I'm using Windows XPee

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by Zardoz:



I't good though, I'm impressed. I lived in Spain, I went there (Barcelona) when I was 3, came back when I was 12. I haven't been back for such a long time, I will though soon. And no I don't speak much Catalan. My family was there from 1973 at which point Catalan was illegal to speak.

Uh, 'Castellano' is not Catalan. 'Castellano' refers to the official Spanish dialect of Spain. I don't know which dialect I learnt, though, all I know is that we learnt more to write than to talk.

Why was Catalan illegal?

[jasonlane]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


Uh, 'Castellano' is not Catalan. 'Castellano' refers to the official Spanish dialect of Spain. I don't know which dialect I learnt, though, all I know is that we learnt more to write than to talk.

Why was Catalan illegal?

No, no. You're right Castellano is the official Spanish dialect. Catalan is something altogether different. Catalunya stretches from around Perpignan in France right down pass to Tortosa in Spain. Catalonian is a separate dialect, sort of a cross between French and Spanish. For Example:

"The books" in Catalan:

els llibres

In Castellano:

los libros

It's a very distinct area, with it's own language , cooking literature etc...

Why was it banned? Well the Catalans were on the loosing side in the Spanish Civil War, for the most part they had Labour, Marxist politics and they wanted (still want) independence. Franco made sure after the war that lot's of Castilians moved into that area of Spain to try and dilute the Catalan Population. Speaking Catalan in public was an arrestable offence. So when I was in school out there I learnt Castellano, not Catalan.


The Catalan Flag:



here's a link about Catalan history you might find interesting

Hope this answers your question       http://www10.gencat.net/gencat/AppJava/cat/catalunya/laclau/english/thepeople/history.jsp

[ September 22, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]

[hm_murdock]

The best way to determine what form of Spanish you know is..

if you pronounce the letter "z" as "seh-tuh" then you're generic spanish, if you pronounce it "theh-tuh" then it's Castellano

[Laukev7]

I guess it's Castillan Spanish, then, now I think of it. And we also pronounce 'll' as 'ghy' rather than south american 'y', and we used 'vosotros' as opposed to 'ustedes'.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:


I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm not like over-zealous Linux/Mac users who think the whole world needs to be running the same thing that I prefer. I'm not like overzealous Windows users(like that Microsoft Corporation dude) who think the same way over-zealous Linux/Mac users do. It does not make me feel inferior because everybody isn't using what I like to use. Using an OS as a status measurement is retarded.


Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what OS you all use. A person's OS preference is their OS preference. That is all that I can really say about it. I prefer to use Windows for some obvious reasons like it supports all of the software that I use and it runs flawlessly for me. Me saying that I prefer to use it doesn't mean I'm trying to push it on everybody else.

I do however take it upon myself to point out when people are talking complete BS. The thread starter probably isn't full of shit, XP may very well be running laggy on those shitty OEM school computers. However, just because it doesn't run well on shitty computers doesn't mean the OS has lag issues. If you use it on a decent computer it runs like a champ, so the blame for it's poor performance on those comps is the computer hardware...not the OS.

[ September 22, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

yes, Windows ME will run grate with a minimum of  a 128mb of ram even if the prossessor is a p1!!!!

But the question here is why should the 'hardware' be at fault?  

Personaly if you wanna use whatever OS you wanna use thats great!  But as far as 'overzellous,' Linux/macs  Nope I don't think so..........

Windows has cost the lives of admins evrywhere because it wasn't coded but stolen.  Too many sleepless nights, too many lost days.......

[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:


yes, Windows ME will run grate with a minimum of  a 128mb of ram even if the prossessor is a p1!!!!

But the question here is why should the 'hardware' be at fault?  

Personaly if you wanna use whatever OS you wanna use thats great!  But as far as 'overzellous,' Linux/macs  Nope I don't think so..........

Windows has cost the lives of admins evrywhere because it wasn't coded but stolen.  Too many sleepless nights, too many lost days.......

[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

You know what they say. Business is war. You make your product succeed at all costs. Microsoft is not the only business who practices that typical business model. The only reason why Windows costed all of the jobs you mention is because it was able to win the OS war.

Microsoft Windows did not start out as the dominant OS. It became dominant as more people chose to use it over what was available back in those days. Once it became so popular that it was a demand of consumers is when OEM's decided to bundle it with all of thier computers.

Nothing was stoping people from buying Macs with MacOS. Nothing was stopping people from buying Unix systems(other than the fact the command line interface was ohh so icky compared to the Windows interface). Nothing was stoping people from buying OS/2 pre-loaded machines. It is plain and simple, the lionshare of people who purchased computers back in that day wanted Windows...not the alternatives.....OEM's knew this and slowly started bundling Windows 3.1 as thier standard OS.

When Windows 95 was released it took the OS market by storm. It's inteface was fresh, very easy to use and it was capable of running all of the existing MSDOS/Win 3.1 apps in existence. Windows 95 is when MS won the OS wars. Hardley anybody bought computers with any other OS(like OS/2, Unix, DOS, Windows 3.1, etc.) after Windows 95 was released. Windows 95 is when OEM's pre-installed Windows on almost all of thier consumer level computers because the consumers wanted it.

Come the time of Windows 98 Microsoft introduced thier strict licensing agreements for OEM's to turn the very popular Windows OS into the *Definate Defacto Standard PC OS* and if they didn't follow that license they would lose thier right to pre-install Windows on thier systems. Of course OEM's didn't want to lose that right because by that time most consumers expected Windows to be on thier newly bought computers due to the huge success of Windows 95(everybody was familiar with Windows after 95) and the OEM's would've lost alot of sells if their computers didn't have Windows pre-installed.

The popularity of Windows 95 is what triggered software makers to make thier software mainly for Windows(and in alot of cases only for Windows).

Windows would've never been deemed as the preferred by consumer OS if people would've chosen the other OSes in the past. Just like I said...back in the days of Win 3.1 and the early days of Windows 95 nothing was stopping people from buying computers with other OSes. Windows didn't make itself the preferred OS.....the consumers did.

If the alternatives were so damn great, people would've wanted them back in the days of the OS wars. Just keep in mind, most people did not buy Macs, most people did not want OS/2, hardly anybody wanted Unix, most people didn't want Amiga, etc. They wanted WINDOWS!!!! To this day, most consumers expect to have Windows pre-installed on thier PC when they buy it. Most consumers don't even know what in the fuck Linux or Unix is. Alot of the consumers don't even know what a Mac is.


Microsoft won the war fair and square about 10 years ago. Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage when they won the war...they did it fair and square...end of story.

(EDIT)BTW, Windows as we know it is not stolen(shit like Lindows is stolen). Windows 95 had no resemblence to any other OS. It was unique. Granted, Windows 3.1 had alot in common with MacOS... and Windows 3.1 was nothing more than a MS version of OS/2(released after MS and IBM went their seperate ways). Windows 95....the OS that won the OS war for Microsoft...had nothing in common with the other OSes. The start menu alone was not in any of the other OSes. It was a fresh, new idea. Microsoft was smart to abandon the MacOS-like look and they were smart to abandon the OS/2 way w/Windows 95.

[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Faust]

quote:I'm willing to bet your school uses OEM computers. I guess shitty computers should have an old OS on it like Windows 2000.

Um...  is it me or did you just say that Windows runs crap on the typical OEM computer that 90% of people have?  No offense but Debian runs just dandy on the typical OEM computer I have, and Red Hat (his choice, not mine) runs quite well on my friends souped up computer...  But I suppose Windows isn't the right OS for a typical OEM computer huh?  Can't handle a bit of the OEM.  :-P  Pretty amusing that an OS (Windows XP) that you regularly tout as having the "best" hardware support is by your own admission quite crap on OEM machines.   BTW I now have a Sun Sparcstation running OpenBSD - wanna see if it'll run Windows XP zombie? :-P

 

quote:Business is war. You make your product succeed at all costs.

And exactly where in that sentence do you outline why it was acceptable for Microsoft to do this?  It's like a friend of mine trying to justify Downer using stand over tactics on the East Timorese to get there oil - "it's what countries do." Just because something HAPPENS doesnt mean it was RIGHT.

 

quote:Nothing was stoping people from buying Macs with MacOS. Nothing was stopping people from buying Unix systems(other than the fact the command line interface was ohh so icky compared to the Windows interface). Nothing was stoping people from buying OS/2 pre-loaded machines. It is plain and simple, the lionshare of people who purchased computers back in that day wanted Windows...not the alternatives.....OEM's knew this and slowly started bundling Windows 3.1 as thier standard OS.

The majority of people also like crap like Brittney Spears and the Backstreet Boys - it doesn't make them good bands.

 

quote:Most consumers don't even know what in the fuck Linux or Unix is.

Yes, this is known as "advertising" and "populism."

 

quote:(shit like Lindows is stolen)

No it just copies the theme of Windows - unless you want a horde of Mac users to laugh at you, I wouldn't call that stealing.  Well I guess Lindows is shit so maybe it did steal something from Windows.  :-D  :-D  :-D

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Microsoft won the war fair and square about 10 years ago. Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage when they won the war...they did it fair and square...end of story.

They bought their monopoly in $'s.
 ...fair???  :rolleyes:

[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[Laukev7]

Sorry, Viper, but the truth isn't quite how you outlined it. First, Bill Gates took advantage of IBM's monopoly to preinstall MS-DOS on all PC's, so that when the clones came, they had to use MS-DOS to stay compatible. (BTW, MS-DOS was plagiarised from the OS of one of his good friends Gary Kildall, CP/M). Then, Bill Gates bullied OEM's with licensing agreements (since he was the sole provider of MS-DOS) into only loading MS-DOS or Windows on their computers (which, BTW, contributed to kill BeOS on the desktop).

So, the true reason why M$ is a monopoly today is because they took advantage of IBM's monopoly (only to screw them later) and illegally punished OEM's for installing anything else than Windows, which brought an antitrust lawsuit against them.

[Refalm]

quote:Originally posted by Viper: I even managed to get it to run decently on a buddies Pentium II 233mhz(oc'ed to 300mhz) on i440BX chipset w/256MB of PC-100 SDRAM(a system I built for him a long time ago).

That's nothing. I got Windows XP running lagless on my parents' Pentium-MMX 200 MHz, 96 MB RAM, 16 MB SVGA (Voodoo 3) (except for WMP 8, Windows Video editor running like shit, but that doesn't matter, Winamp does the music and movies just file and my parents don't need to edit video).