Is the stability. Also the vast number of easy to come by applications. And they all meet or exceed industry standards everywhere. Microsoft Word and other Office apps are what get taught in school, and it's what I'm glad to have learned. And for development, I was lucky enough to go to a place that taught in Visual C++.
I agree. While the 9x and NT machines were a little bumpy, they got MS in the door. Now 2000/XP are very stable and easy to use. All the applications that my company uses are in MS OS. Linux and Mac machines simply don't have the applications that an Oil Drilling company needs. Certainly are are/some/, but not nearly enough to support the company being "half on one foot".
Finally: I don't care if Bill is rich enough. It's not my concern. I have better things to do than hate a company because it's "big". I'm certain that when linux grows large enough and starts serving every possible customer, things will bump into each other and cause problems, too.
Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts. Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user.
Thankfully I am not forced to use XP at work (our IT director feels roughly the same way about it), but I know many people who are, and every one of them has continuous difficulty with it.
It has now become clear to me that in the next year or two, once finding drivers for new hardware for Win2K starts to become an issue, that I will be forced to switch to MacOS or Linux, after being a Windows user since 3.0. Good work, M$.
Thankfully I am not forced to use XP at work (our IT director feels roughly the same way about it), but I know many people who are, and every one of them has continuous difficulty with it.
Sounds like you have a problem between the chair and the keyboard. I've been running XP for close to a year now, and haven't had any stability issues. And I'm one of those horrible people that install and try things out constantly. (What can I say? I'm a technophile).
So why am I using XP? Ok, first and foremost, games. Plus, having MS give a a free copy of XP Pro helped. The driver support is nice, I've almost never had to run around the internet looking for drivers. And not having to track down a million different dependancies just to install a driver.
Also, I don't hate MS, I have no reason to. What exactly did they ever do to me? Overcharge me for the OS? No, they charged a price, and it was not above the amount I was willing to pay for it. Security holes? Not seen an OS that didn't have those since I ran DOS 2.11 (I think that the lack of networking might have helped a bit). Horrendous licensing agreements? Not really, so I can't put it on multipul machines, that's fine, I see no reason that I should expect it to be free. Monoploistic practices? In a lot of ways Netscape did themselves in, I gave both a try, I forget version numbers, but I liked IE better at the time. Same reason I now use Mozilla, I like it better.
So far the only reason I have considered switching to Linux was the inital buy in cost. $0 vs $250, nice trade off. Of course there is the learning curve to deal with. The phun of drivers to deal with. The fact that I'm not a programmer, and so don't need to be able, nor am I able, to read/modify the source code. And of couse, there are the ever present man pages, oh boy is that ever one of the worst sets of documentation I have ever seen. I challenge anyone to hand those to a user, that has no programming knowledge, and have that user explain them to you.
Now maybe it was just the distrobution I was trying (RH 7.0), but the attempts I have made at working with Linux have left me less than happy. And it eats up time, which I consider to have value.
You can set almost all of the UI changes back to Windows 2k style and the others are largely cosmetic (who cares what color the friggin start button is?)
As far as stability is concerned I've been running it for quite some time now and have found it to be every bit as stable as Win2k. I generally reboot every couple of weeks. I have also found it is better at detecting and installing hardware.
I must say that I also don't agree with the direction that Microsoft is going in terms of licensing and such but XP is a solid product and you do it wrong by saying otherwise with (apparently) no direct experience with it.
Stable??!?!?! XP??? In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard). We just did (I own a healthcare IT company) our first full roll-out using XP Professional (New Dell 1.8GHz desktops with XP) and ended up down-grading every machine to 2000 Professional. The users had been on Windows 98 and complained incessintly that their applications were half the speed they used to be (on much slower machines I might add). The truth of the matter is that they were correct. As an experiment we blew away two of the new Dell's and installed 98/2000 on them respectively. Their apps (electronic medical records system, document management system, billing system, Office, etc.) side-by-side were significantly faster on the older OSs. 98 was a smidge faster than 2K but we used 2K for HIPAA compliance reasons. There's a little real-world experience for what it's worth.
To be fair, I think you have conflated the concept of "too slow" with "too slow in the available physical RAM."
I assume (not using it myself) that XP requires more RAM than 98 or 2000, so that swapping might be increased on old RAM-starved machines.
If you added enough RAM to accomodate the extra XP memory usage, then the speed might not be as different. This isn't a point in XP's favor, of course, but it would answer whether the problem is "XP is too slow" or "XP uses too much RAM."
Ok, i didn't even have an account on Slashdot before i saw the above two posts, but i completely disagree with both of them, and had to make my opinion known. Now, i am in NO WAY a fan of Microsoft, and personally i love the Mac OS and Mandrake, but there just needs to be something said here.
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble:D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.
I use redhat 8.0 beta. I use windows XP Professional. I use gentoo on my other computer. Recently i decided that it would be fun to test out performance data comparing linux and windows and this was my setup. I used my POS (compared to most nowadays) main computer and installed Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo. I have a 800 mhz P3, a GForce 3 ti200 and 512 megs of RDRAM at PC800 (yeah THAT was a stupid buy...). I used the Live Eval version of gentoo. Gentoo is close to THE fastest most stable linux distro. This live eval copy had only one purpose: to play this demo. In fact, the OS was so scrapped down that it could barely do anything but play it. Because of the 512 megs of ram, the OS was loaded completely into the memory so you people cant use the excuse that it was reading off of cd. I also installed it under windows (no explination needed). So in fact, everything was in favor of the linux setup (i.e. everyting reading from ram, scrapped down to nothing). I got a +2 and -2 fps difference depending on the rezolution.
As for responsiveness. Windows XP wins. Gui? no contest, XP and then Mac OS 10.2 outdoes them all. Now, i use the true type fonts under linux, but stuff in browsers still doesn't look that good.
linux is good...Its just not practical enough for me to use it more then 40% of the time. As one of my friends said who stopped using linux on his mac and started 10.2, "it just WORKS". Thats what linux needs. It needs to just work better, run better, look better (clarity is a big problem), and have more programs (even if we have to pay for some of them!)
Sigh... i thought my one little blurb on Slashdot would be my first and last, but i can't help defending myself.:/
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site [themexp.org] features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux;
I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw this little nugget.
You may already be aware, but just in case you're not, there are a few *nix equivalents for these "applications you can't live without":
WinAmp: Try XMMS. It does everything WinAmp does, plus several things it can't, and even looks and works the same (it is 100% skin-compatible with WinAmp). Of all the *nix equivalents, XMMS is probably the closest match. Home Page [xmms.org]
Photoshop: Of course, everyone will tell you that The GIMP is a worthy replacement for Adobe's product. In practice, it lacks only a few high-end features (such as CMYK color separation) that professional users require; but for everyday use it's very close indeed. Try the Win32 port first, though, to help determine if it's right for you. Home Page [gimp.org]
Flash MX:...You've got me here. I don't think there's a single Flash solution for *nix, beyond the outdated Flash 5 plugin for Netscape/Mozilla. Anyone with better knowledge?
Nero: Believe it or not, Nero disc images are simply ISOs with a different TLA tacked on, so switching to Linux or another *nix doesn't require giving up the ability to use them. For CD burning and mastering, I've found cdrecord to be an excellent program, almost as easy to use as Nero, and unlike Nero I've yet to make a coaster with this thing. Excellent piece of software. Home Page [fokus.gmd.de]
Exact Audio Copy:...I admit it, I don't know what this program is - I've never heard of it. Thus, I can't give an alternative for it, I fear...
I meant to type gnome-toaster instead, which is the GUI frontend for cdrecord. I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry about that - I do know better than that, really.
Heh, quite aware, in fact. As to the reason why i gave those examples, allow me to clarify:
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC [exactaudiocopy.de] is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.
I have better things to do than hate a company because it's "big".
I beg your pardon, but please give us a little more credit. Those of us who are against M$ on moral grounds object not simply because they are "big", but because they are an illegal monopoly who have used unscrupulous, illegal, and incredibly wrong practices to drive competitors out of the market and will do anything to increase market share. Only their incredible good fortune in GWB coming to office when he did saved them from suffering serious--but deserved--consequences from their reprehensible practices. I will never give M$ any of my money, and I will do my best to be sure no one else does, until they can demonstrate that they have changed. To me, this is not a luxury, it is a moral duty. I will boycott any company that is willfully and deliberately doing wrong that I know of, and urge others to do the same.
First off, parroting "illegal monopoly" makes you sound like a hell of a gov't supporter. I suppose that if, I dunno, vegetables were outlawed, then you'd say you wouldn't eat "illegal vegetables"? Hell, and as far as I'm concerned (thinking for myself now... not parroting), MS isn't a monopoly. There are alternatives, but most people just aren't interested. Forcing people to pick alternatives (ie: the gov't destroying a company) is getting pretty close to a dictatorial gov't. Let the people chose. By and large, the people have chose MS, whether you like it or not.
As far as "Wrong" practices, they've never done anything other than compete in the marketplace. Period. They've produced better products (Recently), they've lowered prices, and they've done a hell of a good job with marketing. If you think that any of this is "wrong", then perhaps you should go live in a cave, because every company on the planet does these things.
Holy shit, he's a fucking gov't supporter! Burn his fucking civilized ass! Jesus fucking Christ. I'm sorry you feel it's just so terribly fucking fascist to try and maintain reasonable competition in one of your country's major industries.
It doesn't fucking matter if they haven't hired assassins to shoot at you personally yet, they're still the dominating force in an industry the livelihoods of millions of people depend on. They don't have to be wrong. They're a publicly held company, which means it makes decisions based on the extracted greed of 100 million stockholders. It's called thinking when you try and steer them so that they don't end up in a situation where it's likely those decisions would be bad for your fucking citizens.
There's a reason it's called a remedy and not a punishment. They weren't punishing IBM or Standard fucking Oil, they were trying to keep industries from going to fucking shit on a waterslide. One of the "gov't" jobs is to keep your ass happy. That's why they pay some fucking attention to the companies the country runs off of. Wheather you like it or not, MS runs battleships. MS runs 90% of the computers our economy is based on. Just like IBM did. Just like Bell did with phones, and just like fucking Standard Oil did with the fucking oil that keeps Wisconsin from freezing to death between September and May. It's called being a fucking moron when you just ignore a company that could theoretically trigger a fucking recession all on it's own, whether people like their products or not.
Wow. I'm not sure where to begin. How about "government supporter." If you mean that I support the administration of George W. Bush, if you'd read my post, it would have been at least implied that I am very strongly against him. If you mean, however, that I am not an anarchist, and support having a government, well, then yeah, I'm a government supporter. Does not being an anarchist make me evil?
Your analogy with vegetables is somewhat off the mark. It has no basis in existing law, common sense, or any sort of benefit to people, while finding Microsoft to be an illegal monopoly was part of laws that, in theory, protect consumers from unscrupulous companies. My point in using the word "illegal" was simply to be specific; they were a monopoly long before they were found to be such in the courts. And I have, perhaps, a somewhat narrower definition of "monopoly" than you do, and I don't insist that you agree to it. My definition is that in order to not be a monopoly, there must not only be competition, but there must be some reasonable chance of that competition ousting the company in question from the #1 spot. That doesn't mean that they have to be less that 1% apart in market share or anything, but I think that having 90% or more qualifies them as a monopoly under this definition. BTW, I fully expect a response along the lines of "so we can define monopoly however we want;" however, I feel that this is a reasonable definition. As I said, though, I don't insist that you agree, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.
I would say that the problem isn't that people aren't interested in alternatives; the majority either don't care, or truly don't understand that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows". (I've done tech support; I promise, these people really exist)
As far as "wrong" practices, things they've done have been quite illegal, and found to be so in court. They have also, though it's less advertised, by both them and the government you love so much, done even more interesting things with their finances than Enron. I'm afraid I don't know where to find proof, so if you don't believe me, I can't back it up. And finally, when a company is found to be an illegal monopoly, doing the same things that every other company on the planet does suddenly is not permitted--many activities that fight competition, normal for normal businesses, are illegal for monopolies.
Oh, and I also disagree about the "better products" thing, but that's pure opinion, and I don't expect to convince anyone on that.
Thank you for some stimulating discussion,
Dan Aris
Right... except for when you want to get some REAL work done. I suppose you do all that fancy simulation stuff that saves you millions of dollars when looking for where to drill for oil on a Windows box, eh?
The "you guys hate BillG cuz he's an amazing success" notion isn't necessarily correct. Actually, the more sensible MS-dislikers among us (myself included) really don't care if MS is as rich as God (and actually, as of last quarter, Bill Gates was approximately 23 times richer than him anyhow;) ).
Most sensible people who dislike Microsoft dislike it for HOW it got big.
Namely, the various illegal/"immoral" (by many of our definitions of that word, anyhow) actions which MS performed... many of which were mentioned in the Feds' lawsuit.
>Linux and Mac machines simply don't have the applications that an Oil Drilling company needs.
This might surprise you, but that strikes me as unusual. From my (albeit limited) experience, much heavy machinery operates on DOS. (Oh, the pains of trying to network some vinyl making machines...)
I would have thought of all things, Oil Rigs would be using it too.
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
-- Dave Olson
What keeps me on windows (Score:1, Troll)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Thankfully I am not forced to use XP at work (our IT director feels roughly the same way about it), but I know many people who are, and every one of them has continuous difficulty with it.
It has now become clear to me that in the next year or two, once finding drivers for new hardware for Win2K starts to become an issue, that I will be forced to switch to MacOS or Linux, after being a Windows user since 3.0. Good work, M$.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Sounds like you have a problem between the chair and the keyboard. I've been running XP for close to a year now, and haven't had any stability issues. And I'm one of those horrible people that install and try things out constantly. (What can I say? I'm a technophile).
So why am I using XP? Ok, first and foremost, games. Plus, having MS give a a free copy of XP Pro helped. The driver support is nice, I've almost never had to run around the internet looking for drivers. And not having to track down a million different dependancies just to install a driver.
Also, I don't hate MS, I have no reason to. What exactly did they ever do to me? Overcharge me for the OS? No, they charged a price, and it was not above the amount I was willing to pay for it. Security holes? Not seen an OS that didn't have those since I ran DOS 2.11 (I think that the lack of networking might have helped a bit). Horrendous licensing agreements? Not really, so I can't put it on multipul machines, that's fine, I see no reason that I should expect it to be free. Monoploistic practices? In a lot of ways Netscape did themselves in, I gave both a try, I forget version numbers, but I liked IE better at the time. Same reason I now use Mozilla, I like it better.
So far the only reason I have considered switching to Linux was the inital buy in cost. $0 vs $250, nice trade off. Of course there is the learning curve to deal with. The phun of drivers to deal with. The fact that I'm not a programmer, and so don't need to be able, nor am I able, to read/modify the source code. And of couse, there are the ever present man pages, oh boy is that ever one of the worst sets of documentation I have ever seen. I challenge anyone to hand those to a user, that has no programming knowledge, and have that user explain them to you.
Now maybe it was just the distrobution I was trying (RH 7.0), but the attempts I have made at working with Linux have left me less than happy. And it eats up time, which I consider to have value.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
You can set almost all of the UI changes back to Windows 2k style and the others are largely cosmetic (who cares what color the friggin start button is?)
As far as stability is concerned I've been running it for quite some time now and have found it to be every bit as stable as Win2k. I generally reboot every couple of weeks. I have also found it is better at detecting and installing hardware.
I must say that I also don't agree with the direction that Microsoft is going in terms of licensing and such but XP is a solid product and you do it wrong by saying otherwise with (apparently) no direct experience with it.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Why?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
ER
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
I assume (not using it myself) that XP requires more RAM than 98 or 2000, so that swapping might be increased on old RAM-starved machines.
If you added enough RAM to accomodate the extra XP memory usage, then the speed might not be as different. This isn't a point in XP's favor, of course, but it would answer whether the problem is "XP is too slow" or "XP uses too much RAM."
Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble :D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
As for responsiveness. Windows XP wins. Gui? no contest, XP and then Mac OS 10.2 outdoes them all. Now, i use the true type fonts under linux, but stuff in browsers still doesn't look that good.
linux is good...Its just not practical enough for me to use it more then 40% of the time. As one of my friends said who stopped using linux on his mac and started 10.2, "it just WORKS". Thats what linux needs. It needs to just work better, run better, look better (clarity is a big problem), and have more programs (even if we have to pay for some of them!)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site [themexp.org] features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw this little nugget.
You may already be aware, but just in case you're not, there are a few *nix equivalents for these "applications you can't live without":
WinAmp: Try XMMS. It does everything WinAmp does, plus several things it can't, and even looks and works the same (it is 100% skin-compatible with WinAmp). Of all the *nix equivalents, XMMS is probably the closest match. Home Page [xmms.org]
Photoshop: Of course, everyone will tell you that The GIMP is a worthy replacement for Adobe's product. In practice, it lacks only a few high-end features (such as CMYK color separation) that professional users require; but for everyday use it's very close indeed. Try the Win32 port first, though, to help determine if it's right for you. Home Page [gimp.org]
Flash MX:
Nero: Believe it or not, Nero disc images are simply ISOs with a different TLA tacked on, so switching to Linux or another *nix doesn't require giving up the ability to use them. For CD burning and mastering, I've found cdrecord to be an excellent program, almost as easy to use as Nero, and unlike Nero I've yet to make a coaster with this thing. Excellent piece of software. Home Page [fokus.gmd.de]
Exact Audio Copy:
Correction... (Score:1)
I meant to type gnome-toaster instead, which is the GUI frontend for cdrecord. I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry about that - I do know better than that, really.
Gnome-toaster home page [rulez.org]
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC [exactaudiocopy.de] is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Dan Aris
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
As far as "Wrong" practices, they've never done anything other than compete in the marketplace. Period. They've produced better products (Recently), they've lowered prices, and they've done a hell of a good job with marketing. If you think that any of this is "wrong", then perhaps you should go live in a cave, because every company on the planet does these things.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
It doesn't fucking matter if they haven't hired assassins to shoot at you personally yet, they're still the dominating force in an industry the livelihoods of millions of people depend on. They don't have to be wrong. They're a publicly held company, which means it makes decisions based on the extracted greed of 100 million stockholders. It's called thinking when you try and steer them so that they don't end up in a situation where it's likely those decisions would be bad for your fucking citizens.
There's a reason it's called a remedy and not a punishment. They weren't punishing IBM or Standard fucking Oil, they were trying to keep industries from going to fucking shit on a waterslide. One of the "gov't" jobs is to keep your ass happy. That's why they pay some fucking attention to the companies the country runs off of. Wheather you like it or not, MS runs battleships. MS runs 90% of the computers our economy is based on. Just like IBM did. Just like Bell did with phones, and just like fucking Standard Oil did with the fucking oil that keeps Wisconsin from freezing to death between September and May. It's called being a fucking moron when you just ignore a company that could theoretically trigger a fucking recession all on it's own, whether people like their products or not.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
13
Nice score!
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Your analogy with vegetables is somewhat off the mark. It has no basis in existing law, common sense, or any sort of benefit to people, while finding Microsoft to be an illegal monopoly was part of laws that, in theory, protect consumers from unscrupulous companies. My point in using the word "illegal" was simply to be specific; they were a monopoly long before they were found to be such in the courts. And I have, perhaps, a somewhat narrower definition of "monopoly" than you do, and I don't insist that you agree to it. My definition is that in order to not be a monopoly, there must not only be competition, but there must be some reasonable chance of that competition ousting the company in question from the #1 spot. That doesn't mean that they have to be less that 1% apart in market share or anything, but I think that having 90% or more qualifies them as a monopoly under this definition. BTW, I fully expect a response along the lines of "so we can define monopoly however we want;" however, I feel that this is a reasonable definition. As I said, though, I don't insist that you agree, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.
I would say that the problem isn't that people aren't interested in alternatives; the majority either don't care, or truly don't understand that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows". (I've done tech support; I promise, these people really exist)
As far as "wrong" practices, things they've done have been quite illegal, and found to be so in court. They have also, though it's less advertised, by both them and the government you love so much, done even more interesting things with their finances than Enron. I'm afraid I don't know where to find proof, so if you don't believe me, I can't back it up. And finally, when a company is found to be an illegal monopoly, doing the same things that every other company on the planet does suddenly is not permitted--many activities that fight competition, normal for normal businesses, are illegal for monopolies.
Oh, and I also disagree about the "better products" thing, but that's pure opinion, and I don't expect to convince anyone on that.
Thank you for some stimulating discussion,
Dan Aris
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Most sensible people who dislike Microsoft dislike it for HOW it got big.
Namely, the various illegal/"immoral" (by many of our definitions of that word, anyhow) actions which MS performed... many of which were mentioned in the Feds' lawsuit.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
This might surprise you, but that strikes me as unusual. From my (albeit limited) experience, much heavy machinery operates on DOS. (Oh, the pains of trying to network some vinyl making machines...)
I would have thought of all things, Oil Rigs would be using it too.