By the heck!

I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look here, 
and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!

One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, but 
*has* to be into ARM!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/

Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>
> By the heck!
>
> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look
> here, and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86
> production!
>
> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM,
> but *has* to be into ARM!
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/

Yup, ARM has been selling a full digit more than Intel for years, and
yet Microsoft only recently noticed, then rushed out a half-baked mobile
solution that nobody wants. Meanwhile Google is steamrollering right
over them, pushing ARM ever nearer the desktop - Microsoft's thus-far
impenetrable fortress, whilst the inhabitants flee to mobile computing.

Microsoft's only response so far has been to make threats and empty
promises. If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can
expect from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.

-- 
K.                           | "Unlike you, I don't waste my time posting to
http://slated.org            | Linux fanboi sites." ~ flatfish+++ posting to
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | the comp.os.linux.advocacy Linux fanboi site.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 36 days  | http://tinyurl.com/flattythefuckwit

Homer wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>>
>> By the heck!
>>
>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look
>> here, and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86
>> production!
>>
>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM,
>> but *has* to be into ARM!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>
> Yup, ARM has been selling a full digit more than Intel for years, and
> yet Microsoft only recently noticed, then rushed out a half-baked mobile
> solution that nobody wants. Meanwhile Google is steamrollering right
> over them, pushing ARM ever nearer the desktop - Microsoft's thus-far
> impenetrable fortress, whilst the inhabitants flee to mobile computing.
>
> Microsoft's only response so far has been to make threats and empty
> promises. If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can
> expect from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.

"Microsoft is incapable of sustained error."

I presume that is what the thrashing trolls (90% of the posts today!) are
telling themselves.

My guess is the time will eventually come when Microsoft is known mostly for
their "business platform".  And that's not really a bad thing for them.

-- 
We the Users, in order to form a more perfect system, establish priorities,
ensure connective tranquility, provide for common repairs, promote preventive
maintenance, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our
processes, do ordain and establish this Software of The Unixed States
of America.

On 3/23/2011 2:07 PM, Homer wrote:

> If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can
> expect from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.


uh huh... you and a bunch of other raging idiots said the same thing 
about ChromeOS.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:07:36 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> "Microsoft is incapable of sustained error."

That should actually read :

"Microsoft is capable of sustained terror."

when it concerns their intensely self-conscious culture, fearless about 
confronting shortcomings and constantly looking for ways to do things 
better, regarding the competition.

Well that surely has been the way it was. Maybe the word competition
has become old-school verbiage.

-- 
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org  stock@stokkie.net

Robert M. Stockmann wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:07:36 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> "Microsoft is incapable of sustained error."
>
>That should actually read :
>
>"Microsoft is capable of sustained terror."

Hehe.

>when it concerns their intensely self-conscious culture, fearless about 
>confronting shortcomings and constantly looking for ways to do things 
>better, regarding the competition.
>
>Well that surely has been the way it was. Maybe the word competition
>has become old-school verbiage.

Well, it's been shown that crime pays, and handsomely.

Why actually *work* for a living?

-- 
"It's called Distro hell. This choice thing is a joke."  -  "True
Linux advocate" Hadron Quark 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:49:29 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 3/23/2011 2:07 PM, Homer wrote:
> 
>> If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can
>> expect from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.
> 
> 
> uh huh... you and a bunch of other raging idiots said the same thing 
> about ChromeOS.

The Linux freetards in COLA have been saying it for 20 years.
Hasn't happened yet.

Remember the Linux based OpenMoko the so called iPhone killer ?

Neither does anyone else.

Only in the twisted world of Linux do you have a cell phone that can't
reliably make phone calls.
Unbelievable.

On 2011-03-24, flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:49:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2011 2:07 PM, Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can
>>> expect from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.
>> 
>> 
>> uh huh... you and a bunch of other raging idiots said the same thing 
>> about ChromeOS.
>
> The Linux freetards in COLA have been saying it for 20 years.
> Hasn't happened yet.
 
   ...except this stuff is happening now.

-- 
	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> By the heck!
>
> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look here,
> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>
> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, but
> *has* to be into ARM!
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>

All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as 
capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly there 
is some potential for an ARM computer that competes functionally with a 
typical laptop or desktop, but none exist today.  If/when they do, I would 
fully expect Microsoft Windows to be the OS that they come with.  What do 
you think?

ARM devices are 5% to 10% of the price of x86 devices from Intel or AMD, 
too.  Counting them vs x86 is somewhat akin to counting pennies vs quarters 
and suggesting that quarters are less popular in one's pocket. 

Verily I say unto thee, that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:
> On 2011-03-24, flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:49:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> On 3/23/2011 2:07 PM, Homer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If Phoney 7 is in any way representative of what people can expect
>>>> from Windows/ARM, I'd say it's game over for Microsoft.
>>> 
>>> uh huh... you and a bunch of other raging idiots said the same thing
>>> about ChromeOS.

You mean the product that Google hasn't launched yet?

Keep counting, flatty.

>> The Linux freetards in COLA have been saying it for 20 years.  Hasn't
>> happened yet.
>  
>    ...except this stuff is happening now.

Yes, and there's much more to come.

-- 
K.                           | "Unlike you, I don't waste my time posting to
http://slated.org            | Linux fanboi sites." ~ flatfish+++ posting to
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | the comp.os.linux.advocacy Linux fanboi site.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 37 days  | http://tinyurl.com/flattythefuckwit

On Thursday 24 March 2011 20:32 amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> 
> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> By the heck!
>>
>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look 
here,
>> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>>
>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, but
>> *has* to be into ARM!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>>
> 
> All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as 
> capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly 
there 
> is some potential for an ARM computer that competes functionally with a 
> typical laptop or desktop, but none exist today.  If/when they do, I would 
> fully expect Microsoft Windows to be the OS that they come with.  What do 
> you think?

I think that you are wrong..... just as I thought that you were wrong in 
2004 when you were telling us that Internet Explorer was used by over 95% of 
users, and that nobody would even bother to download an alternative.
To be fair, I do see that you now claim to also have Firefox and Chrome 
installed on your machines....
 
> ARM devices are 5% to 10% of the price of x86 devices from Intel or AMD, 
> too.  Counting them vs x86 is somewhat akin to counting pennies vs 
quarters 
> and suggesting that quarters are less popular in one's pocket.

That's a very poor analogy.  In fact, it's completely back to front!
Given that (on your admission), the cost of an ARM chip is 5% to 10% of the 
cost of an x86 device, which do you suppose is the more likely to be used?
We aren't talking about *having* pennies or quarters in one's pocket, but 
rather a manufacturer (and hence the consumer) taking a penny or a quarter 
*out* of his own pocket.  Which do you think is more "popular"?

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8v1vdjF8k4U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Thursday 24 March 2011 20:32 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> By the heck!
>>>
>>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look
> here,
>>> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>>>
>>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, 
>>> but
>>> *has* to be into ARM!
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>>>
>>
>> All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as
>> capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly
> there
>> is some potential for an ARM computer that competes functionally with a
>> typical laptop or desktop, but none exist today.  If/when they do, I 
>> would
>> fully expect Microsoft Windows to be the OS that they come with.  What do
>> you think?
>
> I think that you are wrong..... just as I thought that you were wrong in
> 2004 when you were telling us that Internet Explorer was used by over 95% 
> of
> users, and that nobody would even bother to download an alternative.
> To be fair, I do see that you now claim to also have Firefox and Chrome
> installed on your machines....
>
"Think" or "hope", bb?  What ARM-powered model of what computer do you think 
competes in what market  with Intel (or AMD for that matter)?

>> ARM devices are 5% to 10% of the price of x86 devices from Intel or AMD,
>> too.  Counting them vs x86 is somewhat akin to counting pennies vs
> quarters
>> and suggesting that quarters are less popular in one's pocket.
>
> That's a very poor analogy.  In fact, it's completely back to front!
> Given that (on your admission), the cost of an ARM chip is 5% to 10% of 
> the
> cost of an x86 device, which do you suppose is the more likely to be used?

If there is no need for x86 performance, say with a phone or iPad, then the 
manufacturer would choose the cheaper chip, of course, but that is not 
competition.  Rather it is just a case of different product markets having 
some overlap.



> We aren't talking about *having* pennies or quarters in one's pocket, but
> rather a manufacturer (and hence the consumer) taking a penny or a quarter
> *out* of his own pocket.  Which do you think is more "popular"?
> 

Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
> On Thursday 24 March 2011 20:32 amicus_curious wrote:
  
>> ARM devices are 5% to 10% of the price of x86 devices from Intel or
>> AMD, too.  Counting them vs x86 is somewhat akin to counting pennies
>> vs quarters and suggesting that quarters are less popular in one's
>> pocket.
>
> That's a very poor analogy.  In fact, it's completely back to front!
> Given that (on your admission), the cost of an ARM chip is 5% to 10%
> of the cost of an x86 device, which do you suppose is the more likely
> to be used?  We aren't talking about *having* pennies or quarters in
> one's pocket, but rather a manufacturer (and hence the consumer)
> taking a penny or a quarter *out* of his own pocket.  Which do you
> think is more "popular"?

Put it this way: If people (including manufacturers) buy Billions of
cheap ARM processors instead of Billions of expensive Intel processors,
then that might only be a small profit for ARM compared to what Intel
might have made, but it's a massive loss for Intel.

The more that trend continues, the fewer processors Intel will sell.

Ironically, the only way Intel can compete against this trend, is to
reduce its prices, thus making less profit still.

Well, there is one other way, but they tried that once, and got
prosecuted for it by the FTC.

-- 
K.                           | "Do you have a dot on your head
http://slated.org            |  and are you based in Bangalore?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   |  ~ flatfish+++ the racist scum.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 38 days  | http://tinyurl.com/flattyracistscum

On 2011-03-24, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> By the heck!
>>
>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look here,
>> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>>
>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, but
>> *has* to be into ARM!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>>
>
> All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as 
> capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly there 

....depends on what you need.

Clearly, not everyone needs a monster QuadCore at one foot and a monster
HexCore at the other. Most people's requirements are a bit more limited
than that.

[deletia]

I could certainly see uses for a cheaper low profile machine, especially
if it comes with a very robust GPU. I am not married to the x86 platform.

Of course the biggest thing hamstringing ARM for the average Lemming type
user is the fact that Microsoft's long standing advantage that comes from
it's dominance of the industry will vanish.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.
    

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnioq1lm.4cd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-24, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> By the heck!
>>>
>>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look 
>>> here,
>>> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>>>
>>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, 
>>> but
>>> *has* to be into ARM!
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>>>
>>
>> All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as
>> capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly 
>> there
>
> ...depends on what you need.
>
A PC, Jedidiah, a PC.  If all that I needed were a phone or a modem or a 
toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you are 
currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.

> Clearly, not everyone needs a monster QuadCore at one foot and a monster
> HexCore at the other. Most people's requirements are a bit more limited
> than that.
>
> [deletia]
>
> I could certainly see uses for a cheaper low profile machine, especially
> if it comes with a very robust GPU. I am not married to the x86 platform.
>

Even Apple has come to the conclusion that x86 is pretty much it for the 
desktop and laptop and netbook, Jedidiah, who cares about you as an 
individual?

> Of course the biggest thing hamstringing ARM for the average Lemming type
> user is the fact that Microsoft's long standing advantage that comes from
> it's dominance of the industry will vanish.
>
Ah, Jedidiah, your lack of sophistication is charming!  Take a lesson from 
the netbook.  If a need for a Windows OS exists in order to meet a market, a 
Windows OS will come into existence for that market.  Microsoft has been 
running ARM platforms almost from the beginning of existence for ARM 
devices. 

On 2011-03-26, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnioq1lm.4cd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-24, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:8uugdqF1p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> By the heck!
>>>>
>>>> I don't care which side of the OS fence you are on, just take a look 
>>>> here,
>>>> and scroll down to the graph of ARM production v. x86 production!
>>>>
>>>> One can see why Microsoft is not only talking about getting into ARM, 
>>>> but
>>>> *has* to be into ARM!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/nvidia_arm_strategy/
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of that would be more interesting if ARM powered computers were as
>>> capable as x86 powered machines.  But such is not the case.  Certainly 
>>> there
>>
>> ...depends on what you need.
>>
> A PC, Jedidiah, a PC.  If all that I needed were a phone or a modem or a 

   That's something that can run software. Software of your choosing.

   This could be an iPhone if Apple weren't fascists.

> toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you are 
> currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.

   That is an entirely artificial constraint.

   When I was shopping for my first low profile machines "back in the day",
I seriously considered Alpha machines. I did this because I could. My 
platform of choice is not quite so hamstrung by what particular CPU is 
under th hood.

>
>> Clearly, not everyone needs a monster QuadCore at one foot and a monster
>> HexCore at the other. Most people's requirements are a bit more limited
>> than that.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> I could certainly see uses for a cheaper low profile machine, especially
>> if it comes with a very robust GPU. I am not married to the x86 platform.
>>
>
> Even Apple has come to the conclusion that x86 is pretty much it for the 
> desktop and laptop and netbook, Jedidiah, who cares about you as an 
> individual?

    Yes. Here is the meat of the Lemming attitude.

    "Who cares about you as an individual?"

[deletia]

    Your lack of sophistication is not charming. Unfortunately it impacts
the rest of us that have to share a vendor lock prone market place with
people like you have have no clue and no taste and can't think for
themselves.

    Morons like you is why MS-DOS clobbered Macintosh.

-- 
	On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

        When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were        |||
        meant to be computationally convenient rather than just     / | \
	arbitrarily assigned.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-26, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>

>
>> toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you 
>> are
>> currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.
>
>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>
>   When I was shopping for my first low profile machines "back in the day",
> I seriously considered Alpha machines. I did this because I could. My
> platform of choice is not quite so hamstrung by what particular CPU is
> under th hood.
>

That's fine as long as you don't care about having the latest software and 
don't need to use current hardware/peripherals with your computer. Good luck 
getting something like a video card working *properly* (not some bogus 
compatibility mode) with a obscure CPU.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...


>
>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>
That is a "practical" constraint, Jedidiah.  Perhaps you cannot understand 
the term.


>
>    Yes. Here is the meat of the Lemming attitude.
>
>    "Who cares about you as an individual?"
>
Is that what you mean by your allusion to lemmings?  I thought you were just 
trying to insult the buyers in the mass market (and appearing rather 
comically arrogant, btw).  Are you only objecting to being ignored?

>
>    Your lack of sophistication is not charming. Unfortunately it impacts
> the rest of us that have to share a vendor lock prone market place with
> people like you have have no clue and no taste and can't think for
> themselves.
>
>    Morons like you is why MS-DOS clobbered Macintosh.
>
You are sputtering again, Jedidiah.  Try to think before you type!  LOL!

And pay some attention to good grammar.
 

On 2011-03-26, Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-26, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you 
>>> are
>>> currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.
>>
>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>
>>   When I was shopping for my first low profile machines "back in the day",
>> I seriously considered Alpha machines. I did this because I could. My
>> platform of choice is not quite so hamstrung by what particular CPU is
>> under th hood.
>>
>
> That's fine as long as you don't care about having the latest software and 
> don't need to use current hardware/peripherals with your computer. Good luck 

    I could run some pretty leading edge stuff on an ARM machine if I
decided to. That's one key advantage of proper libre device drivers.

> getting something like a video card working *properly* (not some bogus 
> compatibility mode) with a obscure CPU.

   Nice goalpost move there. Not everything is about some overpriced video
card that you probably don't own either.

-- 
   Apple: because you really don't want to take any more video          ||| 
than your camera can hold. Really.                                     / | \
                     

On 2011-03-27, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>
>
>>
>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>
> That is a "practical" constraint, Jedidiah.  Perhaps you cannot understand 
> the term.

....no not really.

It's entirely an issue of your mindless brand fixation (consumerism).

[deletia]

-- 
   Apple: because you really don't want to take any more video          ||| 
than your camera can hold. Really.                                     / | \
                     

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnip19fq.76t.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-26, Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2011-03-26, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you
>>>> are
>>>> currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.
>>>
>>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>>
>>>   When I was shopping for my first low profile machines "back in the 
>>> day",
>>> I seriously considered Alpha machines. I did this because I could. My
>>> platform of choice is not quite so hamstrung by what particular CPU is
>>> under th hood.
>>>
>>
>> That's fine as long as you don't care about having the latest software 
>> and
>> don't need to use current hardware/peripherals with your computer. Good 
>> luck
>
>    I could run some pretty leading edge stuff on an ARM machine if I
> decided to. That's one key advantage of proper libre device drivers.
>
>> getting something like a video card working *properly* (not some bogus
>> compatibility mode) with a obscure CPU.
>
>   Nice goalpost move there. Not everything is about some overpriced video
> card that you probably don't own either.
>

Nice example of illiteracy there.  Since you're too dense to comprehend 
basic English let me spell it out for you. When somebody write:

<quote>
.... getting **something like a** video card ...
</quote><

The "something like" means that video card is just one of many possible 
examples. You see JED, it doesn't have to be a video card. When someone 
writes it this way they are using 'video card' as an example. It's certainly 
not limited to just a video card.

The fact is that the more obscure your hardware is ("I seriously considered 
Alpha machines. I did this because I could.")  - the more difficult it's 
going to be to find the software and drivers you may want to use with the 
machine.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnip19ll.76t.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-27, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>>
>> That is a "practical" constraint, Jedidiah.  Perhaps you cannot 
>> understand
>> the term.
>
> ...no not really.
>
> It's entirely an issue of your mindless brand fixation (consumerism).
>
Well, keep trying to save the world, Jedidiah!  But at least understand why 
you are always in last place. 

On 2011-03-29, Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnip19fq.76t.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-26, Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2011-03-26, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> toaster, then the answer might be different.  But if you want a PC, you
>>>>> are
>>>>> currently faced with an x86 purchase under the hood.
>>>>
>>>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>>>
>>>>   When I was shopping for my first low profile machines "back in the 
>>>> day",
>>>> I seriously considered Alpha machines. I did this because I could. My
>>>> platform of choice is not quite so hamstrung by what particular CPU is
>>>> under th hood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's fine as long as you don't care about having the latest software 
>>> and
>>> don't need to use current hardware/peripherals with your computer. Good 
>>> luck
>>
>>    I could run some pretty leading edge stuff on an ARM machine if I
>> decided to. That's one key advantage of proper libre device drivers.
>>
>>> getting something like a video card working *properly* (not some bogus
>>> compatibility mode) with a obscure CPU.
>>
>>   Nice goalpost move there. Not everything is about some overpriced video
>> card that you probably don't own either.
>>
>
> Nice example of illiteracy there.  Since you're too dense to comprehend 
> basic English let me spell it out for you. When somebody write:
>
><quote>
> ... getting **something like a** video card ...
></quote><
>
> The "something like" means that video card is just one of many possible 
> examples. You see JED, it doesn't have to be a video card. When someone 
> writes it this way they are using 'video card' as an example. It's certainly 

   It's a pretty narrow example.

   Instead it could be something like say... an HD capture device that was
supported on Linux first and MCE last.

[deletia]

   Of course I never suggested trying to replace my Quad core or Hex core
tower machines with an ARM. My original response was worded very carefully.
It's too bad that the literacy patrol isn't actually literate or honest.

   Zeke is just engaging in another Hadronism.

   Watch it take on a life of it's own and mutate.

-- 
     Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you 
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates         |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in      / | \
events not in their control.

On 2011-03-29, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnip19ll.76t.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-27, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnioscjn.pd.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   That is an entirely artificial constraint.
>>>>
>>> That is a "practical" constraint, Jedidiah.  Perhaps you cannot 
>>> understand
>>> the term.
>>
>> ...no not really.
>>
>> It's entirely an issue of your mindless brand fixation (consumerism).
>>
> Well, keep trying to save the world, Jedidiah!  But at least understand why 
> you are always in last place. 

   Keep on telling yourself.

   Doesn't actually mean anything.

   ...might help keep your fragile ego from cracking.

-- 
     Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you 
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates         |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in      / | \
events not in their control.

> rat wrote:
>>
>> you are always in last place. 

Not in the newest and most-rapidly growing markets, where Microshaft
does not have momentum and vendor-lock on it's side.

There, your beloved Microshaft Corp is in last place, rat.   

  :-D

-- 
"If Linux had gotten to the market on time and would have been
presented in an effective way, many more people would be using it,
too.  But that did not happen and the chance is forever lost."  -
"True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark