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.
Stable??!?!?! XP??? In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard). We just did (I own a healthcare IT company) our first full roll-out using XP Professional (New Dell 1.8GHz desktops with XP) and ended up down-grading every machine to 2000 Professional. The users had been on Windows 98 and complained incessintly that their applications were half the speed they used to be (on much slower machines I might add). The truth of the matter is that they were correct. As an experiment we blew away two of the new Dell's and installed 98/2000 on them respectively. Their apps (electronic medical records system, document management system, billing system, Office, etc.) side-by-side were significantly faster on the older OSs. 98 was a smidge faster than 2K but we used 2K for HIPAA compliance reasons. There's a little real-world experience for what it's worth.
To be fair, I think you have conflated the concept of "too slow" with "too slow in the available physical RAM."
I assume (not using it myself) that XP requires more RAM than 98 or 2000, so that swapping might be increased on old RAM-starved machines.
If you added enough RAM to accomodate the extra XP memory usage, then the speed might not be as different. This isn't a point in XP's favor, of course, but it would answer whether the problem is "XP is too slow" or "XP uses too much RAM."
Ok, i didn't even have an account on Slashdot before i saw the above two posts, but i completely disagree with both of them, and had to make my opinion known. Now, i am in NO WAY a fan of Microsoft, and personally i love the Mac OS and Mandrake, but there just needs to be something said here.
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble:D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.
I use redhat 8.0 beta. I use windows XP Professional. I use gentoo on my other computer. Recently i decided that it would be fun to test out performance data comparing linux and windows and this was my setup. I used my POS (compared to most nowadays) main computer and installed Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo. I have a 800 mhz P3, a GForce 3 ti200 and 512 megs of RDRAM at PC800 (yeah THAT was a stupid buy...). I used the Live Eval version of gentoo. Gentoo is close to THE fastest most stable linux distro. This live eval copy had only one purpose: to play this demo. In fact, the OS was so scrapped down that it could barely do anything but play it. Because of the 512 megs of ram, the OS was loaded completely into the memory so you people cant use the excuse that it was reading off of cd. I also installed it under windows (no explination needed). So in fact, everything was in favor of the linux setup (i.e. everyting reading from ram, scrapped down to nothing). I got a +2 and -2 fps difference depending on the rezolution.
As for responsiveness. Windows XP wins. Gui? no contest, XP and then Mac OS 10.2 outdoes them all. Now, i use the true type fonts under linux, but stuff in browsers still doesn't look that good.
linux is good...Its just not practical enough for me to use it more then 40% of the time. As one of my friends said who stopped using linux on his mac and started 10.2, "it just WORKS". Thats what linux needs. It needs to just work better, run better, look better (clarity is a big problem), and have more programs (even if we have to pay for some of them!)
Sigh... i thought my one little blurb on Slashdot would be my first and last, but i can't help defending myself.:/
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site [themexp.org] features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux;
I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw this little nugget.
You may already be aware, but just in case you're not, there are a few *nix equivalents for these "applications you can't live without":
WinAmp: Try XMMS. It does everything WinAmp does, plus several things it can't, and even looks and works the same (it is 100% skin-compatible with WinAmp). Of all the *nix equivalents, XMMS is probably the closest match. Home Page [xmms.org]
Photoshop: Of course, everyone will tell you that The GIMP is a worthy replacement for Adobe's product. In practice, it lacks only a few high-end features (such as CMYK color separation) that professional users require; but for everyday use it's very close indeed. Try the Win32 port first, though, to help determine if it's right for you. Home Page [gimp.org]
Flash MX:...You've got me here. I don't think there's a single Flash solution for *nix, beyond the outdated Flash 5 plugin for Netscape/Mozilla. Anyone with better knowledge?
Nero: Believe it or not, Nero disc images are simply ISOs with a different TLA tacked on, so switching to Linux or another *nix doesn't require giving up the ability to use them. For CD burning and mastering, I've found cdrecord to be an excellent program, almost as easy to use as Nero, and unlike Nero I've yet to make a coaster with this thing. Excellent piece of software. Home Page [fokus.gmd.de]
Exact Audio Copy:...I admit it, I don't know what this program is - I've never heard of it. Thus, I can't give an alternative for it, I fear...
I meant to type gnome-toaster instead, which is the GUI frontend for cdrecord. I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry about that - I do know better than that, really.
Heh, quite aware, in fact. As to the reason why i gave those examples, allow me to clarify:
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC [exactaudiocopy.de] is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.
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)
ER
Re:What keeps me on windows (Score:1)
I assume (not using it myself) that XP requires more RAM than 98 or 2000, so that swapping might be increased on old RAM-starved machines.
If you added enough RAM to accomodate the extra XP memory usage, then the speed might not be as different. This isn't a point in XP's favor, of course, but it would answer whether the problem is "XP is too slow" or "XP uses too much RAM."
Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble :D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
As for responsiveness. Windows XP wins. Gui? no contest, XP and then Mac OS 10.2 outdoes them all. Now, i use the true type fonts under linux, but stuff in browsers still doesn't look that good.
linux is good...Its just not practical enough for me to use it more then 40% of the time. As one of my friends said who stopped using linux on his mac and started 10.2, "it just WORKS". Thats what linux needs. It needs to just work better, run better, look better (clarity is a big problem), and have more programs (even if we have to pay for some of them!)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site [themexp.org] features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I saw this little nugget.
You may already be aware, but just in case you're not, there are a few *nix equivalents for these "applications you can't live without":
WinAmp: Try XMMS. It does everything WinAmp does, plus several things it can't, and even looks and works the same (it is 100% skin-compatible with WinAmp). Of all the *nix equivalents, XMMS is probably the closest match. Home Page [xmms.org]
Photoshop: Of course, everyone will tell you that The GIMP is a worthy replacement for Adobe's product. In practice, it lacks only a few high-end features (such as CMYK color separation) that professional users require; but for everyday use it's very close indeed. Try the Win32 port first, though, to help determine if it's right for you. Home Page [gimp.org]
Flash MX:
Nero: Believe it or not, Nero disc images are simply ISOs with a different TLA tacked on, so switching to Linux or another *nix doesn't require giving up the ability to use them. For CD burning and mastering, I've found cdrecord to be an excellent program, almost as easy to use as Nero, and unlike Nero I've yet to make a coaster with this thing. Excellent piece of software. Home Page [fokus.gmd.de]
Exact Audio Copy:
Correction... (Score:1)
I meant to type gnome-toaster instead, which is the GUI frontend for cdrecord. I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry about that - I do know better than that, really.
Gnome-toaster home page [rulez.org]
Re:Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"? (Score:1)
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC [exactaudiocopy.de] is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.