[LUAU] Microsoft: winning the battle, loosing the war

[Jim Thompson]

On Dec 31, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Peter Besenbruch wrote:

> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Microsoft's recent OEM licensing changes are making for new linux  
>> installs: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36635
>
> OK, but I've had my share of trouble on Linux installs, too. That  
> said, I have never purchased a copy of XP, and those computers that  
> came with it, soon lost it. The reason? Product activation. It  
> sounded like a pain, so I never went past Windows 2000.

The install issues weren't beyond the technical ken of the person who  
complained.  The 'failure' was strictly due to Windows 'licensing',  
so Unbuntu won the install (and then spread across the customer's  
network.)

In otherwords, it wasn't that Ubuntu worked better (though it did),  
it was because Microsoft crippled re-installs of the software in  
order to "preserve (or possibly enhance) revenue".

If you think XP activation was bad, you'll hate Vista's.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2031647,00.asp
http://www.crn.com/ 
showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VD3ANOLRWS2ZGQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN? 
articleID=189601573&queryText=vlk
http://www.crn.com/ 
showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=201NDHYRMY2JMQSNDLQSKH0CJUNN2JVN? 
articleID=193104529


>> Nevermind the brain damage that is Vista:
>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
>
> As bad as XP was, Vista sounds worse. I'll toss in this link, where  
> Robert Cringely comments on the link Jim provided:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061229_001403.html

Hmm, you cough up Cringely's speculative assertions that deny a  
careful technical argument?

> The short summary: Microsoft isn't committing suicide, but they may  
> lose out in the multimedia department.
>
>> The good news is that circa 2007 hardware is going to fly with GPL  
>> drivers that don't have to do any of that crap.
>
> Heck, Debian moves right along with an Athlon XP 1800+. My fastest  
> machine is an Athlon 64 3000 (running a 32 bit install). I haven't  
> gone for any of the multi-core stuff yet. What I like is that Linux  
> runs faster on the 1800+ now than it did back in 2003, when I made  
> the permanent switch.

The point is not that LInux runs well enough on current generation h/ 
w.   The point is that Vista ... won't, so there will be a lot of h/w  
thrown at the problem.
Linux, not having to jump through the hoops that cripple performance  
on Vista, will run *even faster* than it does now, because it will  
take full advantage of
the hardware, rather than using it to AES encrypt bits between two  
devices in the system.

Your S/PDIF audio:  disabled under Vista, enabled under XP and Linux
Your component or DVI video:  disabled under Vista, enabled under XP  
and Linux  (when playing BlueRay or HD-DVD)
Your CPU has to be faster for Vista, if only to ensure that the AES/ 
SHA-256 encryption needs can be handled.

etc...