Discussion:
Is Flight Simulator really being discontinued?
(too old to reply)
alfred
2009-02-14 21:18:18 UTC
Permalink
I heard that Microsoft laid off many of the people in the FS development
labs, but not all and not closed the whole project. Yet there are rumors
that FS is being discontinued. Why would a company want to discontinue their
most popular program aside from Office? Does anyone think this is a rumor or
more probable?

Al
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-14 21:42:36 UTC
Permalink
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
Post by alfred
I heard that Microsoft laid off many of the people in the FS development
labs, but not all and not closed the whole project. Yet there are rumors
that FS is being discontinued. Why would a company want to discontinue their
most popular program aside from Office? Does anyone think this is a rumor or
more probable?
Al
alfred
2009-02-14 22:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Well thats too bad. I like the game and I have had 98, 2002, 2004, and fsx.
I'll keep playing it. I'm sure other companies will come out with simulators
and expansion packs for this one but i dont know if they will be as good if
they develop whole new products.
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a way
to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after all
Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of them
gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long time <G>!
Post by alfred
I heard that Microsoft laid off many of the people in the FS development
labs, but not all and not closed the whole project. Yet there are rumors
that FS is being discontinued. Why would a company want to discontinue
their most popular program aside from Office? Does anyone think this is a
rumor or more probable?
Al
mdavis
2009-02-14 23:06:59 UTC
Permalink
The announcement caused me to pick up a copy of X-Plane 9.2. The
graphics lag behind FSX, the planes aren't as detailed, they are just
now catching up on building 3D panels, and the landclass isn't the best.
Autogen buildings are very good, but there aren't any local landmarks
at major cities unless you find add-ons. Personally I can live without
flying over the Eiffel Tower if it's not there.

On the other hand, the new 30 meter terrain mesh is very nice, there are
as many runways as FSX, runways are sloped (!) where appropriate, 2D
panels are good and flight dynamics are excellent if you don't load up
on amateur freeware attempts. Payware is cheaper ($10-19US range for
most), and there is a lot of freeware if you want to try them out.

Weather is real-time as in FSX if you choose, and the fog/haze depiction
is superior by far, even with ActiveSkyX Advanced in FSX. They never
did get that right in FSX but X-Plane did.

There are FMCs but no real flight planner. A few programs like FS Build
can export to X-Plane. Framerates are about twice as fast as FSX with
similar slider settings.

I'm not going to abandon FSX because it is so familiar and comfortable,
has such great graphics and scenery, but like any investment,
diversification is the key to success. I'll fly both of them and watch
X-Plane catch up in areas in which it doesn't excel.

There is currently a "window of opportunity" for FSX converts to pick up
the latest version of X-Plane with all the world 30 meter mesh on 6 DVDs
for $39 at X-Plane.com. No, I don't get paid by X-Plane and I just
installed my copy today for the first time, but it is impressive in ways
FSX isn't despite it's weaknesses.
Capt. Sully Rules!
2009-02-15 18:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mdavis
The announcement caused me to pick up a copy of X-Plane 9.2. The
graphics lag behind FSX, the planes aren't as detailed, they are just
now catching up on building 3D panels, and the landclass isn't the best.
Autogen buildings are very good, but there aren't any local landmarks
at major cities unless you find add-ons. Personally I can live without
flying over the Eiffel Tower if it's not there.
On the other hand, the new 30 meter terrain mesh is very nice, there are
as many runways as FSX, runways are sloped (!) where appropriate, 2D
panels are good and flight dynamics are excellent if you don't load up
on amateur freeware attempts. Payware is cheaper ($10-19US range for
most), and there is a lot of freeware if you want to try them out.
Weather is real-time as in FSX if you choose, and the fog/haze depiction
is superior by far, even with ActiveSkyX Advanced in FSX. They never
did get that right in FSX but X-Plane did.
There are FMCs but no real flight planner. A few programs like FS Build
can export to X-Plane. Framerates are about twice as fast as FSX with
similar slider settings.
I'm not going to abandon FSX because it is so familiar and comfortable,
has such great graphics and scenery, but like any investment,
diversification is the key to success. I'll fly both of them and watch
X-Plane catch up in areas in which it doesn't excel.
There is currently a "window of opportunity" for FSX converts to pick up
the latest version of X-Plane with all the world 30 meter mesh on 6 DVDs
for $39 at X-Plane.com. No, I don't get paid by X-Plane and I just
installed my copy today for the first time, but it is impressive in ways
FSX isn't despite it's weaknesses.
How is the frame rate in X-Plane 9.2 compared to FSX at similar
graphics settings?
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-15 18:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Who cares <G>. First of that would probably be comparing apples to
oranges. Second, is frame rate doesn't always correlate directly to
smooth flying. In all versions of FS I've had cases with low frame
rates but flying was smooth. I don't know in X-Plane as I've never
turned it on but the real question is how smooth it is. So far X-Plane
has run smoothly and I've set some of the graphics settings up to Huge,
tons, and insane.
Post by Capt. Sully Rules!
How is the frame rate in X-Plane 9.2 compared to FSX at similar
graphics settings?
BillW50
2009-02-16 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mdavis
The announcement caused me to pick up a copy of X-Plane 9.2. The
graphics lag behind FSX, the planes aren't as detailed, they are just
now catching up on building 3D panels, and the landclass isn't the
best. Autogen buildings are very good, but there aren't any local
landmarks at major cities unless you find add-ons. Personally I can
live without flying over the Eiffel Tower if it's not there...
Huh? Say what? I just ordered X-Plane after playing with the 10 minute
demo. I couldn't see other areas except a small patch of land in Austria
somewhere. So I didn't know about this. They brag about having 60GB of
scenery! So what good is it if it is all Autogen anyway?
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
mdavis
2009-02-16 18:38:31 UTC
Permalink
X-Plane scenery uses generic tiles to cover its wonderful 30 meter
terrain mesh. The terrain mesh covers the entire earth, which is worlds
better than FSX (pun intended). Landclass is good (cities where they
should be, etc.) but there are no "local landmark" buildings or other
specific area details for the sightseers. FSX did a pretty fair job of
inserting eye candy.

X-Plane, from my very short, limited experience with it, is almost
totally designed around flight modeling. The newer versions have great
terrain elevation display, but that is part of flying DPs/STARs. Roads
and water are accurately displayed, so VFR flying by roads is available.

In addition, I'm finding X-Plane to have more realistic panel operation.
If there is an S-Tec autopilot installed, you have to go to the S-Tec
web site and download the users manual (free) if you want to know
exactly how it works. Same with the Garmin 430 and 500s. Either you
know it, or you learn it. None of this "click one button and the
autopilot flies your plane to touchdown" stuff.

Yes, there are some disadvantages. X-Plane is designed for a 4:3 aspect
ratio monitor, so wide screens like my 24" show scenery going by the
ends of the panel. Not a big deal to me.

So the bottom line is if you like flying around at VFR level looking for
specific buildings and landmarks, FSX is your sim. If you like a lot of
excellent freeware and inexpensive payware aircraft with excellent
flight modeling, accurate and realistic panels, excellent weather
conditions (online real weather like FSX) then X-Plane is worth more
than the $39US. I see them as complimentary. One excels where the
other lags. I'm flying both and loving it.
BillW50
2009-02-16 20:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mdavis
X-Plane scenery uses generic tiles to cover its wonderful 30 meter
terrain mesh. The terrain mesh covers the entire earth, which is
worlds better than FSX (pun intended). Landclass is good (cities
where they should be, etc.) but there are no "local landmark"
buildings or other specific area details for the sightseers. FSX did
a pretty fair job of inserting eye candy.
X-Plane, from my very short, limited experience with it, is almost
totally designed around flight modeling. The newer versions have
great terrain elevation display, but that is part of flying
DPs/STARs. Roads and water are accurately displayed, so VFR flying
by roads is available.
In addition, I'm finding X-Plane to have more realistic panel
operation. If there is an S-Tec autopilot installed, you have to go
to the S-Tec web site and download the users manual (free) if you
want to know exactly how it works. Same with the Garmin 430 and
500s. Either you know it, or you learn it. None of this "click one
button and the autopilot flies your plane to touchdown" stuff.
Yes, there are some disadvantages. X-Plane is designed for a 4:3
aspect ratio monitor, so wide screens like my 24" show scenery going
by the ends of the panel. Not a big deal to me.
So the bottom line is if you like flying around at VFR level looking
for specific buildings and landmarks, FSX is your sim. If you like a
lot of excellent freeware and inexpensive payware aircraft with
excellent flight modeling, accurate and realistic panels, excellent
weather conditions (online real weather like FSX) then X-Plane is
worth more than the $39US. I see them as complimentary. One excels
where the other lags. I'm flying both and loving it.
Thanks mdavis! Much food for thought.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-14 23:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Well, FSX and 9 can continue to be used for a while. Eventually
hardware and operating systems will outrun them and the add-on makers
will move on to other areas but they're good for a few years yet.
Post by alfred
Well thats too bad. I like the game and I have had 98, 2002, 2004, and fsx.
I'll keep playing it. I'm sure other companies will come out with simulators
and expansion packs for this one but i dont know if they will be as good if
they develop whole new products.
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a way
to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after all
Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of them
gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long time <G>!
Post by alfred
I heard that Microsoft laid off many of the people in the FS development
labs, but not all and not closed the whole project. Yet there are rumors
that FS is being discontinued. Why would a company want to discontinue
their most popular program aside from Office? Does anyone think this is a
rumor or more probable?
Al
John
2009-02-15 02:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by alfred
Well thats too bad. I like the game and I have had 98, 2002, 2004, and
fsx. I'll keep playing it. I'm sure other companies will come out with
simulators and expansion packs for this one but i dont know if they will
be as good if they develop whole new products.
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long time
<G>!
Post by alfred
I heard that Microsoft laid off many of the people in the FS development
labs, but not all and not closed the whole project. Yet there are rumors
that FS is being discontinued. Why would a company want to discontinue
their most popular program aside from Office? Does anyone think this is
a rumor or more probable?
Al
I have bought every version and MS addon since 95; also many non-MS addons.

It is without a doubt my favorite computer program.

John
Mxsmanic
2009-02-14 23:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
It's a bit more complex. Ballmer and his team have been unable to increase
the stock price of Microsoft in nearly a decade, and the company now declares
dividends, whereas it used to reinvest profits. This means that the current
management team must produce a dividend regularly or risk the wrath of
shareholders. This short-term pressure, plus the natural tendency of the
current team to worry only about money, are causing problems.
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-14 23:39:27 UTC
Permalink
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
instead of producing good quality products. It's all about maximize the
return and who cares about the long haul.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
It's a bit more complex. Ballmer and his team have been unable to increase
the stock price of Microsoft in nearly a decade, and the company now declares
dividends, whereas it used to reinvest profits. This means that the current
management team must produce a dividend regularly or risk the wrath of
shareholders. This short-term pressure, plus the natural tendency of the
current team to worry only about money, are causing problems.
John Ward
2009-02-15 00:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Q.E.D., mate!

JW
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
instead of producing good quality products. It's all about maximize the
return and who cares about the long haul.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
It's a bit more complex. Ballmer and his team have been unable to increase
the stock price of Microsoft in nearly a decade, and the company now declares
dividends, whereas it used to reinvest profits. This means that the current
management team must produce a dividend regularly or risk the wrath of
shareholders. This short-term pressure, plus the natural tendency of the
current team to worry only about money, are causing problems.
Walter Mitty II
2009-02-15 01:17:55 UTC
Permalink
<irony>

Dunno what all the fuss is about. You're seeing capitalism in its
purest form and still you're not ecstatic...

I just don't understand it...

</irony>

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:39:27 -0500, "Brett I. Holcomb"
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
instead of producing good quality products. It's all about maximize the
return and who cares about the long haul.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
It's a bit more complex. Ballmer and his team have been unable to increase
the stock price of Microsoft in nearly a decade, and the company now declares
dividends, whereas it used to reinvest profits. This means that the current
management team must produce a dividend regularly or risk the wrath of
shareholders. This short-term pressure, plus the natural tendency of the
current team to worry only about money, are causing problems.
Walt

* * *
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-15 02:10:36 UTC
Permalink
I guess I've seen the results of capitalism gone wild for too many years
<G>. Capitalism done right is okay - what we have today is get to the
trough and get everything and can and stuff everyone else.
Post by Walter Mitty II
<irony>
Dunno what all the fuss is about. You're seeing capitalism in its
purest form and still you're not ecstatic...
I just don't understand it...
</irony>
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:39:27 -0500, "Brett I. Holcomb"
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
instead of producing good quality products. It's all about maximize the
return and who cares about the long haul.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
It's true, Alfred - look at Avsim and many other blogs. Because it's a
way to cut costs. Today's management cuts first, thinks later - after
all Ballmer and his boys have to protect their large bonuses. If any of
them gave up even part of his bonus it would help fund MS for a long
time <G>!
It's a bit more complex. Ballmer and his team have been unable to increase
the stock price of Microsoft in nearly a decade, and the company now declares
dividends, whereas it used to reinvest profits. This means that the current
management team must produce a dividend regularly or risk the wrath of
shareholders. This short-term pressure, plus the natural tendency of the
current team to worry only about money, are causing problems.
Walt
* * *
Walter Mitty II
2009-02-15 03:36:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:10:36 -0500, "Brett I. Holcomb"
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
I guess I've seen the results of capitalism gone wild for too many years
<G>. Capitalism done right is okay - what we have today is get to the
trough and get everything and can and stuff everyone else.
Sorry Brett, but I'm one of those "leftists" who think "capitalism
done right" oxymoronic in essence, and just a euphamism for "dirty
deeds, done dirt cheap".

But I have no intention of re-igniting McCarthyism and the Cold War in
this group, so this will be my final comment on this topic.

Good luck to you all, see you on the dark side of the moon... :--)

Happy simming...




Walt

* * *
Phil
2009-02-15 16:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Mitty II
<irony>
Dunno what all the fuss is about. You're seeing capitalism in its
purest form and still you're not ecstatic...
I just don't understand it...
</irony>
Let's all bury MS and other rotten capitalist. I'm sure Russia, China,
maybe Cuba will all join together and give us a flight simulator.

Be careful what you wish for, there are many out there who will happily
make it come true for you.
Walter Mitty II
2009-02-15 22:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil
Post by Walter Mitty II
<irony>
Dunno what all the fuss is about. You're seeing capitalism in its
purest form and still you're not ecstatic...
I just don't understand it...
</irony>
Let's all bury MS and other rotten capitalist. I'm sure Russia, China,
maybe Cuba will all join together and give us a flight simulator.
Be careful what you wish for, there are many out there who will happily
make it come true for you.
Yes, they're called Linux developers...

And I love them.. ;-)




Walt

* * *
Phil
2009-02-16 00:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Linux developers eat real food and have homes. I'm not inclined to buy
them a meal or give them a roof. Glad you may be willing, but...

they already work for likes of MS for room and board, or happy to add
Linux developement to their resumes so they can some day.
Post by Walter Mitty II
Post by Phil
Post by Walter Mitty II
<irony>
Dunno what all the fuss is about. You're seeing capitalism in its
purest form and still you're not ecstatic...
I just don't understand it...
</irony>
Let's all bury MS and other rotten capitalist. I'm sure Russia,
China, maybe Cuba will all join together and give us a flight
simulator.
Be careful what you wish for, there are many out there who will
happily make it come true for you.
Yes, they're called Linux developers...
And I love them.. ;-)
Walt
* * *
Mxsmanic
2009-02-16 21:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Mitty II
Yes, they're called Linux developers...
Somehow it seems appropriate that Walter Mitty would say this.
Roger (K8RI)
2009-02-15 01:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows, let
alone Vista AND the Beta of Windows 7 makes Vista look good... I think
many of us forget why businesses exist and we are a niche market.
Maybe a large niche, but a niche never the less.

Companies are in business for one of two reasons. All but a very tiny
number exist to make money. They do so by providing a service such
as and operating system, or firewall, or FSX. The other group is more
or less a hobby which may or may not make money.

Most larger companies have stock holders who provide operating capital
through stock. If the company does well the stock price goes up
and/or they provide a dividend. The company has to do two things:
provide a product that keeps the customers happy and make enough money
to keep the stock holders happy. NORMALLY keeping the customers happy
keeps the stock holders happy.

MS is facing two major hurtles. The first is an overall market model
that is changing. IOW they can no longer keep bringing out new models
of an operating system every few years and have the masses blindly
follow. As I mentioned before, about 80% (last figures I saw) of
businesses and corporations did not upgrade to Vista, but stayed with
XP Pro. Most of the Vista sales came from pre installed versions on
new computer purchases. The second is the state of the "world wide"
economy, not just the US.

I could go into a long dissertation on the reasons, but the blame does
not rest with any one party or branch of government. It starts right
with us; the so called "man-on-the-street (living beyond our means on
credit) all the way through businesses to nearly all branches of
government and that's world wide.

OTOH the one group of business reportedly doing the best are games
while movies, cable, and other forms of entertainment are hurting.

MS is just too big to handle a niche market in this economy. Possibly
they will be able to spin off the flight sim. Maybe they have no
interest in doing so. I have no idea. HOWEVER they are going to be
coming out with Windows 7 right in the middle of the deepest recession
most of us can remember and it's world wide, not just a US problem.
That means, unless a miracle happens, Windows 7 is coming to the plate
with 2 strikes and 3 balls against an ace pitcher. IOW the odds for
success are not at all good. That being the case they had better be
doing some serious belt tightening now and not next summer.

Admittedly I've been playing with a Beta of Win 7, but it appears to
be not much different than Vista. (Vista with a few new features in a
new wrapper?) If you install it your self it appears to do well at
finding drivers (they learned something from LINUX), but the
configuring after the install just seems to go on forever. It is more
compact and appears to be faster than Vista, but as I said, this is a
Beta. From what I've seen there is little reason to upgrade from
either XP or Vista except for the fact that support for XP Pro, SP-3
will be disappearing in 2014 (I think that's the date) while it's
going to be much sooner for the other XP versions. It takes
horsepower to run Vista as FSX shows on the new quad core CPUs.
Programming apps to run on multiple processors which I believe is
"Symmetrical Multi processors" or SMP starts getting complicated at
the lower levels so in the long haul FSX's successor could take a lot
of resources just when MS has to be tightening their belt.

I figure I should be able to run FSX for at least another 10 years if
nothing else changes.

I wonder if any one has tried running older versions (beyond FS-9)
using virtualization in Vista?

In the end I'll miss the flight sim support, but I don't blame MS if
it does get caught in all the belt tightening.
Fred Gibson
2009-02-15 15:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows, let
alone Vista AND the Beta of Windows 7 makes Vista look good... I think
many of us forget why businesses exist and we are a niche market.
Maybe a large niche, but a niche never the less.
Companies are in business for one of two reasons. All but a very tiny
number exist to make money. They do so by providing a service such
as and operating system, or firewall, or FSX. The other group is more
or less a hobby which may or may not make money.
Most larger companies have stock holders who provide operating capital
through stock. If the company does well the stock price goes up
provide a product that keeps the customers happy and make enough money
to keep the stock holders happy. NORMALLY keeping the customers happy
keeps the stock holders happy.
MS is facing two major hurtles. The first is an overall market model
that is changing. IOW they can no longer keep bringing out new models
of an operating system every few years and have the masses blindly
follow. As I mentioned before, about 80% (last figures I saw) of
businesses and corporations did not upgrade to Vista, but stayed with
XP Pro. Most of the Vista sales came from pre installed versions on
new computer purchases. The second is the state of the "world wide"
economy, not just the US.
I could go into a long dissertation on the reasons, but the blame does
not rest with any one party or branch of government. It starts right
with us; the so called "man-on-the-street (living beyond our means on
credit) all the way through businesses to nearly all branches of
government and that's world wide.
OTOH the one group of business reportedly doing the best are games
while movies, cable, and other forms of entertainment are hurting.
MS is just too big to handle a niche market in this economy. Possibly
they will be able to spin off the flight sim. Maybe they have no
interest in doing so. I have no idea. HOWEVER they are going to be
coming out with Windows 7 right in the middle of the deepest recession
most of us can remember and it's world wide, not just a US problem.
That means, unless a miracle happens, Windows 7 is coming to the plate
with 2 strikes and 3 balls against an ace pitcher. IOW the odds for
success are not at all good. That being the case they had better be
doing some serious belt tightening now and not next summer.
Admittedly I've been playing with a Beta of Win 7, but it appears to
be not much different than Vista. (Vista with a few new features in a
new wrapper?) If you install it your self it appears to do well at
finding drivers (they learned something from LINUX), but the
configuring after the install just seems to go on forever. It is more
compact and appears to be faster than Vista, but as I said, this is a
Beta. From what I've seen there is little reason to upgrade from
either XP or Vista except for the fact that support for XP Pro, SP-3
will be disappearing in 2014 (I think that's the date) while it's
going to be much sooner for the other XP versions. It takes
horsepower to run Vista as FSX shows on the new quad core CPUs.
Programming apps to run on multiple processors which I believe is
"Symmetrical Multi processors" or SMP starts getting complicated at
the lower levels so in the long haul FSX's successor could take a lot
of resources just when MS has to be tightening their belt.
I figure I should be able to run FSX for at least another 10 years if
nothing else changes.
I wonder if any one has tried running older versions (beyond FS-9)
using virtualization in Vista?
In the end I'll miss the flight sim support, but I don't blame MS if
it does get caught in all the belt tightening.
I'm just wondering if MS ever did make any profits from flight sim sales!
Maybe it was a break even exercise at best. Commercial software (Office
etc.) sells for thousands of pounds per PC and sold to many companies.
Flight Sims on the other hand sell for only £35 to £40 per PC (approx.).

With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was the
time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
Paul E. Lehmann
2009-02-15 20:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was
the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
Canuck
2009-02-15 21:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Probably they will buy up the licence and distribute it as their own, isn't
that what MS usually do?
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
2009-02-15 22:40:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was
the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years, and
have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic user.
What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office does not?

Martin C

S34° 53'21"
E138° 40'29"
Don
2009-02-15 23:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was
the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years, and
have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic user.
What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office does not?
Martin C
S34° 53'21"
E138° 40'29"
I used to have Microsoft Office XP ( 2002), and liked it fairly well -
especially for Outlook.
When I moved to Vista Ultimate 64 bit in March of last year, I read that
there were some issues running that version of Office in Vista, so I did not
want to plunk down serious new money on a new version of Office, so I gave
Open Office a try. I have been very happy with what it does for me, and as
far as Outlook I don't really miss it either as I now use Windows Live Mail,
for both email and newsgroups, which does everything for me that Outlook
did for email and OE for newsgroups.

I am not a fan of Linux and would never move to it as my OS, but I think
they have done a good job with Open Office and it is a great program
especially for the price. Seems to work well with documents/spreadsheets
created with Office as well. I could not see why just a casual home user
would pay the money for MS's Office program when Open Office is available
for free.
--
Don
Roger (K8RI)
2009-02-16 02:25:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:23:02 -0600, "Don"
Post by Don
Post by m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was
the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years, and
have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic user.
What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office does not?
Martin C
S34° 53'21"
E138° 40'29"
I used to have Microsoft Office XP ( 2002), and liked it fairly well -
especially for Outlook.
When I moved to Vista Ultimate 64 bit in March of last year, I read that
there were some issues running that version of Office in Vista, so I did not
want to plunk down serious new money on a new version of Office, so I gave
Open Office a try. I have been very happy with what it does for me, and as
far as Outlook I don't really miss it either as I now use Windows Live Mail,
for both email and newsgroups, which does everything for me that Outlook
did for email and OE for newsgroups.
I am not a fan of Linux and would never move to it as my OS, but I think
they have done a good job with Open Office and it is a great program
especially for the price. Seems to work well with documents/spreadsheets
created with Office as well. I could not see why just a casual home user
would pay the money for MS's Office program when Open Office is available
for free.
I'm not going to call them the average user, but rather *most* users
go out, purchase a computer with preloaded software. They want
"pretty" HTML e-mail, and have no idea as to what constitutes "safe
computing". Most will probably never even renew the virus checker and
firewall. They figure between being able to type up a
document/letter, do e-mail, and surf the net they are computer
literate. Most have no idea Open Office even exists and what ever they
have does what they want so why bother. From my perspective most
users are not computer literate. If they were we wouldn't have the
millions of zombie computers out there spewing Spam, viruses, and
trojans.
BillW50
2009-02-16 16:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger (K8RI)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:23:02 -0600, "Don"
Post by Don
Post by m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe
profit margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered
that now was the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the
head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with
Open Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years, and
have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic user.
What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office does not?
Martin C
S34° 53'21"
E138° 40'29"
I used to have Microsoft Office XP ( 2002), and liked it fairly well
- especially for Outlook.
When I moved to Vista Ultimate 64 bit in March of last year, I read
that there were some issues running that version of Office in Vista,
so I did not want to plunk down serious new money on a new version
of Office, so I gave Open Office a try. I have been very happy with
what it does for me, and as far as Outlook I don't really miss it
either as I now use Windows Live Mail, for both email and
newsgroups, which does everything for me that Outlook did for email
and OE for newsgroups.
I am not a fan of Linux and would never move to it as my OS, but I
think they have done a good job with Open Office and it is a great
program especially for the price. Seems to work well with
documents/spreadsheets created with Office as well. I could not see
why just a casual home user would pay the money for MS's Office
program when Open Office is available for free.
I'm not going to call them the average user, but rather *most* users
go out, purchase a computer with preloaded software. They want
"pretty" HTML e-mail, and have no idea as to what constitutes "safe
computing". Most will probably never even renew the virus checker and
firewall. They figure between being able to type up a
document/letter, do e-mail, and surf the net they are computer
literate. Most have no idea Open Office even exists and what ever they
have does what they want so why bother. From my perspective most
users are not computer literate. If they were we wouldn't have the
millions of zombie computers out there spewing Spam, viruses, and
trojans.
Well Linux is even far worse, even for experienced users, unlike
Windows. As there are zillions of Linux distros all competing to be
number one and are going in all different directions. Which only muddies
the waters. And Linux has no hope of competing with Windows unless they
all unite. And I never see this as ever happening.

And what I mean by Linux is worse even for experienced users... check
this out. I have a bunch of Xandros machines (yes they came with Linux).
In their wisdom, the Add/Remove software doesn't really remove anything.
So you can't gain space by removing applications you never use anyway.
So you are forced to use the crappy applications that came with it.
Worse, just because you are running Linux, doesn't mean you will be able
to run Linux programs. Many of them are individual distro only. The many
problems with CP/M are haunting us all over again. And history repeats
itself.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Paul E. Lehmann
2009-02-16 19:33:14 UTC
Permalink
BillW50
2009-02-16 20:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
Post by Roger (K8RI)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:23:02 -0600, "Don"
Post by Don
Post by m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe
profit margins were marginal at best, so they may have
considered that now was the time to cut their losses and knock
it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete
with Open Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years,
and have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic
user. What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office
does not?
Martin C
S34 53'21"
E138 40'29"
I used to have Microsoft Office XP ( 2002), and liked it fairly
well - especially for Outlook.
When I moved to Vista Ultimate 64 bit in March of last year, I read
that there were some issues running that version of Office in
Vista, so I did not want to plunk down serious new money on a new
version of Office, so I gave Open Office a try. I have been very
happy with what it does for me, and as far as Outlook I don't
really miss it either as I now use Windows Live Mail, for both
email and newsgroups, which does everything for me that Outlook
did for email and OE for newsgroups.
I am not a fan of Linux and would never move to it as my OS, but I
think they have done a good job with Open Office and it is a great
program especially for the price. Seems to work well with
documents/spreadsheets created with Office as well. I could not see
why just a casual home user would pay the money for MS's Office
program when Open Office is available for free.
I'm not going to call them the average user, but rather *most* users
go out, purchase a computer with preloaded software. They want
"pretty" HTML e-mail, and have no idea as to what constitutes "safe
computing". Most will probably never even renew the virus checker
and firewall. They figure between being able to type up a
document/letter, do e-mail, and surf the net they are computer
literate. Most have no idea Open Office even exists and what ever
they have does what they want so why bother. From my perspective
most users are not computer literate. If they were we wouldn't have
the millions of zombie computers out there spewing Spam, viruses,
and trojans.
Well Linux is even far worse, even for experienced users, unlike
Windows. As there are zillions of Linux distros all competing to be
number one and are going in all different directions. Which only
muddies the waters. And Linux has no hope of competing with Windows
unless they all unite. And I never see this as ever happening.
And what I mean by Linux is worse even for experienced users... check
this out. I have a bunch of Xandros machines (yes they came with
Linux). In their wisdom, the Add/Remove software doesn't really
remove anything. So you can't gain space by removing applications
you never use anyway. So you are forced to use the crappy
applications that came with it. Worse, just because you are running
Linux, doesn't mean you will be able to run Linux programs. Many of
them are individual distro only. The many problems with CP/M are
haunting us all over again. And history repeats itself.
Strange, I don't have ANY problem adding OR deleting applications.
Perhaps your experience would be different if you used one of the main
distributions such as Ubuntu or Suse.
I have three Linux distros right now. How many do I need? Xandros which
isn't free, doesn't free up the disk space if you remove or update
anything. Ubuntu Live corrupts my Windows registry. I didn't believe it,
so I did it two more times and it does so every time I run it from a
flash drive. As Windows won't boot up to the desktop even in safe mode
after Ubuntu runs. I have to fix it with BartPE and ERUNT. And Puppy
toggles my LCD brightness to max and doesn't work with my webcam or
wireless. Three Linux distros and they all suck! While Windows XP works
great. Go figure.
I even have an update icon that tells me when improvements have been
made to applications and it downloads and installs them along with any
dependencies. Everything I use a spreadsheet or word processor for,
linux and open office do just fine.
Same here, but under Xandros it doesn't free up the disk space. And like
all updates, sometimes it makes things worse than ever before. Doesn't
anybody learn from history?
This message being sent to you using Open Suse 11.0 and the Knode
newsgroup reader (which is far superior to outlook)
Yeah right! If I had a nickel everytime I heard that line. What is so
hard to add CTRL-H to a newsreader and show replies to my posts? Oddly
enough, most programmers must be idiots as nobody else can figure that
one out yet, unlike MS programmers have. Xnews almost got it right, but
not close enough for my tastes.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
mdavis
2009-02-16 21:24:34 UTC
Permalink
I'm using Thunderbird for both e-mail and newsreader under Vista 64. No
problems. Not enough running under Linux to bother with it, although
I may install Ubuntu and play with it when I have more time. Things
work fine for me under Vista 64 (FSX, X-Plane, Firefox and Thunderbird)
and I've had absolutely no problems with the OS whatsoever running on an
overclocked Q9450 Quad Core with 8 gigs of RAM and a 9800 GTX+ o/c card.
BillW50
2009-02-16 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mdavis
I'm using Thunderbird for both e-mail and newsreader under Vista 64.
No problems. Not enough running under Linux to bother with it,
although I may install Ubuntu and play with it when I have more time.
Things
work fine for me under Vista 64 (FSX, X-Plane, Firefox and
Thunderbird) and I've had absolutely no problems with the OS
whatsoever running on an overclocked Q9450 Quad Core with 8 gigs of
RAM and a 9800 GTX+ o/c card.
I use Thunderbird under Linux under duress. Thunderbird is fine up to
the point of finding replies to your posts and there it fails miserably.
I have tried the Windows version and it is the same in this regard.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-16 23:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Do you use threading?
Post by BillW50
Post by mdavis
I'm using Thunderbird for both e-mail and newsreader under Vista 64.
No problems. Not enough running under Linux to bother with it,
although I may install Ubuntu and play with it when I have more time.
Things
work fine for me under Vista 64 (FSX, X-Plane, Firefox and
Thunderbird) and I've had absolutely no problems with the OS
whatsoever running on an overclocked Q9450 Quad Core with 8 gigs of
RAM and a 9800 GTX+ o/c card.
I use Thunderbird under Linux under duress. Thunderbird is fine up to
the point of finding replies to your posts and there it fails miserably.
I have tried the Windows version and it is the same in this regard.
BillW50
2009-02-17 00:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
Do you use threading?
Post by BillW50
Post by mdavis
I'm using Thunderbird for both e-mail and newsreader under Vista 64.
No problems. Not enough running under Linux to bother with it,
although I may install Ubuntu and play with it when I have more
time. Things
work fine for me under Vista 64 (FSX, X-Plane, Firefox and
Thunderbird) and I've had absolutely no problems with the OS
whatsoever running on an overclocked Q9450 Quad Core with 8 gigs of
RAM and a 9800 GTX+ o/c card.
I use Thunderbird under Linux under duress. Thunderbird is fine up to
the point of finding replies to your posts and there it fails
miserably. I have tried the Windows version and it is the same in
this regard.
Yes I use both theading and non-threading. It depends on when I last
checked what is new in a newsgroup. But watching threaded doesn't help
to see replies to my posts.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Paul E. Lehmann
2009-02-16 21:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
I have three Linux distros right now. How many do I need? Xandros which
isn't free, doesn't free up the disk space if you remove or update
anything. Ubuntu Live corrupts my Windows registry. I didn't believe it,
so I did it two more times and it does so every time I run it from a
flash drive.
Have you tried to install Ubuntu using Wubi? it installs to a virtual hard
disk in windows or you can install a dual boot system which is very easy.
Post by BillW50
As Windows won't boot up to the desktop even in safe mode
after Ubuntu runs. I have to fix it with BartPE and ERUNT. And Puppy
toggles my LCD brightness to max and doesn't work with my webcam or
wireless. Three Linux distros and they all suck! While Windows XP works
great. Go figure.
I even have an update icon that tells me when improvements have been
made to applications and it downloads and installs them along with any
dependencies. Everything I use a spreadsheet or word processor for,
linux and open office do just fine.
Same here, but under Xandros it doesn't free up the disk space. And like
all updates, sometimes it makes things worse than ever before. Doesn't
anybody learn from history?
You can get a wealth of help from the Ubuntu newsgroup or the Suse
newsgroup. I am not an expert but there are experts there that are willing
to help you solve your problems.
Post by BillW50
This message being sent to you using Open Suse 11.0 and the Knode
newsgroup reader (which is far superior to outlook)
Yeah right! If I had a nickel everytime I heard that line. What is so
hard to add CTRL-H to a newsreader and show replies to my posts?
I don't know what you are talking about here. I do not have to use any
CTRL-H to show replies. In fact Knode is HIGHLY customizable and you can
set up the threads in different colors and fonts if you wish and the level
of the thread is obvious to see.
Post by BillW50
Oddly
enough, most programmers must be idiots as nobody else can figure that
one out yet, unlike MS programmers have. Xnews almost got it right, but
not close enough for my tastes.
As long as you are satisfied with Windows then I guess it is the right
choice for you BUT there are MANY who are glad they switched from Windoze
to Linux.

For the price of anti virus and anti this and anti that, that you need for
windoze and NOT linux, you can buy a completely new "Boxed" Version of Suse
every year.

If you are intelligent enough to use a flight simulator, then I think you
are smart enough to learn Linux but if you are happy with where you are
than that is the right choice for you.
BillW50
2009-02-17 00:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
I have three Linux distros right now. How many do I need? Xandros
which isn't free, doesn't free up the disk space if you remove or
update anything. Ubuntu Live corrupts my Windows registry. I didn't
believe it, so I did it two more times and it does so every time I
run it from a flash drive.
Have you tried to install Ubuntu using Wubi? it installs to a
virtual hard disk in windows or you can install a dual boot system
which is very easy.
No I have not. As I am not interested in Linux at all on my hard drive
machines, but just my UMPC machines with solid state drives. As Linux is
so limited in what you can do, it is a better match for those machines.
And dual booting from tiny SSD is a waste of time. As they barely have
enough room for one OS, two OS is a deal breaker.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
As Windows won't boot up to the desktop even in safe mode
after Ubuntu runs. I have to fix it with BartPE and ERUNT. And Puppy
toggles my LCD brightness to max and doesn't work with my webcam or
wireless. Three Linux distros and they all suck! While Windows XP
works great. Go figure.
I even have an update icon that tells me when improvements have been
made to applications and it downloads and installs them along with
any dependencies. Everything I use a spreadsheet or word processor
for, linux and open office do just fine.
Same here, but under Xandros it doesn't free up the disk space. And
like all updates, sometimes it makes things worse than ever before.
Doesn't anybody learn from history?
You can get a wealth of help from the Ubuntu newsgroup or the Suse
newsgroup. I am not an expert but there are experts there that are
willing to help you solve your problems.
Even if I got my Ubuntu problems solved, I still won't like it more. As
I see Linux as nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. As the applications
for Linux is about what I can do on a PDA anyway. Both drivers and
applications are just bare bones. It is like Linux developers are not
very serious at all. And the truth is, no they are not serious.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
This message being sent to you using Open Suse 11.0 and the Knode
newsgroup reader (which is far superior to outlook)
Yeah right! If I had a nickel everytime I heard that line. What is so
hard to add CTRL-H to a newsreader and show replies to my posts?
I don't know what you are talking about here. I do not have to use any
CTRL-H to show replies. In fact Knode is HIGHLY customizable and you
can set up the threads in different colors and fonts if you wish and
the level of the thread is obvious to see.
Yeah, yeah... Thunderbird does the same thing. What is so hard, hit
CTRL-H and all of the replies to your post is only in the list on any
computer I use. I don't care about which hotkey, but no other newsreader
does this. To me, if it doesn't... it is useless. Otherwise you are
wasting way too much time to find the dang things.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
Oddly enough, most programmers must be idiots as nobody else can
figure that one out yet, unlike MS programmers have. Xnews almost got
it right, but not close enough for my tastes.
As long as you are satisfied with Windows then I guess it is the right
choice for you BUT there are MANY who are glad they switched from
Windoze to Linux.
Why? Linux is broken up into a zillion distros with each one going off
in their own direction. How can that be good?
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
For the price of anti virus and anti this and anti that, that you
need for windoze and NOT linux, you can buy a completely new "Boxed"
Version of Suse every year.
Nonsense! Plenty of free and great security products out there for
Windows. I did buy some in the early days, but then I got smart. As
commercial security software are bloated and crap anyway. I am using an
antivirus checker with Xandros. But there isn't any anti-tracking
software for Linux that I know of. So there are real security issues I
have with Linux because the lack of security software.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
If you are intelligent enough to use a flight simulator, then I think
you are smart enough to learn Linux but if you are happy with where
you are than that is the right choice for you.
Learning Linux is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning that it is
nothing but a glorified PDA OS is only something that comes with
experience, unfortunately.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-17 00:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Please don't tell all our machines (and those of other enterprises) that
are using Linux to do real world business tasks <G>. I'm not a zealot
for any system as I realize all have good and bad points I have to work
with Unix (AIX), Windows, Linux, and others so I use what works best fo
the jo or what the vendor requires and get the job done with it.
However, Linux is more than a glorified PDA OS!
Post by BillW50
Learning Linux is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning that it is
nothing but a glorified PDA OS is only something that comes with
experience, unfortunately.
BillW50
2009-02-17 01:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
Please don't tell all our machines (and those of other enterprises)
that are using Linux to do real world business tasks <G>. I'm not a
zealot for any system as I realize all have good and bad points I
have to work with Unix (AIX), Windows, Linux, and others so I use
what works best fo the jo or what the vendor requires and get the job
done with it. However, Linux is more than a glorified PDA OS!
Post by BillW50
Learning Linux is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning that it is
nothing but a glorified PDA OS is only something that comes with
experience, unfortunately.
Not to me it isn't. That is all it is good for. As my PDAs does the same
tasks. And Linux drivers and applications are bare bones. No extra
features and just enough to get by. For some people and businesses that
is all they need.

Ever noticed that the economy has gone to hell since some has adapted
Linux? Don't see the connection between not paying for development, do
you? At least the shareholders are happy until things goes downhill.
Great for them since they can pull out. Sadly others cannot.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
rochrist
2009-02-19 16:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
Please don't tell all our machines (and those of other enterprises)
that are using Linux to do real world business tasks <G>. I'm not a
zealot for any system as I realize all have good and bad points I
have to work with Unix (AIX), Windows, Linux, and others so I use
what works best fo the jo or what the vendor requires and get the job
done with it. However, Linux is more than a glorified PDA OS!
Post by BillW50
Learning Linux is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning that it is
nothing but a glorified PDA OS is only something that comes with
experience, unfortunately.
Not to me it isn't. That is all it is good for. As my PDAs does the same
tasks. And Linux drivers and applications are bare bones. No extra
features and just enough to get by. For some people and businesses that
is all they need.
Ever noticed that the economy has gone to hell since some has adapted
Linux? Don't see the connection between not paying for development, do
you? At least the shareholders are happy until things goes downhill.
Great for them since they can pull out. Sadly others cannot.
You're either a gold plated troll or stupider than granite. I suspect
the former.
BillW50
2009-02-24 21:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rochrist
Post by BillW50
Not to me it isn't. That is all it is good for. As my PDAs does the
same tasks. And Linux drivers and applications are bare bones. No
extra features and just enough to get by. For some people and
businesses that is all they need.
Ever noticed that the economy has gone to hell since some has adapted
Linux? Don't see the connection between not paying for development,
do you? At least the shareholders are happy until things goes
downhill. Great for them since they can pull out. Sadly others
cannot.
You're either a gold plated troll or stupider than granite. I suspect
the former.
If that is so, you must be hiding all of the first rate drivers and
applications then. Because I don't see them on the Internet. So if you
want to keep them a secret, it really doesn't count, now does it?
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
BillW50
2009-02-24 21:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
Please don't tell all our machines (and those of other enterprises)
that are using Linux to do real world business tasks <G>. I'm not a
zealot for any system as I realize all have good and bad points I
have to work with Unix (AIX), Windows, Linux, and others so I use
what works best fo the jo or what the vendor requires and get the job
done with it. However, Linux is more than a glorified PDA OS!
Really? I run three Linux distros; Ubuntu, Puppy, and Xandros. And all I
see are second rate drivers and applications. Where do they hide the
first rate stuff at?
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Paul E. Lehmann
2009-02-17 03:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
I have three Linux distros right now. How many do I need? Xandros
which isn't free, doesn't free up the disk space if you remove or
update anything. Ubuntu Live corrupts my Windows registry. I didn't
believe it, so I did it two more times and it does so every time I
run it from a flash drive.
Have you tried to install Ubuntu using Wubi? it installs to a
virtual hard disk in windows or you can install a dual boot system
which is very easy.
No I have not. As I am not interested in Linux at all on my hard drive
machines, but just my UMPC machines with solid state drives. As Linux is
so limited in what you can do, it is a better match for those machines.
And dual booting from tiny SSD is a waste of time. As they barely have
enough room for one OS, two OS is a deal breaker.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
As Windows won't boot up to the desktop even in safe mode
after Ubuntu runs. I have to fix it with BartPE and ERUNT. And Puppy
toggles my LCD brightness to max and doesn't work with my webcam or
wireless. Three Linux distros and they all suck! While Windows XP
works great. Go figure.
I even have an update icon that tells me when improvements have been
made to applications and it downloads and installs them along with
any dependencies. Everything I use a spreadsheet or word processor
for, linux and open office do just fine.
Same here, but under Xandros it doesn't free up the disk space. And
like all updates, sometimes it makes things worse than ever before.
Doesn't anybody learn from history?
You can get a wealth of help from the Ubuntu newsgroup or the Suse
newsgroup. I am not an expert but there are experts there that are
willing to help you solve your problems.
Even if I got my Ubuntu problems solved, I still won't like it more. As
I see Linux as nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. As the applications
for Linux is about what I can do on a PDA anyway. Both drivers and
applications are just bare bones. It is like Linux developers are not
very serious at all. And the truth is, no they are not serious.
Explain why Linux is such a popular web server - more so than Microsoft.

Explain why Federal agencies such as the National Weather Service (where I
worked before retiring) use Linux to a VERY large extent.

I really feel that you have such a personal bias against Linux that you are
judging the OS based upon very limited experience. That is fine with me
but there are MANY who disagree with your arguments or conclusions.
Post by BillW50
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
This message being sent to you using Open Suse 11.0 and the Knode
newsgroup reader (which is far superior to outlook)
Yeah right! If I had a nickel everytime I heard that line. What is so
hard to add CTRL-H to a newsreader and show replies to my posts?
I don't know what you are talking about here. I do not have to use any
CTRL-H to show replies. In fact Knode is HIGHLY customizable and you
can set up the threads in different colors and fonts if you wish and
the level of the thread is obvious to see.
Yeah, yeah... Thunderbird does the same thing. What is so hard, hit
CTRL-H and all of the replies to your post is only in the list on any
computer I use. I don't care about which hotkey, but no other newsreader
does this. To me, if it doesn't... it is useless. Otherwise you are
wasting way too much time to find the dang things.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by BillW50
Oddly enough, most programmers must be idiots as nobody else can
figure that one out yet, unlike MS programmers have. Xnews almost got
it right, but not close enough for my tastes.
As long as you are satisfied with Windows then I guess it is the right
choice for you BUT there are MANY who are glad they switched from
Windoze to Linux.
Why? Linux is broken up into a zillion distros with each one going off
in their own direction. How can that be good?
They are all basically the same and use the same kernel. You can pick the
distribution that fits your needs. If you have a very old machine, you can
find a Linux distribution that will probably run on it. On the other end.
I am using a new Dell Inspiron that cam with Vista. After playing around
with Vista for awhile I loaded Suse Linux and have a dual boot machine but
I NEVER have gone back to that hell called Vista.
Post by BillW50
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
For the price of anti virus and anti this and anti that, that you
need for windoze and NOT linux, you can buy a completely new "Boxed"
Version of Suse every year.
Nonsense! Plenty of free and great security products out there for
Windows.
There are many of those that are in fact viruses in themselves.
On a brand new PC with Microsoft installed and all the up to date virus
software installed on it, it takes less than an hour to become infected.
It is virtually impossible to prevent a successful attack on a windows
machine. Windows virus protection software is out of date as soon as it is
released.
Post by BillW50
I did buy some in the early days, but then I got smart. As
commercial security software are bloated and crap anyway. I am using an
antivirus checker with Xandros. But there isn't any anti-tracking
software for Linux that I know of. So there are real security issues I
have with Linux because the lack of security software.
You really don't need "security software with Linux. Sure there is some
sold but it is not needed. You have to do some very stupid things to make
your machine vulnerable.
Post by BillW50
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
If you are intelligent enough to use a flight simulator, then I think
you are smart enough to learn Linux but if you are happy with where
you are than that is the right choice for you.
Learning Linux is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning that it is
nothing but a glorified PDA OS is only something that comes with
experience, unfortunately.
And with all due respect, you do not appear to have the experience to judge.
Mxsmanic
2009-02-17 21:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Explain why Linux is such a popular web server - more so than Microsoft.
A combination of hype, economics, and real technical superiority.

Anything running UNIX without a GUI will likely be a better Web server than a
Microsoft Windows operating system. GUIs alone can consume 80% of a machine's
horsepower, so not having one is good for servers (and also eases the problem
of remote administration). Of course, this advantage is lost if
administrators make the mistake of using a GUI on a UNIX or Linux server.

Linux isn't UNIX, but it's very similar, and it gets a lot more press and hype
than UNIX or its descendents. I prefer to run FreeBSD if I need UNIX
capability (and I run it without a GUI), but many Linux users have never heard
of anything except Linux and Windows.

Web servers are simple, and Windows operating systems are complicated.
Windows is overkill for just a Web server (or for most types of servers). It
is, however, more user-friendly for people who have no experience with server
administration, and for lovers of GUIs.

The most popular Web server software is Apache, and Apache runs best on
UNIX-type systems. There's a Windows version, but it's a poor cousin to the
UNIX version.

Servers running most versions of Linux or UNIXoid operating systems can be
extremely small and yet handle large amounts of traffic. They also will run
on almost any hardware that you can put together. The same is not true for
Windows.

Most versions of Linux and many UNIXoid operating systems are also free, which
is a huge advantage for a server.

UNIX and its brethren are not as secure as Windows NT and its descendents, but
often heavy security isn't required for simple server applications.
Additionally, Windows NT needs to be carefully locked down to be fully secure.
UNIX is easier to lock down but isn't as fundamentally secure unless it is one
of the secure versions of the OS. Even then, it's a pale shadow of Multics,
its hypersecure ancestor.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Explain why Federal agencies such as the National Weather Service (where I
worked before retiring) use Linux to a VERY large extent.
Probably because it is free, and/or because Linux advocates work in their IT
departments. And anything similar to UNIX is likely to be better for certain
server applications than Windows.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
I really feel that you have such a personal bias against Linux that you are
judging the OS based upon very limited experience. That is fine with me
but there are MANY who disagree with your arguments or conclusions.
I have a great deal of experience, and very little bias. Each OS has its
place. Linux is a good choice for servers, although I still prefer the
true-blue UNIX descendants. Windows is a mediocre choice for servers. Linux
is a very poor choice for the desktop, and Windows (provided it's a descendent
of NT) is an excellent choice (and often the only choice, depending on the
applications that must be supported).

Descendants of 16-bit Windows, such as Windows 9x and its ilk, are garbage and
should be avoided. OS/2 is no longer a player, and was never very strong
outside things like ATMs. The Mac is an excellent desktop, but a poor server
(too much desktop-related code, even in OS X), and a lack of applications and
expensive hardware and software limit it in both roles.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
They are all basically the same and use the same kernel.
Yes, and it's not a UNIX kernel.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
You can pick the
distribution that fits your needs. If you have a very old machine, you can
find a Linux distribution that will probably run on it. On the other end.
I am using a new Dell Inspiron that cam with Vista. After playing around
with Vista for awhile I loaded Suse Linux and have a dual boot machine but
I NEVER have gone back to that hell called Vista.
Vista isn't really a suitable OS for any purpose. In each of its roles,
there's something else that's better.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
On a brand new PC with Microsoft installed and all the up to date virus
software installed on it, it takes less than an hour to become infected.
It is virtually impossible to prevent a successful attack on a windows
machine. Windows virus protection software is out of date as soon as it is
released.
Windows is a huge and tempting target. Linux isn't even on the radar. But
Linux is less secure fundamentally, like all systems patterned on UNIX.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
You really don't need "security software with Linux. Sure there is some
sold but it is not needed. You have to do some very stupid things to make
your machine vulnerable.
Linux is highly vulnerable, thanks to its architecture. It just isn't a
popular target. Be careful what you wish for.
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
And with all due respect, you do not appear to have the experience to judge.
I do. See above.
m***@gmail.com
2009-02-18 08:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Linux is highly vulnerable, thanks to its architecture.  It just isn't a
popular target.  Be careful what you wish for.
This newsgroup has a lot of OT threads but this thread probably takes
the cake. Not much anyone can do but let's hope this newsgroup doesn't
drift away from FS stuff as the years fly by.
Ibby
2009-02-18 11:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
This newsgroup has a lot of OT threads but this thread probably takes
the cake. Not much anyone can do but let's hope this newsgroup doesn't
drift away from FS stuff as the years fly by.
I'm afraid Matt ***THAT'S*** what makes this group special and has
made it survive for over 10 years now ;-)

The OT threads and changes in direction of topics have helped make
this group attain a level of friendship and create a 'community' where
we can just chat to each other. A lot of people have become very good
friends here and visit each other, even across the globe. There are
plenty of guys I would call friends in this group and like any
friendship you will not talk entirely about simming.

There are however certain subjects we try to keep off the forum like
war and politics but there has been an immense source of technical
information etc made available here relating to hardware and software
by some very qualified people and whilst dicussions on Unix and Linux
may not interest me they do help others so I just don't read those
posts.

Ibby
John Ward
2009-02-18 11:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi Arnold,

AND, besides all of that, every now and then there's a bit of humour
here.

Hey, BTW, heard any good Irish corkers lately, mate? :-))

Regards,
Fatso
Post by Ibby
Post by m***@gmail.com
This newsgroup has a lot of OT threads but this thread probably takes
the cake. Not much anyone can do but let's hope this newsgroup doesn't
drift away from FS stuff as the years fly by.
I'm afraid Matt ***THAT'S*** what makes this group special and has
made it survive for over 10 years now ;-)
The OT threads and changes in direction of topics have helped make
this group attain a level of friendship and create a 'community' where
we can just chat to each other. A lot of people have become very good
friends here and visit each other, even across the globe. There are
plenty of guys I would call friends in this group and like any
friendship you will not talk entirely about simming.
There are however certain subjects we try to keep off the forum like
war and politics but there has been an immense source of technical
information etc made available here relating to hardware and software
by some very qualified people and whilst dicussions on Unix and Linux
may not interest me they do help others so I just don't read those
posts.
Ibby
Ibby
2009-02-18 11:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ward
Hi Arnold,
    AND, besides all of that, every now and then there's a bit of humour
here.
    Hey, BTW, heard any good Irish corkers lately, mate? :-))
God I'm slow today, I was thinking 'Arnold ehh who's that' LOL

Most of my jokes come from this place which reinforces our arguement
about the benefits of the 'O.T.'

Ibby
Ibby
2009-02-18 12:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ibby
Most of my jokes come from this place which reinforces our arguement
about the benefits of the 'O.T.'
Ibby
Right got one for you John (this thread is going way OT now just for
badness LOL)

Osama bin Laden sent Barack Obama a coded message to let him know he's
still alive:

-- 3 7 0 H S S V --
-------0 7 7 3 H -----
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Barack is baffled
The FBI, CIA and NSA can't decipher it. They ask Britains MI-6 for
help but MI-6 couldn't do it so they sent it to Ireland's Gardai
Police.

The Gardai replied 'Tell the President he's holding it upside down.'
LOL

Ibby
John Ward
2009-02-18 13:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ibby,

That IS a corker, mate! :-))) ROTFL

Geeze, it got me thinking, though, which I usually try to avoid, at all
costs! :-))

It only seems like yesterday when I remember posting this to the group:

"Every now and then it takes a true military mind to come up with a
classic quote!

In a recent interview, General Norman Schwartzkof was asked if he
thought there was room for forgiveness towards the people who have harboured
and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America.

His answer:

" I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to
arrange the meeting.".

Wow, a lot of water under the bridge since then, hey mate.

Well, at least its comforting to know that we can all still at least
afford the bridge, eh (like many others around the world, my meagre money's
fast disappearing, at least on paper - thank heavens I don't need to make
any withdrawals each year, and thereby "realise" these losses...).

Wonder whether General Norm managed to retire comfortably?

Wonder whether any of the current military/relatively recently retired
military will manage to retire comfortably, or have done so in the
relatively recent past?

I'd really like to personally meet some of these...... nah, forget about
it, it wouldn't change a thing......

BUT, I digress, pardon me.

Thank goodness matt8500 will draw our focus sharply back to FS stuff,
where it rightly belongs, eh matt, both now, and also as the years fly by.

Over to matt, eh?

I'm not holding my breath, mate!

Regards,
John Ward
Post by Ibby
Post by Ibby
Most of my jokes come from this place which reinforces our arguement
about the benefits of the 'O.T.'
Ibby
Right got one for you John (this thread is going way OT now just for
badness LOL)
Osama bin Laden sent Barack Obama a coded message to let him know he's
-- 3 7 0 H S S V --
-------0 7 7 3 H -----
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack is baffled
The FBI, CIA and NSA can't decipher it. They ask Britains MI-6 for
help but MI-6 couldn't do it so they sent it to Ireland's Gardai
Police.
The Gardai replied 'Tell the President he's holding it upside down.'
LOL
Ibby
m***@gmail.com
2009-02-18 19:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ibby
I'm afraid Matt ***THAT'S*** what makes this group special and has
made it survive for over 10 years now ;-)
In keeping with that spirit then and being the team player that I am
here's an, OT question to this OT thread:

Is anyone familiar with Nick Needham's procedure for optimizing WInXP
SP2 for FSX?
(http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973)

If yes, would you know if these apply to WinXP SP3 and Windows Media
Center PC's also? Thanks!
John Ward
2009-02-20 00:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Nick,

Nah, I'm not familiar with that procedure, mate, and I don't know
anything about Windows Media Center either.

What makes a PC a Windows Media Center PC?

However, in keeping with the spirit, I'll certainly check out your link,
and see if there anything I can do to try and help you get an answer to your
question.

I'm sure that if anybody here can help, they'll certainly post
something - that's the way the group seems to work.

Regards,
John Ward
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Ibby
I'm afraid Matt ***THAT'S*** what makes this group special and has
made it survive for over 10 years now ;-)
In keeping with that spirit then and being the team player that I am
Is anyone familiar with Nick Needham's procedure for optimizing WInXP
SP2 for FSX?
(http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973)
If yes, would you know if these apply to WinXP SP3 and Windows Media
Center PC's also? Thanks!
John Ward
2009-02-20 07:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi Matt,

You could try pinging Danny...

"It is a 'hidden file'. When you bring up My Computer, you will have to
change FOLDER OPTIONS to 'Show Hidden Files". Then, once you have found
FSX.cfg, go here http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041
and look at all the tweaks you can make to it. If you screw it up, not to
worry. Just delete it and restart FSX. It will recreate a NEW FSX.cfg file
with all default settings. I usually open it with notepad then choose File
SAVE AS and rename it FSX.BAK to make a backup copy. When finished save as
FSX.CFG and answer Yes when asked to overwrite the existing file."

Posted on this group previously...

Regards,
John Ward
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Ibby
I'm afraid Matt ***THAT'S*** what makes this group special and has
made it survive for over 10 years now ;-)
In keeping with that spirit then and being the team player that I am
Is anyone familiar with Nick Needham's procedure for optimizing WInXP
SP2 for FSX?
(http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973)
If yes, would you know if these apply to WinXP SP3 and Windows Media
Center PC's also? Thanks!
rochrist
2009-02-19 16:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
UNIX and its brethren are not as secure as Windows NT and its descendents, but
often heavy security isn't required for simple server applications.
Would you care to support this statement?
Quilljar
2009-02-19 18:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Mixamitosis is our favourite troll. He is moderately bright but don't upset
him, he has absolutely zilch sense of humour. Otherwise he is quite a pet
really....
--
Yours Quilly,
Post by rochrist
Post by Mxsmanic
UNIX and its brethren are not as secure as Windows NT and its
descendents, but
often heavy security isn't required for simple server applications.
Would you care to support this statement?
MikeW
2009-02-19 23:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quilljar
Mixamitosis is our favourite troll. He is moderately bright but don't
upset him, he has absolutely zilch sense of humour. Otherwise he is
quite a pet really....
LOL....

....And don't forget, some pets need to be kept in a cage or other secure
accommodation; Mxmoron ( Mixamitosis, Mxsmanic) resides quite happily in my
bozo bin. :-)
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
Try to keep the number of your landings equal to the number of your
takeoffs.
Mxsmanic
2009-02-20 00:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rochrist
Post by Mxsmanic
UNIX and its brethren are not as secure as Windows NT and its descendents, but
often heavy security isn't required for simple server applications.
Would you care to support this statement?
It is self-evident to anyone familiar with the two operating systems. UNIX
suffers from an all-or-nothing privilege system, extremely primitive resource
access controls, an absence of mandatory access controls, and more. All of
these deficiencies were addressed in Windows NT. The interesting thing is
that UNIX was essentially a castrated clone of Multics, which was one of the
most secure operating systems ever designed.

There have been secure versions of UNIX that have vastly improved over the
default, but an ordinary, vanilla UNIX system has very limited security. You
can lock it down, but if you do so, you also lose a lot of versatility,
because the security features (such as they are) are so crude. In Windows NT,
you can lock the system down and still have great flexibility in what you do
and don't allow.
Quilljar
2009-02-20 09:28:41 UTC
Permalink
There you are, I told you, Zilch....!!!
--
Yours Quilly,
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by rochrist
Post by Mxsmanic
UNIX and its brethren are not as secure as Windows NT and its descendents, but
often heavy security isn't required for simple server applications.
Would you care to support this statement?
It is self-evident to anyone familiar with the two operating systems.
UNIX
suffers from an all-or-nothing privilege system, extremely primitive resource
access controls, an absence of mandatory access controls, and more. All of
these deficiencies were addressed in Windows NT. The interesting thing is
that UNIX was essentially a castrated clone of Multics, which was one of the
most secure operating systems ever designed.
There have been secure versions of UNIX that have vastly improved over the
default, but an ordinary, vanilla UNIX system has very limited security.
You
can lock it down, but if you do so, you also lose a lot of versatility,
because the security features (such as they are) are so crude. In Windows NT,
you can lock the system down and still have great flexibility in what you do
and don't allow.
Mxsmanic
2009-02-16 21:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
Well Linux is even far worse, even for experienced users, unlike
Windows. As there are zillions of Linux distros all competing to be
number one and are going in all different directions. Which only muddies
the waters. And Linux has no hope of competing with Windows unless they
all unite. And I never see this as ever happening.
And what I mean by Linux is worse even for experienced users... check
this out. I have a bunch of Xandros machines (yes they came with Linux).
In their wisdom, the Add/Remove software doesn't really remove anything.
So you can't gain space by removing applications you never use anyway.
So you are forced to use the crappy applications that came with it.
Worse, just because you are running Linux, doesn't mean you will be able
to run Linux programs. Many of them are individual distro only. The many
problems with CP/M are haunting us all over again. And history repeats
itself.
This is why I still run Windows (somewhat reluctantly) on the desktop, and
FreeBSD (happily) on the server.
BillW50
2009-02-17 01:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by BillW50
Well Linux is even far worse, even for experienced users, unlike
Windows. As there are zillions of Linux distros all competing to be
number one and are going in all different directions. Which only
muddies the waters. And Linux has no hope of competing with Windows
unless they all unite. And I never see this as ever happening.
And what I mean by Linux is worse even for experienced users... check
this out. I have a bunch of Xandros machines (yes they came with
Linux). In their wisdom, the Add/Remove software doesn't really
remove anything. So you can't gain space by removing applications
you never use anyway. So you are forced to use the crappy
applications that came with it. Worse, just because you are running
Linux, doesn't mean you will be able to run Linux programs. Many of
them are individual distro only. The many problems with CP/M are
haunting us all over again. And history repeats itself.
This is why I still run Windows (somewhat reluctantly) on the
desktop, and FreeBSD (happily) on the server.
I you have to run Linux, that is probably best.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Roger (K8RI)
2009-02-17 07:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:48:16 -0600, "BillW50" <***@aol.kom> wrote:

<snip>
Post by BillW50
Well Linux is even far worse, even for experienced users, unlike
Windows.
I've used Susie, Fedora and Ubuntu. They are easier to install than
XP, Vista, or Win 7. Each of those LINUX distros even installs your
drivers rather than needing the install disks that came with your
hardware in most cases.

Actually for experienced users and people like me who are constantly
working on systems LINUX can be more difficult to use than it is for
the end user who only needs to run some programs.
Post by BillW50
As there are zillions of Linux distros all competing to be
There are a few, but actually there are only about 4 major players.
Post by BillW50
number one and are going in all different directions. Which only muddies
the waters. And Linux has no hope of competing with Windows unless they
all unite. And I never see this as ever happening.
For the end user on one of my machines I doubt the end user would know
which OS they were using if I put the same wallpaper up. They do get
finicky when setting up a network, but the major LINUX players have
made great strides over the past couple of years.
Post by BillW50
And what I mean by Linux is worse even for experienced users... check
this out. I have a bunch of Xandros machines (yes they came with Linux).
That's a distro I think I've heard mentioned, but am completely
unfamiliar with it. I'd stick with the common ones as they are so
easy to use.
Post by BillW50
In their wisdom, the Add/Remove software doesn't really remove anything.
So you can't gain space by removing applications you never use anyway.
Strange, many of the programs on windows do the same thing.
Remove them using add/remove and they disappear. Go to the Programs
folder and there they are still fully intact. Just no entries in the
registry. OTOH when I remove a program in FEDORA it's gone, or at
least the ones I've removed were.
Post by BillW50
So you are forced to use the crappy applications that came with it.
Worse, just because you are running Linux, doesn't mean you will be able
to run Linux programs. Many of them are individual distro only. The many
That is what makes "Yum install" so nice. It not only installs the
program, but it goes out on the Internet where it gets updates and
drivers if you don't have them. I can't think of anything comparable
on Windows.
Post by BillW50
problems with CP/M are haunting us all over again. And history repeats
itself.
the major distros are becoming easier to use all the time and it's
still steadily gaining market share the last I heard. Now that the
economy has tanked, people like "free". OTOH they don't like having to
hunt up support through reflectors and news groups.

Yes, when working from the command line they can be a bit quirky with
some operations, but what end user works with the command line. I use
it, but I'm not exactly the average end user.
BillW50
2009-02-16 16:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by m***@optusnet.com._remove_this_.au
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe
profit margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered
that now was the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the
head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with
Open Office. What are they going to do then.
That puzzles me, too. I have been using Open Office for years, and
have never used MS Office, because I am a low-demand domestic user.
What kind of things does MS Office offer which Open Office does not?
Martin C
S34° 53'21"
E138° 40'29"
I used to have Microsoft Office XP ( 2002), and liked it fairly well -
especially for Outlook.
When I moved to Vista Ultimate 64 bit in March of last year, I read
that there were some issues running that version of Office in Vista,
so I did not want to plunk down serious new money on a new version of
Office, so I gave Open Office a try. I have been very happy with
what it does for me, and as far as Outlook I don't really miss it
either as I now use Windows Live Mail, for both email and newsgroups,
which does everything for me that Outlook did for email and OE for
newsgroups.
I am not a fan of Linux and would never move to it as my OS, but I
think they have done a good job with Open Office and it is a great
program especially for the price. Seems to work well with
documents/spreadsheets created with Office as well. I could not see
why just a casual home user would pay the money for MS's Office
program when Open Office is available for free.
--
Don
I am so surprised nobody mentioned how limited OpenOffice is! I'm a big
fan of MS Office 2000 and I have used it for years. And I used Office 98
before that, but it is too buggy. As the only part of Office 2000 I use
a lot is Word 2000 for simple text editing. You know, like copying text
from web pages and saving them as plain text files.

And OpenOffice I can't have the normal view like MS Office has. Nor can
I covert the case to sentence or title case. Nor can I format plain text
files like I can with WordStar or Word. Nor can I sort lists in
OpenOffice either I don't believe. OpenOffice is pretty useless if you
ask me. Sadly, on my Linux machines I don't have a choice.
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Roger (K8RI)
2009-02-15 23:35:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:39:32 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
Post by Paul E. Lehmann
Post by Fred Gibson
With 100's of staff continously working on the projects, maybe profit
margins were marginal at best, so they may have considered that now was
the time to cut their losses and knock it all on the head.
I don't think it will be long until Microsoft can not compete with Open
Office. What are they going to do then.
I use it on XP, Vista, and LINUX and have used it pretty much since it
became available. I use Agent (not the free version) for my news
reader and Thunderbird as a mail client. IF I didn't have to use IE
for updates I'd remove it from my computer. Some Avi work gets done
on XP, but the lion's share goes to LINUX. Photography is mainly XP
Pro while my only real use for Vista has been FSX since getting enough
HP to run the two. Although SP-1 for Vista did help. OTOH Open office
does well on Vista.

My main complaint for Vista is still the DRM messing up legit audio,
video, and images.

My main complaint about XP is too many programs require admin
privileges and/or only run on the account where they were installed.
IOW too many poorly written programs. OpenOffice is an exception
which gives the choice for "every one on this computer".

Win 7? I found it to install easily and it seemed to run well, but it
was a pain in the Arse to configure on my machines. I am working with
a BETA version so I'd really have to defer any concrete opinion until
I see a Release Candidate (RC) or the "real thing". Reportedly it will
not allow non certified programs to install at all, while Vista (like
XP) warns you, but lets you try anyway. I couldn't get OpenOffice to
install on the Beta version but there are a number of updates weekly
and I'd expect them to be compatible.
As I've said before it still reminds me of a slightly updated Vista
with a new wrapper and it is more secure than XP.

Instead of cutting down the number of versions, they have increased
them to I believe 7, but that included the enterprise versions which
are really nothing more than the top of the line version with a group
license. To me that isn't really another version, but rather a
licensing issue. Considering the financial climate, I figure they
should have cut the number of available versions for the user to about
3 and it really needs to debut at about half the price of Vista if
they want it to take hold.

Upgrading XP to Win 7 is a bit different as proposed. You supposedly
will be able to transfer everything capable of running on Win 7 AFTER
a complete, clean install of Win 7. To me, that's not a bad idea.
Even with XP any major change in hardware is likely to result in
having to run repair from the Install disk. Not the repair using the
repair console, but where you actually get to the install. After that
you usually will have to reactivate it any way so I think it would be
a positive to do a clean install and then transfer the programs back.
OTOH after a failure it's nice to have a backup image.
Andrew Sutcliffe
2009-02-16 13:45:55 UTC
Permalink
If they want me to buy win7, they better have a good reason to do so (like a
stunning new flight sim) - otherwise, why bother?

A.
Roger (K8RI)
2009-02-17 07:34:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:45:55 -0000, "Andrew Sutcliffe"
Post by Andrew Sutcliffe
If they want me to buy win7, they better have a good reason to do so (like a
stunning new flight sim) - otherwise, why bother?
Which is a good, logical approach. Industry pretty much did that with
Vista. They stayed with XP. There was no compelling reason to change,
except for those who were under contract. They were stuck with the
upgrade, like it or not. "Although" I understand some were willing to
pay the extra cost of the contracts to stay with XP. After all with a
large, multinational corporation the cost of the OS is minor compared
to the required training and in house support. The majority of Vista
sales were the pre-installed stuff with new computers for consumers.

Win 7 will likely be much the same for consumers although for the end
user I think they will probably be better off with the slimmed down
and cleaner Win 7 than Vista even if they are very much alike.

With Vista I could see many reasons for "downgrading", or I like to
call it upgrading to XP.

OTOH if not purchasing a new computer, why change if what you have
does what you want?

I've pretty much been an early adopter, but I just couldn't see any
real reason to upgrade all of my machines to Vista other than one for
FSX and that was after the computer horse power became great enough to
do a good job with the FSX/Vista combination.

I've had to make some major changes on the computer that runs
FSX/Vista 64 which required starting with a clean slate, reinstalling
XP, Vista and FSX as well as all the other programs. I'm going to add
another HD partitioned for Win 7 and FEDORA and likely add an
additional drive for Win 7 to the second quad core machine currently
running XP and FEDORA as I want to be able to try it Win 7 to Win 7
across the network.

Be it XP, Vista, or Win 7 they all want to use DHCP addressing. OTOH
XP is by far the easiest to set up networking manually. Vista is not
bad, but Win 7 requires a bit more work. OTOH it's cleaner, has a
smaller foot print, and appears as if it's going to be a bit faster
than Vista, BUT that is from a BETA version. Only time will tell.

Will I upgrade to Win 7? Not likely unless like you they give me a
good reason and one better than removing support for older versions.
As time goes by I find myself using LINUX more and more. After all I
have the same browser, same mail client, same office, and same news
reader on all of my machines regardless of OS with the exception of
Win 7. I still need better AVI players/codecs, and image processing
programs along with a good flight sim on FEDORA to make the change
complete.

One major concern I have is will we still continue to be able to
activate FSX and accelerator when we change machines in the future.
Post by Andrew Sutcliffe
A.
BillW50
2009-02-24 21:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu
Roger (K8RI)
2009-03-07 04:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.

For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.

OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.

The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.

However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.

Not all LINUX is free.
John Ward
2009-03-07 04:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Roger,

Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.

Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?

Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...

Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7 64-bit is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.

If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).

You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...

Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
Roger (K8RI)
2009-03-12 08:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.
Hi John,
Sorry about the slow come back.
Thanks for that comment although it's probably not shared by all <:-))
Post by John Ward
Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?
Don't mind at all. I keep very few secrets except to maybe protect the
guilty from my past life<LOL> Or to keep from having to sleep with one
eye open.

Oh... I still have a slight limp and it feels like the Novocain shot
is wearing off the outside of my left foot, but I can stand on one leg
for almost a minute (either leg) which Joyce says she was never able
to do. <:-)) I'll always have to take my meds, but none of them are
disqualifying and I'm putting together my files to try for my flight
medical next month. I'm sure I can pass the tests. Thing is the old
Deb has set so long it'll probably need a major. As it's almost to
TBO that is not unlikely. With the economy the way it is it would
probably be cheaper to purchase one of the new, light sport planes and
fly it compared to one that burns 14.5 gallons an hour of $5 plus
gas.. OTOH I don't think there will ever be a substitute for the old
Deb unless I get the G-III finished.
What I need is some help and motivation to get the G-III in the air.
OTOH it too uses 100LL and burns 15 to 16 gallons per hour. Of course
it's doing it at near 300 MPH and it's aerobatic.
Post by John Ward
Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...
Wages don't vary much when you are on retirement and Social Security.
OTOH they don't pay nearly enough to allow me to live in the style to
which I'd like to become accustomed. At this point I'm not about to
sell any investments and take losses.
Post by John Ward
Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7 64-bit is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.
As you've seen, (I think), I have both the 32 and 64 bit Beta versions
and just downloaded Windows 7 build 7048 to try out. I'm still
reserving judgment on Win 7. I think it has a bit steeper learning
curve at the start compared to vista and a much steeper one compared
to XP, BUT it does have a number of things going for it. The first is
it's notably more compact than Vista. It does about everything Vista
does and appears to use fewer resources. (IOW less bloat code) I can't
get Open Office to install on it, but I'd assume the final RC and
final version RTM will find versions of OO that will install. When it
comes to paying several hundred dollars for MS office or getting Open
Office for free there is no problem making a choice. Were I to
purchase a copy of Win 7 I'd go for the top end, just like Vista
Ultimate.

I haven't seem many bugs in Win 7, but it does still suffer from DRM
like Vista. I think both, unlike XP 64 have most drivers available.
Unfortunately I have several pieces of Legacy equipment (photo and
film scanners) that do not have Vista or Win 7 drivers available. Nor
can I seem to get Realtec audio out onto the USB connections.
I think in it's final form Win 7 *should* be a bit faster than vista
as it uses fewer resources, but that's only slightly better than a
SWAG.
Post by John Ward
If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).
You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...
IF you are serous about getting rid of it and it hasn't been installed
on any machines...guess that doesn't matter if it's a retail copy" I'd
be glad to put it to use. OTOH due to some of my antique equipment I
still have to keep some "OLD" machines around capable of running DOS
in the normal mode <sigh> I had a call tonight about working on a CNC
Mill that uses a DOS control program. Said program failed and his
backups are on 5 1/4" floppies so you know how old it is. Who knows
if they are good or not. I may have to resurrect one of the old
machines just to try out the software. OTOH depending on what language
they were written in I may have to rewrite the original program in
either Visual Basic, C++, or ...heaven forbid...Basic with all the old
peek and poke statements. <sigh>
Worse, it could be in some obscure language...it did come from
Germany.

One thing I've noted, MS is coming out with a new OS at the worst
possible time, right at the bottom of a world wide recession that has
only been outdone by the "Great Depression". If they think they had
problems getting industry off XP for Vista (80% of industrial
corporations are still using XP Pro) Just wait until they try to get
them to purchase licenses for Win 7 when they are just happy to still
be afloat.


Take care John,
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
Roger (K8RI)
2009-03-13 08:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Hi John,

I'm not sure what happened to my post answering you. I doubt I can
remember it all now as it was sizeable and more than a day ago.
If it shows up I apologize for the duplication.
Post by John Ward
Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.
Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))
Post by John Ward
Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?
Except for a slight limp on the left side and the outside of my left
foot feeling like the Novocain shot hasn't quite worn off yet I'm in
reasonably good shape for the shape I'm in...Age does that.
Post by John Ward
Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...
Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7 64-bit is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.
I've seen very few bugs even in the Beta release.
It has some advantages and disadvantages compared to Vista and XP.
Like the other OSs I'd only get the top end version.
The Beta was an easy install, but here it took about an hours worth of
configuration. One nice feature is it installed nearly all the
required drivers and it took very few additional drivers to get it
going.

It resembles Vista more than XP...much more, but the layout is even
less logical than vista so the initial learning curve is going to be
steeper.

I have both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Win 7. I was thinking of
how much more robust Vista was than XP until I blew it out of the
water tonight. I'm not sure what happened. It started slowing down
like XP when it needs a good cleaning, but that was across the network
where right up through yesterday it had been very fast. Then as I was
going through the start menu the programs started disappearing until
only two were left. I shut it down and rebooted only to be greeted by
a black screen with the words to the effect the system had failed, put
the install disk in the drive, hit enter, set the language, and then
tell it to repair. It took durn near half an hour before it came up
with a black screen and a couple of icons. I rebooted again and it
came up with the desktop, but most of the icons did nothing. Nearly
everything on the desktop had to either be reinstalled or repaired.
Firefox absolutely refused to even reinstall until I tried an older
version. That's on thing with Windows, even though the program may
have been uninstalled, when you reinstall it, if the old program has
not been over written it just sets the flags and makes you think it
wrote every thing again.

Basically I had to go in and delete the files manually. Now if Window
Washer would work in there I'd clean them out. Unfortunately I think
Vista U has been trashed and I should reformat the disk, use Window
Washer to thoroughly clean any remnants off and start over. Did I
mention this happened about 10 minutes after I decided to Activate
that copy?<sigh>

Part of the problem may be the video drivers as I pulled the 3870X2
and am using the on board ATI video which surprisingly is giving frame
rates comparable to the 3870X2...albeit with out the sliders way over
to the right, but still far higher than I had expected.

I have to replace the heat sink and fan on the 3870 and that is one
massive heat sink.
Post by John Ward
If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).
If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.
Post by John Ward
You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...
Thanks again.
Now maybe the other post will show up as well.
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
John Ward
2009-03-13 10:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi Roger,

Great news - sounds like you're in good shape, for the shape you're in,
mate! :-))

"...Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))...".

Hey, I've been wrong before, many times, but not on this one. :-))

"...If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.".

Well, thats obviously two yeses - I just need your postal address.

Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Hi John,
I'm not sure what happened to my post answering you. I doubt I can
remember it all now as it was sizeable and more than a day ago.
If it shows up I apologize for the duplication.
Post by John Ward
Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.
Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))
Post by John Ward
Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?
Except for a slight limp on the left side and the outside of my left
foot feeling like the Novocain shot hasn't quite worn off yet I'm in
reasonably good shape for the shape I'm in...Age does that.
Post by John Ward
Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...
Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7 64-bit is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.
I've seen very few bugs even in the Beta release.
It has some advantages and disadvantages compared to Vista and XP.
Like the other OSs I'd only get the top end version.
The Beta was an easy install, but here it took about an hours worth of
configuration. One nice feature is it installed nearly all the
required drivers and it took very few additional drivers to get it
going.
It resembles Vista more than XP...much more, but the layout is even
less logical than vista so the initial learning curve is going to be
steeper.
I have both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Win 7. I was thinking of
how much more robust Vista was than XP until I blew it out of the
water tonight. I'm not sure what happened. It started slowing down
like XP when it needs a good cleaning, but that was across the network
where right up through yesterday it had been very fast. Then as I was
going through the start menu the programs started disappearing until
only two were left. I shut it down and rebooted only to be greeted by
a black screen with the words to the effect the system had failed, put
the install disk in the drive, hit enter, set the language, and then
tell it to repair. It took durn near half an hour before it came up
with a black screen and a couple of icons. I rebooted again and it
came up with the desktop, but most of the icons did nothing. Nearly
everything on the desktop had to either be reinstalled or repaired.
Firefox absolutely refused to even reinstall until I tried an older
version. That's on thing with Windows, even though the program may
have been uninstalled, when you reinstall it, if the old program has
not been over written it just sets the flags and makes you think it
wrote every thing again.
Basically I had to go in and delete the files manually. Now if Window
Washer would work in there I'd clean them out. Unfortunately I think
Vista U has been trashed and I should reformat the disk, use Window
Washer to thoroughly clean any remnants off and start over. Did I
mention this happened about 10 minutes after I decided to Activate
that copy?<sigh>
Part of the problem may be the video drivers as I pulled the 3870X2
and am using the on board ATI video which surprisingly is giving frame
rates comparable to the 3870X2...albeit with out the sliders way over
to the right, but still far higher than I had expected.
I have to replace the heat sink and fan on the 3870 and that is one
massive heat sink.
Post by John Ward
If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).
If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.
Post by John Ward
You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...
Thanks again.
Now maybe the other post will show up as well.
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
Roger (K8RI)
2009-03-13 18:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Great news - sounds like you're in good shape, for the shape you're in,
mate! :-))
"...Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))...".
Hey, I've been wrong before, many times, but not on this one. :-))
"...If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.".
Well, thats obviously two yeses - I just need your postal address.
Thanks,

As my name, address, and phone # used to be on my home page when I was
consulting, I don't mind posting it.

521 N. Clyde Road, Midland MI. 48640.

Pardon me for not staying but it's 2:00 PM which means I just got up
and it's breakfast time. What with building shelves for my grand
daughter and the big computer in the shop dying I didn't get to bed
until nearly 6:00 <:-)) I'm gonna pay for running that belt sander so
long...<sigh>age does that to yah.

Take care and thanks again,
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Hi John,
I'm not sure what happened to my post answering you. I doubt I can
remember it all now as it was sizeable and more than a day ago.
If it shows up I apologize for the duplication.
Post by John Ward
Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.
Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))
Post by John Ward
Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?
Except for a slight limp on the left side and the outside of my left
foot feeling like the Novocain shot hasn't quite worn off yet I'm in
reasonably good shape for the shape I'm in...Age does that.
Post by John Ward
Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...
Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7 64-bit is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.
I've seen very few bugs even in the Beta release.
It has some advantages and disadvantages compared to Vista and XP.
Like the other OSs I'd only get the top end version.
The Beta was an easy install, but here it took about an hours worth of
configuration. One nice feature is it installed nearly all the
required drivers and it took very few additional drivers to get it
going.
It resembles Vista more than XP...much more, but the layout is even
less logical than vista so the initial learning curve is going to be
steeper.
I have both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Win 7. I was thinking of
how much more robust Vista was than XP until I blew it out of the
water tonight. I'm not sure what happened. It started slowing down
like XP when it needs a good cleaning, but that was across the network
where right up through yesterday it had been very fast. Then as I was
going through the start menu the programs started disappearing until
only two were left. I shut it down and rebooted only to be greeted by
a black screen with the words to the effect the system had failed, put
the install disk in the drive, hit enter, set the language, and then
tell it to repair. It took durn near half an hour before it came up
with a black screen and a couple of icons. I rebooted again and it
came up with the desktop, but most of the icons did nothing. Nearly
everything on the desktop had to either be reinstalled or repaired.
Firefox absolutely refused to even reinstall until I tried an older
version. That's on thing with Windows, even though the program may
have been uninstalled, when you reinstall it, if the old program has
not been over written it just sets the flags and makes you think it
wrote every thing again.
Basically I had to go in and delete the files manually. Now if Window
Washer would work in there I'd clean them out. Unfortunately I think
Vista U has been trashed and I should reformat the disk, use Window
Washer to thoroughly clean any remnants off and start over. Did I
mention this happened about 10 minutes after I decided to Activate
that copy?<sigh>
Part of the problem may be the video drivers as I pulled the 3870X2
and am using the on board ATI video which surprisingly is giving frame
rates comparable to the 3870X2...albeit with out the sliders way over
to the right, but still far higher than I had expected.
I have to replace the heat sink and fan on the 3870 and that is one
massive heat sink.
Post by John Ward
If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).
If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.
Post by John Ward
You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...
Thanks again.
Now maybe the other post will show up as well.
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
John Ward
2009-03-13 23:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Roger,

If you would send me an email, with your name and address IN FULL, that
would be greatly appreciated, mate - I'd hate to send it to the wrong
address, or for it to get lost in the post...

Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Great news - sounds like you're in good shape, for the shape you're in,
mate! :-))
"...Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))...".
Hey, I've been wrong before, many times, but not on this one. :-))
"...If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.".
Well, thats obviously two yeses - I just need your postal address.
Thanks,
As my name, address, and phone # used to be on my home page when I was
consulting, I don't mind posting it.
521 N. Clyde Road, Midland MI. 48640.
Pardon me for not staying but it's 2:00 PM which means I just got up
and it's breakfast time. What with building shelves for my grand
daughter and the big computer in the shop dying I didn't get to bed
until nearly 6:00 <:-)) I'm gonna pay for running that belt sander so
long...<sigh>age does that to yah.
Take care and thanks again,
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by John Ward
Hi Roger,
Hi John,
I'm not sure what happened to my post answering you. I doubt I can
remember it all now as it was sizeable and more than a day ago.
If it shows up I apologize for the duplication.
Post by John Ward
Wow, great to see you back more often, and firing on all cylinders,
mate - you sure know your stuff.
Thanks, but that view is probably not shared by everyone<:-))
Post by John Ward
Separately, and seriously, I'm guessing that MANY of us are glad to see
you back, and, if you don't mind me asking, you back to 100% now, mate?
Except for a slight limp on the left side and the outside of my left
foot feeling like the Novocain shot hasn't quite worn off yet I'm in
reasonably good shape for the shape I'm in...Age does that.
Post by John Ward
Business sure seems to be going well, which is great to see...
Personally, for the general consumer, I still reckon Windows 7
64-bit
is
going to be the go for the general consumer, once as many bugs as possible
have been ironed out before its commercially released. Since it covers all
my peripherals, and other hardware, already, I love it.
I've seen very few bugs even in the Beta release.
It has some advantages and disadvantages compared to Vista and XP.
Like the other OSs I'd only get the top end version.
The Beta was an easy install, but here it took about an hours worth of
configuration. One nice feature is it installed nearly all the
required drivers and it took very few additional drivers to get it
going.
It resembles Vista more than XP...much more, but the layout is even
less logical than vista so the initial learning curve is going to be
steeper.
I have both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Win 7. I was thinking of
how much more robust Vista was than XP until I blew it out of the
water tonight. I'm not sure what happened. It started slowing down
like XP when it needs a good cleaning, but that was across the network
where right up through yesterday it had been very fast. Then as I was
going through the start menu the programs started disappearing until
only two were left. I shut it down and rebooted only to be greeted by
a black screen with the words to the effect the system had failed, put
the install disk in the drive, hit enter, set the language, and then
tell it to repair. It took durn near half an hour before it came up
with a black screen and a couple of icons. I rebooted again and it
came up with the desktop, but most of the icons did nothing. Nearly
everything on the desktop had to either be reinstalled or repaired.
Firefox absolutely refused to even reinstall until I tried an older
version. That's on thing with Windows, even though the program may
have been uninstalled, when you reinstall it, if the old program has
not been over written it just sets the flags and makes you think it
wrote every thing again.
Basically I had to go in and delete the files manually. Now if Window
Washer would work in there I'd clean them out. Unfortunately I think
Vista U has been trashed and I should reformat the disk, use Window
Washer to thoroughly clean any remnants off and start over. Did I
mention this happened about 10 minutes after I decided to Activate
that copy?<sigh>
Part of the problem may be the video drivers as I pulled the 3870X2
and am using the on board ATI video which surprisingly is giving frame
rates comparable to the 3870X2...albeit with out the sliders way over
to the right, but still far higher than I had expected.
I have to replace the heat sink and fan on the 3870 and that is one
massive heat sink.
Post by John Ward
If you, or anybody else, wants my legitimately purchased copy of Vista
Ultimate 64-bit, just let me know (I assume its legal just to give it away
to somebody, and I'm not running it on any PC myself...??).
If you are serious and still have it I'm sure I can put it to good
use.
Post by John Ward
You have first option, and I won't post it to anybody else until I hear
whether or not you want it, considering all your multiple machines...
Thanks again.
Now maybe the other post will show up as well.
Post by John Ward
Regards,
John Ward
Post by Roger (K8RI)
Post by BillW50
Much as I like FSX which is the only reason I still use windows...
Really? I use 3 different Linux distros and see nothing but second rate
drivers and applications. Where do they hide the first rate stuff at?
You are only using one front line distro and Ubuntu is meant as a
simple to install for the end user. The others I have never heard of.
For business apps and photo editing I don't need a lot of fancy
peripherals. I run open office. My systems are networked and unlike
XP or Vista, installing the latest distros of Fedora will send it to
the Internet where it sets up the NICs with the latest drivers.
OTOH I do have some older but expensive film scanners. No drivers for
Windows Vista and even more unlikely for Win 7.
The only thing I run where I really need a good driver that is not
available on FEDORA is FSX, but FSX doesn't run directly on FEDORA
anyway. I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
However if serious about using the computer, then go with a supported
version of LINUX such as Red Hat, which aint free and comes with
direct support. I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
Not all LINUX is free.
Toosmoky
2009-03-07 05:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger (K8RI)
I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
I'm running a 1GB 4870 on Ubuntu using the ATI drivers. Even installs
the HDMI sound function.
Post by Roger (K8RI)
I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
OpenSUSE is free.
--
Toosmoky
Work to ride, Ride to Work...
http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61/cafe
Roger (K8RI)
2009-03-13 18:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toosmoky
Post by Roger (K8RI)
I haven't found a driver for the 3870X2, 1 gig video card,
but then again, I don't need it without FSX.
I'm running a 1GB 4870 on Ubuntu using the ATI drivers. Even installs
the HDMI sound function.
Post by Roger (K8RI)
I believe Susie LINUX is also a pay for and direct
support OS.
OpenSUSE is free.
Yes, I have a copy, but I believe there is a supported version as
well. I don't think it's much if any different from open SUSE other
than support.
Phil
2009-02-15 16:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
The stock holders are the company. No stock holders no company.

The bigger the company the bigger the stock holders need to be, aka
funds, which don't exist on lack of, funds that is, also known as many
little people.
Brett I. Holcomb
2009-02-15 17:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Yes, but at one time there was a balance. Companies need stockholders
to provide capital for business purposes and stockholders invested in a
company with an eye to the long-term. That is they were willing to take
whatever dividends and wait for longer term results - if the company
grew over the year they got dividends their stock value grew so they
were happy. Hence a business worried about staying in business over the
long haul and planned accordingly. Now stock is a way to invest money
and get rich (hopefully) quickly - buy it, sell it quick, make much
money. This along with the fact companies have parachutes for the top
people so what happens to the company does not affect them means the
planning is short term - maybe the current quarter at best. As in how
can I put off these expenses, etc. so I look good this quarter. I've
been in several companies that went that way and it wasn't pretty. It's
get in, make a killing, get out and for the executives they care not as
they have their million dollar packages. We have a bank here that just
granted it's president 18 million dollars retirement package and then
turned around and was approved for bailout funds.
Post by Phil
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
The stock holders are the company. No stock holders no company.
The bigger the company the bigger the stock holders need to be, aka
funds, which don't exist on lack of, funds that is, also known as many
little people.
Walter Mitty II
2009-02-15 22:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil
Post by Brett I. Holcomb
In short - the consequences of running a company for the stock holders
The stock holders are the company. No stock holders no company.
The bigger the company the bigger the stock holders need to be, aka
funds, which don't exist on lack of, funds that is, also known as many
little people.
Oh dear, I promised to remain quiet... but...

Maybe just a _little_ rant , ok? Here goes:

In a privately owned business, investment is a function of the
owner/s long term objectives and the owner retains control of those
objectives.

In a publicly owned corporation, there is a vast horde of browsing
opportunist "shareholders" who are only there to make a quick buck.
They run away as soon as the picture looks less than profitable. This
horde can and would take the corporation down very quickly if the
corporation did not make sharholder returns its prime objective. And
as soon as a corporation's prime objective is shareholder profit, the
excrement starts to build up on the fan blades, and the room starts to
smell...

Joel Bakan wrote a book about this very phenomenon. It's called "The
Corporation". Interesting read...

<sigh> There !!! I can now sit back and watch all the fun... :-)




Walt

* * *
Mxsmanic
2009-02-16 21:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil
The stock holders are the company. No stock holders no company.
No customers, no company.

A company that caters exclusively to the short-term profit desires of large,
anonymous shareholders usually folds eventually, unless it is extremely
diversified (like GE).
Phil
2009-02-17 02:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Phil
The stock holders are the company. No stock holders no company.
No customers, no company.
A company that caters exclusively to the short-term profit desires of
large, anonymous shareholders usually folds eventually, unless it is
extremely diversified (like GE).
Ha, lol,

you won't find me defending any of them. Both facts are true.

for other readers 'GE' was an ironic comment GE may be in the tank soon.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...