From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Nov 29 7:57: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.radzinschi.com (cc222717-a.owml1.md.home.com [65.8.33.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DF037B439 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:57:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (marco@localhost.radzinschi.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.radzinschi.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fATFvZp00647; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:57:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from marco@radzinschi.com) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:57:35 -0500 (EST) From: Marco Radzinschi To: Anthony Atkielski Cc: FreeBDS-Questions Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. In-Reply-To: <01b501c17891$a5f56b40$0a00000a@atkielski.com> Message-ID: <20011129104417.H528-100000@mail.radzinschi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: [snip!] > Note that the event-driven architecture of Windows requires a lot of swapping in > itself, regardless of memory-management algorithms. For example, significant > events must be signalled to _every_ program that owns windows, and that means > that every program must be in memory to process the events, which often requires > a ton of swapping. I've seen this on many occasions. > > UNIX does not communicate between processes or between system nearly as much, > particularly with respect to asynchronous events. As a result, it does not have > to constantly swap processes in just to tell them that a user has, say, moved a > mouse. This is a MAJOR design flaw in Windows. The Operating System should take care of these events, instead of signaling EVERY program so that THEY independently take care of them. In the X Window system, for example, the programs do not have to worry about simple events. Much better design. > > Frankly, it sounds like you're religiously > > devoted to Windows on the desktop. > > Not religiously devoted, just objective enough to recognize that Windows is the > best desktop solution at this time. > You are wrong in this regard. Windows is the best desktop solution for you and many other people, but not for everyone. I would not want to do video editing on Windows - not even Windows 2000. Neither FreeBSD nor Windows is *BETTER* for the desktop. It all depends on what the user intends to use the desktop computer for. [snip!] > > Quite frankly, there's no reason for formatting > > a document using MS' proprietary *.DOC format > > when they look just as good in properly formatted > > HTML. > > HTML provides far less control over formatting than MS Word. And MS Word seems > hopelessly imprecise to those of us who do our work in Quark XPress. You are 100% correct on this, Mr. Atkielski. Word certainly does provide more formatting control than HTML. Quark XPress also provides a hell of a lot more control than Word. Comparing Quark to Word, though, is a bit like comparing a Lamborghini or a Ferrari to a Chevrolet or Ford car. :-) - Marco Radzinschi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message