You know, after doing a little digging, I think ESR may be smoking the cheeb on one of his points here. He claims that Vista is still a 32-bit OS. Upon first reading of the essay, I took his word for it. I figured that, like Windows 95 wasn't _really_ a 32-bit OS, neither was the "64-bit" version of Vista that comes in the box w/ every edition sans "Starter." Like, maybe it was "64-bit" but still limited the amount of memory you can address or something (the lower-end 64-bit Vistas DO in fact limit you to 8GB of system memory).
However, upon further digging, it seems that Vista 64 is the Windows-64 that ESR says doesn't exist. He claims that the 64-bit transition will be foisted upon the market once all systems are shipped with more than 4GB of RAM. Seems reasonable. Except that he sees our opportunity in the fact that MS doesn't have an OS ready to handle that. That assertion, it would seem, is patently false. Does anyone know what else he might be referring to there? He doesn't really back up his claim that Windows-64 doesn't exist. If he is just wrong, then I agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph. People will be transitioned via hardware purchases and the monopoly will roll on. But I think there has to be something I'm missing here. For all the flack he gets, ESR's not _that_ daft, is he? Maybe I'll drop him an email to see if he can clarify that in a future revision of the essay. Wes On 12/27/06, mikecorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't disagree with your reasoned points. Perhaps all I advocate is a change in priorities: PC vendors will not pre-load Linux until it is better standardized and supportable. Therefore bellyaching about lack of pre-loads is pointless. The same point can be made about lack of hardware support: vendors of printers and wireless LAN cards are not interested in supporting 100 different distros, or even the top 10. They get 95% of the market by supporting only one: Windows. By 32 to 64-bit transition, do you (and ESR) mean XP to Vista? I see this as the real window of opportunity in the next few years. But Vista runs both 32 and 64 bit apps, so users may not feel any pain from this transition. 90% will transition when they buy a new computer with Vista pre-loaded, and most of their old apps will run. The problems I mentioned seem much smaller in the Windows world: it has tight standards, excellent documentation (technical and user), integrated apps, no issues about supporting multiple distros, fewer obscure or hidden error messages, etc. I question whether Linux can gain market share before it becomes more excellent and uniform itself. If Ubuntu were to get 50% of Linux desktops, perhaps that would serve to set a standard that vendors could go with.
-- "Small acts of humanity amid the chaos of inhumanity provide hope. But small acts are insufficient." - Paul Rusesabagina, Rwandan and former hotel manager whose actions inspired the movie Hotel Rwanda
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
