OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Mxsmanic]

Yeah, we'll probably need one of those wide screen 23" monitors just to have
space to work before long.

Not so much a bigger monitor, but more pixels. I used to think that
1600x1200 was a lot, but today it's just barely enough.

 

[Ruel Smith]

What recent report? Who sponsored the study? How did they determine this
crap?

Linux definitely has more marketshare than .3% on the desktop. I run into
Linux users now and then, most of them are so geeky they're easy to spot,
but I've never run into a Mac user that wasn't shopping in the Mac section
at either Micro Center or CompUSA.

 

[Ruel Smith]

I believe those are the relevent sections of his logs, not a study or
report.

Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored by MS
c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who got them
from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.

I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on the
desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2001/12/19/linux/

Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003, and
that it's higher than the Mac's:

http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P723

There are conflicting marketshare studies all over the net. Like I've said
before, I've read that it could be as high as 13%. That figure was
considering solo Linux boxes, dual boot machines, and LiveCD (like Knoppix)
ran Linux deployments. That means, most of those same users also run
Windows. That makes it difficult to get a true figure on just how many
people are running Linux even on an occasional basis.

Either all the Linux devotees live near me here in Cincinnati, or Linux has
a much higher share than .3% because I run into Linux users now and then.
Some of them are easy to spot wearing a "Got Root?" t-shirt or something to
give them away or are just plain geeky enough and start a conversation with
you about computers. No, I don't belong to a Linux user group, either. I've
run into them shopping at Best Buy, and even working out at a gym. If Linux
had only a .3% worldwide marketshare on the desktop, the chances of me
running into a Linux user would be slim, let alone running into one
somewhere at a gym working out lifting weights. That figure has to be
complete FUD.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




If you want to see Linux or UNIX running truly blazingly fast, just yank
out all that GUI junk. Then you'll appreciate just how fast modern
hardware really is.

I am aware that the GUI takes processor time but I use the features a GUI
provides.

I ran a little test. I did a "find /" at the console on my UNIX system.
In three seconds it listed just under 200,000 files. Then I tried the
same thing from an SSH session running under Windows. That took 92
seconds. In other words, Windows require 89 seconds of processor time
just to display the file names on the GUI, whereas walking the entire
file structure for a quarter-million files on the server required less
than three seconds of processor time (and most of that was probably
video management, too, since the console is a VGA in text mode). And
no, it wasn't network traffic; on my LAN at 100 Mbps, the entire
transfer takes less than a second to complete.

If I hide most of the SSH window on the Windows machine, the find
completes in 38 seconds. So nearly a full minute of processor time is
saved just by removing the GUI processing.

This demonstrates just how much processor time is wasted and burned by
GUIs. Now, if you are running a server, it means that your total system
capacity is reduced by orders of magnitude if you are running an active
GUI on the machine, because so much time is required to drive the GUI.
Yet another reason to never run a GUI on a server. (Of course, if you
have a Windows server, there's no choice, which is why you need more
hardware to get the same job done on a Windows server).

A server isn't using the GUI for server functions. By that I mean, there is
no 'GUI' involved in, for example, searching a data base going out over the
network.

 

[Mxsmanic]

A server isn't using the GUI for server functions.

True, but if you use the GUI for anything on the server, it sucks up
processor power like there's no tomorrow.

By that I mean, there is
no 'GUI' involved in, for example, searching a data base going out over the
network.

But if the results are displayed by a GUI, it's likely to consume more
horsepower than all the rest of the database and network operations
combined.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




True, but if you use the GUI for anything on the server, it sucks up
processor power like there's no tomorrow.

You aren't supposed to use a server as a workstation too.

I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your implied premise
that a GUI is 'a useless waste'.

But if the results are displayed by a GUI, it's likely to consume more
horsepower than all the rest of the database and network operations
combined.

If... but you don't.

 

[Matt]

Ruel Smith writes:




No, that would have been 0.3% of the market (for desktops, at least).

Do tell where you got that number.

 

[Mxsmanic]

You aren't supposed to use a server as a workstation too.

I know that, and you know that, but a lot of people don't know that.

If... but you don't.

Well, you do on Windows. That's one of the big handicaps of Windows for
server environments. There is just no way to administer Windows servers
with just a CLI.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Do tell where you got that number.

From server logs.

 

[Matt]

Conor writes:




The Chinese government contains a very high proportion of engineers at
the upper levels. They probably realized that Linux just wasn't going
to cut it, and so allowed Windows.

Yeah, all those engineers probably didn't know or care that most of the
world's top 500 supercomputers run Linux.

http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html
Linux now has become so technically powerful that it lays claim to a
prestigious title--it runs more of the world's top supercomputers than
any other operating system.

Meuer reckons Linux powers 301 of the 500 top machines, compared to 189
on Unix, two on FreeBSD, a Unix variant, and one on Microsoft's
(nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Windows. (Seven machines are
categorized as "other.")

"Linux is easy to get, has no licensing costs, has all the
infrastructure in place, and runs on pretty much every single relevant
piece of hardware out there."

 

[Matt]

Dell.
Intel.
ATI.
Matrox.

Those aren't examples. Those are names of hardware makers.

Here I refine the idea:

If you have several companies competing, and it is relatively easy for
any of the companies to appeal to a given market, then all of them will
have to appeal to nearly all of that market.

The relative ease I have in mind is the relative ease of writing device
drivers. Example: since it is cheap to write and distribute a graphics
driver relative to the cost of developing and manufacturing a graphics
chip, no sane graphics chip maker is going to neglect to write a driver
that would open up another 10% of the market. Their competition would
be able to snatch 10% of the market simply by hiring a few engineers to
write good device drivers. That means more profits to spend on
development of the next-generation chips that might do in the competition.

On the other hand you have companies like Microsoft who have no choice
but to ignore non-Intel architectures because, unless I am wrong, their
cost to port Windows to other instruction sets would be monumental.

 

[Matt]

Do tell where you got that number.

Matt writes:




From server logs.

Snipping relevant context makes you appear to be sabotaging the discourse.

Which server logs? Please provide links.

 

[jeh]

Thanks everyone for all your replies. I just got back into town and
didn't realize this thraad kept on as long as it did. I would keep 98 as
you suggest, but I work from home as a consultant, and my employer is
requiring that I upgrade. I do "enough" as you mentioned, so I'm not a
total novice, but I too don't want to support Microsoft anymore than I
have to, and also wanted to make sure that the OEM versions wouldn't
cause me any future problems--I just built the computer that I have
about 6 months ago and already feel like I'm getting bored with it, and
I've read about some horror stories about when XP is installed there
might be a big hassle "reactivating??" it when one changes major
components such as motherboards, etc.--too big a monopoly in my opinion.
As far as Linux goes, I *am* planning to eventually set up a dual boot
and get familiar with it.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Yeah, all those engineers probably didn't know or care that most of the
world's top 500 supercomputers run Linux.

The supercomputers have to run something, and it doesn't much matter
what it is. Traditionally they have run UNIX, although early ones ran
proprietary operating systems.

Remember, supercomputer companies just build the hardware. They don't
care much about the software.

Linux now has become so technically powerful that it lays claim to a
prestigious title--it runs more of the world's top supercomputers than
any other operating system.

No, Linux is not "technically powerful"; it's just that ...

 

[Mxsmanic]

Which server logs? Please provide links.

I don't publish my logs, but here's the relevant section of a recent
report:

Windows . . . . . . . . . . 93.5 %
Macintosh . . . . . . . . . 4.9 %
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 %
Linux . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 %

 

[Mxsmanic]

On the other hand you have companies like Microsoft who have no choice
but to ignore non-Intel architectures because, unless I am wrong, their
cost to port Windows to other instruction sets would be monumental.

You're wrong. It's relatively straightforward to port Windows to other
hardware, and Microsoft has already done so on several occasions.

 

[Matt]

Matt writes:




I don't publish my logs, but here's the relevant section of a recent
report:

Windows . . . . . . . . . . 93.5 %
Macintosh . . . . . . . . . 4.9 %
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 %
Linux . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 %

Your logs. www.msLoveFest.com?

 

[Matt]

Matt writes:




You're wrong. It's relatively straightforward to port Windows to other
hardware, and Microsoft has already done so on several occasions.

Please give evidence of a version of Windows that ran on a CPU that
didn't support the Intel instuction set.

 

[ModeratelyConfused]

What recent report? Who sponsored the study? How did they determine this
crap?

Linux definitely has more marketshare than .3% on the desktop. I run into
Linux users now and then, most of them are so geeky they're easy to spot,
but I've never run into a Mac user that wasn't shopping in the Mac section
at either Micro Center or CompUSA.

I believe those are the relevent sections of his logs, not a study or
report.

MC

 

[Matt]

Matt wrote:




What recent report? Who sponsored the study? How did they determine this
crap?

Whoa, Ruel. I hope you aren't blaming me for
Maniac^H^H^H^H^H^HMxsmanic's claims.