[geeks] Itanium 32 bit performace.... hahahaha

[Jochen Kunz]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:15:35 -0500
Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com> wrote:

> > > And that XP is a bloated pregnant sow that, from what I'm told,
> > > doesn't start to perform decently in under a gigabyte of RAM....
> > > Every new generation of Windows is slower and more bloated than
> > > the one before.
> >
> > That's just sick.  You need more memory to properly run the OS than
> > you needed disk space to install the previous incarnation.
Ts ts ts ts. When I think of my Alpha with 640 MB RAM and Tru64. Alphas
need a lot of RAM but 640 MB is a lot even for an Alpha with Tru64.
Tru64 is a big, full blown UNIX system and Windows still a single user
PeeCee OS.

> KDE and Gnome both suffer from a lack of discipline still.
What do you expect from a bunch of WinKidz, suffering from featureitis,
that converted to Linux to be c00l?

A loong time ago I tried the enlightenment window manager. What a
bloated pile of shit. Ate a lot of resources, didn't run well on my 256
color Tektronix Xterm (Remote display? What's that?), crashed, ...
within one evening I was back at fvwm2. It seams that the quality of the
whole GNOME stuff hasn't improved much since then. I used balsa (GNOME
MUA) for a long time. The old version crashed quite often on my Tru64
machine, but was usable when you know how to handle it. When I got the
Octane I instaled a much newer version of balsa expecting the bugs to be
fixed. It was worse. Not only that it threw a lot of core files, it
hossed my mbox files. mv balsa /dev/null.  Now I am trying sylpheed.
Seams to work better. Only two examples. I stay away from that KDE and
GNOME stuff nearly as much as I avoid Windows.
--


tsch|_,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/