«

In message <>, Phil wrote:

> There's a courier company in NZ (can't remember the name) who requires
> ActiveX for their package tracking, and all it does is fill a textbox.

The site was probably built that way using some kind of off-the-shelf
authoring package or something. And none of the "developers" using the
package had the expertise to dig down into the generated code to weed out
silly little things like that.

In message <>, Rupert Boleyn
wrote:

> [XP]'s memory management is also much faster than Win98's, so apps start
> and load data into memory faster.

Interesting that Vista seems to be a step backwards in that regard, hence
the need for this flash-drive caching nonsense...

In message <>, Phil wrote:

> Vista now uses as much physical
> memory as possible to cache data you might use.

You mean, like Linux has been doing for years?

In message <>, Phil wrote:

> MaHogany wrote, On 5/10/06 11.51 p:
>>
>> So you'll very much like Linux - it's got superior memory management -
>> especially when compared with anything produced by Micro$oft.
>
> Really? And you know this with your internal knowledge of the Windows
> memory management algorithms?

Or, more likely, from external knowledge of Windows memory management
crashes. Further up the thread (message ID
<>), Rupert Boleyn was remarking
on how he was, just once, able to run XP continuously for 16 days without
rebooting, though it was "getting screwy by the end of that period".

With proper OSes with proper memory management (like Linux), running for 16
days--or even 16 weeks--at a time is nothing particularly remarkable.

In message <>, GraB wrote:

> I reckon that, with good stuff coming along in Linux, more will turn
> to it rather than to Vista.

Nigel Horrocks, in his spot on National Radio yesterday or the day before,
publicly wondered whether many people would go for Vista at all. And no-one
could accuse him of being a Linux fanatic...

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote, On 6/10/06 11.57 p:
> Or, more likely, from external knowledge of Windows memory management
> crashes. Further up the thread (message ID
> <>), Rupert Boleyn was remarking
> on how he was, just once, able to run XP continuously for 16 days without
> rebooting, though it was "getting screwy by the end of that period".

I typically run one of my XP machines for weeks without issues.

> With proper OSes with proper memory management (like Linux), running for 16
> days--or even 16 weeks--at a time is nothing particularly remarkable.

Or less than 16 seconds when a process running as an unprivileged user
has excessive memory requirements.

-Phil

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:00:32 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <>, GraB wrote:
>
>> I reckon that, with good stuff coming along in Linux, more will turn to
>> it rather than to Vista.
>
> Nigel Horrocks, in his spot on National Radio yesterday or the day before,
> publicly wondered whether many people would go for Vista at all. And
> no-one could accuse him of being a Linux fanatic...

Regardless of whether people choose to upgrade, everyone will still
be faced with having no choice but to buy it when they buy a new PC.

Murray.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:23:48 +1300, Phil wrote:

> Vista's memory management is a *huge* shift from XP.


LOL!

And how would *you* know what is inside M$ Software?


Ma Hogany

--
"Even though a peice of code may documented it doesn't make it readable,
understandable or even usable. Especially when said documentation starts with
"I don't know exactly why this was included, what it does, or how it does it
but the system won't work without it" or simply "Sorry about this..."

Murray Symon wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:00:32 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <>, GraB wrote:
>>
>>> I reckon that, with good stuff coming along in Linux, more will turn to
>>> it rather than to Vista.
>> Nigel Horrocks, in his spot on National Radio yesterday or the day before,
>> publicly wondered whether many people would go for Vista at all. And
>> no-one could accuse him of being a Linux fanatic...
>
> Regardless of whether people choose to upgrade, everyone will still
> be faced with having no choice but to buy it when they buy a new PC.
>
> Murray.
>

Huh?

Are you saying that I won't be able to buy a new pc without Vista being
installed?

Or do you mean that if I buy a new pc with MS Windows installed, that
Vista will be the only option?


--
Rob

http://simpsons.net.nz/rob/How-to-in...re-sigrot.html


The global village is not created by the motor car or even by the
airplane. It’s created by instant electronic information movement.
(Marshall Mcluhan)

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:01:53 +1300, Murray Symon <> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:00:32 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <>, GraB wrote:
>>
>>> I reckon that, with good stuff coming along in Linux, more will turn to
>>> it rather than to Vista.
>>
>> Nigel Horrocks, in his spot on National Radio yesterday or the day before,
>> publicly wondered whether many people would go for Vista at all. And
>> no-one could accuse him of being a Linux fanatic...
>
>Regardless of whether people choose to upgrade, everyone will still
>be faced with having no choice but to buy it when they buy a new PC.
>
>Murray.




No they don't any shop can make you a PC and not Fit a OS..