Dirty Operating System was bought pretty much turnkey. Since then it's
been Bill and Steve as Mr and Mrs Pacman, gobbling up other people's ideas.

No, Swif****er Bill had nothing to do with CPM.

Gary Kildall wrote CPM, over at Digital Research.

Bill and Microsoft were only about BASIC for some years, so common that
for a while just about any computer you could buy had a Microsoft BASIC
for it, many with it in ROM. Perhaps towards the end of that period they
had some other languages to offer.

When the IBM PC came along, they apparently went to Microsoft thinking
they put out CPM (I seem to recall one reason for this error was because
Microsoft did have a CP/M card for the Apple II, their first foray into
hardware), and so Microsoft sent them to Digital Research. Some foul up
(the stories vary) sent them back to Microsoft, to ask them if they could
make an operating system. That's when they bought QDOS from Seattle
Microsystems, and turned it into PCDOS.

Of course, QDOS is said to be similar to CPM.

Michael