FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why people hate Windows?





ThePolemistis
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.
Peterssidan
It's not good when one company stands for all development. It wasn't bad in the old days it was only different. Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.
Commando_Sondre
I hate Windows because it crashes all the time and I have a lot of spy-ware and that kind of stuff on my computer (the last is my fault, I know, but I don't do anything about it). The first is just how my day is. Boot up, use it for two hour. Crash, start again. Use it some hours, crash again. And then I don't want it anymore.
Ecthelion
I don't hate windows either... I just think it's not smart to buy this expensive software with lots of licenses, security warnings etc etc, when you can find free alternatives that are more stable, opensource, more secure, ...

I mean, I, for example, use Ubuntu as operating system. It has everything I need (I need programming software, openoffice, mail, internet, ftp, games, ...) and I'm happy with it. For the few problems I had I just went to the ubuntuforums or another support forum and I had nice people helping me almost before I was ready with my post. (well in fact 5 minutes after, but still ...)

I do realise that some persons need some specific software that does not work under ubuntu. If you need some advanced video editing software, don't install ubuntu (but get a Mac instead Wink ). But other things are great in windows (I'm thinking of specialised engineering 3d drawing programs)

So everything has its + and - side... It's just about what's most important for you...
carlospro7
Peterssidan wrote:
Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business.
Nyizsa
carlospro7 wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business.

Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. Cool )
cvkien
i don't hate windows but i really like it so much especially windows vista. but i hate those who make windows troubling us so much. without them, i guess windows is perfect. software development is good which i see human always come with development, become higher and higher. human won't satisfy so easily. like you, if today you earn $30, maybe the others day you will want to earn $50.
Ecthelion
cvkien wrote:
but i hate those who make windows troubling us so much. without them, i guess windows is perfect.


Well then I guess Windows would be perfect in a perfect world... But I daresay the fact that there are so many virusses is because it's so easy to make one for windows...
The way the system was build it was never intended to be very secure. With windows vista they made a big effort to rebuild it (and that's the only way they would ever get it secure) but I daresay they did not succeed.
And there's no way they would, because if they would really rewrite it from zero, then almost no program would run on it and they would have to wait a long time before they would get a system with a great diversity of programs. (like it's now)

There are already a lot of programs that don't run on vista because they partly rewrote it...


cvkien wrote:
software development is good which i see human always come with development, become higher and higher. .

Most software written for windows is not made BY windows. Never forget the difference... If windows would get less popular, they would write their programs for other OS, and I think that would only be positive

cvkien wrote:
human won't satisfy so easily. like you, if today you earn $30, maybe the others day you will want to earn $50

Maybe, but that's the way economy made us... You still have to feed your family, don't you?
Ecthelion
Nyizsa wrote:
carlospro7 wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business.

Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. Cool )


Open-source development is cool, but never make the mistake to think that you can't make money on it...

One of the reasons why it is so cool, is because you can make a lot of money on a free product... How?
Well, you can ask money for something that gets more and more important these days: services.

For example: You just installed Ubuntu, but you have some troubles with it. (it can happen, although it's really a good OS) Well, look for an ubuntu service, and ask for help. You get professional help, your problem is fixed in no time... But for the service you have to pay.
If you don't want to pay, then you can of course ask the great community, and you will also get a lot of help, but then you need to put in some of your own time to fix it..
Nyizsa
Ecthelion wrote:
Nyizsa wrote:
carlospro7 wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business.

Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. Cool )


Open-source development is cool, but never make the mistake to think that you can't make money on it...

One of the reasons why it is so cool, is because you can make a lot of money on a free product... How?
Well, you can ask money for something that gets more and more important these days: services.

For example: You just installed Ubuntu, but you have some troubles with it. (it can happen, although it's really a good OS) Well, look for an ubuntu service, and ask for help. You get professional help, your problem is fixed in no time... But for the service you have to pay.
If you don't want to pay, then you can of course ask the great community, and you will also get a lot of help, but then you need to put in some of your own time to fix it..


Yes, I know this, and an other great invention is "dual license", like MySQL's. Make it open source, let the community find and fix bugs, often in a matter of hours, then sell the now bugless software (is there a bugless software?) to firms and companies. This is a win-win deal: companies get good quality software, the community gets enterprise-quality software for free, and the developers get money, but, which is more important, respect!

And then there is the other model: make something, sell it, force companies and users to use that product, announce bugs officially when it's not possible to keep them secret anymore, and fix them if you have time or mood. And annoy customers with a "genuine advantage" thingy, which is really good to frighten legal users, but users of pirated copies don't give a... you know.
Personally I think that if the "genuine advantage" team used their time and efforts to contribute to real development, Window$ would be far, far better.
{name here}
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.
ThePolemistis
{name here} wrote:
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.


Overall however, do u think the computer industry has benefited (i.e. in terms of technology, growth, development, free software to combat microsoft, better piracy techinques, other companies to fill niche e.g. apple etc etc) with Microsoft as a major/only player?
nigam
is it because were paying for MS OS? and then there's Linux which is for free to all? I think it's a matter of choice.
{name here}
ThePolemistis wrote:
{name here} wrote:
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.


Overall however, do u think the computer industry has benefited (i.e. in terms of technology, growth, development, free software to combat microsoft, better piracy techinques, other companies to fill niche e.g. apple etc etc) with Microsoft as a major/only player?

No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition).
ThePolemistis
{name here} wrote:
(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition).


I agree with that point Smile
littlegiant
I think whatever OS is the lead dog is going to be full of security holes because everybody and their monkey's uncle will be trying to hack into it. Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses? So in some kind of bizarro world where everything was reversed and 95% of the people had Macs and only 5% had PCs, Mac OS would be full of security holes (my guess anyway) and all the power geeks would be saying, hey you Mac users, you should switch to Windows! It's a lot better. *chuckle*..

As for Windows crashing all the time... HUH? I have my 'puter on all day long and I have a lot of resource intense programs running and I never crash. Now admittedly, this is Windows XP I'm talking about. Windows 98 on the other hand used to crash a lot.. true.
Ecthelion
littlegiant wrote:
Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses?

Lol thats a big mistake...
More than 60% of the servers run on linx, and believe me, if you hack into a computer that might be silver, but hacking a server is gold.
So you can believe me if I tell you that linux servers are also a target, but that not a lot of hackers succeed in getting them down.
littlegiant
Ecthelion wrote:
littlegiant wrote:
Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses?

Lol thats a big mistake...
More than 60% of the servers run on linx, and believe me, if you hack into a computer that might be silver, but hacking a server is gold.
So you can believe me if I tell you that linux servers are also a target, but that not a lot of hackers succeed in getting them down.


If you look at just sheer numbers, I think the number of machines with Windows installed on them are far greater than the number of machines with Linux installed on them (be they servers or whatever). But then we'd have to get into a discussion as to whether it would be more valuable for a hacker to hack into 1000 home machines with Windows installed on them or 1 server with Linux installed on it (unofficial numbers just off the top of my head). I'd say the former. But then again, I'm only speculating. I'm not a hacker.
Arnie
{name here} wrote:
No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition).
Yeah, Digital was that great company that was so totally different from Microsoft.

Dream on. It gets exactly the same sort of criticism as Microsoft gets:
Quote:
This list of DEC's great mistakes could be continued even more. However, other ones either aren't important that much as those mentioned above or aren't related directly to the Alpha architecture. Anyway, the following final conclusion could be derived from the author's point of view: DEC had done a real number of efforts to make as much money as possible with the Alpha architecture, but had done almost no efforts to help the architecture itself.
They cared about money, not about quality. And that caused their downfall, too, not primarily (!) missing the deal with IBM.
{name here}
Arnie wrote:
{name here} wrote:
No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition).
Yeah, Digital was that great company that was so totally different from Microsoft.

Dream on. It gets exactly the same sort of criticism as Microsoft gets:
Quote:
This list of DEC's great mistakes could be continued even more. However, other ones either aren't important that much as those mentioned above or aren't related directly to the Alpha architecture. Anyway, the following final conclusion could be derived from the author's point of view: DEC had done a real number of efforts to make as much money as possible with the Alpha architecture, but had done almost no efforts to help the architecture itself.
They cared about money, not about quality. And that caused their downfall, too, not primarily (!) missing the deal with IBM.

DEC != DR.
Digital Equipment Corporation was a coporation that primarily worked with UNIX machines. They never participated in the IBM dealings at all. IBM was looking for an OS capable of being run on their IBM PC. DEC worked on mainframe OSes.

Digital Research was a completely different entity started by Gary Kildall which primarily programmed with their own operating system CP/M(The first OS that was fully capable of running on a desktop PC programmed entirely by Gary Kildall himself in pure PL/M initially and later with assembly. For a time it was the only OS for desktops), which is what Microsoft ripped off when it created MS-DOS(and they did it quite poorly. At the time of the IBM dealings CP/M could use hard drives and subdirectories, two features that MS-DOS didn't come close in. Later they had the advantage over MS-DOS with DR-DOS, which was one of the first OSes to feature preemptive multitasking, a technology Gary himself created). They were the other side of the IBM-MS dealings. They lost out for 2 reasons:
1) Gary was not a good businessman even though he was a good student- he refused to take IBM's deal because of how they were going to pay for the copies. Billy G gladly agreed.
2) Gary had the OS, and that's what they focused on. Their only other project other than CP/M(which included a hex assember, assembler, and text editor) was a PL/M compiler. MS however had several software projects ready to go, with the one that probably stabbed computing in a major internal organ being the BASIC interpereter.
LostOverThere
People hate Windows because of it being horribly unstable. Razz

And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. Rolling Eyes
desertwind
i hate MS for it's monopolistic marketing tricks and un-ethical practices.
ThePolemistis
how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why?
corey
Its interesting how this issue always polarizes everyone. I don't really care what operating system that I use, as long as the tools I need at the time are available. Most of my usage at home involves a browser, database, web server, editor and a compilation toolchain. I also like to listen to music and check out the occasionaly video file. I can do that with any modern operating system.

So, I don't hate Windows. I use it when I have to. I use other operating systems as well. Why the hate?

Others are going to complain about the increased cost of a PC with Windows on it when thehy are intending to use another operating system. The licence for an OEM is pretty cheap, so that argument blows. If its that important, they can build their own machine. I don't know what the fuss is. Use it if its there. Remove it if you don't use it.
Arnie
{name here} wrote:
DEC != DR.
I see, misunderstood that. In that case your statement is a "would-be" that you can't prove, but only speculate on.
Quote:
If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now
Q5U8
Hate Windows? No, man!

I have to use Windows, MacOS and other OSes, I don't hate any of them, I work with it!

Hate is a profane feeling when you work, you can't live with hate in something you enjoy every day... Very Happy
Tex_Arcana
ThePolemistis wrote:
how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why?


I can't truthfully say that I'm 100% of Windows even though my computer is a Linux Box. My wife still uses XP on her computer, so when something goes wrong I laugh, ask if she forgot to do one of the innumerable maintenance tasks then end up fixing it for her.

Mean while my Linux box keeps chugging along reliably without constant virus checks, defragging the harddrive, cleaning the registry, having portions of programs mysteriously disappear, etc, ad nausium.

At least with Linux they give you free Beta software not sell it to you for $300 and tell you that you don't really own it.
mOrpheuS
LostOverThere wrote:
People hate Windows because of it being horribly unstable. Razz

And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. Rolling Eyes

My Windows XP installation has been running fine without (honestly) the pretentious security of any kind of antivirus/antispyware/etc , for over a year now.

It consumes about ~65MB memory while idling.
I wouldn't call that a memory hog - it leaves me pretty much all of my system RAM available for other applications.

Ofcourse the installation is heavily tweaked and hardened in more ways than the average user would ever go to the extent of, but even an untweaked XP installation can run just fine on 256 MB ram under average usage.
At the same time, I've also seen the default installation of Fedora core 5 eating up more than 500MB of ram right off the boot.

I've personally done benchmarks on several games (that have linux versions), and find no performance difference whatsoever between running them in windows and running them in linux.
Nor do I find linux boot process to be any faster than XP, if anything - it's only slower.


Linux, with the GUI having features comparable to windows, can definitely be a bigger memory hog than you'd like to think.
This guy describes exactly what I'm talking about.

But if I ever talk to a linux fanatic about the bloat in linux, they're quick to blame KDE and others for it. Falling back to the old argument : "Linux is just the kernel - what you're talking about is a distro", and often end up challenging my level of computer experience.
On the other hand, I have also seen people who had their PC randomly rebooting due to a faulty RAM module - but held windows guilty (until proven innocent by yours truly).

I'm not a fan of any OS, I have Slackware running on my other machine ... and I'm as happy with it as I'm with my XP.
But I certainly can't appreciate it when half-literate fanatics go around telling others that they're "n0obs" for using certain OS/browser/software.

If anyone thinks I'm miserable for using windows, kindly let me be miserable at peace.
littlegiant
Windows XP running on 65MB RAM? Sheesh... What's your secret, champ? By-the-way, excellent post. I noticed the exact same thing when I was toying around with installing Linux and went out and bought the Red Hat Linux Bible which came with free installation CD disks. Then I noticed the memory requirements and did a double take. Now that manual (and the CDs) are just sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust. Never did get around to installing it. I should do so one of these days just for posterity.
Q5U8
Maybe he's using TinyXP or any LiveXP... Cool
Ecthelion
@morpheus:
It's a fact that most antivirus software etc is often only to protect you from your own ignorance. If you know what you do, your rarely get them. Or in any case that's my experience.

And I believe you when you say you can run xp fine with 256Mb ram, although that's probably because you don't install all the antivirus, firewall etc software.

Quote:
But if I ever talk to a linux fanatic about the bloat in linux, they're quick to blame KDE and others for it. Falling back to the old argument : "Linux is just the kernel - what you're talking about is a distro", and often end up challenging my level of computer experience.

Still whatever you might say, I find this a good argument. -not the KDE argument- but the fact that people often confuse Linux and the distros.
You have very dynamic distros and less dynamic distros, and I think any statement which tells that "Linux is ..." is just bullshit. There is a wilderness of distros that use Linux, you can't really compare them all or say one thing that's right for all of them.

Quote:

On the other hand, I have also seen people who had their PC randomly rebooting due to a faulty RAM module - but held windows guilty (until proven innocent by yours truly).

Well I'm sure there are people who have the same problems with a linux distro then. If there are people blaming windows for faulty hardware, then there certainly are people who blame some linux distros for it too.

Quote:

I'm not a fan of any OS, I have Slackware running on my other machine ... and I'm as happy with it as I'm with my XP.
But I certainly can't appreciate it when half-literate fanatics go around telling others that they're "n0obs" for using certain OS/browser/software

Anyone who tells someone he's stupid to use a certain OS or software makes a mistake. I'm pro linux (ubuntu flavor) but I know that I sometimes need some software that only runs with windows. So there are certainly pros for any os: windows for, let's say, 3d design engineering programs, mac to write music, and linux, well it's free and has a great community Smile
(the list is not limited to those points, don't bite my head off)

Quote:
Nor do I find linux boot process to be any faster than XP, if anything - it's only slower.

Again, that says nothing. Some distros have fast boot, some not. That's all.
But there is one fact: A windows boot takes longer if you install more (heavy) programs. I didn't notice such thing with ubuntu (it got faster after new kernel upgrades ^^)
FireFoxDB
Agree. I had Windows on my school PC. It was some old HP with a Celly D 2,66Ghz, 256mb ram. It ran Windows XP and it was HORRIBLE. The Anti-virus ( which has been configured to scan on every reboot ) ate more than HALF the PC for just scanning! Fortunatly I could turn it off but it's quite laggy and still continues for half a minute until it really stops.

Now I was allowed to put Ubuntu on it and it ran so smooth. Okay, it loads not as fast as my home PC because of the little ram but it runs Ubuntu Feisty with Gnome really smooth.
And hardly any resource use with Ubuntu.
Arnie
That's funny, because I had Windows XP on a Athlon-M 1800+ with 256MB RAM, and not even DDR but SDR (so only 133MHz). And it ran just fine. But schools seem to be notorious for stupid software configurations. And with that, anyone can make any OS slow.

Too easy to blame Windows.

By the way, Firefox is a good one at making a computer with such hardware slow. But when that is said, everyone goes "well you should have newer hardware then". So blaming Windows for being slow on ''old'' hardware is ok, but don't touch the holy Firefox!
cvkien
i think windows cost too much... even with OEM laptop, the price also counting in so make the laptop price come with OS are higher than those without OS. I think it is "Time" that windows start 1st before linux, so many peoples are more familier with windows, so the software development are mostly windows sided. I think if linux start 1st, i guess windows won't live in this world. anyway, i think if windows can duplicate mac os, why not linux also make it os more similier to windows and support more windows based software.
Ecthelion
cvkien wrote:
why not linux also make it os more similier to windows and support more windows based software.


I don't think they should make linux 'more like windows'. If you just meant that they should make it possible to run more windows software on linux, well then they are already on it.
There are windows emulators like 'wine' that make it possible to run .exe on a linux system.
but, since windows is not opensource, these emulators only work on a limited number of programs. This is due to the fact that everything has the be back-engineered (they know the result, but not how it was implemented) and that's a lot of work. (It's almost better to write new, opensource stuff)

But, since linux is open-source, it should also be MUCH easier for software developers to make pograms that integrate much better in linux.

So the conclusion is: To get more 'commercial' software running on linux, there is only one thing that should be done: get more people use linux. The commercial software developers will come with the crowd...
Arnie
Actually the ReactOS project has already been quite succesful and I think it's only going to get better.
JayBee
Arnie wrote:
By the way, Firefox is a good one at making a computer with such hardware slow. But when that is said, everyone goes "well you should have newer hardware then". So blaming Windows for being slow on ''old'' hardware is ok, but don't touch the holy Firefox!

When I was using Windows the browser #1 was k-meleon , holy k-meleon Wink


ThePolemistis wrote:
how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why?

Microsoft Windows is very good operation system. It costs money. It has many nag screens. It provides many security issues*. That is the reason why I don't use windows anymore. Very Happy

Gentoo Linux user

* I know that this is not only Microsoft problem, but...
Arnie
No, of course, Gentoo isn't that frustrating. No nagscreens, many tarballs*. Great fun!

Debian Linux (and Windows, and many others) user.

* I know that this is not only Gentoo problem, but... oh wait, it is?
TheGeek
I do not hate Windows by far. If you know anything about how to run a computer beyond how to push the start button. The only issue I have with Windows is sort of the same reason why I like Microsoft. Microsoft brought computers to the masses. Before Microsoft and their operating systems computers were limited to geek/nerds/mathmaticians/people with to much time on their hands and nothing better to learn about. The only problem is that as the computers came to the masses, education was not brought at an equally fast pace on how to use and maintain these new machines. Then again, the only thing that Microsoft ever did wrong was bring computers to the masses. In reality, Microsoft has never made any "bad" software, their software is actually very good. There is "better" software out there that can do the same things because it is free and can do the same thing, but with microsoft what you get is mostly their warranty and their service along with updates and quality software. While I do not completely agree with all of the things that they have done in their lifetime, I think that some of the things that they have done was certainly beneficial to society as a whole. When people complain of spyware and viruses, they should not be yelling at microsoft, but rather at themselves for not learning about how to use a computer beyond clicking and turning it on. If they had taken the time to learn basic virus prevention and removale techniques then they wouldn't be complaining. Same goes for spyware and most other problems that are related to computers.

Ok, I'm done.

On a side note, I mostly use Linux...but I don't recommend most windows users do the same without first learning the before mentioned subjects
lukeropro
It would be perfect if Windows, Mac and Linux are combined to one OS which contains all the good features of all three OSes but I guess they want competition.
Arno v. Lumig
Arnie wrote:
No, of course, Gentoo isn't that frustrating. No nagscreens, many tarballs*. Great fun!

Debian Linux (and Windows, and many others) user.

* I know that this is not only Gentoo problem, but... oh wait, it is?


Gentoo is frustrating, unless you like messing with your system. I've used it for a while, and it was rather nice.

The problem with linux is that most of the popular distros are starting to look more and more like windows. Bloatware, all drivers enabled by default, everything default to make it more usable. But they forget that these things actually make it slower and more vulnerable. I like FreeBSD because FreeBSD does not do these things yet.

I've used a 233MHz computer yesterday. Windows 98 was installed on it and Firefox started in about 8 seconds. My own 1,6GHZ computer (more then 6 times as fast, right?) uses 5 seconds to do that in Ubuntu Linux. Windows XP does it in 7 seconds. The versions of Firefox were 2.0something on all computers.
Don't you agree that this can only have to do with bloat and the like?

Linux starts sucking more and more. Windows does too, but at least it's user friendly and has a lot of software.

I don't really need my OS to be user friendly, I'm able to handle most bugs and errors (I got time to..), so I go with FreeBSD. Once installed FreeBSD is a great OS, which is (kinda) fast and stable.

I don't hate windows, I just prefer other OSs.
redice
Q5U8 wrote:
Maybe he's using TinyXP or any LiveXP... Cool


First time hear about this. How it works? It will be the 'tool kits' of my debian system Smile Laughing Laughing Laughing
TheGeek
It is not so much the bloat that bothers me about XP but rather that everything (unless you know where to look) costs you an arm and a leg to purchase and install on it. For the most part in Ubuntu, a user needs to be shown how to do one simple task...open synaptics file manager. After that, there are litterally THOUSANDS of programs freely available that you can put on your computer. I remember one install of Ubuntu I had, I got so excited about this (this was way back when I first found out about debian and Ubuntu and the apt-get feature) that I filled up my entire 20GB HDD in less than 48 hours with all these programs. In my opinion with this (my generation from the mid 80's) is that we are getting used to being able to get whatever we want from the internet for free. This mentality will surely carry over into the next generation of mainstream operating systems and computer software. IMHO Linux has this right and in the long run I see Microsoft struggling to catch up with the marketing schemes implimented by both Ubuntu and Google...I wouldn't be surprised if google does much like they did with Mac a while back if Ubuntu ever gets as big as Mac.
Arnie
@Arno v. Lumig: Firefox under different OSes isn't exactly the same code. Anyway, it's still a bloated browser. Opera is a lot faster wherever I start it. That includes a 233MHz P2 (which I have, too) with Debian and a 800MHz Athlon with Windows 2000.
ThePolemistis
lukeropro wrote:
It would be perfect if Windows, Mac and Linux are combined to one OS which contains all the good features of all three OSes but I guess they want competition.


good point.. or even... be different OS like they r... but can run the same software or at least most software naturally (ie without use of emulators).

cus at the moment when gaming is concerned.. Windows is in front, and Linux way way way behind.
{name here}
The problem with combining them is that authors want to have their own unique OS.
Arnie
Besides, technically the difference between for example Linux and Windows is so large, that making a seamless hybrid is more work than making a new OS. The difference between Mac and Linux is somewhat smaller if I'm correct. Probably has to do with the POSIX standard and all that.
Xeniczone
Quote:
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.


10 Years back then it is now? Man you need to get your story straight.

Mac hardware is currently better then Windows hardware. Not only will you not find a computer that is as good as a mac from a company like Dell or Sony or Compaq/HP, but Mac OS X accually utlizes that hardware.

Say you can't find a 8-core computer at Dell. So you decide to build one. Now you have this 5000 dollar computer but Windows doesn't even take advantage of those 8-Cores. So you just wasted your money and your not going to see a big improvment in proformance.

Windows Software is also FAR!!!!! behind that of Mac OS X and Linux. Not only does Microsoft steal most of it's ideas from mac but they can't even pull it off without the OS sucking 3ghz of CPU for the OS to run at full speed. Mac OS X has all the same effects as Vista and runs great on a 350mhz G3.

People don't nessarly hate windows because it's more popular though in some cases that is true. Most ppl hate windows because it crashes to much for what they do. Same for Mac or linux.

I dislike linux because it's hard to install but onces it installed I'm perfectly fine with it. I like mac the best because it's an easy install. They dont' have to build their OS for 100 different hardware companies, and it's extremely easy to use. I mean dock menu and putting all the apps in one folder and best off all most apps on mac os x are only 1 file. that is compacted into the 1 .app file. So just adding on to the simplicity.
Arnie
Macs nowadays have the same x86 Intel processors as Windows computers do. Just a note about your "superior hardware" comment, since discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks.
Xeniczone
Quote:
Macs nowadays have the same x86 Intel processors as Windows computers do. Just a note about your "superior hardware" comment, since discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks.


O and I'm sure that the only thing that makes speed in the computer is the processor. Right you are completely right. I'm sorry. O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet. O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core. LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago. Same for the Dual core crap. Windows is just opening up to Dual and Quad core Computers while Apple had Dual Core as a standard way back with the pentium 2's.
littlegiant
Don't know enough about Macs to get into the pros and cons of hardware and software but one thing I can tell just from browsing around Futureshop today and that is Macs are expensive. The cheapest Mac laptop I could find brand new was about $1400 whereas the cheapest PC laptop was about $700. For me that's a big argument in favor of PCs right there (for my needs anyway).
Arnie
Windows has had SMP support since NT4, and as far as I know the new Macs have the same sort of memory (DDR II), and PCI-express slots as x86-machines (which new Macs are, basically).

As I said before: these are only facts that any heroic fanboy can and will (ab)use to their own interest. So be my guest, go ahead and shout that this-and-that sucks. You may even win a certain contest...
Xeniczone
Wow you change you straigy quick.

Quote:
Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks.


Insult.

Quote:
So be my guest, go ahead and shout that this-and-that sucks. You may even win a certain contest...


Twisting Words.

I'm just saying facts. Sorry but truth herts.
Arnie
Talking about truth, you should know better than to quote me wrong if you're going to judge my "war strategy" (which seems to be the way many software crusaders see it).
The real Arnie wrote:
discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks.


Maybe you should realise I'm not a fanboy of anything. Funny huh, how not everyone sees the software world black and white?

I use Linux, MacOS, Windows (ordered alphabetically fyi) and a lot more, but I don't have any big preference. Let alone that I feel some urge to propagate it to the world.

But I do have a dislike towards fanboys like you that only praise their favourite software and bash the rest.

Further evaluation of my war strategy can be done per PM.
{name here}
Xeniczone wrote:
I'm sorry. O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet. O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core. LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago.

Try IBM. They're the high end workstation manufacturer. Dell is the low end consumer manufacturer for people that don't really know what they're doing - they just want a computer that does things.
Xeniczone
Dell is usally the most compared to Apple So It thought I would contiune the trend.

I'm searching through IBMs site I see a bunch of expensive computers that have similar specs to the Mac Pro but I'm not seeing more then a Dual core. Though it doesn't really matter because most of the stuff will make up for less processor, and like i said before they probably don't make them because it's a waste of money Windows wouldn't even utilize it.

Would Linux Use the multible cores?
Bones
Xeniczone wrote:

O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet.

That's right, you havent because 8 core CPU's dont exist yet (in the Windows world)
Also, Dell doens't make CPU's, Intel and AMD do.
Xeniczone wrote:

O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core.

Then explain why Valve is releasing Halflife 2 episode 2 which is going to use the second core to run the physics engine for the game?
Xeniczone wrote:

LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago.

Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the hardware manufacturers do, and XP 64 bit has been out for a couple of years now.

Man you are so out of touch with the facts regarding Windows, please do some research before posting outright misleading information.
You seem to know your stuff when it comes to Mac OS, but either your hatred for MS is blinding you, or you are just a Windows newb.
Xeniczone
Quote:
That's right, you havent because 8 core CPU's dont exist yet (in the Windows world)
Also, Dell doens't make CPU's, Intel and AMD do.


I never said Dell made CPU's. Dell doesn't' make a 8-core COMPUTER I DID NOT SAY. Dell doesn't make a 8-core CPU

Quote:
Then explain why Valve is releasing Halflife 2 episode 2 which is going to use the second core to run the physics engine for the game?


Half-Life isn't a Microsoft Product nor is it a Windows OS.

Quote:
Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the hardware manufacturers do, and XP 64 bit has been out for a couple of years now.


Microsoft doesn't make drivers. Thats bull shit. More then 90% of your Windows OS runs on Microsoft drivers. The only main parts that wouldn't run on the Microsoft drive would probably be your Graphics card which usally increase proformance to use the companies Drivers rather then the Microsoft one. Some other stuff that you would probably use a different driver is add-ons like a TV Card or a Wi-Fi.

Arnie
Quote:
Would Linux Use the multible cores?

Linux has had SMP support since kernel 2.0. That's 1996. Windows had SMP support since NT4, as I said. That's also 1996.

You're doing a good job living under a rock for over 10 years.
Arno v. Lumig
Xeniczone wrote:
Mac hardware is currently better then Windows hardware. Not only will you not find a computer that is as good as a mac from a company like Dell or Sony or Compaq/HP, but Mac OS X accually utlizes that hardware.


I am sure Vista will actually utilise 100% of my CPU Wink

Quote:
Say you can't find a 8-core computer at Dell.


Because Intel and AMD don't make them yet.

Quote:
So you decide to build one.


You can't because there are no manufacturers of 8-core processors. Best you could get would probably be 4-core, for a desktop. Dell already has 16-core servers.

Quote:
Now you have this 5000 dollar computer but Windows doesn't even take advantage of those 8-Cores.


That's right. Windows won't use it, but this won't make mac >hardware< better, the OS is better

Quote:
So you just wasted your money and your not going to see a big improvment in proformance.


I am sure that if you would install a good OS that you would actually see the performance increase

Quote:
Windows Software is also FAR!!!!! behind that of Mac OS X and Linux. Not only does Microsoft steal most of it's ideas from mac but they can't even pull it off without the OS sucking 3ghz of CPU for the OS to run at full speed.


Windows was first to have a "search" feature, Mac stole the idea and made it an instant search with Spotlight, and now Mac fanboys blame Windows for stealing the idea.

Quote:
Mac OS X has all the same effects as Vista and runs great on a 350mhz G3.


Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose)

Quote:
People don't nessarly hate windows because it's more popular though in some cases that is true. Most ppl hate windows because it crashes to much for what they do. Same for Mac or linux.


Were you just saying that Mac OS and Linux crash too much? Windows does, I must admit

Quote:
I dislike linux because it's hard to install but onces it installed I'm perfectly fine with it.


Installing Linux isn't that hard anymore after all, although some distros *cough*Gentoo*cough* are.

Quote:
I like mac the best because it's an easy install.


Yay. This OS rocks because it has an easy install! How usefull!

Quote:
They dont' have to build their OS for 100 different hardware companies, and it's extremely easy to use.


Sure thing...

Quote:
I mean dock menu and putting all the apps in one folder and best off all most apps on mac os x are only 1 file. that is compacted into the 1 .app file. So just adding on to the simplicity.


Okay, but I don't really care where my applications are located, and how much files it uses. As long as I can just click the shortcut/launcher and it will load.

Xeniczone wrote:
Would Linux Use the multible cores?


Linux 2.6.13 can scale up to 1024 cores.
Xeniczone
Quote:
I am sure Vista will actually utilise 100% of my CPU


I have an AMD x2 for my windows computer and Vista used 20% of the cpu idle.

Quote:
Because Intel and AMD don't make them yet.
They do sort of or at least the way it works for Apple is they took 2 Quad Core Xeons. That makes 8 cores. It's an 8-core computer not an 8-core processor sorry for the confustion.

Quote:
Windows was first to have a "search" feature, Mac stole the idea and made it an instant search with Spotlight, and now Mac fanboys blame Windows for stealing the idea.


You got me on that.

Quote:
Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose)


Accually when the window isn't in use it is transparent otherwise it's Oblique. It doesn't have a flip thingy but what it does is it will take all the windows and Line them up on the screen they you select the one you want with the mouse.

Quote:
Were you just saying that Mac OS and Linux crash too much? Windows does, I must admit


Not really what I was suggesting I was suggesting that every OS has a strong point at not crashing. Windows Crashes on well just about everything usally a hardware error. Mac crashes usally on Software errors because the OS is built for the hardware were windows is built to be universal. Linux has a bit of a mix but I have never seen it crash so I'm cool it.

Quote:
Installing Linux isn't that hard anymore after all, although some distros *cough*Gentoo*cough* are.


I used Suse and Mandrake.

Quote:
Linux 2.6.13 can scale up to 1024 cores.


Wow.
Bones
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose)


Hey now, flip 3d isnt entirely useless...a friend of mine drew a bunch of stick people in MS paint over several images and using flip 3d you can animate them, just like the old page flipping animations! Now that's useful I tell ya! Laughing

Note the sarcasm here, I agree, it's just eye candy to make people think it's cool.

I really don't understand people complaining about Windows crashing. I havent had Windows crash in several years that wasent the result of a hardware failure (which obviously can't be blamed on the OS). Hmm I havent had a version of windows crash since I started using Win 2k (then XP and now XP and Vista). By FAR, the most common causes of Windows crashes are user error, hardware failure, and users not knowing what they are doing. Hondas crash every day due to user error, do we blame Honda for that? In the computer world we would.

Also concerning Linux distros, the Suse install is idiot proof. If you can install Windows, you can install Suse. Mandriva (the OS formerly known as Mandrake) is the same way, at least in my experience.
Xeniczone
Quote:
I really don't understand people complaining about Windows crashing. I havent had Windows crash in several years that wasent the result of a hardware failure (which obviously can't be blamed on the OS). Hmm I havent had a version of windows crash since I started using Win 2k (then XP and now XP and Vista). By FAR, the most common causes of Windows crashes are user error, hardware failure, and users not knowing what they are doing. Hondas crash every day due to user error, do we blame Honda for that? In the computer world we would.


but Hondas don't crash due to a coding error similar to windows. it's not really a user error. I'm saying that the Honda didn't crash because the system made and error and the car turned left into a shop. It turned left because the user turned it that way. A computer is much more complex. Generally crashing due to something not liking another thing or an error in the programming. Like on my macintosh. I would use IE 5.5 and it would always crash on me. I would be surfing the web then all the sudden IE would close. Is this macintoshes fault or Microsoft IE. Well. I installed another internet browser and it never crashed on that site. So, i would say that windows doesn't crash as much as people things it does it because of poor scripts from other companys and microsoft takes the blame for that. Hance thats what happens when you OS is the most popular.
Arno v. Lumig
Serious, I am not able to use windows for more then 30 minutes without it crashing/hanging. I don't know how I do it, but I somehow just do... Other people don't seem to get bothered that much by windows...
Xeniczone
Yeah it seems to be a random thing.

I built my friend a computer and while he was watching I was trying to show him how to install windows on it because I told him you may need to learn because you will need to do it again. We got the blue screen of death before the OS was even installed during the installation, but the second time it seemed to work fine. Now I built myself this computer it is only probably 3 months old. and it hasn't crashed yet.
Bones
Xeniczone wrote:
I'm saying that the Honda didn't crash because the system made and error and the car turned left into a shop.


hahahahaha good analogy. I was referring to user error only in my Honda example, but imagine if cars did stuff like that. Laughing
oleszka
I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux
Arno v. Lumig
oleszka wrote:
I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux


I'm just wondering; do you even know the difference between NTFS and FAT?
oleszka
well.. . actually not.. but all what I know that NTFS is better for internet security(I mean if you use comp for internet). ANd NTFS is much stronger than other system. Rolling Eyes
Arnie
Too bad you missed the point that 2000 has NTFS and is often more stable and less bloated than XP. And 'strong' doesn't mean anything unless you make it concrete.
oleszka
well.. when i installed 2000 it crashed after 3 days. so better i will use that operation system what i can see that it works well in practice (in action) = for me it's XP /ntfs/
Arnie
Then you did something wrong or your hardware was broken. XP was completely based on 2000, which you can even see by the versions (2000 being 5.0 and XP 5.1).
BlueVD
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.


The term "hate" is a bit to fancy. I don't hate Windows.
But truth being told:
  • Over 500K viruses all for windows...
  • 20.000$ For the software I need to do my work
  • Poor support
  • Tons of updates per day/week
  • Patented protocols (MS sucks, they make protocols only to deter the OpenSource community)
  • Hundred other reasons...

They bought RAV (Romanian Anti-Virus). At the time of the acquisition it was the best AV. Where is it now? They broke it apart.
One more interesting thing: some servers of Microsoft run OpenBSD... Wonder why...
I just like *NIX better, I don't hate windows.
However, I hate their PR and Marketing Department.
regards
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.

I understand your point of view, but I have to say something for the one who hates Windows/ Microsoft.
It is very true that Microsoft had contribute a lot to nowadays computer industries, but it would have been better if Microsoft charged us less. Think about this, we need to spend above $600 for Window Vista, which could be a lot for the poor. Microsoft didn't have a thought about this. They just want the sales of Vista increase, so what they've decided is to cut the support towards Window98 & Window ME, and the customers of these two products will changed to use Vista. I've to state that there wouldn't been so much need towards Vista if the microsoft haven't cut the support. People just don't like the thinking of the executives and the way they carry sales. It wouldn't be any more healthy if Microsoft has become the monopoly of the computer industry, isn't it?

Wink Regards
Xeniczone
Quote:
Poor support


No kidden, Every time I call microsoft I can't understand wth the guy is trying to say he has such a strong accent.
Bones
oleszka wrote:
I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux


I've never had a problem at all with Win 2K, sounds like you had a hardware issue.

Oh, and Linux is only free if your time is worthless Wink

Xeniczone wrote:

No kidden, Every time I call microsoft I can't understand wth the guy is trying to say he has such a strong accent.


So true, it's a shame that the last North American support site for Windows XP shut down about a month ago. All Windows XP support, and most Vista support is now in India. No offence to anyone in India, but it really is frustrating trying to deal with someone in a technical issue, where you can only understand a third of what they are saying.
pirki
I think the reason is, because Microsoft is so powerfull, and they control the whole marekt. Another reason may is enviousness, because Bill Gates got so rich with his company...

In my opinion Windows XP Professional SP 2 is currently the best Operating System on the market, even better then Vista (i think Vista sucks hard^^) or any other Operating System of the Open Source Sector (like Kubuntu, Debian, etc.)
Xeniczone
I would agree to some degree Windows XP Pro SP2 is one of the best out their but not the best. With the right hardware set up and antivirus program it shouldn't crash. Then has a big selection of software. Though the wrong kind of software can through the OS off and then cause crashing again.

Vista is just too hardware demanding.
Bones
Xeniczone wrote:


Vista is just too hardware demanding.


It does suck a lot of resources, but after using it for a while, I almost hate to boot back into XP. The Vista interface is just so much better. I'm not referring to the Aero features (but they do look good) but I can navigate around in Vista much faster, and the search technology is miles ahead of XP.

I really like the search/run line (yes, in case any of you don't know, the search line in vista replaces the run line in XP..click Start, type appwiz.cpl, press enter and add remove progs comes up, click start, type device manager, press enter, and device manager appears...it's great!)
Arnie
Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously.
{name here}
Arnie wrote:
Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously.

True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface.
Xeniczone
Quote:
search technology is miles ahead of XP.


yeah after they got done taking all their ideas of mac. Most of the features are better in Vista then in XP.
ThePolemistis
Bones wrote:
Xeniczone wrote:


Vista is just too hardware demanding.


It does suck a lot of resources, but after using it for a while, I almost hate to boot back into XP. The Vista interface is just so much better. I'm not referring to the Aero features (but they do look good) but I can navigate around in Vista much faster, and the search technology is miles ahead of XP.

I really like the search/run line (yes, in case any of you don't know, the search line in vista replaces the run line in XP..click Start, type appwiz.cpl, press enter and add remove progs comes up, click start, type device manager, press enter, and device manager appears...it's great!)




When it comes to search facilities... nothing can beat Google desktop or even come close to it.. Although the size it takes of the HDD is perhaps the only one disadvantage.

regarding the control panel... u are able to do in all version of windows 9x and above, the appwiz.cpl statement......
But of course u cannot type device manager... but perhaps better would be type devmgmt.msc which will take u to the device manager just as equally... shorter too.,...this works on win2k and above.

In my view,, with every release of windows, it makes its users dumber and dumber. From win2k, they began to disband DOS altogether and leaves a newbie totally baffled when his windows doesn't load anymore,,, a newbie simply wont know what to do.
on the positive note, like a person said before,, it attracted consumers in their masses.

ALso, regarding windows crashing... firstly it is important to seperate the types of crashing into:
1 - is it due to windows Operating system freezing
or 2 - an application or hardware not responding (which closes that program but not windows)

The latter Microsoft cannot be fully to blame unless it is a microsoft product such as IE . But then again, IE crashes either the same number of times or less than Opera crsahes.
ANd iwth regards to windows OS freezing, since win2k, I must admit WIndows has been much more stable. On win2k, I only witnessed the BSOD once, and perhaps only restarted my computer twice due to windows not functioning.
WIth winxp, its even less... never have i needed to restart my computer. The only time i format my HDD are like once a yr,, if i can be bothered.

Once i switched off my computer due to it beginning to overheat on xp.... but thats the laptops fault and not windows...

The story for windows ME is entirely different... that in my view is the worst operating system ever released. nevertheless,,, stability is improving in microsoft. But then if we want to look that far back, y not look at linux distros at that time, which ewre in a pathetic state back then, no proper hardware compatiability ,, not even ,mouse detectoion in some distros. Mandrake 8 was perhaps the best linux OS of its time.
MIcrosoft even with windows ME was, therefore way ahead of the game.

Now more onto linux,,, i hav had many disappointing memories recently
- The first, opera wouldn't install properly on ubuntu. Perhaps slightly because of my own incompotence, cus im a linux newbie,, but a simple search on google will see many in my situation. Opera works on other linux distros fine,,, e.g. mandriva
- secondly, i once installed flash, and for some reason, on some sites, whena button is clicked it cloeses firefox, same for mozilla when i tried it on that. I dunno if flash is to blame or ubuntu. I had this on IE,, but not as frequent as linux, and not anymore.
- thridly,, i attached a new HDD, and mandriva was checking errors on it and stuff... booting is long for some reason, yet on windows xp, it seems as the HDD was always there (ie. speed has not changed and no need for lengthgly checks even though the HDD can be fully accessed). Also, mandriva has stopped functioning... im not sure if its because of the HDD or because i now have 2 linux distros on my PC. when i say it doesnt work, i mean it goes on a screen with an x mouse icon in centre and the mouse cant even move.

the only reason i want to use linux is because i feel microsoft is making people on computers dumb. personally, i dont think files should be the same whatever the case (e.g. The.txt is same as THE.TXT) and i prefer / over \.

Linux for me in its current state would never be a number 1 OS, not until it gets proper games and proper sstuff released with its OSs. If you are going to release a browser, release Opera with your OS, not firefox which is too overated.. And release better games,,, not the ones with graphics u find on windows 3.1.,.. and only if ythere was an MSN messenger for linux,,, cus no other IMs come even close. Also give the programs proper names not like KBounce, or KSnakeRace or KAsteroid... u know what i mean...

Fianlly, even though my comments may sound anti_-linux,,, i dont aim to be. Linux is a good OS and i hope it can be a real competitor to MS on the home PC front. Competition is always healthy. UNfortuantyl, more so with Linux than MS, there is a lot of work to be done.
Arno v. Lumig
Xeniczone wrote:
Quote:
search technology is miles ahead of XP.


yeah after they got done taking all their ideas of mac. Most of the features are better in Vista then in XP.


Come on... Stop blaming Microsoft from stealing from Mac. the GNU community also stole from Mac by creating beagle, and google stole from Mac by creating Google Desktop Search.

I have beagle installed on my PC, and hardly ever use it. Is it really such a big deal?

The "insant" search is just a logical development. People didn't like the regular seach because of the speed, so they had to improve it.

If noone could use something someone else invented, the world would just get horrible.

Mac was the first with an mouse and an user interface, but what do you expect Microsoft to do? Stick with a terminal and the command-line?

The "argument" that Mac was first is just nonsence. There was probably also someone who figured out that creating an 24" screen would be cool, but they're not complaining that the other manufacturers "stole" the idea, do they?
Arnie
That argument is kind of lame anyway. At the time of IE6, the Firefox fanboys were bashing IE because it didn't have tabs. Then when IE7 came, they started bashing it because it did have tabs, saying that the idea was stolen from Firefox.

Now there's a way of making a fool out of yourself. Too bad not many people recognize it.
Nyizsa
{name here} wrote:
Arnie wrote:
Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously.

True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface.

Oh yes, that reminds me of a feature I really hate: the Annoying Clip-thingy. You know, when you want to get some help about the parameters of a function in Excel, you hit Help, and this clip appears and tells something really stupid, like "Did you know that pressing Ctrl-U will underline your text?". And this is one of the "useful" ones. It said to my wife once that: "Did you know that a striped necktie won't go with checked pants?" or something similarly horrible.
Ok, it is not strictly windows, but it comes from the same place...
Arno v. Lumig
Nyizsa wrote:
{name here} wrote:
Arnie wrote:
Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously.

True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface.

Oh yes, that reminds me of a feature I really hate: the Annoying Clip-thingy. You know, when you want to get some help about the parameters of a function in Excel, you hit Help, and this clip appears and tells something really stupid, like "Did you know that pressing Ctrl-U will underline your text?". And this is one of the "useful" ones. It said to my wife once that: "Did you know that a striped necktie won't go with checked pants?" or something similarly horrible.
Ok, it is not strictly windows, but it comes from the same place...


I got great news for ya. Clippy is not there anymore in Office 2007 (they did mess up the user interface tho...)
Xeniczone
Quote:
Come on... Stop blaming Microsoft from stealing from Mac. the GNU community also stole from Mac by creating beagle, and google stole from Mac by creating Google Desktop Search.


See now your comparing freeware to something completely different.

It's kind of a big deal were one company takes form the other company and succeads with the other companies ideas.

When a freeware software steals from a company it isn't a big deal. Have you seen many game companies sue over fan games?
{name here}
Quote:
Mac was the first with an mouse and an user interface, but what do you expect Microsoft to do? Stick with a terminal and the command-line?

XEROX PARC made the first GUI. Jobs stole the idea after working at PARC, incorporating 100% of the interface ideas into a slightly different twist on the XEROX Star interface into the Lisa.
Bones
Xeniczone wrote:

See now your comparing freeware to something completely different.

It's kind of a big deal were one company takes form the other company and succeads with the other companies ideas.


So kinda like when Mac stole the GUI? Mac users love to go on about how MS stole the GUI from Mac. Microsoft only stole what Mac had already stolen from Xerox.
Xeniczone
Not quite the same as you give it out to be. Xerox was a different screen ratio where as mac set the standard for the screen ratio. the I think 4:3 screen ratio the Xerox has like a 3:5 screen ratio where the screen was longer up and down rather then side to side.

Plus I'm not the one making the big deal about it. You are. I'm just stating where they got it from. Most of the stuff Microsoft "stole" from apple was under lisence.

I remember in previous post you called me defensive. So now look at all the people getting all defensive over this.

Or maybe to the moderaters it would look better if I put this Laughing after all the insults I say this way it will be a joke and not an insult.
Arno v. Lumig
So, Xeniczone, you blame Microsoft for having a GUI operating system? You really expect them to still be a command-line system?

The same goes with the searching. It's a logical development. Of course OS vendors want to improve the speed and quality of things. Let's say Microsoft releases the next OS that has a near instant boot, does that mean Mac won't be allowed to improve boot speed any further, because it would be imitating MS?

If this is the way you think, there should be no similarities at all in the OSs. Everything would have to be different, else it would be stolen. You must be kidding about this.

The Mac community shouldn't get all that mad because Microsoft does an invention Mac does too, and by the way, the instant search feature was announced by Microsoft in 2002, way before Mac OS X (Tiger) even existed.
Arnie
He's one of those heroes that either blames software X (which he doesn't like) for not having a certain feature, and if it does have the feature, he will blame software X for having stolen it from software Y.

As I mentioned before using the example "IE stole tabs from Firefox!!!!!!!!11!!!!" Though there are many more examples... even including the exclamation marks. Brilliant.
Xeniczone
GUI isn't a copied right trademark neither is searching. It's the features they included.
Bones
A lot of people say that IE stole tabs from Firefox as if FF was the first tabbed browser. FF was the 4th browser to have tabs, first was one called Internetworks, then came Netcaptor, under a different name at the time, then Opera, then Firefox. So to say IE stole tabs from FF is really pretty far from the truth. It's about time IE started using them though.
Arno v. Lumig
Xeniczone wrote:
GUI isn't a copied right trademark neither is searching. It's the features they included.


Why not just answer my question:

Do you think noone should take ideas from eachother, because it would be unfair?

If you're looking for examples, search my posts above.
GSIS
I've been ignoring this topic for a long time. Not actively ignoring it, but "can't be bothered with it" ignoring it. I'm bored so I can't ignore it any longer.

- Windows has a very poor historic reputation for reliability. Although that has now been fixed (I can't remember the last time my PC crashed) it's hard to change a bad reputation into a good one.

- Windows is the most common desktop OS. It's, supposedly, an off-the-peg system that's just supposed to work out-of-the-box. The vast majority of users have little or no knowledge of how it works so it's intimidating and incredibly frustrating when it goes wrong. Since the vast majority of users of other OSs are far more aware of what the machine is doing, and how it is doing it, they tend to be more tolerant of faults. As a result Windows is 'hated' by many more people than any other OS.

- Windows is the most hacked OS. Due to it's popularity it has, and probably always will be, the number one target for hackers. More people have had security problems with Windows than with any other OS.

- Windows is a purely commercial product. Its sole purpose is to make money for Microsoft. This success has turned Microsoft into one of the most successful companies to ever have existed. Success like that breeds enmity.
hiquality
I don;t know why others hate windows but i Know I hate M$ for several things.
a) All they think is about profit.
b)From time to time they "force" you to upgrade to a new OS just by removing support for the other one ( like most programs will not work on the old one)
c)M$ is such a big company Gates being one of the richest people in the world but still Windows is full of bugs
d)Internet explorer is nothing but bugs( I am a freelancer and i must tell you that IE7 is one of the worst browsers)
e)You can't uninstall IE...
Arno v. Lumig
hiquality wrote:
I don;t know why others hate windows but i Know I hate M$ for several things.
a) All they think is about profit.


They're a company for Christs sake.

Quote:
b)From time to time they "force" you to upgrade to a new OS just by removing support for the other one ( like most programs will not work on the old one)


How often do you call the tech support? Do you really think you need it, or that most people need it?

Quote:
c)M$ is such a big company Gates being one of the richest people in the world but still Windows is full of bugs


For some weird reasons Windows indeed seems buggy, but that's probably because it has a HUGE code base.

Quote:
d)Internet explorer is nothing but bugs( I am a freelancer and i must tell you that IE7 is one of the worst browsers)


Yup, so use Firefox or Opera or anything not based in the IExplore engine.

Quote:
e)You can't uninstall IE...


Yes, that is because the file browser uses explorer.exe, aswell as iexplore.

But Linux still pwns windows, especially if you have a lot of spare time.
Xeniczone
Quote:
Do you think noone should take ideas from eachother, because it would be unfair?


Too some degree. In the case that Windows Stole from Apple to form Vista was under lisence. They stole from Apple before without a lisence and that is how the lisence was formed. They treatened if Apple didn't stop sueing over the features that Microsoft took then Microsoft will stop producing software like Word PowerPoint etc. for Apple Mac OS X. That is how the lisence came to be. Though it is rumored that Microsoft was not the only one who took. That Apple took the Microsofts API's through this lisence and could form an emulator similar to Rosetta to run Windows Apps on Mac OS X without Windows or BootCamp at all, but that is another story.

Quote:
How often do you call the tech support? Do you really think you need it, or that most people need it?


He is talking about Software/Hardware support not tech support.

Quote:
For some weird reasons Windows indeed seems buggy, but that's probably because it has a HUGE code base.


Your suggesting Mac OS X or Linux that has just as many effect and just as many features a SMALL code.

Quote:
Yes, that is because the file browser uses explorer.exe, aswell as iexplore.


Which is a horrible thing to do. Base an OS on the internet expolor. Lucky they fix this in Vista. the IE and Explorer are no longer the same program.
Mannix
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.


You must be new on the block. Wink

ThePolemistis wrote:
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.


It's easy to think that. Microsoft HAS provided unparalleled standardization industry-wide. But they have also been pretty brutal in both drowning out competition, and extorting money from their consumers. ...Competition is good for development. ...And well... ...Microsoft has pretty well crushed their competition brutally. ...And without a good competitor... ...To be quite frank, you will pay whatever Microsoft wants for its OS, or break the law. ...And I bet they'll snag all the folks who have been getting away with it eventually anyways... ...Someday.

On a side note, Bill Gates has driven some very fair free upgrades to XP, and has been extremely fair to the consumer base in general for the last five years. ...And (perhaps largely thanks to Linux) XP's stability is unimaginably more stable than a user of Windows 95 or ME would have believed around a decade ago. ...But some resentment still remains. ...But people are less pissed towards Microsoft today I believe.

ThePolemistis wrote:
The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.


Sure. ...But then... ...They aren't really being measured against anything, are they? They killed the competition.
Arnie
Oh, so going against the communis opinio means you're new on the block?

I think that attitude is one of the main reasons why there's such a massive dislike towards Windows amongst certain groups of people. People are forced to hate it, because expressing otherwise will damage your group status or even get you expelled.

Bottom line, stop presenting everything as if "you should have known" and "you're so dumb to doubt that Windows sucks" etc. etc.
coolman1232
I think people hate WIndows simply because it has evolved into the only mega-giant operating system, and don't want it to be the only one.

The development of Linux has helped this greatly, but still almost everyone in the world uses Windows...
Arno v. Lumig
Xeniczone wrote:
Quote:
Do you think noone should take ideas from eachother, because it would be unfair?


Too some degree. In the case that Windows Stole from Apple to form Vista was under lisence. They stole from Apple before without a lisence and that is how the lisence was formed. They treatened if Apple didn't stop sueing over the features that Microsoft took then Microsoft will stop producing software like Word PowerPoint etc. for Apple Mac OS X. That is how the lisence came to be. Though it is rumored that Microsoft was not the only one who took. That Apple took the Microsofts API's through this lisence and could form an emulator similar to Rosetta to run Windows Apps on Mac OS X without Windows or BootCamp at all, but that is another story.


Okay. I am going to introduce my very new invention. Many companies have been creating knives so far, but they've all not been very sharp. What I am going to do is to create a sharp knife, and then patent it. Would it be fair if now everyone who wanted to make knives would have two options:
- Be far behind on my series of knives;
- Pay me a fee to be allowed to make sharp knives aswell.

This is the same as first introducing a search feature (a knife, made my Microsoft), and then not being allowed to improve it because someone else (Mac) has invented and patented a fast search feature (a sharp knife)

Quote:
Quote:
How often do you call the tech support? Do you really think you need it, or that most people need it?


He is talking about Software/Hardware support not tech support.


Oh well... I'm afraid I misunderstood then.

Quote:
Quote:
For some weird reasons Windows indeed seems buggy, but that's probably because it has a HUGE code base.


Your suggesting Mac OS X or Linux that has just as many effect and just as many features a SMALL code.


Microsoft has a lot more code then Mac OS X or Linux. They have to support a lot more then Linux or Max OS X have to do.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, that is because the file browser uses explorer.exe, aswell as iexplore.


Which is a horrible thing to do. Base an OS on the internet expolor. Lucky they fix this in Vista. the IE and Explorer are no longer the same program.
[/quote]

Well, it's the same KDE does... You can't uninstall Konqueror without uninstalling your file browser.
dedicatedtolkien
One issue with windows is that they have a bit of a double standard. For instance, not too long ago, there was an operating system by the name of Lindows, which had a look and feel simialar to that of windows, so as to make the transfer from windows to linux less painful for end users. However, Microsoft came after the company with a lawsuit, saying that the company had infringed on microsoft's trademark "look and feel". The thing is, by that standard, in the beginning days of automobiles, Ford could have sued Cheverolet, because they copied the look and feel of the placement of the brake, throtle and clutch peddles. Obviously, this is obsurd, which is exactly the point. People shouldn't be able to say that no one else can make an OS that looks like ours. That's just what helps people make transisions without having to relearn what they already know, like how to drive a car.
Xeniczone
Lindows still excites. It has a new name like Linspire: http://www.linspire.com/


But is a shaper knife really a feature? Now to compare something to a shaper knife is like making a program that is similar to itunes and call it Microsoft Tunes Professional 2007, and the only difference is that Microsoft Tunes Professional 2007 has a slightly larger selection of movies to choose from. Now that is a shaper knife.

What we are talking about with this search feature is a Knife that can cut the food without you having to touch it and has auto dulling and sharpening support so if you swing it at your finger it will dull itself so not to cut yourself then sharpen itself back up, now after that was invented other companies want to make this knife that auto cuts and sharpens/dulls.

That is what Microsoft took from Apple they didn't just make it "shaper" they took many features.

Quote:
Microsoft has a lot more code then Mac OS X or Linux. They have to support a lot more then Linux or Max OS X have to do.


Wohhh, Software doesn't require the OS to be updated to run. Otherwise game systems without OS updates wouldn't be possible. So the Sega Genesis would have to be updated everytime a new game came out for it every time back in 1995.

Now hardware, yeah this requires the OS to be updated to run, but these are Drivers, and doesn't Linux have to support almost 2 times the ammount of hardware as windows. I've seen Linux used on Gamesystems. Home computers Bios and Mac base, I even seen robots and crap powered by linux. Now linux has a much much wider base then windows does. Mac yeah it's pretty hardware solo but thats what keeps it stable.
Arnie
Quote:
Now hardware, yeah this requires the OS to be updated to run, but these are Drivers, and doesn't Linux have to support almost 2 times the ammount of hardware as windows. I've seen Linux used on Gamesystems. Home computers Bios and Mac base, I even seen robots and crap powered by linux. Now linux has a much much wider base then windows does.
That's just like saying "Firefox is faster than IE, because IE may load faster, but that's only because it's embedded in Windows." So what? In the end, users don't care about how and why something is faster, they just care about the speed! So when it comes down to startup speed, IE does beat Firefox. And when it comes down to the hardware support of home PCs, apparently Windows beats Linux.

Why and how it beats Linux is hardly relevant here. Home users don't care if Linux "has to" (OS personification!?) support more hardware. That's not an argument in the discussion whether one OS is more practical than another. It only points out whether or not the developers are to blame for certain bad aspects of the OS.

And that is not so relevant in this discussion, since the bad aspects are still there, regardless of what the developers can do about it (or not). In fact, by arguing that the less hardware support is "normal" for Linux "because it has to support more hardware" you're only brining an argument against Linux in this discussion, since it means the problem won't be easily fixed and is likely to stay.

Quote:
Microsoft has a lot more code then Mac OS X or Linux. They have to support a lot more then Linux or Max OS X have to do.
In the same line of arguing this also does not do any good when Windows underperforms to end users. If you're talking about why people hate Microsoft (or why they hate the OSS movement) then you can defend them with these quotes. But personally I think even for that purpose they're not so strong.
DecayClan
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.


DO YOU TRULY BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING???
Windows was just a copy of mac then, and now it is just a combined copy of mac and linux, so we would be 10 yearsa ahead, not back...

Mac's had a graphic environment, a lot before windows even existed...

What you are saying, just shows how little you know this kinds of stuff. I myself use windows, but for other reasons... The more you know, the more you dislike them. Try to study and learn about them. Learn about operatng systems, programming and stufff like that, and you wil see why...
I have Linux at my old computer, and i get a much better environment, both visually and, functioning a lot better, and i use 4 times less resurces than vista...
Arnie
Personal attack only, no valid arguments please. That's just brilliant.

Arnie wrote:
Oh, so going against the communis opinio means you're new on the block?

I think that attitude is one of the main reasons why there's such a massive dislike towards Windows amongst certain groups of people. People are forced to hate it, because expressing otherwise will damage your group status or even get you expelled.

Bottom line, stop presenting everything as if "you should have known" and "you're so dumb to doubt that Windows sucks" etc. etc.
DecayClan
Arnie wrote:
Oh, so going against the communis opinio means you're new on the block?



This is the answer :YES

If you ever bother to open a book about operating systems, programming languages, computer architecture, etc, you would see why this is true.

Just something very little:

Why should the whole army stop when something happens to one soldier;
Why should the whole army be destroyed when one tank is;

Thats what is happening with windows... Something gets stuck, they all do. And thats just one little stone that i picked up from the pile.~there is a whole mountain of them.

Windows are a copy of mac, they were, and they are still copying them... They are a mixture of mac and Linux, but in their worst form.
I began to laugh when i read the system swap memory required for windows vista... It was/is crystal clear, that they are copying mac... Mac was the only operational system, using~playing with the swap file all the time. Guess what~microsoft copied it. But now someone would say " idon't care about originality, i just want it to work good". Yes, they copied it, but made it a lot less sufficient, and problematic(xp have swap file as well, but they barely use it, and when they do, they use it in a whole different way). Its like getting a pile o immitations, wraped in a very nice piece of paper~advertising~marketing~subliminal messaging~preinstalled os~contracts with all the hardware manufacturers.

I am just wasting my time, because if you don't bother opening a book and getting some knowledge, i will not be the one to persuade you, simply because, there is a huge difference bettween saying linux are more secure, and knowing the 1000000 reasons why...
Arnie
Your brabbling has nothing to do with knowledge, rather with prejudice. If you took some time to review my posts regarding Linux and Windows you'd see I have knowledge of both. I am not particulary a fanboy of either. However I am opposed to the non-conditional deifying of one OS and bashing of the other(s). Regardless whether Windows is being deified or Linux or Mac (see page 2 of this thread) or whatever. In short: fanboyism, not based upon reasonable argumentation, but on intimidation and circle-reasoning.

And you clearly don't know the importance of regarding opinions other than the common (prevailing). If in politics or any social debate people would act like you, it'd be an outrage. "If you don't agree with me that shows you've got your facts wrong. Period." Bye, bye democracy.
{name here}
DecayClan wrote:

Windows are a copy of mac, they were, and they are still copying them... They are a mixture of mac and Linux, but in their worst form.
I began to laugh when i read the system swap memory required for windows vista... It was/is crystal clear, that they are copying mac... Mac was the only operational system, using~playing with the swap file all the time. Guess what~microsoft copied it. But now someone would say " idon't care about originality, i just want it to work good". Yes, they copied it, but made it a lot less sufficient, and problematic(xp have swap file as well, but they barely use it, and when they do, they use it in a whole different way). Its like getting a pile o immitations, wraped in a very nice piece of paper~advertising~marketing~subliminal messaging~preinstalled os~contracts with all the hardware manufacturers.

Macs were just cheap copies of XEROX stars. They still are, and so is every GUI out there. You can clearly see the windows, desktop metaphors, pointers, and buttons are all ideas stolen from the PARC. If there are no patents, people are going to steal the best ideas according to their own opinion from the competition so they can make more money or stop the competition from making more than them. That's part of free enterprise and capitalism.
Xeniczone
Quote:
That's just like saying "Firefox is faster than IE, because IE may load faster, but that's only because it's embedded in Windows." So what? In the end, users don't care about how and why something is faster, they just care about the speed! So when it comes down to startup speed, IE does beat Firefox. And when it comes down to the hardware support of home PCs, apparently Windows beats Linux.

Why and how it beats Linux is hardly relevant here. Home users don't care if Linux "has to" (OS personification!?) support more hardware. That's not an argument in the discussion whether one OS is more practical than another. It only points out whether or not the developers are to blame for certain bad aspects of the OS.

And that is not so relevant in this discussion, since the bad aspects are still there, regardless of what the developers can do about it (or not). In fact, by arguing that the less hardware support is "normal" for Linux "because it has to support more hardware" you're only brining an argument against Linux in this discussion, since it means the problem won't be easily fixed and is likely to stay.


What you posted has nothing to do with my quote. Then you go on and talk about something completely different.

Quote:
Macs were just cheap copies of XEROX stars. They still are, and so is every GUI out there. You can clearly see the windows, desktop metaphors, pointers, and buttons are all ideas stolen from the PARC. If there are no patents, people are going to steal the best ideas according to their own opinion from the competition so they can make more money or stop the competition from making more than them. That's part of free enterprise and capitalism.


Obviously you've never seen vista and Mac OS X Tiger side by side.
Arno v. Lumig
Let me first get one thing straight: I do not use Windows, Mac or Linux. I use FreeBSD.
If you read my previous post you would know that I'm not being a total fanboy by telling you all that FreeBSD is the best. I know FreeBSD is not the best; it's not easy to use or configure, doesn't have much software, but is stable and secure.
I really hate all the Linux fanboys that say Linux is easier to use then Windows. It simply is not (or I'm just having a lot of bad luck): when I used Linux I sometimes had to edit text configuration files (I don't care, I start to get pretty damn good at it) which is not acceptable for 99% of all users. FreeBSD is all about text-configuration by the way, I'm not having any trouble with it.
Windows it not a great OS either. It crashes a lot (or I'm again just having a lot of bad luck) and it has many security holes (one of my main hobbies is hacking the school network, with the admins permission and it's really not hard to find a few bugs and vulnerabilities). Although I have only had a virus once it seems that there are many viruses around for Windows and an virus scan and firewall really is neccesary. The software available for Windows really rocks though, nothing can even come close. About stealing to search feature I'm just neutral; improving it to be faster is a logical development and it's no wonder that all OS need a feature like that. If noone would be allowed to copy ideas then choosing an OS would be "you can have that feature OR that feature, but not both because it would've been stealing".
And mac... Well, I never used one. I would like to mention that not everyone makes movies and music etc. Windows Media Player is enough for my media needs, and so is AmaroK/VLC. I like Photoshop, but GIMP is just fine thank you. I like 3Ds Max and Maya, but for my needs Blender will do just fine. Why should I get a Mac then? I don't get viruses, spyware or other malware. My PC is perfectly stable and my GUI looks just like I want it to. All software I need can be downloaded easily and installed even easier. I am able to share directories with my Windows machine, and that's all I need for networking. Can someone finally tell me why I should get a Mac?
Arnie
I think your opinion is well thought through and argumented. I don't agree with it completely (although in part I do), but that doesn't matter. Your respect towards users of other OSes is very commendable.

Xeniczone: my post had everything to do with the text I quoted. I even made it more clear by using italics.
Stubru Freak
I'm not going to participate in the discussion, both sides here have dumb people, and the discussion is focused around them. Actual arguments are largely ignored. I would say Windows is a bad OS, and if anyone wants to have an actual discussion about it, feel free to e-mail me, or send me a PM.
Just one thing:

DecayClan wrote:
Why should the whole army stop when something happens to one soldier;

That's in the convention of Geneva.
Arno v. Lumig
Stubru Freak wrote:
I'm not going to participate in the discussion, both sides here have dumb people, and the discussion is focused around them. Actual arguments are largely ignored. I would say Windows is a bad OS, and if anyone wants to have an actual discussion about it, feel free to e-mail me, or send me a PM.
Just one thing:

DecayClan wrote:
Why should the whole army stop when something happens to one soldier;

That's in the convention of Geneva.


I have two questions for you:

1. Why reply like this? It's totally irrelevant
2. Could you elaborate on the "dumb people"? I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or not.
Stubru Freak
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
I'm not going to participate in the discussion, both sides here have dumb people, and the discussion is focused around them. Actual arguments are largely ignored. I would say Windows is a bad OS, and if anyone wants to have an actual discussion about it, feel free to e-mail me, or send me a PM.
Just one thing:

DecayClan wrote:
Why should the whole army stop when something happens to one soldier;

That's in the convention of Geneva.


I have two questions for you:

1. Why reply like this? It's totally irrelevant


Probably it is. I just found the comment by DecayClan funny, and felt like answering it.

Quote:
2. Could you elaborate on the "dumb people"? I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or not.


Don't think so. You have actual arguments. I also didn't mean "the discussion is focused around them" as that dumb people are the most frequent posters here. I mean like someone dumb says something, someone responds, someone else misinterprets that response and we have another round of useless discussion. But I'm really not going to say names. That'd be rude. Anyway, dumb is a rude word. It'd be more appropriate if I said argument-less people.
Nyizsa
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
... when I used Linux I sometimes had to edit text configuration files (I don't care, I start to get pretty damn good at it) which is not acceptable for 99% of all users.

...but hacking arcane registry entries is quite acceptable. I have never understood this argument. Those text files are perfectly straightforward, often with examples.
Arno v. Lumig
Nyizsa wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
... when I used Linux I sometimes had to edit text configuration files (I don't care, I start to get pretty damn good at it) which is not acceptable for 99% of all users.

...but hacking arcane registry entries is quite acceptable. I have never understood this argument. Those text files are perfectly straightforward, often with examples.


I've done a lot of things in Windows, but I never had to change anything in the registry. Neither did I have to modify any configuration file, it was always point'n'click (and sometimes point'n'crash) if I wanted to configure anything.
{name here}
Quote:
Obviously you've never seen vista and Mac OS X Tiger side by side.

Just about as big of a difference as:

and

and

or

and

It's all in borrowing and stealing features from the competition. It's happened all throughout history.

Nyizsa wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
... when I used Linux I sometimes had to edit text configuration files (I don't care, I start to get pretty damn good at it) which is not acceptable for 99% of all users.

...but hacking arcane registry entries is quite acceptable. I have never understood this argument. Those text files are perfectly straightforward, often with examples.

Not when you have to find your monitor's horizontal and vertical refresh rates(which are not listed by most manufacturers I've encountered), and the proper driver id. Don't even get me started on how much of a pain getting wireless networking working ends up being even after reading the man pages.
ssthanapati
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.


Ya i completely agree. But sme ppl hate it cause it hangs almost religiously, which has reduced a lot after xp came into the scene. Moreover the cost of their OS is high compared 2 linux which u get for free
Xeniczone
Quote:
It's all in borrowing and stealing features from the competition. It's happened all throughout history.


None of those Screen shots looks like Vista or MAc OS X tiger Wink

Apple Mac OS 1 looks nothing like Xerox star but Gem looks very close.

And for once, Microsoft didn't take the looks of dos. They just bought dos of some other company that had made it.

Quote:
And mac... Well, I never used one. I would like to mention that not everyone makes movies and music etc. Windows Media Player is enough for my media needs, and so is AmaroK/VLC. I like Photoshop, but GIMP is just fine thank you. I like 3Ds Max and Maya, but for my needs Blender will do just fine.


Where do you get the stereo type that macs are only good for Media? Yes it is true that the G's Processor line does better at media then the Intel line but Macs now use the Intel Processor so no advantage.

I don't make movies, but I do like Music so I guess itunes is a big feature. FreeBDS doesn't have itune so I can't use the itunes store on it so I don't want your operating system. Windows has iTunes but like you said windows crashes and has security holes.

Isn't Gimp avilable for mac as well.

3DS Max is made by a company called Autodesk, and autodesk doesn't produce for mac and isn't blender also avalible for mac.

So what is your point. Other then being full of it, because nothing you said was really agenst mac. I could do the same thing you did.

FreeBDS. Well it doesn't have games like Doom 3 or Halo. Definetly doesn't have iTunes. It isn't simple to install or use. Though it is free and can run on any type of hardware, but then again I'm not poor so why should I run on some poor OS. That is hard to use and is hard to install.

Windows doesn't come with much software except those trials that only last 30days. While Mac comes with loads of software that is useful to everybody and easy to delete after or before installing with no hiding parts of the software deep within the OS, like windows does.
Arno v. Lumig
Xeniczone wrote:
Quote:
And mac... Well, I never used one. I would like to mention that not everyone makes movies and music etc. Windows Media Player is enough for my media needs, and so is AmaroK/VLC. I like Photoshop, but GIMP is just fine thank you. I like 3Ds Max and Maya, but for my needs Blender will do just fine.


Where do you get the stereo type that macs are only good for Media? Yes it is true that the G's Processor line does better at media then the Intel line but Macs now use the Intel Processor so no advantage.


That is kinda weird actually... Why did Apple start using Intel chips if their own G series were that much better?

Quote:
I don't make movies, but I do like Music so I guess itunes is a big feature. FreeBDS doesn't have itune so I can't use the itunes store on it so I don't want your operating system. Windows has iTunes but like you said windows crashes and has security holes.


Do you really think iTunes plays better music then AmaroK, or whatever which media player for that matter? I don't need iTunes to listen to music... I'm indeed not able to use the iTunes store, but I don't really need to either. This is a valid argument anyway; some people may want to use it. I'm not sure how good it runs under Wine.

Quote:
Isn't Gimp avilable for mac as well.


Yup, but I'm not going to get a Mac just to use Gimp, which is also available for the cheaper systems.

Quote:
3DS Max is made by a company called Autodesk, and autodesk doesn't produce for mac and isn't blender also avalible for mac.


I thought 3Ds Max was available for Mac aswell, but it was just an example. And again I'm not going to use Blender on a more expensive system when it runs just as well on a cheaper system.

Quote:
So what is your point. Other then being full of it, because nothing you said was really agenst mac. I could do the same thing you did.


Yea, you could, but you just paid double the price. You got ripped off.

Quote:
FreeBDS. Well it doesn't have games like Doom 3 or Halo. Definetly doesn't have iTunes. It isn't simple to install or use. Though it is free and can run on any type of hardware, but then again I'm not poor so why should I run on some poor OS. That is hard to use and is hard to install.


I can run Americas Army, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake, and a lot of other games under Wine/Cedega. I'm not poor either, I'm a stingy Dutchman and don't want to get ripped off with no advantages. FreeBSD is not hard to use at all, and if you don't like the way it gets installed you should try out PCBSD once.

Quote:
Windows doesn't come with much software except those trials that only last 30days. While Mac comes with loads of software that is useful to everybody and easy to delete after or before installing with no hiding parts of the software deep within the OS, like windows does.


If you go to a store and buy Windows you won't get 30-day-trial software. What software does Mac come with, except for Garageband, iPhoto, iMovie and that kind of crap barely anyone uses. (Don't say iTunes, Windows Media Player plays music just as well.)
ammonkc
I used every version of windows from 95 to xp. A few years ago I switched to Mac and Linux and I will never go back. Everything about windows really bugs me now. microsoft has been stuck in a design and UI paradigm for a long time. I just got to sick of all the headaches that came with being on a windows system. I'm an IT admin and I know how tweek and maintain a system's performance, but I just could not take the unstableness and security vunerabilities. windows users have to spend way too much energy just to keep the machine secure. its just not worth it. I would never go back
Kushagra93
I Love Windows More thn Anything tried linux to but not mac

windows is the best
ammonkc
Kushagra93 wrote:
I Love Windows More thn Anything tried linux to but not mac

windows is the best

you should really give a mac a try. you'll never want to go back
Arno v. Lumig
ammonkc wrote:
Kushagra93 wrote:
I Love Windows More thn Anything tried linux to but not mac

windows is the best

you should really give a mac a try. you'll never want to go back


Yea, and if you don't like it you just wasted probably over a thousand dollar. Better is to test-drive it in some Mac shop or something.
Arnie
Oh no, but you got that all wrong my friend! Mac is so good that it's universally the best, regardless of the user's character, preferences, purposes, etc. etc. So give it a go!

Barry Scott could have said it!
qebab
I don't hate windows, or think that Steve Ballmer eats babies for breakfast, I don't think that the linux kernel is the greatest thing to ever happen to the earth, or that the simple elegance of the Mac will give us world peace.

Each to their own, and different operating systems have different merits and different problems. It's very much personal which one you like - what applies to me might not apply to others, so what reason do I have to assume that they should use the same OS as me?

I don't need commercial software, and my PC seems to run more stable under linux, not to mention that I don't have to fiddle with antivirus and things like that. So I'm using linux instead, the ubuntu flavor has reasonable GUI, I rarely ever have to configure setting files by hand (and when I do, I usually figure out of it), and I can choose to not use terminal if I really want to. It suits my needs very well, therefore I choose it over Windows (which is costly compared to the no-cost of linux). The fact that I like this system doesn't mean I should get all religious and try to convert others to use it, or go around saying I hate another system, or even laughing at people who don't use my system.

OS fanboyism is something I don't understand. Individual users => individual needs => different systems.
{name here}
Quote:
None of those Screen shots looks like Vista or MAc OS X tiger

I'm merely demonstrating that it's happened before, and this time is no different than in the past.

Quote:
Apple Mac OS 1 looks nothing like Xerox star but Gem looks very close.

They may not look as much the same(I think the star had an interface closer to an Amiga by the looks of it), but you can clearly see that the ideas of PARC's star were inserted into Mac OS - Windows, desktop metaphors, titlebars, the mouse et cetera.

Quote:

And for once, Microsoft didn't take the looks of dos. They just bought dos of some other company that had made it.

Still, the first twenty or so interrupts were exactly the same as CP/M's. Plus, the looks are the same as well as some of the functions. Edlin which came with nearly every version of windows is almost exactly like CP/M's ED.COM. The executable files(.COM) use the same extension as earlier versions of CP/M. The only major difference between the two is the FAT file system and early on CP/M's abilities in using hard drives and subfolders. This was of course, after they put it on store shelves and possibly cleaned up QDOS's code.
Xeniczone
Quote:

Yea, and if you don't like it you just wasted probably over a thousand dollar. Better is to test-drive it in some Mac shop or something.


So ALL macs cost over 1000 dollars?

What about this one?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/61024003/wo/tC1KEMNlLQnK2OrLM2aqb9OSgUA/2.?p=0

or this one

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/61024003/wo/tC1KEMNlLQnK2OrLM2aqb9OSgUA/4.?p=0

Those are under 1000 dollars and still are some of the top of the line computers though I would recommend at least 1 gig of memory not 512 but mac os x only requires 256mbs of ram unlike vista which requires 512 without areo and 1gig with aero.

Even so if I'm going to test something I'm not going to buy something brand new I would perfer to buy something slightly cheaper like say a Used computer. Though doing so you much have the understanding you are buying older technology that will not be nearly as fast as the newer technology.
crazypal24x7
well frankly speaking I dont hate Windows instead its most user friendly, easy to use but it has lil flip side too like tryin 2 put down other competitors like linux( OS ) ,google (search) by using its dominance over market . well vista is not up to mark wht plp expected from MS
ssthanapati
Peterssidan wrote:
It's not good when one company stands for all development. It wasn't bad in the old days it was only different. Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


Well microsoft wants money its valid, afterall they are spending millions on it for development and production. Tell me how many hours of a week u spend doing social service? Or if u are working in a company, do u tell the owner u dont need the pay cheque at the end of the month? Then how do u justify free software?
ssthanapati
I dot feel windows is bad. XP improved a lot over windows 98 and is less prone to crashes. I am very happy with it as its easy to use
LostOverThere
ssthanapati wrote:
I dot feel windows is bad. XP improved a lot over windows 98 and is less prone to crashes. I am very happy with it as its easy to use


Actually Windows 98 is said to be the most stable Windows ever released.

As a Linux user I don't have a problem with people saying they like windows. What I do have a problem with is when people say Windows is good, or stable, or "awesome".
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
Actually Windows 98 is said to be the most stable Windows ever released.

As a Linux user I don't have a problem with people saying they like windows. What I do have a problem with is when people say Windows is good, or stable, or "awesome".


I would tend to agree. As a MS Windows user, I found 98SE to be the least difficult out of 95, 98 & NT. I don't put XP or 2000 into this category since they have quite a few more additional features that I find useful. I use XP at the moment, as I'm waiting for a while before getting Vista (so that at least MS can fix some of the bugs).

I wouldn't say that Windows is brilliant or awesome, let alone stable (though XP seems to be reasonable - it doesn't crash too often now, having been tweaked). But it runs the software I need, so I use it. Apart from that, the last time I saw a Mac OS, I didn't really like the look of its filing system. Some of the Linux operating systems seem good, but I not sure whether to believe all the hype about them being stable or immune to viruses or crash-free. I would find it difficult to believe that any operating system is error-free. Some are just less problematic than others.
Stubru Freak
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Some of the Linux operating systems seem good, but I not sure whether to believe all the hype about them being stable or immune to viruses or crash-free. I would find it difficult to believe that any operating system is error-free. Some are just less problematic than others.


Linux is quite stable. It does crash more than Windows XP on my computer, but that's maybe because Windows XP was preinstalled and Linux wasn't. Windows XP seems a lot more stable on my computer than other people tell me. You have a great choice of desktop environments, so you'll probably find one you like. I use it primarily because it has better support for my dual monitor, although with some tweaking (but Windows doesn't allow you to tweak it).
It is completely immune to viruses. In Windows you can get infected just by running a .exe, while in Linux, executable files downloaded from the internet are blocked, unless you specifically allow them (right-click, properties, security tab, allow execution). Normal files like images, documents, aren't blocked.
In Windows, you're trained to accept software from the internet, so you're trained to accept viruses. Most Linux distributions have a great software management system that has almost all the software you want, so you don't have to trust some internet site. And it allows for complete uninstallation without relying on the software package itself to do it.
So you don't get trained to install viruses, and it's a lot harder to do. Microsoft is currently making it harder, but at the same time they still supply extra software over the internet, and as such train people to circumvent their own security system.
People will never install a virus if it's so hard to do, unless they are trained to do so.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
It is completely immune to viruses. In Windows you can get infected just by running a .exe, while in Linux, executable files downloaded from the internet are blocked, unless you specifically allow them (right-click, properties, security tab, allow execution). Normal files like images, documents, aren't blocked.


I have no doubt that some versions of Linux are more stable than Windows (I have seen and used two versions of Linux, though not a great deal: Knoppix and SuSe.) Ok, so Linux has better protection from accidentally downloading an infected file from the net. I suppose if you still choose to continue with downloading and running an executable that is infected, then Linux could get a virus, right?

Quote:
In Windows, you're trained to accept software from the internet, so you're trained to accept viruses. Microsoft is currently making it harder, but at the same time they still supply extra software over the internet, and as such train people to circumvent their own security system.


Wouldn't Linux operating systems also get updates, drivers, etc. and software from the Net? I would have thought both operating systems would use the Net for updates, etc. Also, I would expect that there is software for any operating system out there on the Net. Anybody who chooses to do so could download it and install it. What I think you're saying is that Linux has some features of an anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall built into the system that identifies possible threats, unlike Windows, which requires separate software. Is this correct?
Stubru Freak
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Quote:
In Windows, you're trained to accept software from the internet, so you're trained to accept viruses. Microsoft is currently making it harder, but at the same time they still supply extra software over the internet, and as such train people to circumvent their own security system.


Wouldn't Linux operating systems also get updates, drivers, etc. and software from the Net? I would have thought both operating systems would use the Net for updates, etc. Also, I would expect that there is software for any operating system out there on the Net. Anybody who chooses to do so could download it and install it. What I think you're saying is that Linux has some features of an anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall built into the system that identifies possible threats, unlike Windows, which requires separate software. Is this correct?


No. Most recent Linux distributions (at least Red Hat, Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu, I don't know about others) use something called a package manager. It's something like the Windows Add/Remove software utility, only it can actually add software Wink. It allows you to select software to install, and then keeps it updated for you and allows you to safely uninstall it. It downloads this software from the internet, but not just from any website like in Windows. It downloads software from "repositories", servers with software that allow you to easily add your own software, but all software is checked by volunteers before being accepted.
So almost all software on the internet is in these repositories, and can be safely (and easily) downloaded. I never saw anything on the internet that isn't in a repository. (Repository addresses and GnuPG keys are built-in in your distribution. All downloads from repositories are GnuPG-signed to prevent third parties hacking the connection.)

Quote:
Quote:
It is completely immune to viruses. In Windows you can get infected just by running a .exe, while in Linux, executable files downloaded from the internet are blocked, unless you specifically allow them (right-click, properties, security tab, allow execution). Normal files like images, documents, aren't blocked.


I have no doubt that some versions of Linux are more stable than Windows (I have seen and used two versions of Linux, though not a great deal: Knoppix and SuSe.) Ok, so Linux has better protection from accidentally downloading an infected file from the net. I suppose if you still choose to continue with downloading and running an executable that is infected, then Linux could get a virus, right?


If you still choose to run it, you can get a virus. But nobody would be dumb enough to voluntarily run a virus unless they're trained to do so.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
So almost all software on the internet is in these repositories, and can be safely (and easily) downloaded. I never saw anything on the internet that isn't in a repository. (Repository addresses and GnuPG keys are built-in in your distribution. All downloads from repositories are GnuPG-signed to prevent third parties hacking the connection.)


Ah, ok. In that case, Linux has the advantage over Windows - it gets its updates and software from trusted, secure sources, whereas Windows can get drivers, etc. from just about anywhere. Thanks for the explanation.
Nyizsa
One more thing about security in Linux and other Unix-like systems: you will feel pretty comfortable in your system even if you are logged in as a normal user. So you don't need administrator privileges just to run a game. (This doesn't make any sense anyway.) So when you click on files in your browser, just to "let's see what happens", the system can't be damaged.
Arnie
There is Linux software of major importance outside of repositories. For example Opera and YSFlight for Debian.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
There is Linux software of major importance outside of repositories. For example Opera and YSFlight for Debian.


Opera is in the Ubuntu repository. Don't know about other ones.
Arno v. Lumig
Nyizsa wrote:
One more thing about security in Linux and other Unix-like systems: you will feel pretty comfortable in your system even if you are logged in as a normal user. So you don't need administrator privileges just to run a game. (This doesn't make any sense anyway.) So when you click on files in your browser, just to "let's see what happens", the system can't be damaged.


Any file that gets executed by you (normal user) also has your privileges. It can read you files and your address book. It can see your emails and create and send emails from your address. It can be used to do a distributed ping attack, and several other DDOS attacks.
From the data you have in your home directory it might be able to figure out your name, location, bank account, credit card number and all the things you don't want it to know.
That's not a lot less then it can do on Windows. It can't harm your system, but it can harm your data!
Therefor I propose that a program doesn't have access to any files, except those that get opened with the users permission (for example file -> open in openoffice), and the files it creates itselves (configuration files etc.). There is no reason for Firefox (to give an example) to be able to read my full home directory. Then why can it?
Linux is not a lot safer from viruses then Windows is. The only difference is in the market share. Writing a virus for Linux just isn't as interesting as writing a virus for Windows.
The opposite is true for remote attacks. Linux is used on lots of web servers, so it's a lot more interesting for a hacker to hack into a Linux box then it is to hack into a Windows box (hacking linux will have a larger impact).
Stubru Freak
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Nyizsa wrote:
One more thing about security in Linux and other Unix-like systems: you will feel pretty comfortable in your system even if you are logged in as a normal user. So you don't need administrator privileges just to run a game. (This doesn't make any sense anyway.) So when you click on files in your browser, just to "let's see what happens", the system can't be damaged.


Any file that gets executed by you (normal user) also has your privileges. It can read you files and your address book. It can see your emails and create and send emails from your address. It can be used to do a distributed ping attack, and several other DDOS attacks.
From the data you have in your home directory it might be able to figure out your name, location, bank account, credit card number and all the things you don't want it to know.
That's not a lot less then it can do on Windows. It can't harm your system, but it can harm your data!
Therefor I propose that a program doesn't have access to any files, except those that get opened with the users permission (for example file -> open in openoffice), and the files it creates itselves (configuration files etc.). There is no reason for Firefox (to give an example) to be able to read my full home directory. Then why can it?
Linux is not a lot safer from viruses then Windows is. The only difference is in the market share. Writing a virus for Linux just isn't as interesting as writing a virus for Windows.
The opposite is true for remote attacks. Linux is used on lots of web servers, so it's a lot more interesting for a hacker to hack into a Linux box then it is to hack into a Windows box (hacking linux will have a larger impact).


Partially true. For the reasons I wrote above, Linux is indeed a lot safer from viruses than Windows. But you're also right about the fact that it can still harm your home account when you tweak its privileges to allow it to execute. Your idea about file permissions isn't that bad. However, there has to be a way to allow a piece of software to read all files, e.g. a virus or spyware scanner. You don't want to open every file manually before it's checked.
Arno v. Lumig
The only thing I was trying to point out in my previous post is that the file permission system Linux (And other unix-like operating systems) uses is not the main reason it's safer. The main reason is that it's possible to install software through trusted repositories, which is of course safer then downloading it from other sites.
And let's say there is some Javascript bug in firefox, that allows sites to get all permissions the user has, that would be almost as disastrous then it would be on Windows, even though Firefox is in a safe repository and there's nothing wrong with the installation.
fadirocks
Here is why I hate windows

WINDOWS 95 was my nightmare, it was very painful to use that's why I hate windows! after fighting with that OS for years that I was able to fix a Chinese edition of Windows 95 and NO I CAN'T READ Chinese
Also Windows ME was another nightmare and didn't even use it but I had to fix so many of my friend's PCs!
And getting drivers for a stupid 56k modem ah don't even start me on that topic VERY BAD MEMORY!
LostOverThere
fadirocks wrote:
Here is why I hate windows

WINDOWS 95 was my nightmare, it was very painful to use that's why I hate windows! after fighting with that OS for years that I was able to fix a Chinese edition of Windows 95 and NO I CAN'T READ Chinese
Also Windows ME was another nightmare and didn't even use it but I had to fix so many of my friend's PCs!
And getting drivers for a stupid 56k modem ah don't even start me on that topic VERY BAD MEMORY!


Haha, I know the feeling. Something works one day and for absolutely no reason it screws up the following day.
Nyizsa
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
The only thing I was trying to point out in my previous post is that the file permission system Linux (And other unix-like operating systems) uses is not the main reason it's safer. The main reason is that it's possible to install software through trusted repositories, which is of course safer then downloading it from other sites.
And let's say there is some Javascript bug in firefox, that allows sites to get all permissions the user has, that would be almost as disastrous then it would be on Windows, even though Firefox is in a safe repository and there's nothing wrong with the installation.

No, I wasn't talking about file permissions, at least this wasn't the point. The thing I wanted to tell was that to use Window$ comfortably, you need to have admin privileges. In other systems, you are all right without them.
Hemen
Idont know.
Because they love linux or Mac?Razz
chris20
It costs money and I am poor.
nhuabo
Nyizsa wrote:
carlospro7 wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.


That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business.

Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. Cool )

Open source developers don't want money ,I think it's not that way.
Why open source come at the beginning? They have no idea,nobody would buy the software they wrote.So they put it on the internet,lately they become a group.
I don't hate windows and the microsoft,I think it is a great company.
Try to imagine,nearly everybody who use computer use its product,Windows and office...
MJMX
i dont hate Windows... Thought it cost much it's very easy to use. Allmoust all games work with it, as they may not work with other OS.
In hosting I would use diffrent OS maybe Linux because Windows crashes sometimes and can't be on long times Exclamation
THE11thROCK™
Windows: Monopolistic, Unsecured, Money-Milking Scheme, Bug-Ridden and Imperialistic Bully. Free? No. Friendly? You bet. Community driven? You hope. Yes, it is a part of Tech history and one of the pioneers.. so what? Why would one not hate it?
nico.carpentier
switch to make os ten right nao ! taste it and you never come back to windaube !
Da Rossa
I love Windows.
nico.carpentier
not me !
aenaon
Hate windows??? no. I have tried linux and they are a great os. But windows is what i am used to. and in windows i will stay. after all, it is not bad to try different os , but if you know one of them like your hand, why would you use another ??
LostOverThere
aenaon wrote:
Hate windows??? no. I have tried linux and they are a great os. But windows is what i am used to. and in windows i will stay. after all, it is not bad to try different os , but if you know one of them like your hand, why would you use another ??


Because its most likely programmed decently. (IE: Not Windows)
Da Rossa
Perhaps the question should change to: "why some Linux users are so fervent?"
Arnie
That's because of the hype and the world domination philosophy of the FSF/GNU/Stallman.
kansloos
Quote:
It consumes about ~65MB memory while idling.
I wouldn't call that a memory hog - it leaves me pretty much all of my system RAM available for other applications.


If you used taskmanager to get this stat, then it's probably not that accurate, as it only shows how much memory of your swap file is used.

my Windows taskmgr says:
Memory use: 330MB/979MB

However everest says more:
Physical Memory: 223MB/511MB
Swap File: 330MB/979MB
Virtual Memory: 553MB/1491MB <-- sum of the 2 above

Still my linux box in idle mode with the gui running only uses 190MB and when in text mode you can substract another 100MB.

At the time I checked these stats, I shutdown most processes in the taksmgr. And I only had EVEREST, 1 internet explorer page & the taskmgr open.

Quote:
Ofcourse the installation is heavily tweaked and hardened in more ways than the average user would ever go to the extent of, but even an untweaked XP installation can run just fine on 256 MB ram under average usage.


Yes it can, but it's faster when run with more ram as the memory consument is higher then 256MB on an untweaked 'average-use-system'
So I would recommend 512MB instead

Quote:
At the same time, I've also seen the default installation of Fedora core 5 eating up more than 500MB of ram right off the boot.


I have Fedora 6 & 7 installed and yes they eat up all ur RAM but this is normal. Fedora creates a cache that filles up any memory that is not being used.

Quote:
I've personally done benchmarks on several games (that have linux versions), and find no performance difference whatsoever between running them in windows and running them in linux.
Nor do I find linux boot process to be any faster than XP, if anything - it's only slower.


I must agree to that.

Quote:
Linux, with the GUI having features comparable to windows, can definitely be a bigger memory hog than you'd like to think.
This guy describes exactly what I'm talking about.


And you make a strong point here again. But linux is not something u should use with a gui a lot. I prefer to config a lot in the gui and then switch to text-mode. to save cpu-time and memory.

Though I read this to on that site...
Quote:
Now that X is being developed again things might improve, the weakest part of linux has always been the GUI and X. KDE and Gnome have added a lot of polish over the years and now look really slick, but this comes at a performance cost, which improvements to X might fix.

Still, RAM isn't exactly expensive anymore and running WinXP on less than 256mb RAM is pretty bad too.
Arnie
Linux without a GUI means, forget about Linux as a serious desktop system. Only fanatics that use emacs for text editing and links for browsing can deal with a command-line desktop system... and it doesn't even have a desktop! The truth is, Linux has a long way to go to be an efficient desktop system. Period.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Linux without a GUI means, forget about Linux as a serious desktop system. Only fanatics that use emacs for text editing and links for browsing can deal with a command-line desktop system... and it doesn't even have a desktop! The truth is, Linux has a long way to go to be an efficient desktop system. Period.


Not really, when I used Ubuntu, I had only two serious problems that made me go back to Windows.
The first was my wireless internet connection, that just failed to work reliably whatever I tried.
The second is that a lot of configuration is necessary before Linux works properly.
Assuming the first problem is related to drivers, both of them could be solved if Linux was prepackaged with a PC.
I like the GUI, better than the Windows GUI.
And Linux did a lot that Windows can't do, like proper support for a dual monitor and double-sided printing (which Windows can't do while my printer supports it).
Arnie
Do you actually know what "Linux without a GUI" means? Ok, here's a clue: no windows, no start menu, just text in one font, occasionally coloured, on a black background. Like DOS.

If you want Linux with a GUI, you've got to use X11. And that is a lot less memory efficient than Windows. Sure, with the latest hardware you won't notice it that bad, but try comparing X11 (on BSD, Linux, wherever) with Windows' GUI on a Pentium II with 64MB RAM and you'll find out.

I'm talking about e.g. Windows 98SE compared to X11+TWM. Obviously Windows 98SE has a much more advanced GUI, but still you'll find TWM to be slower.

So I repeat: Linux has a long way to go to be an efficient desktop system. Sure, without X11 it's efficient, but then it's no longer a desktop system is it?
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Do you actually know what "Linux without a GUI" means? Ok, here's a clue: no windows, no start menu, just text in one font, occasionally coloured, on a black background. Like DOS.

If you want Linux with a GUI, you've got to use X11. And that is a lot less memory efficient than Windows. Sure, with the latest hardware you won't notice it that bad, but try comparing X11 (on BSD, Linux, wherever) with Windows' GUI on a Pentium II with 64MB RAM and you'll find out.


I know what Linux without a GUI means, I was talking about Linux with a GUI. It may be more resource intensive, but like you said, I have the latest hardware so no need to worry about that.
Arnie
Right, let's buy a new computer every year, who cares? I thought we always accused Microsoft of pushing hardware requirements with every new release of Windows. If I have to believe the Linux fanboys it's even a conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel, to keep sales artificially high!

But when it's Linux, then suddenly there's no problem. Of course, don't we all have a Core 2 Duo, and don't we all dump our old computers to the Third World every other year? All for the good cause of Linux.

And hey, while we're at it, let's compile all software ourselves at the highest optimization level! It may take 48 hours of non-stop intensive CPU usage (say, 300W) but then we can brag about how we built our entire system from source! Of course in a month there'll be new versions out and since we want the bleeding edge, it's worth another night of compiling.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Right, let's buy a new computer every year, who cares? I thought we always accused Microsoft of pushing hardware requirements with every new release of Windows. But hey, when it's Linux, then suddenly there's no problem. Of course, don't we all have a Core 2 Duo, and don't we all dump our old computers to the Third World? All for the good cause of Linux.


It's not that bad, I manage to compile the Firefox trunk on a Linux laptop (Xubuntu) from 2001 that used to run Win98 SE, while in GUI (I'm not good at CLI :p). The latest release of Xubuntu runs reasonably on a pc that could never run the latest release of Windows.
But you're right, if you want the graphics of the latest Windows version, you'll need a slightly better PC. Is that a problem? Should everyone have the latest graphics? Windows forces those graphics on you (well, you can turn some of them off, but still), Linux doesn't. Linux has a lot of functions that I find more important than the latest graphics. And if you care about graphics so much, you can buy a better PC with the money you save on Windows.
Arnie
Yeah, and you need that better pc anyway because X11 and Firefox and many others are such hogs. Next time before you say "all the graphics" click on that link to the TWM screenshot. (Here it is again.) You'd say a lightweight installation like that would fly like a rocket compared to Windows 98SE on the same machine, but alas, it's more like a turtle. And this light installation doesn't even have half the functions 98SE does (charmap, anyone?)
{name here}
I hate twm. Twm just isn't that good, really. If I want a lightweight window manager rio is my choice because it really does suit programming and convienience for programmers - it's light, stripped of useless features, and it uses both mouse chording and easy, forced, keyboard shortcuts(nothing big, the scrollbar is it really) to make life much more easier than a conventional GUI like twm.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Yeah, and you need that better pc anyway because X11 and Firefox and many others are such hogs. Next time before you say "all the graphics" click on that link to the TWM screenshot. (Here it is again.) You'd say a lightweight installation like that would fly like a rocket compared to Windows 98SE on the same machine, but alas, it's more like a turtle. And this light installation doesn't even have half the functions 98SE does (charmap, anyone?)


I don't know what that is, I'm not an expert at Linux, I just know that the latest Xubuntu release is able to compile the Firefox trunk and run it, while Win98 can't do that, and that it has about the same graphics as Win98, on a laptop that could never run a Windows version better than Win98. Also, it's released a few months ago, while Win98 isn't supported anymore, and as such full of security holes that'll never get fixed. I'm not saying every Linux distribution is that good, but Xubuntu is.

For clarity: when I'm talking about compiling, it's for development, not just for using it. So it's a debug build.
Arnie
I'll take that challange. Someday soon I'll install Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM, which is a computer we bought in 2000 with 98SE. If it works as smooth as Win98SE I'll take back my words, but somehow I seriously doubt that...

And no desktop user will care about compiling Firefox on their computer, will they? The only reason I mentioned home compiling in this topic is because it's ridiculous, energy wasting nonsense!

By the way, I currently do my computer business on Win98SE computers (and one Win2000), and I have less problems than the average Linux user, so who cares it's old? It works and that's what matters for a desktop user. You go spend big bucks on new hardware so you can run Linux, I got three fully working computers for under 100 euro. And the only difference for me between the 2000 and the 98SE is that Hamachi can't run on 98SE.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
I'll take that challange. Someday soon I'll install Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM, which is a computer we bought in 2000 with 98SE. If it works as smooth as Win98SE I'll take back my words, but somehow I seriously doubt that...

And no desktop user will care about compiling Firefox on their computer, will they? The only reason I mentioned home compiling in this topic is because it's ridiculous, energy wasting nonsense!


Yes, that's true, it's just an example of the performance it still has. My only example, as I only use that old laptop to compile Linux debug builds of Firefox and Thunderbird for development.
Arnie
Being able to compile something says nothing at all about the performance! You can compile Firefox on a Pentium 1, except it'll take days. Just as a 10-year old laptop can calculate pi to the billionth digit...
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Being able to compile something says nothing at all about the performance! You can compile Firefox on a Pentium 1, except it'll take days. Just as a 10-year old laptop can calculate pi to the billionth digit...


Well, it doesn't take days. And it runs the resulting debug build reasonably. (A little slower than my Windows XP PC.)
kansloos
A really old computer probably can't cumpute Pi to the billionth bit as it will break down long before it is finished.
corey
This has been an entertaining thread over the last few days. Its a great read with lots of debate, which is great.

One thing that I have a problem with is the OSNews article used for reference for many of the posts in this thread. Its a nice piece of historical information. I hope that everyone is taking this article from June 2004 and putting it into context with today.

It is still true that most mainstream Linux distros are still quite a bit bloated and require as much RAM/CPU as Windows XP (far less than Vista, though). If someone wants a lighter system, then a distribution like Vector is right up that alley. Its too bad that IceWM didn't catch on...
{name here}
kansloos wrote:
A really old computer probably can't cumpute Pi to the billionth bit as it will break down long before it is finished.

It wouldn't break down, really. Depending on the memory and virtual memory available it would eventually crash and you'd have to reset it. It would eventually happen on a modern computer as well.
LostOverThere
corey wrote:
It is still true that most mainstream Linux distros are still quite a bit bloated and require as much RAM/CPU as Windows XP (far less than Vista, though).


What? For Windows XP you need 512mb of RAM. All the Linux Distro's I've used only needed 128mb RAM.
Arnie
Someone will tell you "you only need 128MB for Windows XP" and you will doublessly reply "but then it will be hardly usable". Well, eye-opener: Linux with 128MB is less usable! (Not really an eye-opener since you probably knew that yourself!)

So you're doing a nice job quoting the highest estimate of XP's RAM requirement and the lowest of Linux's. Measuring with two standards huh?

Ok, so when you have a minimalist Linux distribution with IceWM or so, then 128MB is enough. But for Windows 2000 that's also enough and that OS compares well to minimalist Linux.
Arnie
Arnie wrote:
I'll take that challange. Someday soon I'll install Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM, which is a computer we bought in 2000 with 98SE. If it works as smooth as Win98SE I'll take back my words, but somehow I seriously doubt that...
I'm already sorry for having promised this, because it's a terrible job to get Xubuntu installed in the first place. Here's why you should never try it...

PIT #1
In their zeal all the fanboys forget to mention that we're dealing with old systems here, so they just tell beginners "get Ubuntu" or at best "get Xubuntu". And that's exactly what the beginner would do. How should he know that he has to get the alternative version because the normal version's installer is already too high-end to run on his system? Well, I already have experience with
Fanboy wrote:
AND IT EVEN WORKS ON SUPER OLD HARDWARE ...but you have to do some stuff to get it working, really easy though!!!1!
so I downloaded the alternative version straight away.

PIT #2
The Xubuntu alternative installer is based on Debian's default text-installer. But it appears they thought at Ubuntu, let's remove some random features. Result: read it here.

PIT #3
After getting myself a disk free from bad sectors (just because of my promise here) and having wasted many hours already, the installer gets stuck at "configuring anthy". I had seen many occasions before where it took ages before the installer continued from a certain percentage, but after having my harddrive tortured for a few hours (since it constantly rattles during this "anthy configuration") I decided it was enough. So guess what? Xubuntu will not even install on a system with 64MB RAM.

So I guess now the fanboys will revert to its-your-fault mode and tell me to follow the "simple instructions" (for you and me maybe, but not for beginners...) on the Ubuntu forums that will force the anthy configuration to give up. Well, I'll do that just for the purpose of getting Xubuntu installed and seeing how it performs. But this is a big - on the checklist already.

Here's a little preview of what to expect, from some guy who tried it before me (with exactly the same CPU and memory).

edit: fixed link
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
Arnie wrote:
I'll take that challange. Someday soon I'll install Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM, which is a computer we bought in 2000 with 98SE. If it works as smooth as Win98SE I'll take back my words, but somehow I seriously doubt that...
I'm already sorry for having promised this, because it's a terrible job to get Xubuntu installed in the first place. Here's why you should never try it...

PIT #1
In their zeal all the fanboys forget to mention that we're dealing with old systems here, so they just tell beginners "get Ubuntu" or at best "get Xubuntu". And that's exactly what the beginner would do. How should he know that he has to get the alternative version because the normal version's installer is already too high-end to run on his system? Well, I already have experience with
Fanboy wrote:
AND IT EVEN WORKS ON SUPER OLD HARDWARE ...but you have to do some stuff to get it working, really easy though!!!1!
so I downloaded the alternative version straight away.

PIT #2
The Xubuntu alternative installer is based on Debian's default text-installer. But it appears they thought at Ubuntu, let's remove some random features. Result: read it here.

PIT #3
After getting myself a disk free from bad sectors (just because of my promise here) and having wasted many hours already, the installer gets stuck at "configuring anthy". I had seen many occasions before where it took ages before the installer continued from a certain percentage, but after having my harddrive tortured for a few hours (since it constantly rattles during this "anthy configuration") I decided it was enough. So guess what? Xubuntu will not even install on a system with 64MB RAM.

So I guess now the fanboys will revert to its-your-fault mode and tell me to follow the "simple instructions" (for you and me maybe, but not for beginners...) on the Ubuntu forums that will force the anthy configuration to give up. Well, I'll do that just for the purpose of getting Xubuntu installed and seeing how it performs. But this is a big - on the checklist already.

Here's a little preview of what to expect, from some guy who tried it before me (with exactly the same CPU and memory).


For me it worked perfectly. I have no idea why it doesn't work for you. Still, did you ever try to install Windows 98? It's even harder. The average person shouldn't install an operating system anyway, this wouldn't happen if you could have it pre-installed like Windows.
Arnie
Glad you asked, I installed Windows 98SE on this very machine more than 5 times! Admittedly that was because the installation was polluted due to reckless users. Now I just have a restore image that I put back whenever something's wrong.

Oh and installing 98SE takes less than half the time installing Xubuntu does on this machine, even when everything goes right with the Xubuntu installation. 98SE most certainly hasn't given me issues like this.

But, the original question was, how will Xubuntu perform. The installation finished around 17:30 so I'll boot it soon. I started installing ~13:30, so it took four hours!
takashiro
I do not think so. Now many computer is installed Windows System. Why do you think Windows is hated by many people? Windows is easy to use and very beautiful, especially Vista. But Windows system is getting larger and larger, up to 2GB now.
brucedes
I don't HATE Windows, but I prefer other Operating Systems. The way I see it, OS X, Linux and other unix Operating systems Just work and Windows Just works.

The thing about Unix based Operating Systems is that the kernel and lowest levels of the OS are constantly updated and improved. Any flaws can thus be ironed out quickly and easily

With Windows, Microsoft used DOS as the base of the consumer versions of Windows from 1985-2001. Now they're using NT, and we'll have to wait to see for how long. No doubt Microsoft tweaked the DOS/NT base for each release, but it's essentially the same outdated system, and the inherent flaws with it are always going to be present.
dooble.doodles
the good...

more standardization.

the bads... they copied others technology, claimed it as theirs... and put the innovators out of business.

I use more linux, but still run a couple windows machines.

Window defrag was really developed by others as I recall
they killed borland.... better development environments...

defining standards help.. but not necessarily one company. It promotes cheaper products with better interoperability.
brucedes
Standardisation is good but it has it's limit. When 90% of people use the same OS, well, just look at ILOVEYOU and the Blaster Worm.

Sure, I may not have all the software available to Windows users, but I'm glad that I can browse the internet safely without fear of spyware and viruses infecting my system. I think it's a fair trade off.
Arno v. Lumig
Arnie wrote:
Glad you asked, I installed Windows 98SE on this very machine more than 5 times! Admittedly that was because the installation was polluted due to reckless users. Now I just have a restore image that I put back whenever something's wrong.

Oh and installing 98SE takes less than half the time installing Xubuntu does on this machine, even when everything goes right with the Xubuntu installation. 98SE most certainly hasn't given me issues like this.

But, the original question was, how will Xubuntu perform. The installation finished around 17:30 so I'll boot it soon. I started installing ~13:30, so it took four hours!


And? How did it perform?
My Ubuntu install uses around 180MB at startup, I don't think that would actually play well with just 64MB of RAM.. (It will get pretty swappy I guess...)

But yeah, you're right. Linux is not a good performer for on a desktop, Windows does everything a lot faster, until you actually start using it. (Until you start to install stuff, fragment your hard drive, get a virusscanner and firewall etc etc).

As benchmarks, why don't you just write something CPU-intensive (sorting algorithm or something) and execute that on both installations? And of course you could test things like application startup time (preferrably applications that are the same in both OSs, comparing notepad to gEdit isn't really fair I think)
Arnie
Oh, thanks for reminding me of this test! I did start it up and I made a video of it, which allows me to measure the startup time. It actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would, but I think it was still rather unresponsive. Anyway I'll go check out that video soon and will let you know. Then I'll install Windows 98SE on the same machine and will do the same.

Let's just hope Ranfaroth won't come barging in here that "you can't compare them because 98 hasn't been updated for years" or I'll throw a recently updated FreeDOS installation in the comparison.
LostOverThere
Well, I am not that person, but I'll say it anyway.

But if you're comparing Windows 98 to a Linux Distro you should probably compare it to a Linux Distro made around 1998. Or, just compare Windows Vista to Ubuntu 7.04. Smile

Oh, and if you need a distro for a really old computer, try Slackware. There's options to use it with as little as 4mb of RAM.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Well, I am not that person, but I'll say it anyway.

But if you're comparing Windows 98 to a Linux Distro you should probably compare it to a Linux Distro made around 1998. Or, just compare Windows Vista to Ubuntu 7.04. Smile

Oh, and if you need a distro for a really old computer, try Slackware. There's options to use it with as little as 4mb of RAM.


Ubuntu Feisty Fawn is not nearly comparable to Windows Vista. Maybe NT or 2000 will compare to Feisty.

And then, although I know it's of no use to say this:
On my AMD Athlon X2 64Bit 5600+ (2,8GHz), with a GeForce 7300 256MB, 1GB DDR2-800MHz Kingston RAM and an Seagate 320GB S-ATA HD. (That's a mouthfull, isn't it?) Windows XP, with no tweaking done at all, loads firefox instantly (and it should, on this system).
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, however takes over 2 (two) seconds to load firefox. That's insane!
Booting Windows XP takes like 7 seconds (serious, don't ask my how I did it...), while Ubuntu takes 40 seconds

I don't want to be mean to ubuntu, but even most LiveCDs run faster! (And I'm not talking about DSL or Puppy)

I like Linux, because it's free, safe from viruses and it's easy to install software, but it is SLOW compared to Windows.
Arnie
LostOverThere: FreeDOS 1.0 is from ~2006. Shall I compare its speed to a 2006 version of Ubantu?

You'll say no, because FreeDOS has less functionality. Well, what functionality of Ubantu does Windows 98SE not have? Most freeware applications run very well on 98SE and that means there's a whole pack of options. But most importantly, for a Internet browsing computer, 98SE suffices. Even 95 with Opera 9 does.
Arno v. Lumig
Ubuntu has "Out of the Box" (what box?) more functionality then Windows 98, and even more then Vista (Vista does not have a graphics editing program, and office suite, an IRC client etc etc). The point is that with a few installations Windows will have the same functionality, and most likely even more.
{name here}
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
LostOverThere wrote:
Well, I am not that person, but I'll say it anyway.

But if you're comparing Windows 98 to a Linux Distro you should probably compare it to a Linux Distro made around 1998. Or, just compare Windows Vista to Ubuntu 7.04. Smile

Oh, and if you need a distro for a really old computer, try Slackware. There's options to use it with as little as 4mb of RAM.


Ubuntu Feisty Fawn is not nearly comparable to Windows Vista. Maybe NT or 2000 will compare to Feisty.

And then, although I know it's of no use to say this:
On my AMD Athlon X2 64Bit 5600+ (2,8GHz), with a GeForce 7300 256MB, 1GB DDR2-800MHz Kingston RAM and an Seagate 320GB S-ATA HD. (That's a mouthfull, isn't it?) Windows XP, with no tweaking done at all, loads firefox instantly (and it should, on this system).
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, however takes over 2 (two) seconds to load firefox. That's insane!
Booting Windows XP takes like 7 seconds (serious, don't ask my how I did it...), while Ubuntu takes 40 seconds

I don't want to be mean to ubuntu, but even most LiveCDs run faster! (And I'm not talking about DSL or Puppy)

I like Linux, because it's free, safe from viruses and it's easy to install software, but it is SLOW compared to Windows.

XP loads faster than Ubuntu for me, but the thing about it is I don't waste my time putting crap on XP - I've stripped as much as I could from it's interface to revert it to the earlier version in how it works, and I'm too lazy to switch it to FluxBox at the moment, though I don't think the words X11 and performance belong together. When I used X11 with even Twm it felt lagging and slow. When I used Plan 9 with Rio, which is independant of any graphical manager, it went lightning fast. If I actually loaded a desktop skin, a background, put all that shado crap and stuff like that I'll bet it won't perform any better.
LostOverThere
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Windows XP, with no tweaking done at all, loads firefox instantly (and it should, on this system).
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, however takes over 2 (two) seconds to load firefox. That's insane!


Uh...really? For me in Windows, Firefox takes a good 5-10 seconds to load. In Feisty Fawn its Under 1 second.
Arnie
Right, so here are the results of my little experiment. Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM:
From Grub to the login screen: 1 minute 57 seconds.
From the login screen to ready system: 56 seconds.
From clicking Firefox to the ready window: 1 minute 15 seconds.
From closing Firefox to the desktop (icons reloaded): 3 seconds.
From clicking Calculator to the ready window: 7 seconds.
From clicking the harddisk drive explorer to the ready window: 5 seconds.
From clicking AbiWord to the ready window: 16 seconds.

This particular computer still has the default Xubuntu installation on it, so if you have any requests that I should time a certain task, let me know. In a while I'll install 98SE and do the same things.

The numbers are obtained by recording the whole thing on camera and marking the start/end positions of each task.
kansloos
Arnie wrote:
Right, so here are the results of my little experiment. Xubuntu on a Celeron 500 with 64MB RAM:
From Grub to the login screen: 1 minute 57 seconds.
From the login screen to ready system: 56 seconds.
From clicking Firefox to the ready window: 1 minute 15 seconds.
From closing Firefox to the desktop (icons reloaded): 3 seconds.
From clicking Calculator to the ready window: 7 seconds.
From clicking the harddisk drive explorer to the ready window: 5 seconds.
From clicking AbiWord to the ready window: 16 seconds.

This particular computer still has the default Xubuntu installation on it, so if you have any requests that I should time a certain task, let me know. In a while I'll install 98SE and do the same things.

The numbers are obtained by recording the whole thing on camera and marking the start/end positions of each task.


Ofcourse this test will be slower then Win98, XFCE is not that light at all.
I have a 450mhz celeron + 64mb running a ubuntu-server package

Ubuntu-server basicly installs a minimal package which u can expand with more stuff.
This is ideal for me cuz I won't need to install crap I won't need. I have currently 2 window managers installed which are qvwm & icewm
qvwm when setup properly is ultra fast and it mimics the old win95.
However Icewm somehow has my preference.

I currently do not have a real login manager installed but this is however possible and I have done it before, it will take no more then 2sec to load get from login to ready system.

Firefox is crap & slow. Get the opera browser it's way faster. Though I must agree it is still not very fast. the filemanger I use XFE and for photo's gqview.
As for the boot I managed to boot to the login screen in about 1 minute.

And no, I do not have a very fast hard-drive. The best and biggest one (1.2GB) of the two installed, just fits into a cd-rom slot and is more then 10 years old.


My current implementation only uses 25 / 64 Mb in idle mode


It might still be a bit slower then Win98SE, but then again this is free and probably more stable
Arno v. Lumig
Kansloos, the point that Arnie was trying to make (and he succeeded in that, as far as I'm concerned) is that Windows 98 is faster then Xubuntu. Maybe XFCE isn't that light at all, might be, but you tell me another desktop manager that is rather easy to use, stable, but still lightweight. I'm sure you know that IceWM, fvwm(-crystal), twm (hehe) isn't really easy to use. XFCE, Gnome and KDE are the only desktop environments that are suitable for a beginner.

So, got an old PC? Don't install Xubuntu, because you won't like it. Of course there are some other distros that would run like a charm on an old PC (Puppy Linux for example. Lightning fast even on my 600MHz PIII with 256MB ram.)

Arnie, thank you for the test, I can't wait to see how Win98 performs.

EDIT:

It might seem like I'm contradicting myself here, but I did some tests too: WinXP versus Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty).

The results are... Weird...
Firefox: WinXP 7,5 Ubuntu 4,3
VLC: WinXP 3,2 Ubuntu 1,6
File browser: WinXP 2,0 Ubuntu 1,6
Grub to ok*: WinXP 85,9 Ubuntu 57,0
RAM after boot: WinXP 278 Ubuntu 160

The hardware I used is:
AMD Athlon XP 2800+
2x 512MB DDR2 RAM at 667MHz
GeForce 5200
Windows was installed on an 160GB Maxtor HD, ATA, 58.96MB/s according to hdparm -t
Linux was installed on an 80GB Seagate HD, ATA, 30.74MB/s according to hdparm -t

* ok is when all programs are loaded and the desktop is ready for use. In Windows XP that also means that the virusscanner and the firewall had to be loaded, and the Java Runtime Environment, and Windows Live Messenger. On Ubuntu this means that only the usefull services like Cups, samba, nfs-client, beagle etc get loaded. This comparison may not be 100% fair.
turbosquid
I'm not to sure if it is 'Windows' that people hate or 'Microsoft's' monopolization of the market, i am a Linux user and i think Linux is great because:-

1> It's free
2> Its a lot more stable than windows
3> 99.9% of the software for Linux is also free and there's a lot of it
4> You can customize it until your hearts content.

BUT in my view it's not as simple as windows or at least not for a newbie, it can take time to setup and there is often a degree of scripting involved (that is editing scripts to your preferences). All that said Linux is coming on in leaps and bounds and has some great features that Windows doesn't.
Bearing the above in mind windows has it's advantages:-

1> It's pretty simple to use and setup for a newbie.
2> It is more suited in many ways for a 'Family PC' ie most of the big games are windows based.
3> It's got better hardware support than Linux (ie no messing around with 3rd party drivers etc... (this excludes Vista as it just plain sucks)

All in all i would say windows is a FAIR operating system, but it does make me wonder that if Linux had the same support from the big game / software houses, hardware manufacturers, etc etc would Linux rule the roost?
Arnie
Well kansloos, you are telling me that "of course Xubuntu is slower" because I would have picked the wrong distro/WM for the comparison. Sorry, but there are many heroes claiming Xubuntu to be faster. Not you, but enough to make this test worth my while. In fact, somebody who sounded as convinced as you do, issued the challenge just one page ago. Go see for yourself.

You don't have a clue how many times people have replied just like you. The thing is: they all said "you're testing the wrong thing, XXX is faster!!!!". When it's not DSL, it's DeLi, when it's not DeLi, it's Mulinux, when it's not Mulinux, it's PuppyLinux, when it's not Puppy, it's BasicLinux.... ETC ETC.

Just check the two links I provided, I couldn't quickly find the others. You'll see the suggestions flying by. Imagine you're a random guy with an old computer and your Linux fanboy coworker promised you Linux will revive it. So what are you supposed to do? Take a week off from your job to try 10% of all the "THIS REALLY WORKS" suggestions you get?

I don't like people that whine when their computer doesn't do what they want: "why doesn't it just work! boohoo". But this is a bit too much of the opposite, don't you think? I'm starting to think that many people just program their own WM and compose their own distribution, because that's easier and faster than testing the 500 already existing options. Guess that's why we keep getting more and more...

Or on e.g. Debian: when it's not TWM, it's LWM, or Fluxbox, or IceWM, or... and they all say "this one really is the best". Do you suppose I'm going to waste my time testing all those suggestions? All that'll happen is, more fanboys will come to throw all sorts of obscure software at me!

I'm already sorry for promising to test Xubuntu (read back) but a promise is a promise. Xubuntu has most fanboys so it's probably most worth my while. All this nonsense about Linux working like a charm on old hardware creates big disappointments. Check this out.

Having said that, I like QVWM too. And I also tried IceWM. But both are still not faster than Win98SE. I gave my brother a Pentium MMX 200MHz with 96MB RAM. Software: Debian, QVWM, Opera, XFE. Just like you use. And guess what? It used to be about 3x faster when it had Windows 98, and back then it had a 133MHz CPU and 64MB RAM! If I had that machine at home I could give it an exact test... but better not. After having disproved you, 2 others would show up with their miracle software, claiming I tested the wrong stuff. Heck, I'm waiting for them right now to tell me I shouldn't have used Debian, but ....

@Arno: A Pentium III 600 with 256MB RAM? Well it's nothing special for Puppy to run on that... it could even take KDE. Let alone that XFCE4 would be a problem. With that much RAM, your PC hardly qualifies as "old hardware". Windows XP would run fine.

As for your test XP vs Ubuntu, I think newer Windows versions gradually compare less good to Linux in terms of memory usage, speed and efficiency. Vista of course is the big example of that, but XP in its default state can also be quite heavy. With proper tweaking I can contain XP and it'll beat Linux, but I haven't tried Vista (and am not intending to). Now for the fanboys that tell me Linux can be made faster than 98SE too, with proper tweaking: I don't believe you. All the mini distros that I tried claimed to have this tweaking, and they failed, even against a stock 98SE.
Arno v. Lumig
Arnie, I think a PIII 600 qualifies as old hardware Wink. I got one for free at my school (which must mean it's not worth selling anymore, right?).

You may be right about a configured Win98 beating any somewhat usable linux distro in performance on really old machines, and perhaps even on higher-end system, but I have come across loads of Windows systems that really get cluttered after a while of use. I don't know why this is, but I've did some serious messups with installations in Linux (compiz-fusion is a no-go atm!), and linux still runs faster then my relatively clean WinXP install, as you can see in my previous post.

I am 100% positive that a fresh new install of WinXP is faster then Feisty on my new, high-end machine (dual 2,8GHz 64bit), but Feisty is still more responsive.
What do I mean by that? Let's say you have a list of music files, and want to listen one of them. Unfortunately you make a misclick (happens all the time). While using Linux I got used to just double-clicking on the other song to make that one play instead. On Windows this is bound to cause a lockup for a few seconds, while on Linux it will not be a problem (most of the time).
Let's say you're rendering a complex 3D scene, so your CPU usage is near 100% all the time. On Linux you are still able to just click the menu button ("Start menu") and it will show up within a second or so, in WinXP it is likely to take longer, or not load at all until you start double-clicking it out of desparation.

So I think we can agree that Windows 98 is better for low-end machines, but I would still prefer Linux for several other reasons.

To get back on the topic a bit:
I do not hate Windows at all, I just like Linux and FreeBSD better for several reasons. I don't think Steve Ballmers eats babies for breakfast, or that Bill Gates want's to take over the world. I also don't think Richard Stallmann is holy, or have a picture of Linus Torvalds above my bed.
In some cases, Windows is better then any other OS out there, but that does not mean other OSs are worse. In my case, other OSs are better.
Arnie
Not worth selling? You could get 50 euros for it...

But yes, I agree that newer Windows versions gradually compare less good to Linux.
brianfast
Windows XP is faster then SimplyMEPIS 6.5 on my rig. But if I had worse hardware I think switching to a minimalist Linux desktop would give me great performance leaps.

And to you guys arguing over minimalist linux vs Windows 98, get over it. Windows 98 is 10 years old and you cannot run newer software with it. Not to mention linux is much more secure and stable. Linux easily wins.
Arnie
Win98SE 10 (less actually) years old? FreeDOS is recent. So does that make it a preferred choice? It's the functionality that matters.

Can't run newer programs? It runs Opera, OpenOffice.org, and even Firefox and Thunderbird for those who insist on wasting their RAM. Perfect for an Internet PC. In fact, I use it for my daily stuff, and achieve more than many on their $1000 XP or Linux rigs. If you need something specific like Paint.NET, then I understand you need WinXP. But hey, Paint.NET doesn't run on Linux either, does it...??

More secure? I've run 3 Win98SE boxes for years without security problems. If you're paranoid, you should really be running OpenBSD.

Admittedly family members wrecked Windows installations by installing big games etc. but in such situations I just put back an image. The Win98SE image with text editor, spreadsheet, browser, ZIP program, etc. fits on one 700MB CD.

For an Internet pc, you're a fool to use Linux. You need to spend big bucks for recent hardware that will get acceptable performance. 98SE can do everything you need of an Internet pc and it does the job much more efficient.

I bet you never actually tried comparing them, but are just rehearsing the doctrines of the Linux fanboys. Correct me if I'm wrong...
_________________

So here are the results of the tests with 98SE next to the Xubuntu test I did previously, on the same machine (Celeron 500, 64MB RAM, ATA/33 drive):
Code:
TASK                      XUBUNTU 7.04          WINDOWS 98SE
Startup to ready desktop  2:53                  0:40
Firefox start             1:15                  0:24
Firefox close             0:03                  0:01
AbiWord start             0:16                  0:17
Calculator start          0:07                  0:02
File explorer start       0:05                  0:05
Shutdown                  0:32                  0:03
All these tests were done by filming the computer monitor while it was working.
brianfast
Arnie wrote:
Win98SE 10 (less actually) years old?

Did you flunk your math class? Windows 98 was released in June 98. Its August 2007. More then 10 years in the future.
Quote:
FreeDOS is recent. So does that make it a preferred choice? It's the functionality that matters.

Can't run newer programs? It runs Opera, OpenOffice.org, and even Firefox and Thunderbird for those who insist on wasting their RAM. Perfect for an Internet PC. In fact, I use it for my daily stuff, and achieve more than many on their $1000 XP or Linux rigs. If you need something specific like Paint.NET, then I understand you need WinXP. But hey, Paint.NET doesn't run on Linux either, does it...??

I have never used FreeBSD and never want to. Try playing DirectX 9c games on your 98 machine. Oh wait you can't. There are lots of programs that won't run on Windows 98. You named 4 common open source programs. Of course someone will port it. Try running photoshop CS3. Oh wait you can't. Ect...
Quote:


More secure? I've run 3 Win98SE boxes for years without security problems. If you're paranoid, you should really be running OpenBSD.

Admittedly family members wrecked Windows installations by installing big games etc. but in such situations I just put back an image. The Win98SE image with text editor, spreadsheet, browser, ZIP program, etc. fits on one 700MB CD.

Um have fun with Windows 98. I didn't have fun while I used it. And its not even supported by microsoft anymore.
Quote:

For an Internet pc, you're a fool to use Linux. You need to spend big bucks for recent hardware that will get acceptable performance. 98SE can do everything you need of an Internet pc and it does the job much more efficient.

I bet you never actually tried comparing them, but are just rehearsing the doctrines of the Linux fanboys. Correct me if I'm wrong...

try using a LITE linux desktop made by people who actually know what a linux desktop is supposed to look like. Ubuntu is crap for hardware support and efficency. Use ELIVECD use MEPIS not ubuntu. Those ubuntu idiots have ruined desktop linux progress
Quote:

_________________

So here are the results of the tests with 98SE next to the Xubuntu test I did previously, on the same machine (Celeron 500, 64MB RAM, ATA/33 drive):
Code:
TASK                      XUBUNTU 7.04          WINDOWS 98SE
Startup to ready desktop  2:53                  0:40
Firefox start             1:15                  0:24
Firefox close             0:03                  0:01
AbiWord start             0:16                  0:17
Calculator start          0:07                  0:02
File explorer start       0:05                  <forgot>
Shutdown                  0:32                  0:03
As you can see I forgot to test the startup time of My Computer in Windows, so I'll add that later. All these tests were done by filming the computer monitor while it was working.

ok while your at it i'll invent some stats too

MEPIS startup: 30 seconds Windows 98 startup: 15 min
MEPIS firefox start: 1 sec Windows 98 firefox start: 1 minute
ect.... make up all the bs u want
m-productions
ahahah, maybe you should learn math yourslef buddy before you go talking about other peoples math skills

June 98... its 2007.... not June 2008 (which would be 10 years) so its LESS.
Arnie
98SE, anyone? May 5, 1999?

- I never mentioned FreeBSD.
- DirectX9c is available on Windows 98SE.
- There are more common programs not running on Linux than on 98SE, but you don't need all that stuff for a common Internet pc.
- See my big rant on page 7 about USE THIS USE THAT ITS BETTER!!1!!
- You think I made up the stats? Fine, for you, I'll post the video recordings I made of this tomorrow. They're rock solid.
Edit: I got them, PM me if you want to download them (by FTP)

James007
Brianfast, could you please not flame other users? I don't like comments like "Did you flunk your math class?". Thank you.
riv_
I hate Windows because it has about 20 ports open on a default installation.
I hate Windows because it doesn't play nice with networks.
I hate Windows because it doesn't play nice with server configurations.
I hate Windows because it's expensive.
I hate Windows because it, by default, gives lots of information about me to Microsoft, often, automatically, and silently.

I use Windows because many of my clients use Windows, and it is much easier to communicate, help, and exchange files with them if i am also using the same OS.

I use Windows because it is well documented. I can find detailed directions (and a few alternatives) on almost every aspect of my Windows OS, if I know where to look.

I do not use Windows exclusively. I do not use a default configuration. I do not use "standard" MS software, but mostly open source software, in Windows versions.
This makes my Windows experience atypical... and tolerable.
kansloos
Xubuntu was my first try in creating a faster system then windows and IceWM the last before my really old harddrive broke down.

I started using Linux to create an all-purpose test-server on a relatively good PC (which also died of hard-disk failure). Not to create a desktop system on a pathetic 450mhz computer. But I found the last to be good cure against being bored.

I never knew xorg was much slower then the Windows GUI and I just assumed that XFCE is faster because they say it is faster. I'm not much of a GUI user anyway, text mode works just fine for me. Whatever I do in the GUI I now use IceWM because it is faster.

I realy would only recommend linux for an old PC when Windows would just be 'to easy'.

@ Arnie.
I know ur right and I shall admit it.

But this doesn't make Vista is not a very good product, they are just milking the market in my opinion.
Arnie
I never said Vista was good. In fact, I think it's bad.
Arnie wrote:
I agree that newer Windows versions gradually compare less good to Linux.
kansloos
Indeed you never said that. My mistake I tend not to read all replies.
Arnie
Guess we have something in common then Wink apart from disliking Vista. I'm glad phpBB doesn't show edits to posts when there haven't been any further replies to the topic yet, because I edit about half my posts.

Edit: now added the startup time for file exploring in 98SE (see previous page)
kansloos
I know exactly what you mean :P
But were getting really offtopic here...
allwords
Why people hate Windows?

Only because of bugs and viruses Laughing
kansloos
allwords wrote:
Why people hate Windows?

Only because of bugs and viruses :lol:


Every software has bugs and I believe linux and other OSs also has some virusses but not as much Windows though.

However I find the best argument of this whole topic to come from the first reply:
Peterssidan wrote:
It's not good when one company stands for all development

This because when only one company stands for all the development, there really isn't much motivation to improve a lot. As not many people will walkover to alternatives anyway. This will hurt everybody in the end I think.
outofnicks
Some may find this amusing, but I am a former Mac user and more recently a Linux convert, who has been joyously using Kubuntu for the last year. I have always been happy to avoid Windows, and even occasionally join the Windows-bashing discussions or at least read them with some satisfaction.

But recently I was forced to boot into Windows after my hardware modem fried in a lightening storm. I haven't been able to get the internal Lucent modem functioning in Linux yet, so I had to start using The Dark Side just to get online. (can't afford broadband at this time).

So far, I've found it to be not nearly as bad as I always imagined. On my "old" Dell P4, XP runs quite well. I am amazed at how fast Thunderbird and Firefox open compared to Linux, within about a second as opposed to maybe 15 seconds in KDE. And the dialup connects within 15- 20 seconds of clicking the connect button, where it took almost a minute with the hardware modem.

No antivirus software or ad-blockers so far, so I may be pushing my luck. But I do have Comodo Firewall running. I don't open suspicious emails, or visit URLs that might cause trouble.

I'm definitely NOT falling in love with this OS, I really miss Linux and can't wait to get back to it. But I'm not as dreading of it as I previously was. As long as I can find quality freeware to replace bloatware like Acrobat Reader (FoxitReader is pretty good), I'll be happy for the time being.
justy
{name here} wrote:
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.


yea, u r 100% right about windows,

That's why all over world more thank 90% of PC using window rather using Linux and MAC..

lol

hahaha
Arno v. Lumig
justy wrote:
{name here} wrote:
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.


yea, u r 100% right about windows,

That's why all over world more thank 90% of PC using window rather using Linux and MAC..

lol

hahaha


I would like to congratulate you with making the dumbest reply I have ever seen. Good job, keep up the good work!

What you are saying, is just bullshit, really. You are saying "Something that everyone uses must be really good". A lot of people drive cars, but does that mean they're better then motorcycles? Not at all, they're just different.

People don't get offered a choice. Noone knows what Linux is, and only few know what a Mac is, and those who do know that have no idea that they could actually install it. Windows is installed on PCs by default.

There are just few people who choose the use Windows instead of Linux/Macintosh, most just use it because everyone does.

Dumbass...
Arnie
People do have a choice, most just don't explore the possibilities. Although it's wrong to say that to every Windows user because there are people (like me) that use Windows while having investigated other options (I use other options as well).
Arno v. Lumig
Arnie wrote:
People do have a choice, most just don't explore the possibilities. Although it's wrong to say that to every Windows user because there are people (like me) that use Windows while having investigated other options (I use other options as well).


I know, let me quote myself:

Arno v. Lumig wrote:
There are just few people who choose the use Windows instead of Linux/Macintosh, most just use it because everyone does.


You must be one of the few Wink
[FuN]goku
Because windows can be alot slower than linux, though you cant run "ALL" your win software on linux so theres some pros/cons for both...

if you tweak your linux settings you can get better inet speeds. (you can in windows too but you can get alot more from linux)

Linux Desktop is alot more customizeable (Depends on which you use i.e. Gnome, KDE, Xfce)

Linux is opensource windows isnt. (i think there are exceptions on some of the *nix distro's)

Theres a wide variety of distro's to choose from, with windows you have what...
1.0 - 3.1 , 95, 98, ME, XP etc... but most of the first ones mentioned are really outdated.... *snicker*

though with windows, gaming can be faster (if your trying to run a game with wine or cedega on linux)
You can program in vb and use the .NET framework, and you cant do that in linux.. (only reason i still have windows on one comp Wink )
LostOverThere
I can run games in Linux natively faster then I can in Windows. But yes, WINE and Cedega slows things down. Sad
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
I can run games in Linux natively faster then I can in Windows. But yes, WINE and Cedega slows things down. Sad


Some games even run faster in Cedega/Wine then native in Windows...

And I think that native linux games run faster because the OpenGL implementation of Linux is "better" then the windows implementation (But they have DirectX...)
future_technology
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

And I think that native linux games run faster because the OpenGL implementation of Linux is "better" then the windows implementation (But they have DirectX...)


This guy did a gaming performance comparison test between Linux and Windows: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dnfLO8XL4-g
Arno v. Lumig
future_technology wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

And I think that native linux games run faster because the OpenGL implementation of Linux is "better" then the windows implementation (But they have DirectX...)


This guy did a gaming performance comparison test between Linux and Windows: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dnfLO8XL4-g


Thank you! Although I'm still not sure about the results, because DirectX and OpenGL are not the same, and he should've tested multiple games... Anyway, thanks for sharing.
[FuN]goku
I've yet to figure out why cedega chunks my games as bad as it does. My gfx drivers are installed correctly and all, but NFSU 2 chunks to hell, the startup gets about 100 fps then when it hits the menu
2-8 fps..... same with WoW except i get maybe ...... uhm 20 fps with wow, on windows i'd get 80 fps in nfsu2 and probly around 38-75 fps in wow. so the 2 OS's have their own advantages/disadvantages
aningbo
i love windows and i'll stick to it in the coming days untill next semester where they will force me to start using linux
damn
in the right hand withour microsoft everthing wiil be open code, and that will destroy computer world.
in the other hand microsoft rule the computers world, everthing that microsoft will develop like vista, soon or later we will use it Sad
Arnie
aningbo wrote:
i love windows and i'll stick to it in the coming days untill next semester where they will force me to start using linux
I'd like to see them complaining about that, the people that are always like "boo, we're forced to use Windows, blah blah". But when universities force people to use Linux they don't speak out against that.
bostko
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.

May be because it costs "only 250$" and it is "so secure" that when you run vista you have a feeling that you have virus.
Boffel
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.

The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.

The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.


I agree with you!

And also all free good programs is also only made for windows. Thats why I hate mac and linux...

If mac could run exe. files, I would be realy glad. (I know they can with bootcamp, crossover etc... but I cant install that on school, because the administrator has done so we cant insall programs.

If we had windows at school, I could use my programs on school. The mac computers also use longer time to start.

And I also forgot that I hate mac because the keyboard doesnt have any snapshot button. Or can you buy special keyboards? It would be so much easier to show things if that button exist. I will always use windows home!


Here is what I think:

Mac is best for graphical design

Windows is best for programing, scripting, gaming, and self fixing.
pudding
I dunno why people complain as well, .... I assume it would be better that they would have less money but first blame countries, not a company :/
BlueVD
LostOverThere wrote:
People hate Windows because of it being horribly unstable. Razz

And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. Rolling Eyes

To be quite hones, it's not MS or Windows that got the hardware industry going. It's the games & servers. These would still have worked fine with Linux/Unix etc. MS sucks down to the last bit, and if you ask why just think: when Win98 was release it had a price tag that would equal a medium salary in Romania. When Win2000 was released, the price tag - medium wager ratio was the same. Now look at vista. The ratios changed, but not for the best, but to the worst. The ratio now is ABOVE a medium wager. So, you do the math: the BSA raids (and in the process breaks the law numerous times) romanian people. The fines they give are way above the value of the product. Not to mention other important aspect like MS's devious attempt at software patents. Undisclosed protocol source (just to hinder open source OS's). And lots of other things that MS do...
Arnie
LostOverThere wrote:
And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. Rolling Eyes
In reality, Linux happily moves along with the hardware requirements. 256MB is on the edge for Windows XP, but all the same for Ubuntu! Then you say, "but there are light versions of Linux". But there are also Windows versions with low requirements - e.g. 98SE, which outperforms Ubuntu's lightweight Xubuntu, as I showed earlier in this topic!

About another hyped piece of OSS... ever noticed the ridiculous memory usage of Firefox and Thunderbird? Compare that to Opera (closed source).
asim
hi guys this is my first post......

all i want to say is Ubuntu is surely the best as compred to Winxp, or Win Vista, on anything, its faster to install, and qucik start, comes with some good loaded application. well what more i can say...... guys who havent had it..... shd try it once.
Boffel
ThePolemistis wrote:
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.


Well eh... Its not many that hate windows... Its mac they hate, and that im glad for Very Happy
abcmario
I dont really hate Windows, I really hate the lack of security when any Adware, Spyware, virus and so on get in the system.

Why don't you use Linux? Because there is no support for running games?
It's a matter of taste.

Windows es a good choice for Games, Linux es a good choice for enterprises. Rolling Eyes
spykE
Where would we have been right now without Windows? In a world with all these different OS's and everyone would have been on a different OS, we wouldn't have been where we are now, definetely not, the 'computer' would have been a lot more expensive then it is now.
LostOverThere
spykE wrote:
Where would we have been right now without Windows? In a world with all these different OS's and everyone would have been on a different OS, we wouldn't have been where we are now, definetely not, the 'computer' would have been a lot more expensive then it is now.


I'd say it would be cheaper. Think about it, we only need 2gb of ram because of crappy Vista.
Linux is free, Windows isn't. I don't see where you're coming from. Confused
internetjobs
virus can affect windows easily.. because all virus are tartged towared microsoft..
Arnie
LostOverThere wrote:
Think about it, we only need 2gb of ram because of crappy Vista.
Linux is free, Windows isn't. I don't see where you're coming from. Confused
Only Windows Vista's memory requirements are extremely high. But I said the same about XP when it was introduced too, and now the major Linux distro's have similar requirements. So they also increased!!

I'm doing fine with Windows 2000, which runs well on system with 128MB. Can't really say that of e.g. Ubuntu... Going further down that track of lightweight, check my comparison between 98SE and Xubuntu a few pages back.
Stubru Freak
Arnie wrote:
LostOverThere wrote:
Think about it, we only need 2gb of ram because of crappy Vista.
Linux is free, Windows isn't. I don't see where you're coming from. Confused
Actually I'm doing fine with Windows 2000, which runs well on system with 128MB. Can't really say that of e.g. Ubuntu though...


Yes, but most ordinary users who want to buy a new pc now will get Vista.
If Windows didn't have a monopoly, those users would probably be better off. But of course nobody's sure.
Arnie
That is, of course, the problem. People should not complain about Vista when they didn't do any effort to get something else. When they just went to the store and bought some computer they thought looked cool. This goes for any product: if you don't investigate your options well, you're likely to make a bad purchase.
thimpat
Windows is more and more expensive...
fadirocks
thimpat wrote:
Windows is more and more expensive...


yep and now having hardware to run Vista = needs more MONEY TOO!!! that's annoying
bostko
I tried most of Linux distros and may be all versions of windows even vista. And I'm sick of viruses and bugs. When I'm work on Win I always have to be careful if somebody hack my pc I have to install anti virus software(which extremely slows down your computer). And if I don't reinstall windows in 6 months your computers is going crashed. So now I use fedora 7 and have no such problems. My PC is more stable, I don't have to take care of anti viruses updates of re installations.
And if I have to generalize, windows sucks.
biljap
I like Windows. I’ve heard people talking about some problems having with it but personally I never had any serious problem. Maybe few crash when I was using Windows 95 several years ago. Sometimes I have difficulties when I try to install some of Microsoft software but I always manage to find some nice tutorial on the Internet and solve the problem.

I also like other operating systems… I’ve tried Linux, Fedora… I ‘m not using them because I can’t find all the drivers I need and software. There are still not enough programs for other operating systems.
Related topics
your specs
Windows to Linux ( Vice Versa )
hello (...another stupid user :p)
Which search engine do you prefer?
which is better?
New Virus out?
GNU hates vista..
Most hated man in the world - who?
Wath should my new PC contain
Why people hate Mac-OS (users)?
why???
transform your windows
WinXP to Linux Instead of Windows 7
NBA Finals: I Want A Lakers -- Celtics Showdown!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.