Dimdows 7

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 19, 2008.

  1. Looks like Dimdows 7 is basically going to be a warmed-over rehash of Vista.
    It's not going to fix the resource-usage problems, which means that
    Microsoft is going to have to continue offering Dimdows XP for low-cost PCs
    (netbooks/nettops), to avoid ceding even more ground to Linux.

    Wouldn't it be ironic if XP outlived Vista?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:05:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > Looks like Dimdows 7 is basically going to be a warmed-over rehash of Vista.
    > It's not going to fix the resource-usage problems, which means that
    > Microsoft is going to have to continue offering Dimdows XP for low-cost PCs
    > (netbooks/nettops), to avoid ceding even more ground to Linux.
    >
    > Wouldn't it be ironic if XP outlived Vista?


    No, I know a few that still use MS-Dos.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-09-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    > Wouldn't it be ironic if XP outlived Vista?


    Nope. Evolution.

    We are returning/forking/buzzing on smaller, less powerful devices which are
    small.

    Yep, my mower engine will drive my car, but I only wish to mow the lawn. A
    4569cc engine is not required, too heavy and too costly.

    Web 2 is here, now so to is CPU 2.

    What % of the time gentle reader do you get your cpu(s) going 100% ?
    Gordon, Sep 19, 2008
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Dave Taylor, Sep 19, 2008
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Dave Taylor" typed:
    > Gordon <> wrote in news:6jh0nuF39g5tU2
    > @mid.individual.net:
    >
    >> What % of the time gentle reader do you get your cpu(s) going 100% ?

    >
    > http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=
    > 12519


    http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30823

    ;-)
    --
    Shaun.

    DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
    offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
    If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
    me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
    ~misfit~, Sep 19, 2008
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-09-19, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Dave Taylor" typed:
    >> Gordon <> wrote in news:6jh0nuF39g5tU2
    >> @mid.individual.net:
    >>
    >>> What % of the time gentle reader do you get your cpu(s) going 100% ?

    >>
    >> http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=
    >> 12519

    >
    > http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30823
    >
    > ;-)


    Indeed. Use what you have.

    I left seti at home and took my PC someplace else when it went Bionc. The
    basic CLI version ( linux) gave me more feed back. Also I am more interested
    in life in the every expanding galaxy than the other johnny come afterwards
    Gordon, Sep 20, 2008
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gordon" typed:
    > On 2008-09-19, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Dave Taylor" typed:
    >>> Gordon <> wrote in news:6jh0nuF39g5tU2
    >>> @mid.individual.net:
    >>>
    >>>> What % of the time gentle reader do you get your cpu(s) going 100%
    >>>> ?
    >>>
    >>> http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=
    >>> 12519

    >>
    >> http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30823
    >>
    >> ;-)

    >
    > Indeed. Use what you have.
    >
    > I left seti at home and took my PC someplace else when it went Bionc.
    > The basic CLI version ( linux) gave me more feed back. Also I am more
    > interested in life in the every expanding galaxy than the other
    > johnny come afterwards


    I dropped out for a while after it went BOINC. However I ended up going
    back, much as I prefered the old version I still believe in the cause.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
    offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
    If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
    me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
    ~misfit~, Sep 20, 2008
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Jasen Betts Guest

    On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:


    > Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    > dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    > directory limit).


    That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    software?


    Bye.
    Jasen
    Jasen Betts, Sep 22, 2008
    #8
  9. Bruce Knox wrote:

    > I predict XP will hold on for many years but Vista will silently take
    > over and everyone will then moan in anguish when microsoft tries to
    > replace it with whatevers next.


    Things don't seem to be working that way.

    At the Software Freedom Day do on Saturday, I was showing off a couple of
    netbooks, and I happened to mention that Vista didn't run well on them.
    Immediately this young teenage girl launched into a tirade about how
    horrible Vista was, and that she was staying firmly away from it.

    I knew that businesses have been actively resisting Vista, but I thought
    consumers were pretty much accepting of it. As it turns out, maybe not...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2008
    #9
  10. In article <>, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    (snip)

    >Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >directory limit). I was going to put it in a VM on XP but we ended up
    >getting a replacement (at a mere $68k).


    We bought something recently that still runs on a modified version of DOS
    3.22 (judging by the startup screen). While slow to start, it runs great.
    :)

    >I predict XP will hold on for many years but Vista will silently take
    >over and everyone will then moan in anguish when microsoft tries to
    >replace it with whatevers next.


    Well, if we are going the predicitions way, I predict that vista will end up
    an orphan, rather like 2000 or perhaps ME. Yes there are some still out
    there, but most didn't go that way and waited for XP. More likely if there
    was another release next year of course, as has been rumoured. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 23, 2008
    #10
  11. In article <gb7krm$cej$1@gonzo>, Jasen Betts <> wrote:
    >On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >> dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >> directory limit).

    >
    >That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    >software?


    IIRC, there was indeed a DOS limit on the number of files in any directory.
    May not be so for the last DOS version (6.2 something ?) but I do remember
    meeting that problem with at least one DOS version. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On 19 Sep 2008 06:55:59 GMT, Gordon wrote:

    > Web 2 is here, now so to is CPU 2.


    I didn't even know there was a Web 1. When does Web 3 come out?

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 23, 2008
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    in message news:gb9c8r$ft6$...
    > In article <>, Bruce Knox
    > <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    >
    >>Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >>dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >>directory limit). I was going to put it in a VM on XP but we ended up
    >>getting a replacement (at a mere $68k).

    >
    > We bought something recently that still runs on a modified version of DOS
    > 3.22 (judging by the startup screen). While slow to start, it runs great.
    > :)
    >
    >>I predict XP will hold on for many years but Vista will silently take
    >>over and everyone will then moan in anguish when microsoft tries to
    >>replace it with whatevers next.

    >
    > Well, if we are going the predicitions way, I predict that vista will end
    > up
    > an orphan, rather like 2000 or perhaps ME. Yes there are some still out
    > there, but most didn't go that way and waited for XP. More likely if there
    > was another release next year of course, as has been rumoured. :)
    >
    >


    Living in LaLa Land must be fun for you. Ever tried reality?

    http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

    If Vista is an "orphan" then all Linux editions combined would amount
    to....what?...an abortion?
    impossible, Sep 23, 2008
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Jasen Betts Guest

    On 2008-09-22, Bruce Sinclair <> wrote:
    > In article <gb7krm$cej$1@gonzo>, Jasen Betts <> wrote:
    >>On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >>> dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >>> directory limit).

    >>
    >>That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    >>software?

    >
    > IIRC, there was indeed a DOS limit on the number of files in any directory.
    > May not be so for the last DOS version (6.2 something ?) but I do remember
    > meeting that problem with at least one DOS version. :)


    nope. no limit. there was a limit for the root directory only
    but even that can be set to any fixed size when the media is
    formatted using 3rd party tools.

    Bye.
    Jasen
    Jasen Betts, Sep 23, 2008
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mutlley Guest

    Bret <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:17:31 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> In article <gb7krm$cej$1@gonzo>, Jasen Betts <> wrote:
    >>>On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >>>> dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >>>> directory limit).
    >>>
    >>>That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    >>>software?

    >>
    >> IIRC, there was indeed a DOS limit on the number of files in any directory.
    >> May not be so for the last DOS version (6.2 something ?) but I do remember
    >> meeting that problem with at least one DOS version. :)

    >
    >Was it a limit of 256 folders in the root?


    Wasn't that the number of files that could be held in the root
    directory??
    Mutlley, Sep 23, 2008
    #15
  16. In article <>, Bret <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:17:31 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> In article <gb7krm$cej$1@gonzo>, Jasen Betts <> wrote:
    >>>On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >>>> dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >>>> directory limit).
    >>>
    >>>That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    >>>software?

    >>
    >> IIRC, there was indeed a DOS limit on the number of files in any directory.
    >> May not be so for the last DOS version (6.2 something ?) but I do remember
    >> meeting that problem with at least one DOS version. :)

    >
    >Was it a limit of 256 folders in the root?


    Ah, yes ... that might be it. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 23, 2008
    #16
  17. On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:33:47 GMT, Bruce Sinclair
    <> wrote in
    <news:gb9v3r$jbq$>:

    > In article <>, Bret <> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:17:31 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <gb7krm$cej$1@gonzo>, Jasen Betts <> wrote:
    >>>>On 2008-09-22, Bruce Knox <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Untill earlier this year we still had some expensive gear running from
    >>>>> dos. Worked well but a pain to do file managment with (256 files per
    >>>>> directory limit).
    >>>>
    >>>>That's not a limitation of DOS or of FAT, was that a bug in the legacy
    >>>>software?
    >>>
    >>> IIRC, there was indeed a DOS limit on the number of files in any directory.
    >>> May not be so for the last DOS version (6.2 something ?) but I do remember
    >>> meeting that problem with at least one DOS version. :)

    >>
    >>Was it a limit of 256 folders in the root?

    >
    > Ah, yes ... that might be it. :)


    No. 256 FILES in root.

    --
    - Nic.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Sep 23, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Can Dimdows do this...

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 10, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    137
    Views:
    2,156
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Jun 29, 2005
  2. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Dimdows + trains = hilarity

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    Jul 27, 2005
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Hefty licensing requirements for Dimdows Vista

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    343
    Waylon Kenning
    Oct 3, 2005
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dimdows Fragmentation

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 21, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    117
    Views:
    1,744
    Earl Grey
    Aug 2, 2006
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Those Dimdows zero-day vulnerabilities just keep coming...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 7, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    332
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page