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!)
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.
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.
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.
I don't remember the last time a PC crash stopped me in the middle of using my computer--I suspect it was playing UT, which is hardly Windows's fault.
If a single app brought down your whole machine, then yes, it IS Windows's fault. No OS should ever crash because of an errant process. I have yet to experience a kernel-fault in Linux, even though I've had plenty of applications and server processes die, yet my Windows XP box still crashes occasionally due to a single program (sure, XP is miles ahead of older versions for stablity, but it still has a few more miles to go).
NVIDIA's Gl drivers will break linux randomly. But then again, they're drivers, kernel modules. *shrug*. And bad hardware will make linux crash too. I've done it.
But then again...That's all the problems i've ever had. ever. two. XP just plain doesn't like my system and blows chunks ALL THE TIME, 2K wouldn't install, and 9x craps out about once a day. *shrug*.
If you run a server on your gaming rig, and the server goes down because your game crashes, don't be surprised. When you are using a computer for gaming, it's supposed to be the only thing you're doing on your machine, for a variety of reasons.
3D games crash computers. They do it on ALL platforms with no exceptions. This can be caused by either hardware OR software reasons, and in very few cases is the fault of the OS itself.
Why indeed? Were you perhaps hoping to play UT2K3 in a window and do your taxes while capturing the enemy flag? I think not.
The GameCube is not a desktop computer. It may have similar physical hardware, but it is not a computer. This point has been argued before. My calculator has the same processor as my old computer, that doesn't make my calculator a desktop computer.
Were you perhaps hoping to play UT2K3 in a window and do your taxes while capturing the enemy flag? I think not.
No, but if I'm doing my taxes and somebody invites me to play Q3A, I should be able to minimize my taxes, fire up Q3A, and when I'm done playing, come back to my taxes.
You still didn't answer my question about simpler games such as Tetris.
If Q3A would have crashed the whole computer, I think it likely that it would have crashed under Linux too. Hard lockups in games are not usually due to the OS, but drivers. Blame nVidia or ATI, not Microsoft.
As for tetris, I should have said full-screen 3D games. Tetris would run in a window and probably if it did crash just produce an error dialog.
Yes, GameCube crashes. It has been reported to lock-up in only one place: Hoth on Star Wars: Rouge Leader. It has happened once on my GameCube when a friend was doing some weird manuvers into the ground. People who modded their GameCubes report more often crashes on that level (modding requires removing the thermal gel the seals the heat sink).
I'd like to note that I didn't mod my GameCube. To your question: yes you could, when people realised that modding made their GameCubes overheat more often some people suggested thermal gel to reseal it, but it still won't be as good as new.
No, older versions of Windows. Oh, and non-professionaly admin'd installs of Linux.
I don't remember the last time a PC crash stopped me in the middle of using my computer--I suspect it was playing UT, which is hardly Windows's fault.
If a user-space app crashes your OS (and a fork bomb brining it to a crawl doesn't truly count as a crash), there's something wrong with the OS. It's a design or implementation flaw somewhere.
It's really hard to administer Linux so poorly that it has stability problems. I've only had Linux crash for two reasons, both being hardware failures. (And when my HD locked up, it didn't even really crash, it just started printing out all of these errors that it couldn't save logs to disk.) In order to have non-hardware stability problems under linux, you need to go download an experimental kernel or kernel module. Sometimes you can't configure X11 and can't get X up and running, but the system still runs. Netscape isn't stable, but there are plenty of stable browsers out there.
I challenge you to find an app that can crash Debian-stable from an unprivledged account. Tell you what, I'm running Debian-testing/unstable. find a program that'll crsh my box from an unprivledged account. Here's one for WinNT/200/XP:
int main() { while(1){ printf("\t\b\b");} return 0;}
Try running it from the command line. (You'll need to include a header file or two, and you may need cygwin to compile it as written.) In NT and 2000, it'll BSOD. In XP they "fixed" the problem by having it autmatically reboot instead of blue-screening. It's a buffer unerflow flaw in the DOS emulation. It believes the DOS emulator is a vitalpart of the system, so it freaks out when it's forced to kill the DOS emulator. Instead of just restarting the DOS emulator and letting all of your DOS apps die, it immediately kills all of your apps and BSODs or restarts. NT 4.0 gets no more bug fixes, so it's a permanent bug in NT 4.0.
I got winxp a year ago (for my adobe apps) and I am happy to say its much more stable than win98.
Still, windows explorer and msie freeze on a regular basis. Also Mozilla does bork out at moments. I've had a few instances where I had to reboot the machine.
As to a linux desktop - when my kde 3.1 beta freezes i can ssh in from another box and kill the process that freezes my machine. But if i run icewm on it instead chances of a lockup are much less. Thats a choice that can be made:)
The oldest webserver that I admin is a linux box running on a (then new) 400 mhz celeron. The only downtime it had was for kernel updates and one move to a new colo. It never destabilized by itself. Thats about 4 years of stability.
I've been running 2000/XP for years now, and I can probably count the number of blue screens I've seen in that time on one hand. I'd really like to know how the myth of ever-present blue screens keeps getting perpetuated. Is it just everybody out there is still running Win9X and doesn't know how to keep the programs loaded at boot at a minimum? (I ran a very stable 98 box prior, but I had to rule over it with an iron hand and regedit)
If you're still running Win9X and you hate how instable it is, go and get an upgrade. You can probably find Win2k CD's cheap online.
I'd really like to know how the myth of ever-present blue screens keeps getting perpetuated.
How about some systemic issues that onyl seem to crop up with windows machines? Try this nVidia loop error here [viaarena.com]. Ever try to change from an AGP video card to a PCI one or visa versa in 2k/XP? I've has BSODs on 2k/XP on several different platforms (HP/Compaq/Dell/IBM/Gateway) for literraly hundereds of different reasons. Our VP/IS won't let the company go XP for this very reason. They have tested it and it didn't pass. 2k with SP3 is the minimum allowed windows operating system.
I agree that 2k is miles ahead of 9x in stability, but I don't think you can easily dissmiss the BSOD.
I'd really like to know how the myth of ever-present blue screens keeps getting perpetuated.
Because big OEMs sell you crappy systems.
They want to pump the CPU MHz up to sell the system thanks to the bignumber effect. They want to keep the price low. Hence, a lot of the rest of the system will be crap.
I have run W95, W98, W2K and WXP, often on overclocked systems, and the only bluescreens I have seen are from beta drivers or failing/flaky hardware.
God I love regedit. I distinctly remember one incident where my girlfriend had a program running (revealed in the Ctrl-Alt-Delete dialog) that she couldn't identify. I don't remember what the specific name was--we'll just call it abc.exe. So, she fired up regedit, searched for abc.exe, and indiscriminantly deleted all the keys that showed up. I almost shit my pants. ("Are you absofreakinglutely sure you want to do that?!?")
The program turned out to be BackOrifice, so it was a good thing that it was killed utterly. Regedit is so cool.
Yeah, I guess two. It seems like years...I guess life is like that:)
But Windows still hasn't blue screened on me. By and large, almost all blue screens are caused by bad hardware drivers. I'm sorry your particular configuration of hardware and drivers causes your machine to crash.
That's a danger when your operating system supports thousands and thousands of devices. Microsoft and/or hardware companies simply cannot test all configurations of hardware, OS versions and drivers. They do the best they can, but sometimes folks find something that was missed. The alternative is to limit the hardware: Apple does this. They know exactly what goes into every box, and can really test the hell out of those configs. I like windows supporting anything I stick in my box, and don't think MS should back down from that goal.
Compared to linux, where your GLX module will decied to break randomly every few weeks. In linux I spent more time getting games to work than I did playing them. Finally I got fed up enough to just switch to XP, which is much slower but atleast it works consistently. (For reference, most of that time spent was reinstalling wine, followed by reinstalling nvidia's drivers).
I'm an admin for several production servers, I know what I'm doing. The nvidia drivers installer is totaly insane. It leave behind dead symlinks that manually have to be corrected, and never mentions it in the install. As for the commands you listed, even if I was a rpm user, It still wouldnt work. You forget to mention what happens when games need to change bitdepth, or change rez (winex can handle this now, it couldnt before).
And you're assuming I have commercial winex (I do, but thats beside the point). If you've ever compared what the clutter in cvs compiles to the official binaries, you'd wonder why they even provide it.
My Win2k workstation has 31 days 7 hours 33mins of uptime as of this point. Would have been 53days except for that damn power outage. A solid month and Morrowind. What more can I ask for?:)
My Win2k workstation has 31 days 7 hours 33mins of uptime as of this point. Would have been 53days except for that damn power outage. A solid month and Morrowind. What more can I ask for?:)
Wow stability?! Although Win2k is quite stable... compared to other versions of windows. I find it just does hold up to unices. I always found applications easier to come by on the unices. For example FreeBSD ports is great way. Search the the ports and try out one of thousands of apps that seem to way superior to Windows counterparts.
BTW, I don't know if 'unices' is the correct terminology. Should I say *nixes?
'Stability'. Is this Onion-esqu irony or is this person insane? I have to use windows at work and it is a total nightmare. It would be hard to switch here because everyone uses MS Office apps for to write documents,etc. This in itself is idiotic. All our source code is kept in CVS and works great yet people insist on trying to use this "Track Changes" junk in MS Word. (Of course, word and CVS dont get along because Work is binary.)
I suppose I should try openoffice and see it would work for me.
On second reading, I have decide that the original post is indeed tounge in cheek. What else could "lucky" and "learn" and "Visual C++" be doing in the same sentence.
Furthermore, to me, KDE is just an imitation of Windows desktop, only a lot slower.
Complete and utter shit, my friend. KDE is far more themeable than you obviously realize. Distros theme KDE to look and feel like Windows so that 'cl00less n00bs' feel more at home. What do they get in return? MS cheerleaders saying KDE looks too much like Windows (hence, it's trying to be Windows; hence, it is inferior--somewhere along the line 'Linux' gets confused for KDE).
By the way, there are way more Aqua/OSX themes for KDE than for XP, and there are a number of completely unique themes. Keep in mind that themes are more than just Winamp 'skins'--they can overhaul the look of the entire widget set. With respect to KDE being slower, that again is the distro's "fault" for building without prelinking and being forced to build for depracated architectures (i.e. 586 and below).
You, my friend, are completely full of shit on your second point. As far as Windows being stable (first point), it seems both Linux and Windows have mixed reviews. I haven't used Windows in like 4 years so I don't know much about it.
> Funny enough, you say that I am full of shit about the second point. But your points about KDE support my second point. Read carefully, or are you full of shit too:)
First off, I compiled KDE from scratch using prelinking and a good amount of optimizations. I also compiled Mosfet's hi-perfomance liquid style engine. The ui looks better than Windows, but that's not what we're debating. I haven't installed Windows on this and never will, so I can't compare, but KDE runs fine for me.
As for the pre-emptive patch, that doesn't mean Linux is slow, it merely increases how often the kernel processes messages, so for example the 'networking' latency involved with moving windows around in X is reduced. Is this the patch you're talking about? It did get merged into the devel source tree iirc. If not, you know a nice kernel buzzword to impress people on Slashdot with (but speed is not pertinent here; merely KDE not being a Windows clone).
Anyways, your point (which you now claim I bolstered) was that KDE is trying to be like Windows, but fails because it's too slow. I showed it to be untrue first of all because KDE is made to look like Windows in distros, and can really look and behave like almost anything you want it to. That was enough to show that the point was moot. As for the slowness, I didn't seriously address it beyond giving my testimonial, since speed is relative to the machine and user. KDE is fast *for me*, but maybe that's because I have 512mb ram and 2 1ghz p3s.
Your post then goes on to refute my consideration of slowness, because I did not intend to construct an argument on that (nor could I effectively). You don't even mention the real meat of my original post. You took what you felt you could argue easily and ran with it.
Even if I were to give up on the speed thing, the fact remains that saying KDE is a slow Windows look-alike is complete fucking bullshit because KDE is not a Windows look-alike.
I also compiled Mosfet's hi-perfomance liquid style engine. The ui looks better than Windows, but that's not what we're debating.
Yeah, man, you can't beat the random noise left behind some "transparent" menus or the completely incorrect backgrounds left under some pulldown menus when you activate them. You'd think that open source people would be able to implement something as simple as alpha channels properly, but apparently that is not the case.
I don't use menu transparency, so I wouldn't know. In fact, I'd venture to say that the real issue is that no one really tests them out much because no one else uses them. They look fine in screenshots, but even correctly done transparent menus look and behave silly.
That being said, Mosfet tends to shift focus from many projects at a time, so it's not uncommon that a few quirks can stick around for a few releases.
Still, since transparency is an "extra" feature built on top of an "extra" ui engine, I don't think this needs to be criticized too heavily.
True, I am stuck on Windows2000 Professional. For some reason, my company does not like to pay for a new version of the OS every sixty-five seconds. I don't know why.
I have used XP. It is slower than glue-sniffing, semi-lobotomized tow truck driver from Arkansas. We had an older computer here that functioned reasonably well speed-wise with 2000. Someone made the mistake of loading XP on there. Now everyone who uses that box complains "this computer is too slow". I don't think it is the computer.
I agree KDE is not the greatest - especially in full bells & whistle mode.
I won't switch until linux can do all these jobs flawlessly:
1. Run the latest games 2. Capture/encode video into divx or mpeg2 streams using commercial quality programs such as Cinema Craft 3. Play the latest media format (Sorenson, Windows Media, Realplayer(gag) 4. Run about a million win32 programs dating from 1992-present
Heres a good example of where windows wins and linux loses. I wanted a program for grabbing audio from my sound card and encoding to mp3 in realtime for archiving radio shows. In linux I had to fight with lame, cron, and some sketchy recording programs which produced files that skipped. In windows I downloaded a program, set the timer and picked my bitrate and had it working in minutes.
2. What, specifically is wrong with video encoding under linux?
hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
just try it.....how about "everything"?
I literally spent all night wednesday trying to rip a dvd. it is nigh near impossible. try transcode -h or mencoder --help sometime.
I couldn't rip to mpeg2 (for svcds). transcode's site's instructions didn't work, or transcode is screwed up, or the gui I tried later is broken. or all of the above.
after spending a good while with that I tried to rip to mpeg4, since there was a lot more information about that available online. through many, many tries, and hours of reading, all my videos were out-of-sync, or the bitrate was too low, or the aspect ratio was wrong, usually most of these combined.
Anyway, I have to go into windows on my one machine that has it periodically for VPN'ing into work. I play a game every now and then. but svcd2dvd and flaskmpeg are my killer apps. ok, mencoder is probably more powerful than both these tools put together, but it's a moot point if you can't figure out how to use it.
SVCDs actually use MPEG-1, not MPEG-2. They're quite different beasts!
FWIW, I have used transcode *extensively* for video conversion and it has rarely let me down. Recently I found a flaw: within hours a fix was provided.
The transcode documentation is pretty good: you really can't go wrong if you take the time to RTFM.
SVCDs actually use MPEG-1, not MPEG-2. They're quite different beasts!
sorry, you're wrong. VCDs are mpeg1, at a specific constant bitrate (somewhere from 1-2mbps) and mpeg1 layer2 audio at 224kbps. the resolution is 352x240, I believe. haven't done them in a while, and I don't have time to look it up. SVCDs are mpeg2 with variable or constant bitrate video (standard doesn't limit what bitrate, in a certain range) and constant bitrate audio. ntsc is at 480x480 I think. much, much, much higher quality. hence the name, S(uper)VCDs.
Why would super video cds be mpeg1? that would be pretty dumb...
ok so I took the time to look up and prove my point, vcdhelp [vcdhelp.com] says the following for ntsc svcds (pal changes the resolution):
Video: max ~2524 kbit/sec MPEG-2 (if the audio is in 224 kbit/s), audio + video bitrate max bitrate is ~2748 kbit/s. 480 x 480 pixels (CVD 352x480) 29,97 frames/second 23,976 frames/second (NTSC Film) with up to 4 Subtitles
Audio: from 32 - 384 kbit/sec MPEG-1 Layer2 with up to 2 Audio Tracks
Extra: Menus and chapters. Still pictures 704x480,352x240
i have to agree with you on this one. i have a linux server which is my web and ftp server. i use windows for games and everything else. i've got a friend who uses linux as his desktop and he wanted to know who ellen feiss was and see what she looked like, but he couldn't watch her ad because it was quicktime. there's no free quicktime for linux. people say you can get everything for free for linux that you need. that's great, but i can get everything for free for windows. sure the difference is i'm stealing, but whatever. who's goign to say anything to me? oh wait, i'm sure billy's reading this right now and might come after me. oh well. so yeah, windows can view all webpages just as good, if not better, than any browser in linux. there's nothing that won't work with a simple plug-in download. in linux, that problem occurs lots and lots. not to mention all the webpaegs that are designed for IE, which does not run in linux. and you can say "use wine" but that takes too much time. windows is a much simpler "use right out of the box" desktop operating system. linux will continue to be my server, but for the desktop, windows is far far far superior. oh, and my machine stays up for weeks, sometimes months, at a time with no problems (win2k).
I would instantly use linux as my primary OS if I could find a decent dual paned file manager that is like Norton Commander or Turbo Navigator [turbonavigator.com].
Midnight Commander just does not cut it. You can't use a type-ahead-find to instantly jump to a specific file or directory. You can't use a custom editor. It's text mode. You can't use context menus for file operations.
The Gnome and KDE file managers are too slow and clunky like windows explorer (which I also never use.)b The command line, while ultimately the most important, cannot be navigated as quickly as a really excellent dual paned manager.
did i hear someone call windows stable? i really hop e i was dreaming... ok i can agree to the fact that both 2K and XP are a grest improvment to the earlier systems... but calling it stable compared ti linux?.. well i would definetlt not agree to that!! ok i do dual boot.. but that is mostly because i havent had time to set up wine/winex and need some applications in win... like the imsysdeveloper and mathematica... i have heard that thera is a port for mathematica in Unix thogh but havent had time to look in to it...
Yes, and you'll hear it again. Windows IS stable if setup correctly. I've run Win95, Win98SE, and Win2K pro. Win98SE and Win2kPro were/are extremely stable. Sure, apps will crash, but 2K Pro has rarely crashed as a result. The key, as is for any operating system, is to have it setup correctly. I installed RedHat 7.0 awhile ago, and until I had set a lot of it up (which took longer than in Windows, but that's because I'm obviously more proficient in Windows) it was less stable than Win2k. And as in any OS, you must also keep it setup properly. That means regular maintenance. I still think however, that a perfectly setup *nix box would be more stable than a perfectly setup Win box, but for the average user, it isn't an issue.
Of course there are more broken Windows machines than Linux machines. THERE are more Windows machiens than Linux machines.
Also consider that Linux users tend to have a professional doing the hard work... Windows machines are set and run by less trained.
Linux people who keep saying Windows is unreliable are just pissing on themselves. It does actually work! It can be screwed up many ways, but it does work when configured and used correctly.
I have been working with a number of Win 2K boxes recently, and they all share an annoying habit : At some point, a program will crash, but not terminate. And then will refuse to be killed by any means, sysadmin access or not.
Some examples of programs that do this are Adobe Premier 6, and telnet (?!?)
Once the program crashes, you cannot log off (it says something along the lines of waiting for this program to shutdown, before returning to the desktop having failed to close it).
Yes, if it crashes, chances are, something is setup incorrectly. Given stable drivers, the system will be stable. Unstable drivers aren't the OS developer's problem. The drivers should be made stable to begin with. (Note: I'm not saying Windows is ever completely, 100%, without fail, stable. Niether is Linux. Niether is any OS.)
I've had a system with a fresh install after a format, latest drivers, plenty of disk space/ram, and ONE game installed and seen it lock hard during gameplay. But according to you, the OS isn't "set up correctly". Whatever.
So uh, are you blaming the OS, or the game?. As you yourself said, 99% of crashes are by bad drivers. Just because they're the latest drivers doesn't mean they're stable. Also, I've never really had troubles with games. Only problems I have had were fixed by patches (which patched the game, not the OS). "Whatever." Yeah, like, totally, whatever.
Not sure if the parent is a troll (stability? that's kept you on windows since what, mid 2000? Win2k is the ONLY MS OS I've ever run stabily, and not for a lack of trying).
Seriously, why I'm writing this from a windows box (running mozilla at least...)
Reason 1: I get paid to work on Windows systems (network admin and app developer (VBA, mostly Word)) - the more time I invest learning windows the more money I make.
Reason 2 is my ego. I'm really quite good on windows, but I go to linux and I'm a complete newbie (albiet one with a good background in the fundamentals). It takes me hours to do what I can do in 2 minutes in win2k.
Nonetheless I've started learning linux, mostly due to the amazing people in the linux community (thanks BALUG!) and because I'm finally getting paid to use linux (due to the complete lack of free (or cheap) mailservers for windows (exchange is a joke, one in very bad taste)).
Reason 3 windows stuff is free. I can get pirated microsoft software anywhere. MS has made virtually no attempt to stem piracy, thus for anyone w/ a little knowledge all thier software is free-as-in-beer. If a strong anti-piracy movement started in MS apps I'd be on linux in a second (because all my clients would move the day the anti-piracy steps started working, no way anyone I work with would *pay* for MS stuff, but when it's free, it's priced reasonably well).
But seriously, I'm the IT Director of a law firm, and the attorneys just want to jump on the bandwagon. I couldn't even put our new network on Novell instead of Win2K, something I regret every day.
I tell people I love Macs, but I haven't worked on one in years. My primary computer at home is WinXP/Win98 dual boot for games and to work at home. I don't remember the last time I turned on the G3. And while I'd love to play with linux, with what time? I'm understaffed at work and as a result I'm never home.
I can't speak for the poster, but I have hardware that only has software that works with Win98 (it's a video capture card). I also have some older games that just crash under WinXP for some reason, but with Win98 they work okay. Things like that keep me on a dual boot.
At home, I'm redhat. At work, I'm win2k, and the reason is visual basic. It's a crappy language, and I'll be the first to admit it. I write software on a contract basis. The apps I write are simple gui business logic programs, and systems integration. There is no interest in cross platform with the vast majority of our customers, even though we try to push php for this reason. I am unable to find a faster tool to create these programs, and in this business, time is money.
I would much rather develop in C++ or PHP, but it takes twice as long to develop the same app, and there is no benifit that I can demonstrate to our customers. We have been pushing web deployment, and have done a significant amount of development recently using PHP/Apache, but the vast majority is still VB.
If there is another tool that will let me write gui apps that will run on the windows platform with the development speed of VB, please let me know. Until then, I'll continue to use windows, and visual basic (whether I like it or not).
For 90% of what I need to do, the Windows apps are very stable. (Word processing, data crunching in Excel, Powerpoint presentations, email, web browsing, some graphics editing, HTML.)
For the rest, (Java coding, demo'ing or doing a technical study of Java technologies such as various app servers, Java IDEs, Java development tools, etc.) Windows is stable enough.
Do my apps or my OS crash? Sometimes. I've never had anything crash during a demo -- which typically involves some heavyweight applications being put to minimal use. And rarely during my work day when I have too many apps doing too much at once. I've BSOD'd on shutdown twice in the last year.
But even if it crashed weekly, the time it takes me to figure out how to fix that (reboot) is WAY less than the time it would take me to work through Linux's latest compatibility quirks. I can fix a BSOD and be on my merry way in minutes. But trying to figure out why I can't see a particular graph in OpenOffice, and then going back-and-forth with whoever sent it to me trying to make it work just isn't worth the time.
High uptime isn't necessary for me. I don't care if my machine crashes while I'm working because I can fix it quickly. Even if it crashes during a techincal demo, I can blame Windows, reboot and be back up quickly enough.;)
Startup may be slow, but it's still WAY faster than my rudimentary Linux debugging skills. As long as "reboot" is faster than "hmmm... is there a package conflict here?" or "Can you resend me that file, but this time don't embed that table as an OLE object?" or "What the hell?" I will be on Windows.
I could learn Linux. But seeing as I'm not morally opposed to closed-source software, (I'm in marketing) I'm not a sysadmin and I've left programming, I don't see why I should. I'm not a fan of MS's business practices, but until a significant portion of my entire company (including the completely nontechnical sales staff) PLUS every customer I deal with PLUS every partner organization I deal with becomes non-Windows based, I need to be Windows-compatible.
Also available on OS X. Files are fully compatible with the PC versions.
>And for development
The free developer tools CD includes gcc, a java compiler, as well as a full IDE. It's a god send for those of us who use (or used) GCC in college. When the student UNIX servers go down, all the Windows users panic while us MacOS X and Linux users just go on doing the assignments locally.
There is so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin.
1) Linux and especially the BSD's are FAR more stable than Windows. Even windows-XP. Yes, I've used XP, and I have gotten it to crash doing nominal desktop application work. Compare that to my RedHat 6.2 machine that has an uptime of over 700 days.
2) What industry standards do you speak of? UNIX is certainly the industry standard for stability, performance, remote access, mission critical, large database, and scientific applications. Windows just doesn't measure up in any of these categories - Windows simply doesn't have the cojones - not then, and not now.
3) Not sure what school you went to but we learned straight C++. Our OS and compiler was the students choice. Personally I chose Linux as it is much more budget-friendly as a development environment for students. I almost feel sorry for your having recieved such a limited programming education.
4) Visual C++ is certainly not a standard. A Visual C++ programmer cannot effectively write applications for other OS's and platforms - A straight C++ programmer certainly can.
In a world filled with clueless sheep buying Microsoft products just because that's what the guy before him uses, I figure I must be doing something right if my choice in OS and software disturbs your delicate sensibilities. Consider my Tux the penguin poster to be a big one-fingered salute, as a I fly past you on the information superhighway.
Linux and especially the BSD's are FAR more stable than Windows. Even windows-XP. Yes, I've used XP, and I have gotten it to crash doing nominal desktop application work. Compare that to my RedHat 6.2 machine that has an uptime of over 700 days.
Sure, the kernel might be more stable. But all the remotely-productive desktop environments available for Linux... well, let's say that I've found Windows 95 more stable and well-behaved by far.
As for that Redhat box with an uptime of 700 days... I find that hard to believe, and if it is true, it doesn't do anything remotely heavy application-load wise, I assume.
Actually, the redhat 6.2 box DOES have an uptime of over 700 days. It is on a very large home made UPS system so it is unaffected by power anomalies, and it is not on the public internet so I'm not concerned about keeping up with security patches.
And it is usually very heavily loaded. It used to run distributed.net, now it runs folding@home and the load average as reported by 'top' is usually over 6. I use it as my 3D rendering server and it is usually processing several jobs at a time.
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)
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: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: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.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
No, older versions of Windows. Oh, and non-professionaly admin'd installs of Linux.
I don't remember the last time a PC crash stopped me in the middle of using my computer--I suspect it was playing UT, which is hardly Windows's fault.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
I don't remember the last time a PC crash stopped me in the middle of using my computer--I suspect it was playing UT, which is hardly Windows's fault.
If a single app brought down your whole machine, then yes, it IS Windows's fault. No OS should ever crash because of an errant process. I have yet to experience a kernel-fault in Linux, even though I've had plenty of applications and server processes die, yet my Windows XP box still crashes occasionally due to a single program (sure, XP is miles ahead of older versions for stablity, but it still has a few more miles to go).
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
But then again...That's all the problems i've ever had. ever. two. XP just plain doesn't like my system and blows chunks ALL THE TIME, 2K wouldn't install, and 9x craps out about once a day. *shrug*.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
3D games crash computers. They do it on ALL platforms with no exceptions. This can be caused by either hardware OR software reasons, and in very few cases is the fault of the OS itself.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
If you run a server on your gaming rig, and the server goes down because your game crashes, don't be surprised.
Why should a little game of tetris [tetris.com] take down a server, even on Windows?
When you are using a computer for gaming, it's supposed to be the only thing you're doing on your machine, for a variety of reasons.
Then why did Microsoft ever add the ability for DirectDraw to run in a window?
3D games crash computers. They do it on ALL platforms with no exceptions.
Even GameCube?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
The GameCube is not a desktop computer. It may have similar physical hardware, but it is not a computer. This point has been argued before. My calculator has the same processor as my old computer, that doesn't make my calculator a desktop computer.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Were you perhaps hoping to play UT2K3 in a window and do your taxes while capturing the enemy flag? I think not.
No, but if I'm doing my taxes and somebody invites me to play Q3A, I should be able to minimize my taxes, fire up Q3A, and when I'm done playing, come back to my taxes.
You still didn't answer my question about simpler games such as Tetris.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
As for tetris, I should have said full-screen 3D games. Tetris would run in a window and probably if it did crash just produce an error dialog.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1, Funny)
An asshole.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
If a user-space app crashes your OS (and a fork bomb brining it to a crawl doesn't truly count as a crash), there's something wrong with the OS. It's a design or implementation flaw somewhere.
It's really hard to administer Linux so poorly that it has stability problems. I've only had Linux crash for two reasons, both being hardware failures. (And when my HD locked up, it didn't even really crash, it just started printing out all of these errors that it couldn't save logs to disk.) In order to have non-hardware stability problems under linux, you need to go download an experimental kernel or kernel module. Sometimes you can't configure X11 and can't get X up and running, but the system still runs. Netscape isn't stable, but there are plenty of stable browsers out there.
I challenge you to find an app that can crash Debian-stable from an unprivledged account. Tell you what, I'm running Debian-testing/unstable. find a program that'll crsh my box from an unprivledged account. Here's one for WinNT/200/XP :
int main() { while(1){ printf("\t\b\b");} return 0;}
Try running it from the command line. (You'll need to include a header file or two, and you may need cygwin to compile it as written.) In NT and 2000, it'll BSOD. In XP they "fixed" the problem by having it autmatically reboot instead of blue-screening. It's a buffer unerflow flaw in the DOS emulation. It believes the DOS emulator is a vitalpart of the system, so it freaks out when it's forced to kill the DOS emulator. Instead of just restarting the DOS emulator and letting all of your DOS apps die, it immediately kills all of your apps and BSODs or restarts. NT 4.0 gets no more bug fixes, so it's a permanent bug in NT 4.0.
Netscape vs. Netscape (Score:1)
Netscape isn't stable
Do you mean "Netscape isn't stable" or just "Netscape 4 isn't stable"? If the former, are there specific problems you've had with Netscape 7?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Still, windows explorer and msie freeze on a regular basis. Also Mozilla does bork out at moments. I've had a few instances where I had to reboot the machine.
As to a linux desktop - when my kde 3.1 beta freezes i can ssh in from another box and kill the process that freezes my machine. But if i run icewm on it instead chances of a lockup are much less. Thats a choice that can be made
The oldest webserver that I admin is a linux box running on a (then new) 400 mhz celeron. The only downtime it had was for kernel updates and one move to a new colo. It never destabilized by itself. Thats about 4 years of stability.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
If you're still running Win9X and you hate how instable it is, go and get an upgrade. You can probably find Win2k CD's cheap online.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
How about some systemic issues that onyl seem to crop up with windows machines? Try this nVidia loop error here [viaarena.com]. Ever try to change from an AGP video card to a PCI one or visa versa in 2k/XP? I've has BSODs on 2k/XP on several different platforms (HP/Compaq/Dell/IBM/Gateway) for literraly hundereds of different reasons. Our VP/IS won't let the company go XP for this very reason. They have tested it and it didn't pass. 2k with SP3 is the minimum allowed windows operating system.
I agree that 2k is miles ahead of 9x in stability, but I don't think you can easily dissmiss the BSOD.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Because big OEMs sell you crappy systems.
They want to pump the CPU MHz up to sell the system thanks to the bignumber effect. They want to keep the price low. Hence, a lot of the rest of the system will be crap.
I have run W95, W98, W2K and WXP, often on overclocked systems, and the only bluescreens I have seen are from beta drivers or failing/flaky hardware.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
The program turned out to be BackOrifice, so it was a good thing that it was killed utterly. Regedit is so cool.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
But Windows still hasn't blue screened on me. By and large, almost all blue screens are caused by bad hardware drivers. I'm sorry your particular configuration of hardware and drivers causes your machine to crash.
That's a danger when your operating system supports thousands and thousands of devices. Microsoft and/or hardware companies simply cannot test all configurations of hardware, OS versions and drivers. They do the best they can, but sometimes folks find something that was missed. The alternative is to limit the hardware: Apple does this. They know exactly what goes into every box, and can really test the hell out of those configs. I like windows supporting anything I stick in my box, and don't think MS should back down from that goal.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
In linux I spent more time getting games to work than I did playing them. Finally I got fed up enough to just switch to XP, which is much slower but atleast it works consistently.
(For reference, most of that time spent was reinstalling wine, followed by reinstalling nvidia's drivers).
Oh great, time for the -1 Truthful.
Re:lol (Score:1)
The nvidia drivers installer is totaly insane. It leave behind dead symlinks that manually have to be corrected, and never mentions it in the install. As for the commands you listed, even if I was a rpm user, It still wouldnt work. You forget to mention what happens when games need to change bitdepth, or change rez (winex can handle this now, it couldnt before).
And you're assuming I have commercial winex (I do, but thats beside the point). If you've ever compared what the clutter in cvs compiles to the official binaries, you'd wonder why they even provide it.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
A UPS?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
BTW, I don't know if 'unices' is the correct terminology. Should I say *nixes?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Complete and utter shit, my friend. KDE is far more themeable than you obviously realize. Distros theme KDE to look and feel like Windows so that 'cl00less n00bs' feel more at home. What do they get in return? MS cheerleaders saying KDE looks too much like Windows (hence, it's trying to be Windows; hence, it is inferior--somewhere along the line 'Linux' gets confused for KDE).
By the way, there are way more Aqua/OSX themes for KDE than for XP, and there are a number of completely unique themes. Keep in mind that themes are more than just Winamp 'skins'--they can overhaul the look of the entire widget set. With respect to KDE being slower, that again is the distro's "fault" for building without prelinking and being forced to build for depracated architectures (i.e. 586 and below).
You, my friend, are completely full of shit on your second point. As far as Windows being stable (first point), it seems both Linux and Windows have mixed reviews. I haven't used Windows in like 4 years so I don't know much about it.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
As for the pre-emptive patch, that doesn't mean Linux is slow, it merely increases how often the kernel processes messages, so for example the 'networking' latency involved with moving windows around in X is reduced. Is this the patch you're talking about? It did get merged into the devel source tree iirc. If not, you know a nice kernel buzzword to impress people on Slashdot with (but speed is not pertinent here; merely KDE not being a Windows clone).
Anyways, your point (which you now claim I bolstered) was that KDE is trying to be like Windows, but fails because it's too slow. I showed it to be untrue first of all because KDE is made to look like Windows in distros, and can really look and behave like almost anything you want it to. That was enough to show that the point was moot. As for the slowness, I didn't seriously address it beyond giving my testimonial, since speed is relative to the machine and user. KDE is fast *for me*, but maybe that's because I have 512mb ram and 2 1ghz p3s.
Your post then goes on to refute my consideration of slowness, because I did not intend to construct an argument on that (nor could I effectively). You don't even mention the real meat of my original post. You took what you felt you could argue easily and ran with it.
Even if I were to give up on the speed thing, the fact remains that saying KDE is a slow Windows look-alike is complete fucking bullshit because KDE is not a Windows look-alike.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Yeah, man, you can't beat the random noise left behind some "transparent" menus or the completely incorrect backgrounds left under some pulldown menus when you activate them. You'd think that open source people would be able to implement something as simple as alpha channels properly, but apparently that is not the case.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
That being said, Mosfet tends to shift focus from many projects at a time, so it's not uncommon that a few quirks can stick around for a few releases.
Still, since transparency is an "extra" feature built on top of an "extra" ui engine, I don't think this needs to be criticized too heavily.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
True (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Run the latest games
2. Capture/encode video into divx or mpeg2 streams using commercial quality programs such as Cinema Craft
3. Play the latest media format (Sorenson, Windows Media, Realplayer(gag)
4. Run about a million win32 programs dating from 1992-present
Heres a good example of where windows wins and linux loses. I wanted a program for grabbing audio from my sound card and encoding to mp3 in realtime for archiving radio shows. In linux I had to fight with lame, cron, and some sketchy recording programs which produced files that skipped. In windows I downloaded a program, set the timer and picked my bitrate and had it working in minutes.
Re:What application? (Score:1)
Re:True (Score:1)
hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
just try it.....how about "everything"?
I literally spent all night wednesday trying to rip a dvd. it is nigh near impossible. try transcode -h or mencoder --help sometime.
I couldn't rip to mpeg2 (for svcds). transcode's site's instructions didn't work, or transcode is screwed up, or the gui I tried later is broken. or all of the above.
after spending a good while with that I tried to rip to mpeg4, since there was a lot more information about that available online. through many, many tries, and hours of reading, all my videos were out-of-sync, or the bitrate was too low, or the aspect ratio was wrong, usually most of these combined.
Anyway, I have to go into windows on my one machine that has it periodically for VPN'ing into work. I play a game every now and then. but svcd2dvd and flaskmpeg are my killer apps. ok, mencoder is probably more powerful than both these tools put together, but it's a moot point if you can't figure out how to use it.
transcode works very well (Score:1)
FWIW, I have used transcode *extensively* for video conversion and it has rarely let me down. Recently I found a flaw: within hours a fix was provided.
The transcode documentation is pretty good: you really can't go wrong if you take the time to RTFM.
Re:transcode works very well (Score:1)
sorry, you're wrong. VCDs are mpeg1, at a specific constant bitrate (somewhere from 1-2mbps) and mpeg1 layer2 audio at 224kbps. the resolution is 352x240, I believe. haven't done them in a while, and I don't have time to look it up. SVCDs are mpeg2 with variable or constant bitrate video (standard doesn't limit what bitrate, in a certain range) and constant bitrate audio. ntsc is at 480x480 I think. much, much, much higher quality. hence the name, S(uper)VCDs.
Why would super video cds be mpeg1? that would be pretty dumb...
ok so I took the time to look up and prove my point, vcdhelp [vcdhelp.com] says the following for ntsc svcds (pal changes the resolution):
Video:
max ~2524 kbit/sec MPEG-2 (if the audio is in 224 kbit/s), audio + video bitrate max bitrate is ~2748 kbit/s.
480 x 480 pixels (CVD 352x480)
29,97 frames/second
23,976 frames/second (NTSC Film)
with up to 4 Subtitles
Audio:
from 32 - 384 kbit/sec MPEG-1 Layer2
with up to 2 Audio Tracks
Extra
Menus and chapters.
Still pictures 704x480,352x240
Re:True (Score:1)
Re:True (Score:1)
2. How about serious video editing, not your 1337 stuff?
3. Gimme the lates 'media format'. I can't live without it, it keeps my with a cra... [connection closed].
4. Win32 programs from 1992, I'm impressed.
Re:you retarded? (Score:1)
Re:True (Score:2)
File Managers (Score:2)
Midnight Commander just does not cut it. You can't use a type-ahead-find to instantly jump to a specific file or directory. You can't use a custom editor. It's text mode. You can't use context menus for file operations.
The Gnome and KDE file managers are too slow and clunky like windows explorer (which I also never use.)b The command line, while ultimately the most important, cannot be navigated as quickly as a really excellent dual paned manager.
Does anyone know of such a program for linux?
Re:File Managers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:File Managers (Score:2)
Re:File Managers (Score:1)
I think Gentoo is a breed of penguin.
Imagine that.
Re:File Managers (Score:2)
Re:File Managers (Score:1)
Re:File Managers (Score:1)
You can't use a type-ahead-find to instantly jump to a specific file or directory.
Ecs Tab, all you had to do is to ask.
And Bash is better for most file managing tasks anyway.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
Of course there are more broken Windows machines than Linux machines. THERE are more Windows machiens than Linux machines.
Also consider that Linux users tend to have a professional doing the hard work... Windows machines are set and run by less trained.
Linux people who keep saying Windows is unreliable are just pissing on themselves. It does actually work! It can be screwed up many ways, but it does work when configured and used correctly.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
I have been working with a number of Win 2K boxes recently, and they all share an annoying habit : At some point, a program will crash, but not terminate. And then will refuse to be killed by any means, sysadmin access or not.
Some examples of programs that do this are Adobe Premier 6, and telnet (?!?)
Once the program crashes, you cannot log off (it says something along the lines of waiting for this program to shutdown, before returning to the desktop having failed to close it).
Any idea what causes this?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
GNU/Linux IS easy if you know what you are doing.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
I've had a system with a fresh install after a format, latest drivers, plenty of disk space/ram, and ONE game installed and seen it lock hard during gameplay. But according to you, the OS isn't "set up correctly". Whatever.
So uh, are you blaming the OS, or the game?. As you yourself said, 99% of crashes are by bad drivers. Just because they're the latest drivers doesn't mean they're stable. Also, I've never really had troubles with games. Only problems I have had were fixed by patches (which patched the game, not the OS). "Whatever." Yeah, like, totally, whatever.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Seriously, why I'm writing this from a windows box (running mozilla at least...)
Reason 1: I get paid to work on Windows systems (network admin and app developer (VBA, mostly Word)) - the more time I invest learning windows the more money I make.
Reason 2 is my ego. I'm really quite good on windows, but I go to linux and I'm a complete newbie (albiet one with a good background in the fundamentals). It takes me hours to do what I can do in 2 minutes in win2k.
Nonetheless I've started learning linux, mostly due to the amazing people in the linux community (thanks BALUG!) and because I'm finally getting paid to use linux (due to the complete lack of free (or cheap) mailservers for windows (exchange is a joke, one in very bad taste)).
Reason 3 windows stuff is free. I can get pirated microsoft software anywhere. MS has made virtually no attempt to stem piracy, thus for anyone w/ a little knowledge all thier software is free-as-in-beer. If a strong anti-piracy movement started in MS apps I'd be on linux in a second (because all my clients would move the day the anti-piracy steps started working, no way anyone I work with would *pay* for MS stuff, but when it's free, it's priced reasonably well).
What choice do I have? (Score:2, Interesting)
But seriously, I'm the IT Director of a law firm, and the attorneys just want to jump on the bandwagon. I couldn't even put our new network on Novell instead of Win2K, something I regret every day.
I tell people I love Macs, but I haven't worked on one in years. My primary computer at home is WinXP/Win98 dual boot for games and to work at home. I don't remember the last time I turned on the G3. And while I'd love to play with linux, with what time? I'm understaffed at work and as a result I'm never home.
It's just so freakin' depressing...
Re:What choice do I have? (Score:2)
Re:What choice do I have? (Score:1)
Re:What choice do I have? (Score:1)
No, really, they're his...
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
I would much rather develop in C++ or PHP, but it takes twice as long to develop the same app, and there is no benifit that I can demonstrate to our customers. We have been pushing web deployment, and have done a significant amount of development recently using PHP/Apache, but the vast majority is still VB.
If there is another tool that will let me write gui apps that will run on the windows platform with the development speed of VB, please let me know. Until then, I'll continue to use windows, and visual basic (whether I like it or not).
Don't even try the BSOD argument (Score:2)
For 90% of what I need to do, the Windows apps are very stable. (Word processing, data crunching in Excel, Powerpoint presentations, email, web browsing, some graphics editing, HTML.)
For the rest, (Java coding, demo'ing or doing a technical study of Java technologies such as various app servers, Java IDEs, Java development tools, etc.) Windows is stable enough.
Do my apps or my OS crash? Sometimes. I've never had anything crash during a demo -- which typically involves some heavyweight applications being put to minimal use. And rarely during my work day when I have too many apps doing too much at once. I've BSOD'd on shutdown twice in the last year.
But even if it crashed weekly, the time it takes me to figure out how to fix that (reboot) is WAY less than the time it would take me to work through Linux's latest compatibility quirks. I can fix a BSOD and be on my merry way in minutes. But trying to figure out why I can't see a particular graph in OpenOffice, and then going back-and-forth with whoever sent it to me trying to make it work just isn't worth the time.
High uptime isn't necessary for me. I don't care if my machine crashes while I'm working because I can fix it quickly. Even if it crashes during a techincal demo, I can blame Windows, reboot and be back up quickly enough. ;)
Startup may be slow, but it's still WAY faster than my rudimentary Linux debugging skills. As long as "reboot" is faster than "hmmm... is there a package conflict here?" or "Can you resend me that file, but this time don't embed that table as an OLE object?" or "What the hell?" I will be on Windows.
I could learn Linux. But seeing as I'm not morally opposed to closed-source software, (I'm in marketing) I'm not a sysadmin and I've left programming, I don't see why I should. I'm not a fan of MS's business practices, but until a significant portion of my entire company (including the completely nontechnical sales staff) PLUS every customer I deal with PLUS every partner organization I deal with becomes non-Windows based, I need to be Windows-compatible.
Why not MacOS X? (Score:1)
MacOS X is extremely stable.
>Microsoft Word and other Office apps
Also available on OS X. Files are fully compatible with the PC versions.
>And for development
The free developer tools CD includes gcc, a java compiler, as well as a full IDE. It's a god send for those of us who use (or used) GCC in college. When the student UNIX servers go down, all the Windows users panic while us MacOS X and Linux users just go on doing the assignments locally.
Gotcha -- twice :-) (Score:2)
But... But... Everyone's saying how it's Windows that's unstable, and we should all be switching because the alternatives are the stable ones!
Oh, and why are your assignments platform-specific, anyway?
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
1) Linux and especially the BSD's are FAR more stable than Windows. Even windows-XP. Yes, I've used XP, and I have gotten it to crash doing nominal desktop application work. Compare that to my RedHat 6.2 machine that has an uptime of over 700 days.
2) What industry standards do you speak of? UNIX is certainly the industry standard for stability, performance, remote access, mission critical, large database, and scientific applications. Windows just doesn't measure up in any of these categories - Windows simply doesn't have the cojones - not then, and not now.
3) Not sure what school you went to but we learned straight C++. Our OS and compiler was the students choice. Personally I chose Linux as it is much more budget-friendly as a development environment for students. I almost feel sorry for your having recieved such a limited programming education.
4) Visual C++ is certainly not a standard. A Visual C++ programmer cannot effectively write applications for other OS's and platforms - A straight C++ programmer certainly can.
In a world filled with clueless sheep buying Microsoft products just because that's what the guy before him uses, I figure I must be doing something right if my choice in OS and software disturbs your delicate sensibilities. Consider my Tux the penguin poster to be a big one-fingered salute, as a I fly past you on the information superhighway.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:2)
Sure, the kernel might be more stable. But all the remotely-productive desktop environments available for Linux... well, let's say that I've found Windows 95 more stable and well-behaved by far.
As for that Redhat box with an uptime of 700 days... I find that hard to believe, and if it is true, it doesn't do anything remotely heavy application-load wise, I assume.
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
And it is usually very heavily loaded. It used to run distributed.net, now it runs folding@home and the load average as reported by 'top' is usually over 6. I use it as my 3D rendering server and it is usually processing several jobs at a time.