I will give MS credit for one thing

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Donn Mille » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:48:42



I am no MS advocate.  But, I will admit one thing:  Windows Media player is
much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux.  For video
MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos.  On very large
video mpeg files, like for example a high-quality 50 MB music video, both
plaympeg and xmms w/ the smpeg plugin *on the video, and the audio and
video both get horrible out of sync.  I tried setting the realtime priority
option in xmms' options menu.  Unfortunately, the soundtrack, and not the
video, receive realtime priority.  This causes audio only to play, and the
video never pops up in its own window, because xmms is locking the audio, not
the video, into a realtime priority.

I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a little, but
the video and audio never got out of sync.  But, I think we all need not be
disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy on
open source operating systems.  I know that with time, this will improve.

One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of hacks
to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.  Also note that with
all these undocumented APIs, WM player probably has all kinds of priority
hacks to the scheduler to make it better.  But, I'd like to think of unix as
the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty much,
is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.  But, I try to
call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated, but it's
a damn good app for mpeg video.  I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
be awesome MM platforms, but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a
small, dark corner of my HD for those videos, games, and such.  I'll probably
try to get this WM player running in Wine, in the mean time.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.veryComputer.com/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:53:07



Quote:> I am no MS advocate.  But, I will admit one thing:  Windows Media player
is
> much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux.

Windows Media player just because a hell of a lot better... check out the
8.0 enhancements... they ROCK.

Quote:>  For video
> MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos.  On very
large
> video mpeg files, like for example a high-quality 50 MB music video, both
> plaympeg and xmms w/ the smpeg plugin *on the video, and the audio
and
> video both get horrible out of sync.  I tried setting the realtime
priority
> option in xmms' options menu.  Unfortunately, the soundtrack, and not the
> video, receive realtime priority.  This causes audio only to play, and the
> video never pops up in its own window, because xmms is locking the audio,
not
> the video, into a realtime priority.

> I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a little,
but
> the video and audio never got out of sync.  But, I think we all need not
be
> disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy on
> open source operating systems.  I know that with time, this will improve.

> One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
hacks
> to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.

Or maybe MS simply improved it.  Haven't you seen the Linux kernel source
code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

Quote:>  Also note that with
> all these undocumented APIs,

Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since the
codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

Quote:> WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> hacks to the scheduler to make it better.

?  The scheduler is part of the OS... WMP plays better on Windows 2000.  I
think it is the OS, not the player.  Besides, WMP is not the best media
player for Windows anyway.

Quote:>  But, I'd like to think of unix as
> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
much,
> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

The reasons most people use personal computers.

Quote:> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things better,
but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

Quote:>  But, I try to
> call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
it's
> a damn good app for mpeg video.

It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'.  It has a
ton of features...

Quote:>  I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
> be awesome MM platforms,

*real soon now*

Quote:> but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a
> small, dark corner of my HD for those videos, games, and such.

Videos, games, and such.  Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a great
many things.

Quote:>  I'll probably
> try to get this WM player running in Wine, in the mean time.

Good luck.

-Todd

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.veryComputer.com/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by pip » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:18:53


Well, let me say that I agree with OP - Windows media
player _is_ a nice piece of software - reliable, simple
and usable. It is very - how can I phrase - Un-M$like.
Credit to them.

Does not made mp3 play lists (or it's not intuitive
as I can't do it - while in Linux (xms - or something like that) it's
a breeze)

[snip]

Quote:> Or maybe MS simply improved it.  Haven't you seen the Linux kernel source
> code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

ARE YOU MAD?

If you are saying that Linux code is bad then just ask
yourself why it is more reliable?

Quote:> >  Also note that with
> > all these undocumented APIs,

> Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since the
> codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

...fair challenge...

Quote:> > WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> > hacks to the scheduler to make it better.

I doubt it.

Quote:> >  But, I'd like to think of unix as
> > the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> much,
> > is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

> The reasons most people use personal computers.

why am I agreeing with you?
Yes - media is WHAT LINUX should kick arse at.

Quote:> > Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

> Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things better,
> but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

Now a general Unix-Guru "typical" attitude rant:

M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
this.

M$ ideas are in **our** system - Gnome corba model was inspired DIRECTLY
from
the com object model.

An idea - is an idea - steal the best, dump the rest. It's source
matters not.

Many people are active in getting things improved and you may be
surprised
at their attitudes - have a listen:

http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play.m3u?stream_id=314

Some people want to do things "right", not just do things
because M$ has done them a different way. This attitude SUCKS
and we'll stick with a 25 year old lame way of working- the world has
moved on.
We now think about "users", not just people like us who
don't mind lots of reading. "Users" use - most don't care - nor
should they!
And from the users perspective - it is junk. Does not matter
how "clever" it _can_ be if you know what you are doing. It
needs a good old shake up.
Note that I am _not_ talking about the kernel (it is a marvel), just the
unix way of programming support - which so needs the gnome solutions.
Printing, communication, code-reuse - all the issues that Gnome
addresses
are crying out for people to develop. Look at all the fuss of Kylix
(delphi
on Linux) and then ask why? Gnome is my pet love - I think it will
revolutionise the
way Linux can reach people and Linux will spread and become a tool
of enablement. Not just for us geeks.

Quote:> >  But, I try to
> > call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
> it's
> > a damn good app for mpeg video.

> It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'.  It has a
> ton of features...

I don't think it's bloated - why? It plays my media and I don't need
10 million programs and converters. Converters are dynamic plug-ins
so I don't worry about a huge program - only when I _need_ it.

I feel much better now. After logging into a Sun with no BASH
and a STUPID window manager, I just needed a Unix rant.

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:22:44



Quote:

> Well, let me say that I agree with OP - Windows media
> player _is_ a nice piece of software - reliable, simple
> and usable. It is very - how can I phrase - Un-M$like.
> Credit to them.

Agree.  What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger?  I think MSN
messenger is a nice piece of work (not as many features as ICQ).  Also,
NetMeeting is very useful at work.  Both of those apps. are *very* nice
under Windows 2000.  Not sure about under 9x.

Quote:> Does not made mp3 play lists (or it's not intuitive
> as I can't do it - while in Linux (xms - or something like that) it's
> a breeze)

Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is a
good example.  But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
zillion programs for everything.


> [snip]
> > Or maybe MS simply improved it.  Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
source
> > code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

> ARE YOU MAD?

> If you are saying that Linux code is bad then just ask
> yourself why it is more reliable?

I didn't say the code was 'bad', I said it looks like a hack.  Check the
source yourself... it is amazing the thing *starts*.

Heh.

BTW, Linux *has* crashed on me or forced me to reboot... either way, that is
undesirable.

I use HP-UX at work, and that is a *ton* more reliable than Linux if you
want to compare Unixen.

Quote:> > >  Also note that with
> > > all these undocumented APIs,

> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since
the
> > codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

> ...fair challenge...

Yah... I've heard this cry from anti-MS advocates from a long while with no
proof... then they come up with APIs from some *book*... WELL, then it is
DOCUMENTED.

Heh.

Anyway, MS does acknowledge there *are* undocumented calls in Windows, but
they are undocumented so developers DO NOT USE them as they MAY CHANGE
without notice.

All OSes developed centrally have those.

Quote:> > > WM player probably has all kinds of priority
> > > hacks to the scheduler to make it better.

> I doubt it.

> > >  But, I'd like to think of unix as
> > > the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
pretty
> > much,
> > > is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

> > The reasons most people use personal computers.

> why am I agreeing with you?
> Yes - media is WHAT LINUX should kick arse at.

You are right... it should.  What Linux needs is a DirectX - an API that
covers *all* types of media.

DirectX 8.0 is so easy to program 3D programs for - and the XBox will use it
too.  Should be easy to get developers going.

Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting the
basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux as
well as Win32/DX for games and media!

I'm not saying standards like OpenGL suck.  OpenGL has its purposes, but
cmon, DX is *designed* from the ground up to be an all encompassing MM API -
something that Linux *really* needs.

Quote:> > > Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

> > Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things
better,
> > but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

> Now a general Unix-Guru "typical" attitude rant:

hehe.  Ok.

Quote:> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
> this.

Yup.

Quote:> M$ ideas are in **our** system - Gnome corba model was inspired DIRECTLY
> from
> the com object model.

> An idea - is an idea - steal the best, dump the rest. It's source
> matters not.

Agreed 100%.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> Many people are active in getting things improved and you may be
> surprised
> at their attitudes - have a listen:

> http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play.m3u?stream_id=314

> Some people want to do things "right", not just do things
> because M$ has done them a different way. This attitude SUCKS
> and we'll stick with a 25 year old lame way of working- the world has
> moved on.
> We now think about "users", not just people like us who
> don't mind lots of reading. "Users" use - most don't care - nor
> should they!
> And from the users perspective - it is junk. Does not matter
> how "clever" it _can_ be if you know what you are doing. It
> needs a good old shake up.

Agreed.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> Note that I am _not_ talking about the kernel (it is a marvel), just the
> unix way of programming support - which so needs the gnome solutions.
> Printing, communication, code-reuse - all the issues that Gnome
> addresses
> are crying out for people to develop. Look at all the fuss of Kylix
> (delphi
> on Linux) and then ask why? Gnome is my pet love - I think it will
> revolutionise the
> way Linux can reach people and Linux will spread and become a tool
> of enablement. Not just for us geeks.

> > >  But, I try to
> > > call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated,
but
> > it's
> > > a damn good app for mpeg video.

> > It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'.  It has
a
> > ton of features...

> I don't think it's bloated - why? It plays my media and I don't need
> 10 million programs and converters. Converters are dynamic plug-ins
> so I don't worry about a huge program - only when I _need_ it.

Exactly.

Quote:> I feel much better now. After logging into a Sun with no BASH
> and a STUPID window manager, I just needed a Unix rant.

Heh.  How do you feel about Solaris / FreeBSD / HP-UX?

I think they all are far better than Linux from a system design standpoint.
However, Linux has more backing from the community at large.

It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux... heck...
i'd like to do something like that...

-Todd

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Darren Winspe » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:06:46



> Agree.  What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger?

MSN messanger isn't bad, but I really like Gabber and Everbuddy over it
because they have nice UIs (For me) and compatibility with the other IMs.

Quote:> Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is a
> good example.  But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
> zillion programs for everything.

I use Winamp because it is lightweight enough that I can load it and
leave it running all the time.  I do the same with XMMS.

Quote:> Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting the
> basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux as
> well as Win32/DX for games and media!

Actually, there is a company who are implimenting DirectX for WINE.  It
works so well that they have 3DMark2000, the NVidiots' favourite game,
running under it.

Quote:>> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
>> this.

> Yup.

I will not deny the above, but I believe MS do a lot of * things
which I do not like them for.  Come on, don't tell me there aren't
companies you dislike or even hate.

Quote:> It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux... heck...
> i'd like to do something like that...

Don't worry, it's a-coming.
 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Darren Winspe » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:08:46



> I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while they
> think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they ever
> do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.

While some of us have 6GB of MP3s :)
 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:18:20




> > I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while
they
> > think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they
ever
> > do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.

> While some of us have 6GB of MP3s :)

Hehe... I've encoded almost all of my MP3s at 160 Kbps... I've got about 50%
of my IBM 40 Gig drive full of them.  The Deskstar series of harddrives,
ROCKS, btw.

-Todd

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:16:07




> > Agree.  What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger?

> MSN messanger isn't bad, but I really like Gabber and Everbuddy over it
> because they have nice UIs (For me) and compatibility with the other IMs.

> > Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is
a
> > good example.  But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
> > zillion programs for everything.

> I use Winamp because it is lightweight enough that I can load it and
> leave it running all the time.  I do the same with XMMS.

> > Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting
the
> > basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux
as
> > well as Win32/DX for games and media!

> Actually, there is a company who are implimenting DirectX for WINE.  It
> works so well that they have 3DMark2000, the NVidiots' favourite game,
> running under it.

Hmmm... that's fairly impressive then... but DX should be made 'native' for
Linux for maximum performance.  That is one of the major design goals of
DX...

Quote:> >> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
> >> this.

> > Yup.

> I will not deny the above, but I believe MS do a lot of * things
> which I do not like them for.  Come on, don't tell me there aren't
> companies you dislike or even hate.

Well, I don't 'hate' any company really... they are in the market to make
money.  As are 99.9% of the other companies out there.

Look at the Japanese automakers... they *do* make good or better cars than
the Americans, but they also *dump* their products and parts for almost less
than it costs to produce them... subsidized by their home market where there
is virtually *no* competition.

I've lived in Japan for many years and worked for a Japanese company.  They
are just as competitive (sometimes bordering on being illegal) as MS is.

The Japanese automakers have been taking advantage of the American
government and people for years.  Yet, the people still buy their stuff
because it is damned good.

The funny thing is, being a monopoly, it is legal to bring down another
company using your monopoly if it *doesn't harm the consumer*.

Hmmm...

-Todd

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> > It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux...
heck...
> > i'd like to do something like that...

> Don't worry, it's a-coming.

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Edward Roste » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:23:47


Quote:>> I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a
>> little,
> but
>> the video and audio never got out of sync.  But, I think we all need
>> not
> be
>> disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy
>> on open source operating systems.  I know that with time, this will
>> improve.

>> One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> hacks
>> to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.

> Or maybe MS simply improved it.  Haven't you seen the Linux kernel

Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.

Quote:> source code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.

Quote:>>  Also note that with
>> all these undocumented APIs,

> Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since

Don't be a fool.

Quote:> the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.

Quote:>>  But, I'd like to think of unix as
>> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> much,
>> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

> The reasons most people use personal computers.

But not everyone.

Quote:>> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

> Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things
> better, but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
practices, ripping off the consumer with substandard, over prices
bloatware and trying to force everyone to use that substandard,
overprices software.

Quote:>>  But, I try to
>> call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
> it's
>> a damn good app for mpeg video.

> It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'.  It has
> a ton of features...

That no one uses.

Quote:

>>  I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
>> be awesome MM platforms,

> *real soon now*

They're pretty good already.

Quote:>> but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a small, dark corner of
>> my HD for those videos, games, and such.

> Videos, games, and such.  Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a
> great many things.

That was 2 things.

-Ed

--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere?     |u98ejr

                                                          |eng.ox.ac.uk

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Brian Langenberge » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:32:11


: I am no MS advocate.  But, I will admit one thing:  Windows Media player is
: much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux.  For video
: MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos.  On very large
: video mpeg files, like for example a high-quality 50 MB music video, both
: plaympeg and xmms w/ the smpeg plugin *on the video, and the audio and
: video both get horrible out of sync.

<snip!>

Have you tried "mtv" yet?  While it is shareware, I've yet to find
an MPEG file that it doesn't like.  I recommend giving it a try
and post back if it works/doesn't work on your setup.

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:36:32



Quote:> >> I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a
> >> little,
> > but
> >> the video and audio never got out of sync.  But, I think we all need
> >> not
> > be
> >> disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy
> >> on open source operating systems.  I know that with time, this will
> >> improve.

> >> One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> > hacks
> >> to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.

> > Or maybe MS simply improved it.  Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.

What past experience??  Give an example.

Quote:> > source code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.

HP-UX.

Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far better
performing than Linux.  No need to see the kernel to confirm it.

Quote:> >>  Also note that with
> >> all these undocumented APIs,

> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since

> Don't be a fool.

So then name one.

Quote:> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.

Of course!  Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs.  Yet, what I
am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in an
*application*.

And these 'undocumented' APIs are *documented* by MS, but it is highly
recommended *not* to actually *use* them.

Get yourself a subscription to MSDN and find out for yourself.

*You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't be
smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service pack.

These *undocumented* APIs are no secret... it's whether or not *you*
**choose** to use them.  If MS does, it is at their own risk... but any 3rd
party has the option.  It is just going to require more updating than
normal.

In almost all cases, there is no need to use undocumented calls...

Quote:> >>  But, I'd like to think of unix as
> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> > much,
> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

> > The reasons most people use personal computers.

> But not everyone.

But most.

Quote:> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

> > Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things
> > better, but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
> practices,

Yet unproven.

Quote:> ripping off the consumer with substandard,

The consumer can choose not to buy windows...

Quote:> over prices
> bloatware and trying to force everyone

How do you force anybody?  I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I WANT.

Quote:> to use that substandard,
> overprices software.

Again, the consumer does have a choice.

I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!

-Todd

- Show quoted text -

> >>  But, I try to
> >> call the shots as I see them.  Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
> > it's
> >> a damn good app for mpeg video.

> > It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'.  It has
> > a ton of features...

> That no one uses.

> >>  I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
> >> be awesome MM platforms,

> > *real soon now*

> They're pretty good already.

> >> but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a small, dark corner of
> >> my HD for those videos, games, and such.

> > Videos, games, and such.  Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a
> > great many things.

> That was 2 things.

> -Ed

> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere?     |u98ejr

>                                                   |eng.ox.ac.uk

 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Edward Roste » Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:24:43


Quote:>> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.

> What past experience??  Give an example.

>> > source code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

>> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.

> HP-UX.

> Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far
> better performing than Linux.  No need to see the kernel to confirm it.

I was talking about the source code, but besides, you are comparing Linux
on vanilla hardware to HPUX on very high quality, expensive hardware. I'm
not saying HPUX is bad, I'm saying your comparison is poor.

Quote:>> >>  Also note that with
>> >> all these undocumented APIs,

>> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious
>> > since

>> Don't be a fool.

> So then name one.

How the * can I name it if its undocumented. That's what calling you a
fool was about. If they use undocumented APIs, its plain stupid to ask
someone to name them.

Quote:>> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

>> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
>> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.

> Of course!  Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs.  Yet,
> what I am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in
> an
> *application*.

And MS certainly used to use them for performance reasons. What is there
to make be think that they don't still do the same?

Quote:> *You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't
> be
> smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service
> pack.

Service packs break some software anyway.

Quote:>> >>  But, I'd like to think of unix as
>> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
>> >> pretty
>> > much,
>> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

>> > The reasons most people use personal computers.

>> But not everyone.

> But most.

Not everyone. A huge number of people use the computer for wordprocessing
and similar tasks, most of the time.

Quote:>> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

>> > Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things
>> > better, but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

>> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
>> practices,

> Yet unproven.

I thought they were appealing to get the sentance redced. I think you're
the only person claiming that MS hasn't used illegal businedd tactics.

Quote:

>> ripping off the consumer with substandard,

> The consumer can choose not to buy windows...

That's what a monopoly is about. You said yourself in an eariler thread
that Win2K can do everything (because of software avaliable) and Linux
can't. Now you're saying consumers aren'f forced to buy windows. Looks
like you're a hypocrite.

Quote:>> over prices bloatware and trying to force everyone

> How do you force anybody?  I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
> matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I
> WANT.

See above.

Quote:> > to use that substandard, overprices software.

> Again, the consumer does have a choice.

No, they don't. MS has a monopoly. Mosty users are too incompetant to
install any OS. Because of the monopoly, most computers are sold with
windows and Office, that effectively forces consumers to use M$. That's
what a monopoly is about and that is why it is bad for the consumer.

Quote:> I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!

Yet you still keef coughing up for that POS masquerading as an
operating system.

Quote:> -Todd

--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere?     |u98ejr

                                                          |eng.ox.ac.uk
 
 
 

I will give MS credit for one thing

Post by Todd » Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:58:08



Quote:> >> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.

> > What past experience??  Give an example.

> >> > source code?  Now THAT is a hack in itself.

> >> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.

> > HP-UX.

> > Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far
> > better performing than Linux.  No need to see the kernel to confirm it.

> I was talking about the source code, but besides, you are comparing Linux
> on vanilla hardware to HPUX on very high quality, expensive hardware. I'm
> not saying HPUX is bad, I'm saying your comparison is poor.

Why?  Linux is close to UNIX and that makes the comparison valid.  You can
run HP-UX on inexpensive workstations.

HP-UX, on any hardware, is by far a better system than any distribution of
Linux.

Quote:> >> >>  Also note that with
> >> >> all these undocumented APIs,

> >> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious
> >> > since

> >> Don't be a fool.

> > So then name one.

> How the * can I name it if its undocumented.

Then how do you know they even exist or are being used?

Quote:> That's what calling you a
> fool was about. If they use undocumented APIs, its plain stupid to ask
> someone to name them.

Then, using the same logic, you can't claim that MS uses them... there would
be no proof.

Quote:> >> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...

> >> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
> >> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.

> > Of course!  Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs.  Yet,
> > what I am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in
> > an
> > *application*.

> And MS certainly used to use them for performance reasons.

Which ones were those again?

Quote:> What is there
> to make be think that they don't still do the same?

MS *does* use undocumented APIs in some apps.  However, so do some 3rd
parties.

Many of those so called 'undocumented' calls are indeed documented in MSDN -
yet there are cautionary notes advising not to use those calls because they
may change in the future.

BUT YOU CAN USE THEM IF YOU WANT.

Quote:> > *You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't
> > be
> > smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service
> > pack.

> Service packs break some software anyway.

For example?

Quote:> >> >>  But, I'd like to think of unix as
> >> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
> >> >> pretty
> >> > much,
> >> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.

> >> > The reasons most people use personal computers.

> >> But not everyone.

> > But most.

> Not everyone. A huge number of people use the computer for wordprocessing
> and similar tasks, most of the time.

A huge number do the above, in addition to playing games, editing videos,
and the like.

Quote:> >> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.

> >> > Why are you an MS hater?  You acknowledge that they do some things
> >> > better, but you still hate them??  Are you a hypocrite?

> >> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
> >> practices,

> > Yet unproven.

> I thought they were appealing to get the sentance redced. I think you're
> the only person claiming that MS hasn't used illegal businedd tactics.

One JUDGE claimed they were using illegal business tactics - and that Judge
has gone way out of bounds according to several antitrust experts - both for
and against the MS case.

Frankly, I think the appeals court is going to overturn most of the decision
anyway.

Again, I don't think MS has harmed consumers (which the government MUST
prove).  I'm not harmed in any way.  Netscape sucked.  Good riddance.

Quote:> >> ripping off the consumer with substandard,

> > The consumer can choose not to buy windows...

> That's what a monopoly is about. You said yourself in an eariler thread
> that Win2K can do everything (because of software avaliable) and Linux
> can't.

I didn't say that Linux couldn't do everything.  I simply noted that W2k
does more what consumers want.

Quote:> Now you're saying consumers aren'f forced to buy windows.

Consumers aren't *forced* to buy anything.

Quote:> Looks
> like you're a hypocrite.

Why?  A consumer can choose to use an OS that does less than another... it
happens all of the time.  Look at how many people choose Linux :)

Quote:> >> over prices bloatware and trying to force everyone

> > How do you force anybody?  I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
> > matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I
> > WANT.

> See above.

I did - nothing convincing at all.

Quote:> > > to use that substandard, overprices software.

> > Again, the consumer does have a choice.

> No, they don't. MS has a monopoly. Mosty users are too incompetant to
> install any OS.

True - OEMs and retailers make it easier for the consumer.  Some retailers
install Linux or other Oses - but consumers return those systems because
they can't run off-the-shelf programs...

Quote:> Because of the monopoly, most computers are sold with
> windows and Office, that effectively forces consumers to use M$.

My father uses Windows - he has read a lot about Linux and had pondered
installing it.

I recommended against it - and he still wanted to try.  Then I said the
easiest way for me to convince you not to use it is for me to go out and buy
you a copy and install it over Windows.  He was then convinced.

Quote:> That's
> what a monopoly is about and that is why it is bad for the consumer.

Most consumers would NOT want Linux.  It is mostly for the experimenters or
computer hobbyists / geeks.

This is what Linux users just do not understand - and probably never will.

-Todd

- Show quoted text -

> > I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!

> Yet you still keef coughing up for that POS masquerading as an
> operating system.

> > -Todd

> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere?     |u98ejr

>                                                   |eng.ox.ac.uk