Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop
From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: krs: "Special characters/symbols in asp.net"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: You're the damned one, Rick."
- Maybe in reply to: Sean Hederman: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:00:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scott M.
<s-mar@nospam.nospam>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:35:46 GMT
<OK5OPUw1EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>:
>> The figures are a little hard to come by, especially with dual-boots.
>
> Actually, they are not. Read my other post on where the numbers come from.
OK, over 90%, probably as high as 95%, if not even higher.
But there is a problem. Opera is probably the best known browser
for its ability to impersonate Internet Explorer, but other
browsers should also have that ability as well, to combat
stupid websites. While the number of those who need to
make that adjustment is small, one has to wonder how many of
those user agents reporting Internet Explorer actually *are*
using Internet Explorer, or somebody else trying to hack around
a website that insists that Internet Explorer is the only
browser worth using on said website. (I suspect another
fraction of a percent, though I'd have to look.)
So how does one actually determine the number of desktops
actually *using* Linux?
>
>> I've seen 80%; I've seen 95%+. In my household it's 33%
>> (1 server system, 1 pure Linux game system, 1 dual-boot system
>> which might become SMP if anyone still has an 866 MHz PIII (not likely!),
>> and 1 dead dual-boot system which I may have to resurrect to
>> get my DOOM, Heretic, and Hexen off the Win95 disk there).
>
> You do realize that you and others who have dual boots
> make up less that .1 percent (that's < 1/10%) when we
> are talking about world-wide numbers, right?
Wouldn't surprise me.
Standard Windows Starter Configuration:
[1] One (1) disk drive.
[2] One (1) partition on that drive.
[3] One (1) license to use Microsoft Windows on the system.
This is of course a crap configuration for many reasons (chiefly
because the user's data is on the same disk as the system is;
if one botches the system for some reason the data's gone too).
To do a dual-boot one has to do some work, unless one simply
slips in another disk and modifies the system disk to use GRUB,
which for Win98 is extremely simple. (I've not tried it with
WinNT.)
On Linux, it's actually pretty simple:
[1] Backup existing Linu xsystem somewhere. Ideally,
this would be done *after* rebooting to a spare
system or floppy, though it can be done "hot",
with some care.
[2] Repartition and reformat.
[3] Restore system.
[4] If necessary, adjust GRUB/LILO parameters and /etc/fstab
on the about-to-be-rebooted system. If LILO, rerun
LILO using the -r option. GRUB will read the
/boot/grub/grub.conf file upon startup.
[5] Reboot.
I don't know if Windows is quite that accommodating,
though I've not tried it lately. However, my Kayak
is being very annoying (the second drive wants to play
"spin down and die" after sitting idle for some time) and
I might have to shuffle things a bit, so it might become
a pure Windows system again for awhile. Feh.
[irrelevant stuff snipped]
-- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: krs: "Special characters/symbols in asp.net"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: You're the damned one, Rick."
- Maybe in reply to: Sean Hederman: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
