MicroSoft to release virus checker! [Archive]

AmishRobot

17th June 2004, 01:14 AM

There are a few reasons mac and linux have so few viruses (there actually are a few for each, but not in active circulation). The main one is that they are such a marginal slice of the overall userbase. Virus writers cater to the largest market. Other things like no firewalls, open ports and unnecessary services running make Windows an easier target. And Outlook and IE are like leaving a big pile of crack outside your open front door.

I can't speak for mac as I haven't used one for a few years, but linux also has an advantage in that users don't have root (admin) privileges, so damage to an infected machine would likely be more limited. And fixes to exploits get issued much faster for linux. Of course mac and linux machines are far from invulnerable (linux for example doesn't really have any good commercial AV software), it's just that it's kind of like comparing a snickers bar to a piece of cauliflower - which is more appealing to the k1ddi35?

Personally, I have a bit of a problem with MS selling a piece of software to protect users from flaws in their own system. It borders on extortion to me. People need protection from legitimate viruses, but a lot of the protections MS will offer should be incorporated into the OS for free.

I'd recommend anyone getting tired of Windows to check out Suse (www.suse.com) or Mandrake (www.mandrake.com) Linux. You'd be surprised how easy they've become to use, and most Windows programs have free linux alternatives that are usually comperable in quality, and free. Both distros I mentioned have live-eval versions you can download that let you try them out without affecting your current setup. When MS ever does get around to releasing Longhorn, installing it will mean they control what you do with your own computer. Fear the words "Trusted Computing".

/end hippie rant

Rapier Racer

17th June 2004, 11:32 AM

Well then it looks like I'll just be sticking to good old windows xp then and not bother buying this new one

waits for someone to start on win xp............

Shem

17th June 2004, 01:36 PM

God I hate WinXP :D
Mainly becouse I need to reinstall it once every 2 months. Not to mention all the updates which slow the PC down. Not to mention the driver problems. Not to mention the 'missing' Mb from my disk (hopefully I turned off the system recovery, but I haven't deleted cache.dll [I've heard it gives some extra disk space as well], the Help files and all that). But the best part of having WinXP is to turn the computer one day, and instead of seeing the WinXP loading screen you see that boot.ini has been corrupted. It happened to me a few times before.

xEik

17th June 2004, 01:47 PM

My XP will have been installed for two years in a few days.
It probably isn't as fast as it was the first day but nothing forced a reinstall.

I plan to format my laptop soon, though. Just to get rid of some of the garbage I have been collecting all this time. I used to format every year when using 98 but being in the middle of my end of studies project last summer, I didn't like the idea of having to back up all my data for later recovery.

The recovery feature is a real PITA. First time I found about it, it was eating more than 1GB of my poor 30GB drive. I'd like to know how good is that recovery when needed.

yuusen

17th June 2004, 05:38 PM

—
i have two macs in my house: an original iMac (233MHz) which I am writing on now; and an iMac DV (400MHz). the DV is the only one with enough RAM and disk space to run OS X but is sufferng from screen issues. apparently my problem is common with that model (common in terms of "when a problem does happen, its usually this one"). everything works fine for an hour then the screen starts to glare, blinding me and not allowing me to continue work. in contrast, my iMac 233 is running just as fast as it did when i got it 6 years ago, on 64MB of RAM.

mac hardware is highly reliable in my opinion and, without any tones of evangelism, i wouldnt work in a design environment that didnt at least have one available to me let alone not have one entirely.
-
i agree with all opinions voiced here regarding the mac/*nix virus scene. its not that they dont exist, there just isnt any point in writing so many. due to the small amount of virii, apple and the open source collective are able to protect their oses from them quickly and painlessly.
-
on the subject of windows "vs" *nix and the arguement that windows has better software; yes, windows does have better commercial software as well as support for the the creative megaliths such as adobe cs and macromedia studio mx. however, there are ways of running these programs within a *nix environment, two of which are wine (http://www.winehq.org/) and win4lin. wine is also available for mac os x (darwin) as darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/). theres also an inteeresting article (http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/06/10/win4lin.html) on this subject at the linux devcentre.
—
¥

Lance

17th June 2004, 05:44 PM

.
what is Darwin? i've seen a Windowblinds Mac-style theme called that
.

science

17th June 2004, 06:24 PM

Personally, I have a bit of a problem with MS selling a piece of software to protect users from flaws in their own system. It borders on extortion to me. People need protection from legitimate viruses, but a lot of the protections MS will offer should be incorporated into the OS for free.
Right F#cking On. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I would love to change OS's, but the problem of course is software compatibility. MS is in a position where, like it or not, they own the market and nothing short of apocolypse is going to change that. As long as that's the case, the only viable option is windows. Mac comes at a distant second place, but you have to sacrifice a lot if you intend to make that switch.

Personally, what little experience I've had with Macs (highschool years) I did not care for, plus I'm not really interested in a product that is marketed to hipsters who think they know about computers (but don't), or to old ladies who don't know jack about computers but want a Mac because it matches their drapes (*true story*). Plus, from what I've experienced, Macs seem to have the chainsaw syndrome, where they either run great (smilyface) or they dont run at all (frownyface) and something is really F#cked up.
However, Apple does have a leg up on the competition in one department- software. Apple is way beyond the competition in audio and video production/editing software. Almost every electronic musician and film studio, large or small, depends on Macs because of the software available. Macs are responsible for the better part of CG movies that you see (except Shrek!), and Pro Tools is the standard in audio production. In my humble opinion, Apple should go the way of Sega- give up on the console and concentrate on the software. That's where, as I see it, their true following is at.

Lastly, forgive me for being so behind the times, but what is this "longhorn" thing?

Shem

17th June 2004, 07:13 PM

True, true...
Mac is the perfect platform for those who make music, and I can tell you that for sure. Dave Tipper carries his Mac wherever he plays a DJ live set. Liam from the Prodigy makes music on Reason 2.5 on a bus with his Mac as well, damn why bother counting all the artists who use mac's as their main platform? ....

xEik

17th June 2004, 09:12 PM

.
what is Darwin? i've seen a Windowblinds Mac-style theme called that
.
The base of MacOSX which is itself based on BSD (a Unix flavour). It is an opensource project as well.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

they own the market and nothing short of apocolypse is going to change that
It has not been that long since they said the same about IBM

Macs are responsible for the better part of CG movies that you see
AFAIK the leading machines for CG are Silicon Graphics workstations. At least it used to be so. Maybe the situation has changed.

Lance

17th June 2004, 09:20 PM

.
ah. thank you

i had wondered if it was another in the series of developments such as Jaguar and Panther. probably my multi-curve thoughtpath said to me Darwin was the name of the dolphin in SeaQuest, therefore Darwin is an animal name and therefore maybe.....
:D
i am so wack
.

Rapier Racer

17th June 2004, 09:38 PM

So some of you don't like xp because it's so memory hungry? I have never had any problems with it and it get full marks form me (just shows what I know about computers) This new version of windows looks just like xp, i would feel a bit ripped off buying it, just 98 was practically indentical to 95, thinks back to win 98 days :) :) ahh

THE PROGRAM HAS PERFORMED AN ILLEGAL OPERATION??? :evil: :evil: what the hell was all that about then?

infoxicated

17th June 2004, 09:45 PM

MS is in a position where, like it or not, they own the market and nothing short of apocolypse is going to change that.
Read this article by Joel:How MicroSoft lost the API war (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html)

It might just open your eyes to why MicroSoft has to succeed with the XBox, and why its grip on the market is in a precarious position.

AmishRobot

17th June 2004, 11:36 PM

Read this article by Joel:How MicroSoft lost the API war (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html)
That's a good article. It helps to explain why MS has all but killed IE development, as well. One thing though: I thought I had read they had given up on the relational filesystem in the initial release of Longhorn? I just did a search on it and didn't find anything, so I'm probably wrong.

Lastly, forgive me for being so behind the times, but what is this "longhorn" thing?
Longhorn is the code name for Microsoft's next operating system. It's intended to be sort of a reinvention similar to what Windows 95 was. (I'll leave the ensuing jokes up to you) It was originally supposed to be released this year, then it got pushed back to 2005... then 2006... now they're looking toward 2007. It's turning into an absolute nightmare for them. you can read a bit more here (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1000281.html), and see some beta screenshots here (http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/longhorn/). Note the horrific waste of screen real estate in the quest of looking pretty. It's like Apple's mongoloid kid brother.

Personally, I think we're seeing the begining of Microsoft collapsing under their own weight. I don't think they'll ever go out of business, but much like IBM, their dominance is about over, and they'll soon have to go through a very painful reinvention into a very different type of company. By the time Longhorn sees a release, Linux will be genuine competition for the desktop (IMO, it already is). When the general populace cycles through to the next OS upgrade, MS will no longer be the only non-premium (sorry mac fans) option, and there will be a definite sea change. MS will likely turn into a service oriented company, similar to IBM. And they will go through this kicking and screaming. It's already starting.

Paladium (or "Trusted Computing") is an attempt to lock down control of the user's computer, so that they can lock in their own standards that ensure their existence. Lately they've been talking about how people will soon get their hardware for free, in exchange for a subscription to the software. In their world, you will no longer own your computer, and will likely have limited rights to ownership and privacy of the data on it. They see a future of pay-for-play, where music, movies, and other media are rented rather than bought. Of course, they will be the middleman. And lately, they have been indirectly funding a lot of FUD against linux (their biggest threat right now), through SCO's lawsuit festival, and reports like those from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution that try to tie linux to piracy and terrorism.

I don't want to see MS go out of business. I've heard mostly good things about XP. I just want to see some balance in the market, so that there are no more "bullies", and companies start adopting a more standards based approach, so that there's better interoperability, more openness, and more focus on the users, rather than corporate agendas.

And that has got to be the longest post I've ever made here! :D

Lance

18th June 2004, 12:37 AM

.
any government of a country that has a money-based economy [pretty much all countries] and allows a non-person [corporation] to have the rights of real persons [to own property, copyrights, and patents] will therefore subject its citizens, including the employees of the non-persons, to the dominance of groups that try to extend copyright and patent ownership to an unlimited period. copyright and patents were invented and put in place to allow an individual to profit from their effort, but were limited in time so that eventually humanity as a whole had free access to those productions and were enriched by them. corporations try to keep their owners rich in cash and non corporation-owning real persons in continuous poverty of experience. as long as non-persons have these ownership rights, we will all be the poorer for it.

as an example, in order to hear the music of people from the 1920's, we must now pay a company that didn't even exist then, even though the people who wrote the music and who performed it are all dead and can receive none of the money that we pay. copyright should die with the creators.
.

science

18th June 2004, 12:43 AM

So some of you don't like xp because it's so memory hungry?
A friend of mine was griping about that just the other day. He's used to using XP pro, which for one reason or another doesn't have so many hidden processes running in the background. XP home has a lot more wierd and seemingly useless stuff going on behind the scenes and seems to be more of a memory hog. Personally, it doesn't matter much to me since I've got a gig of ram :D.

In response to the Paladium bit, I just don't think people are going to buy into that. Too many people like to own the stuff they use, and more educated people (or more paranoid people, depending on how you look at it) are turned off by the idea from the get-go. Similar marketing techniques have crashed and burned in the past...divix anyone?

AmishRobot

18th June 2004, 06:45 AM

In response to the Paladium bit, I just don't think people are going to buy into that. Too many people like to own the stuff they use, and more educated people (or more paranoid people, depending on how you look at it) are turned off by the idea from the get-go. Similar marketing techniques have crashed and burned in the past...divix anyone?
DivX was completely rejected by consumers. A little later, a company decided we'd all like to go to 7-11 and buy dvd's that degrade to an unusable state after 48 hours. We rejected that. Just this week, a company called Flexplay decided our rejection was because the discs lasted too long. Their new discs only last 8 hours!

To these huge conglomerates, it doesn't matter what we want or think. Their old business models are threatened by the lack of control they currently have over new technologies. We are now the enemy, because we won't get in line, cash in hand. It's the mentality that has led to them to suing their own customers, which by any measure of logic should be commercial suicide.

I'm actually very saddened by the lack of outrage people have had to date over these things. The #1 album in the US right now is a copy-protected one. That sort of thing doesn't instill me with confidence. These companies are using patent and copyright law, as well as laws like the DMCA in a way that seriously harms consumers and stifles innovation. It's a behavior that's ultimately self-destructive, but the people behind it don't care, because the shareholders see short-term gains, and the executives get paid. What's worse is that Europe seems to be walking lockstep behind the US with their own versions of these laws.

A more even OS marketplace would be extremely helpful against the institutionalization of these practices. Microsoft is more than happy to facilitate someone else's control over your music collection. They get a piece of all the action. Ending their monopoly means there's now a risk behind adopting Trusted Computing. If you had the choice between two or more viable options: one that made you register all the software you bought, with numerous restrictions but no guarantees, and one that let you do whatever the hell you want, most sensible people would choose the latter. Right now linux, BSD, and apple represent the choice that will keep MS in line.

as long as non-persons have these ownership rights, we will all be the poorer for it.
I couldn't agree with you more. Sadly, since this was a side-effect of a US Supreme Court decision, the only solution I see is a change to our Constitution. I don't imagine that will happen anytime soon.

Am I far enough off topic yet? Viruses! ;)

edit: Back off topic: Check out this (http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140.html) new bill that will be introduced to the US Congress next week. My hope diminishes...

yuusen

18th June 2004, 06:26 PM

—

the problem of course is software compatibility.
can you give me an example?

I'm not really interested in a product that is marketed to hipsters who think they know about computers (but don't)
dont let the world of marketing and social image overrule your ability to examine the key factor here: the quality of the product.

from what I've experienced, Macs seem to have the chainsaw syndrome, where they either run great (smilyface) or they dont run at all (frownyface) and something is really F#cked up.
are you a hipster by any chance? ;)

Apple should go the way of Sega- give up on the console and concentrate on the software
a lot of people agree with you here but i personally think they would be shooting themselves in the foot. why lose the oppertunity to be able to run your software on custom hardware—custom referring to 'custom built for the software' in this case—allowing you to optimise its performance in a much more focussed way than hardware independant software that has to run on any number of different cpus and motherboards.

your damn right about the quality of the software. adobe saw it fit to axe the development of adobe premiere on the mac platform because they saw no way to compete with final cut pro.
—
¥

science

18th June 2004, 08:13 PM

can you give me an example?
Come on now...

dont let the world of marketing and social image overrule your ability to examine the key factor here: the quality of the product.
I try not to, but its hard not to get that image stuck. Why don't people ride mopeds?

are you a hipster by any chance? ;)
I don't think so, at least not last I checked

a lot of people agree with you here but i personally think they would be shooting themselves in the foot...etc
I see your point, and I suppose some of their better software isn't even made by apple, but alot of their "specialized" hardware isn't mac stuff either.

Still, I just don't see the point of putting up with a Mac unless you use it for audio or video. I think they realize that alot of people feel that way and that's why they really try to sell their machines in that department.

yuusen

18th June 2004, 08:34 PM

—
conclusive words on the hardware/software issue so long as you proceed to clarify what you mean by "specialized".

but seriously, can you give me an example of a (current day, cos thats when we are isnt it?) compatibility issue, just for curious little old me?
—
¥

AmishRobot

18th June 2004, 09:16 PM

but seriously, can you give me an example of a (current day, cos thats when we are isnt it?) compatibility issue, just for curious little old me?
I think it's pretty obvious that what he's talking about is that his windows programs wouldn't run on his shiny new mac.

I would love to change OS's, but the problem of course is software compatibility.

yuusen

18th June 2004, 10:35 PM

—
there are as many ways to complete a task as there are to skin a moggy. many mac applications that perform identical primary functions to their windows counterparts support the windows file formats.

one small example: textedit (a bit like notepad) can open, edit and save windows word .doc documents easily. textedit comes with the fresh install of mac os x, right out of the box (a lot like notepad). a little cash or a chat with your local d00d and you can have a fully native version of microsoft office 2004 on your mac.

i really do want some examples of compatibility issues/worries/bugs as i feel confident in finding a solution to most current day problems regarding compatibility, of which there are few—unless of course i am being naive.

i also get the idea that science only has experience in mac os 9, a now defunkt operating system. the references to the smiley/frowny face were the indicator. yes, i can understand having to "put up" with that operating system, it was made out of string and rubber bands in the first place. ;)
—
¥

AmishRobot

18th June 2004, 11:06 PM

I think you're missing the point. Yes there are alternatives, and often those are included with the OS, but a lot of the time they're not. If I were to buy a mac tomorrow, my copies of Acid Music, Grim Fandango, and Half-Life, as well as my Norton Anti-Virus, would not work, because it's all windows software. All those examples I just gave would have to be repurchased. Now imagine if use Office. That $300.00+ software suite is now useless, and I have to spend another $300.00+ for the same programs in a different format. Your copy of textedit is not going to give me a complex, specially formatted spreadsheet full of formulas and custom scripts. And before you roll out Open Office., I use and love my copy of OO, but I will be the first to say it's not up to the standards of MS Office.

What if you're a PC gamer? What are your mac options at that point? Pretty limited...

yuusen

19th June 2004, 11:51 AM

—
thank you amish :)

that was an effective arguement.
—
¥

science

20th June 2004, 01:32 AM

True, I have no experience with OSX whatsoever.

Rapier Racer

21st June 2004, 09:55 AM

A friend of mine was griping about that just the other day. He's used to using XP pro, which for one reason or another doesn't have so many hidden processes running in the background. XP home has a lot more wierd and seemingly useless stuff going on behind the scenes and seems to be more of a memory hog. Personally, it doesn't matter much to me since I've got a gig of ram :D.

Yes, but you can just start the task manager and terminate half of the processes if you need to (whitch I don't :D :D )

science

21st June 2004, 10:19 PM

even then something was eating up his memory, dont know why...

Rapier Racer

21st June 2004, 10:36 PM

Hmm well if you install XP then you really should have a LOT of memory, so do any of you plan to buy the new windows OS when it comes out?

I know I'm a bit late responding here but come on - prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. what??? well so can knives.

Lance

21st June 2004, 11:00 PM

.
and drinking straws.
and software monopolies
.

yuusen

22nd June 2004, 08:06 PM

—

even then something was eating up his memory, dont know why...
could be a rogue process. more likely is a memory leak, where an application forgets to tell the motherboard (or fails to tell it) that it has finished using a certain block of space on the RAM chip. this causes to operating system to think it is still using that part of the chip. as more processes or applications are used—and especially if that dodgprocess continues to forget/fail to notify the motherboard that it has finished what it is doing—the system becomes more and more deluded as to how much memory is actually available.

the system could be telling you that you have 7mb out of 1gb of ram space left, where in reality 120mb could be free and unused, yet not actually usable because the system thinks that particular section is currently engaged.
—
¥

Silent Blue

23rd June 2004, 12:43 AM

I try to use Slackware Linux wherever possible, for general use. But there are games and applications that just don't run acceptably in either Crossover Office, Wine or WineX, and it's those moments when i'm forced to booting into Windows XP.

In my opinion, dual booting is the way to go if you're worried about Windows security problems, but also about program compatibility. Hop onto Linux for the programs that run ok, but for those one or two games, quickly boot into XP.

If you're new, then Mandrake is a great start apparently. Me... I'm a Slackware fanatic. :lol:

Lance

23rd June 2004, 01:35 AM

.
i would like to give Linux a try, but i am a loner with no income and nothing but a dial-up connection to download any free distributions, so i suspect my curiosity shall remain unslaked.
btw, just how big is a minimal working Linux? how much working RAM does it require?

____

speaking of Linux, MS, open-source vs. proprietary and so much of what has been touched on here, this article i read today
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
, though it's an old one, was fascinating to me. some you may find it so as well. it's about software development methods, goals, results, reliability, speed of development, etc. pretty much everything is affected by how open-source does its work. if you've already read it long ago, i apologise for being a johnny-come-lately to the subject
.

G'Kyl

23rd June 2004, 06:27 AM

It may not be what you are looing for, but the minimal working Linux is probably KNOPPIX. It runs completely from CD and requires 96MB RAM (128 recommended). It's designed to give people an idea of how Linux works, what it is, how it looks. You can access your harddisk, but don't need to. Even though in order to do serious work this might not be the solution you are looking for, it's great for peeking in.

AmishRobot

23rd June 2004, 07:08 AM

Most distros will run well with 128MB RAM, but I would recommend 256MB, especially for eval cd's.

KNOPPIX is the most popular evaluation distro, but Mandrake and Suse have eval cd's as well. My personal experience is with Red Hat, Mandrake, and Suse. You couldn't pay me to touch Red Hat again, But I really liked Mandrake and Suse. (probably not a coincidence that those are the two "newbie" distros) I personally use Suse, as I think it's a bit more polished and professional, but I would recommend either. Suse's been getting a bit pricey, lately.

If you're interested in just getting a feel for what it's like but can't download an ISO, I'd recommend checking the bookstore for linux magazines. They often have evaluation cd's attached, for a reasonable price. I seem to recall a current issue of one having the KNOPPIX cd. Just keep in mind that they're a lot slower, as everything is running off the cd.

If you're interested in a full copy, but don't want to spring for a new one and don't have broadband, there's always a chance you could get some kind fellow to mail you a copy out of the kindness of his heart. :)

Lance

23rd June 2004, 07:30 AM

.
yikes! and i had got the impression from that article that open-source programs might actually be efficient. eek.
alas, i only have 96 megs. why are Linux distros so memory hungry? HD space is no problem for me as i still have 35 gigs to spare, but RAM is another matter.

James, what was it that turned you away from Red Hat? i know nothing about the differences between distros. 'splain it to me, please. :)
and... hm.... what is Free BSD [Berkeley Standard Distribution]? i see mentions of red hat, mandrake, and suse all the time, but hardly ever any other form. there are probably lots of others i've not even heard of. KNOPPIX was one of those until now. since G'Kyl says it will run in 96, it may be the only workable way to check out the Linux character
.

AmishRobot

23rd June 2004, 07:55 AM

Okay, I'm probably being a bit liberal with the requirements. Mandrake's official site lists 64 MB required, 128MB recommended. But like I said, the eval cd's require more (Mandrake is 128 required, 256 recomended) Suse's requirements are basically double. Distro's such as Knoppix and Slackware have much lower requirements. The high requirements are pretty much thanks to KDE (the most popular window manager for linux). With a little exposure, you'll see where it went. KDE is worlds beyond Windows. I actually prefer it to OSX, thanks to the ability to tailor it to my needs. If you love how Opera can be customized, KDE will be pure heaven to you. I have run linux smoothly under 64MB, just without all the eyecandy.

But I do have to say that RAM is dirt cheap these days, and more of it will make your life better. :)

G'Kyl

23rd June 2004, 08:15 AM

Then again, if you simply want to see how Linux works "inside", the text mode requires no more than 16MB, though I assume this is not what you are looking for, is it. :)

Task

23rd June 2004, 08:40 AM

16 Meg? Pfft, I can beat that! I can EMAIL you a copy of Linux that fits (and boots from!) a 1.4 Meg FLOPPY. 1 Meg! Fits on a floppy!

G'Kyls point is valid though, the whopping memory requirements stem from the GUI, and NOT from the OS.

More importantly, you might be wondering why I have a copy of Linux that fits and boots from floppy... That's how I do virus cleaning on a computer with a badly infected HDD that you cannot clean because the virus is in the boot sector and booting the drive causes the problem...

It's things like that that'll teach you why Linux Rox.

G'Kyl

23rd June 2004, 08:58 AM

Errr...mind if I ask whether you could email me what's on that disk? ;)

AmishRobot

23rd June 2004, 09:55 AM

G'Kyl & Task: You, gentlemen, are much more hardcore than I. While I'm sure I could eventually get by on a 1.4 Meg Floppy and a text, I prefer not to watch my porn from a command line. :lol:

G'Kyl

23rd June 2004, 11:55 AM

Ah, so you never heard of ASCII videos, have you? ;-)

Lance

23rd June 2004, 03:37 PM

.
skin looks a little rough in ASCII.

memory is cheap, but i am cheaper. by necessity. for the forseeable future, all i can spend money on is food and utilities. a potential source of income has already been delayed by many months, a situation which shows no sign of being resolved. sooooo.......

on a floppy, you say?

how is it that the much maligned Windows with all the eye-candy gets by on my little comp so readily? surely the memory requirements of Linux are exaggerated?
.

Task

23rd June 2004, 09:08 PM

G'Kyl: Love to. Sadly, the two "ghost" programs I've tried absolutely refuse to generate an image for a floppy disk! They, like, think it's beneath them or something. If you've got an idea for how I can copy a disk that isn't formatted for Windows, I'd really like to hear it. Damn developers, deciding for me that I don't want to ghost a floppy...

Lance: Virtual Memory. Linux acutally _uses_ your RAM. As soon as you boot Linux, it tries to take up nearly 100% of your RAM, whatever that is. As programs are launched and more memory is required, unused RAM pages are moved onto HDD till they are required, this makes free RAM that the running program can use. This is seriously different from the Windows-sytle of memory usage, which is more like allocating a whole whack of disk space and "pretending" that it's RAM. Which is why Windows does so much disk-thrashing. So the amount of RAM that Linux says it "requires" isn't really how much it requires at all, it's how much it operates well with. Which is always "as much as it can get", but minimum values are what's wanted here. So with 128 Megs Linux figures it can do any damn thing you'd ever want. Whereas Windows, given 1 Gig, still thrashes the HDD like an epileptic at a rave.

Of course, getting back to the original point (or am I?), it's the GUI, which is really _seperate_ from Linux, that actually requires the most "resources". The previously mentioned KDE is a fine GUI for Linux. What I've got on my disk is, if memory serves, simply a chopped-down distro of FreeBSD (as previously mentioned, definitely command-line only), which is the version of Linux you could install on a freaking toaster if it had two transistors to rub together. 8 )

So that should clear up any confusion there.

Either that, or I just felt like typing and you're all my vicitims. 8 D

Lance

24th June 2004, 04:45 AM

.
then i probably could get by with just the 96 Mb.

i must be running nothing but small efficient proggies or just too few of them to gobble the memory; my harddrive doesn't seem to get thrashed much. however i don't have it set up to use virtual memory and the drive is very quiet so i may just not be noticing. usually my comp says i have 50 percent or more RAM free
.

G'Kyl

24th June 2004, 07:33 AM

Task, I think I once HAD a program that makes images from floppies - it's just that I have no idea where it is. :| I'll search for it and let you know. Thanks for the effort so far!

Ben

Lance

24th June 2004, 07:49 AM

.
i'd like to play, so Jay i'll let you know in a pm one of my email addies if you want to send that floppy-sized version. Ben, is there anywhere you know of i can download the 16 Meg one?
.

G'Kyl

24th June 2004, 08:35 AM

There is! :) If you are loking for the original KNOPPIX release look here: http://www.knoppix.com/
There is also a distribution which includes some fixes, but most of all a huge number of extra programs here: http://www.knoppix-std.org.

EDIT: Task, I just found it: this here should do the trick: http://www.winimage.com/winimage.htm

Lance

24th June 2004, 04:52 PM

very cool. when i get back home, i'll download it and let the fun [i hope] begin.

i need to race some more in the Spilkinanke Phantom Challenge: TFWTS
.

G'Kyl

24th June 2004, 11:19 PM

You really need to. You seem to be driving at about the same level as I, which is much fun in a challenge - and there is no hope I can keep up with Mano and Arnaud. :-)

science

24th June 2004, 11:56 PM

This is seriously different from the Windows-sytle of memory usage, which is more like allocating a whole whack of disk space and "pretending" that it's RAM. Which is why Windows does so much disk-thrashing.
So is that to say that the version of Linux that you're talking about does no paging whatsoever? If so, that's not necessarily an advantage...

Lance

25th June 2004, 01:25 AM

.
Ben: so you're saying we're second raters, right? sigh. it's probably true :)
.

Task

25th June 2004, 03:18 AM

Science: Not what I'm saying at all! I was aiming at writing a quick and simple overview of the differences between memory usage in the two OSes. All memory-management is paged, and they all swap out to disk the pages that they don't need to make free memory. The differences are in how it's done, the methods of selecting the page. Not only that, but the way memory is allocated to begin with. Windows takes RAM + Virtual and says that that's how much memory you have and then proceeds to manage it fairly badly. Linux says that RAM is what you've got but it can handle whatever you throw at it through various manipulations. The difference is amazing. I've _never_ seen a Linux box thrash the HDD, and I've worked some of them pretty hard. Virtual desktops, multiple applications, switching all over the place, never a chug. I take the best machine I can find, put windows on it, and I can't run two applications without a 5-second pause while it swaps like a b4st4rd.

G'Kyl

25th June 2004, 06:29 AM

Ben: so you're saying we're second raters, right? sigh. it's probably true :)

Probably? *sigh* Certainly! ;-)

Lance

25th June 2004, 08:20 AM

.
eeeeeeekkk!!!
the Knoppix iso image is a 688.x MB download. er... lessee now, 688 MB divided by 3.5 KB per second = ...

eeeeeeeeek!!
.

G'Kyl

25th June 2004, 09:37 AM

Hm, you could still order the CD... ;) Sorry, I knew it was a huge download, but I never figured 700MB.
Why are you still on such s slow line, Lance? Isn't highspeed internet quite affordable in the states?

AmishRobot

25th June 2004, 10:09 AM

That 16MB version is most likely a GUI-less version consisting of administrative and recovery tools, anyway. (G'Kyl and Task, feel free to correct my if I'm wrong)

I still think your best bet would be checking the linux magazines at a bookstore for an eval cd, but I can utterly relate with the concept of "no money". So maybe Damn Small Linux (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/) would work for you. It's still 50MB, but that's something you could just start downloading before you go to bed, and it should be finished by morning (or afternoon, or whenever you wake up). It's damn ugly, too! :) But it'll help give you a feel for the organization and structure of a typical linux desktop. This will run on 96MB!

Here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5597) is a short review of it that I dug up, in case you're interested. I've personally never used it, but I have read a lot of positive comments on it. (mostly from linux gurus, FWIW)

I find it funny that the best version for downloading on dialup is called DSL. 8)

PS. Just as a warning if you ever get around to trying any version of linux, keep in mind that if your modem is a winmodem, you may very likely run into trouble, especially with a home-brew version like this. There's a very good chance you could get it to work, but it will likely take some effort.

PPS. This is probably seeming like an intense hassle. It actually can be enjoyable, believe it or not. :wink:

Lance

25th June 2004, 07:01 PM

.
James, i should be able to do it, but i will have to stay awake for the process; when i switched to a 10 dollar a month ISP, unfortunately i got one that cuts me off every 4 hours if i don't click a notification message so i stay on. but it's definitely doable; the biggest file i've gotten is 130 MB, though that was when i was on AOL which never shut off. [ AOL gets criticised a lot, but they were great for me. best personal service anywhere, and utterly reliable. it cost more, but you actually got something for it.]

G'Kyl: yes, broadband in the U.S. is quite affordable. if you have any regular income. i have no income. on rare irregular occasions i make a small amount of survival cash. i can buy about 10 dollars of food per week, 10 dollars of internet per month, and pay my electricity, water, and telephone bills on an irregular basis whilst keeping those bills much smaller than normal people. except for those expenses i spend absolutely no money on anything whatsoever. if i did not already own my house so that i have no mortgage or rent payments, i would be... well, i don't know what i would be. i no longer have a car or motorcycle. i walk the few places i must go. this week, a friend came over and took me to his house for a day's stay, but mostly i stay home and spend my awake time on the internet or designing mechanical things. it's an odd life by most standards, but more satisfactory to me than any other i've attempted. i quit my last job because i could not take it psychologically. i was having a mental/emotional breakdown with frequent stress/anxiety 'attacks' throughout every day all day. this became progressively more intense for a period of several months till i could not take it anymore. after i left that job, these 'attacks' quickly faded away and had stopped altogether in just a few weeks. so. i do what i can to keep myself alive and reasonably happy, but this requires a decidedly non-typical style of life since i do not seem to be constructed for any sort of 'normal' existence. i like to think this is at least a pale reflection of the well known madness of genius ;) but i don't think i am quite at genius level so it may be something else. in any case, i am not suited for the everyday practical world and this has consequences that are quite far-reaching. one of those is that i can't afford broadband connection to the internet
.

G'Kyl

25th June 2004, 11:59 PM

Wow, that's an .. unusua/ interesting/different life-style indeed. :) And in case my suggestion to get a broadband connection was imature I apologize. Also, I probably forgot there is no such thing as state-guaranteed pension in the US...

As for AOL, I agree that what they offer is above average and a quite OK for most everyone. Personally, though, I made some bad experience with their service when I cancelled my account, which was an approved and sealed agreement. However, it turned out they actually continued for a few months to charge me for the account which then shouldn't have existed anymore. After that I never even thought of installing their software again. The latter, by the way, takes over parts of your OS I prefer to keep under control for myself...

Lance

26th June 2004, 12:46 AM

.
'' I probably forgot there is no such thing as state-guaranteed pension in the US...''
i live in the land of the free-to-get-screwed-by-Republican-presidential-administrations. so called rugged individualism in which the corporations and the 'Republicans' form a mutual support group to pad each others wallets with everyone else's money. you have to be rugged indeed to be an individual, instead of a group, in such an environment. however, it would also be difficult to feel free whilst being supported financially by a socialist admin, since one is required to pay for this support in required actions and the psychological pain inflicted by submitting to constant requirements of various kinds, answering to a power outside yourself. a government agency.
.

Mano

26th June 2004, 07:46 AM

Lance: I dont know if im being too annoying asking this, but can you show us your mechanical designs?, i like mechanical design ( i think its effect of my father liking to fix things, and the fact that i loved transformers and macross).

Lance

26th June 2004, 08:47 AM

.
i don't draw them; they're kept in my head. when i'm gone, they're gone, but at least i had fun :)
that's the object of doing them.

[wanders off mumbling something about direct-action boilers for steam turbines. the 'boilers' use hydrogen peroxide in a water solution to dampen the explosiveness of the peroxide while also supplying extra water that is heated to a vapor by burning the peroxide which itself produces steam as its combustion product. Helmut Walther should have thought of that, but didn't. the hydrogen peroxide and water mixture is injected under high pressure into the boiler/combustor in much the same way as direct injection diesels spray oil into the combustion cylinder. the only product of the burning of the mixture is water vapor, no pollution, yet the liquid can be easily and safely stored at atmospheric pressure. unlike hydrogen]
.