Windows does have a use! Shock! [Archive]

andy_sp1ke

April 15th, 2005, 06:45 AM

dusu

April 15th, 2005, 07:35 AM

I also found one interest in doze, but it worked only once for me, because I then had to throw it away :)

If one day you really want to get pissed, run doze after you've not done it for a time sufficiently large, that there is some update available.
Then doze should 'kindly' ask you : "there are some updates available, shall I proceed now ?".
That day I did not want any update (so you should put yourself in the same situation !), and I clicked on "No".
Of course, doze went straight on to the internet to download all the stuff I said I did not want !
That was the last betrayal doze has ever done on my computer. I now flushed the toilets 8).

Crapsteaks

April 15th, 2005, 10:12 AM

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 10:15 AM

I guess people have forgotten about the vast amount of quality games produced for Windows. Or Visual C++, admittedly a great IDE. Or that it is still easier to use 'out of the box' then any distro.
Windows is much, much better than it used to be. And, admittedly, it DOES fill some gaps that Linux has yet to close. Uneducated bashing on Windows shouldn't be advocated. I haven't used Windows for a long time (except when dealing with 2000 at work, which is usually a rare occurence anyways), but I'm not going to sit here and say Windows has no use. It _does_ have some use.

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 10:17 AM

Anyone else found any uses?

It pays my rent, since I code on Windows for a living. That's all it's good for.

Glanz

April 15th, 2005, 10:31 AM

Windows CDs make good necklaces for pin-heads. except the hole in the middle is a bit too large.

haquila

April 15th, 2005, 10:51 AM

what i don't understand,
the people how talk about cost, the administrators in the office,
all use windows for tasks that can easily be replaced by linux.
openoffice is just as good as ms office for simple tasks,
anti-virus for mail is not needed, (now at least)
updates are not needed so urgently, (i think)
and the time it takes to teach some one how to use a machine is the same.

i understand that researchers might prefer Visual C++ ,etc
but normal users should use linux for simple tasks.
especialy those who take about cost.
ak

sonny

April 15th, 2005, 11:11 AM

Well I don't know if your'e taking the floppy boot of windoze as windoze, but from time to time I find it very useful; specially 98, although I only use it in machines that cannot boot from cd, and then put some linux live-cd, to make the recovery, backups or whatever... hehehehehehehe.... well that's all the use I find of windoze; or some part of it.

An other use could be on gaming, let's face it linux doesn't have all the games windoze have, I now that commercial-well-made games for linux are growing, and it could be growing faster, but it won't until linux gammers (like me) format the windoze partion (already do that, :wink: ) and start buying native linux games (doom3, ut2004, simcity3000, uplink, mindrover, and so), and start demanding them. We'll soon be there. \\:D/

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 11:31 AM

An other use could be on gaming, let's face it linux doesn't have all the games windoze have

True, but I don't use Linux for gaming. I have game consoles and a TV tuner card for that. I've purchased and played Doom 3 and Neverwinter Nights for Linux, as well as the Quake games, but PC games just don't interest me much.

baza41

April 15th, 2005, 12:18 PM

BWF89

April 15th, 2005, 12:41 PM

Bashing Window$ is pretty old. Windows is better for doing some things and Linux is better for doing other things.

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 12:47 PM

Bashing Window$ is pretty old. Windows is better for doing some things and Linux is better for doing other things.

I agree, especially considering how much better Windows has gotten. Everyone should focus their hate in a better direction, like, say, software patents.

totalshredder

April 15th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Seriously, I have to agree with the other guys on this thread, windows is not all that bad. I'll bet you anything it'll take linux a good three years to even catch up to longhorn. It's true.

Luke

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 01:01 PM

Seriously, I have to agree with the other guys on this thread, windows is not all that bad. I'll bet you anything it'll take linux a good three years to even catch up to longhorn. It's true.

Luke

Not sure about that. Have you seen all the features they dropped from Longhorn? And Linux developers just picked those up and started running with them.
I think Linux has caught up (or past) Windows in many areas, but the 'user friendly desktop' isn't one of them.

jdodson

April 15th, 2005, 01:30 PM

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 01:53 PM

yeah, i know there is a sentament amongst forum peoples that is pro microsoft. thats fine. as differing members of the community gather, we are going to disagree.

it seems strange that these forums take a pro-microsoft stance as often as they do. i am not condoning flaming at all, i just think it strange.

simply stated from my own experience:

ubuntu is a better product that microsoft.

ubuntu is more free than microsoft.

ubuntu has a better community than microsoft.

i know you might disagree. however remember, this is an ubuntu "GNU/Linux" forum. i mod for said forum. so i guess i am biased twoard ubuntu being a superior product. it is not superior in all respects, just the ones that truly matter to me.

it is not my goal to extend bill gates hand to all corners of the earth. personally it is my goal to be free. i understand that is not everyones goal.

talk amongst yourselves.

I don't see how you got 'pro Microsoft' out of any of my comments. I certainly dislike Microsoft. However, Windows bashing just for the sake of Windows bashing isn't a good thing. Recognizing that Windows, in certain aspects, is still superior to ANY Linux is just recognizing the facts. I don't have a Windows box in my home; however, if I played anything nowadays besides the occasional bzflag and ET, I probably would. Microsoft still has much, much, much more support from hardware and software vendors. It's just the plain, cold truth. Do we have to like it? No. But we certainly have to understand and recognize that fact, if it's going to change.

jdodson

April 15th, 2005, 02:00 PM

I don't see how you got 'pro Microsoft' out of any of my comments. I certainly dislike Microsoft.

good point. i guess i was a bit fast to say pro microsoft.

However, Windows bashing just for the sake of Windows bashing isn't a good thing. Recognizing that Windows, in certain aspects, is still superior to ANY Linux is just recognizing the facts. I don't have a Windows box in my home; however, if I played anything nowadays besides the occasional bzflag and ET, I probably would. Microsoft still has much, much, much more support from hardware and software vendors. It's just the plain, cold truth. Do we have to like it? No.

propretary solutions support microsoft more than gnu/linux. cant really argue with that.

however to me the pros of windows are still not worth it. for a commecial venture they could be and generally are more tempting that gnu/linux offerings.

But we certainly have to understand and recognize that fact, if it's going to change.

even if i said windows sucked and was not at all better than gnu/linux(which i wont say) i dont see how that would hamper development or the gradual acceptance of operating system change. change will happen whether or not i, or any other gnu/linux lover realizes microsofts dominance or areas of superiority.

if you mean that developers have to realize that fact, then i agree they do. to add features to software is to realize your software needs more. developers have to realize the deficency of gnu/linux alternatives so free software becomes less and less deficent. i believe by and large developers are realizing that though.

even if free software advances behind proprietary solutions, free software, in my opinion, will always be a better solution. because we all have free access to it. then again i am preaching to the choir on this matter it seems:)

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 02:04 PM

propretary solutions support microsoft more than gnu/linux. cant really argue with that.

however to me the pros of windows are still not worth it. for a commecial venture they could be and generally are more tempting that gnu/linux offerings.

Not just 'proprietary solutions' (although, obviously, they do), but hardware vendors in general. The state of wireless device drivers is still poor, as is graphic card support, etc, etc.

totalshredder

April 15th, 2005, 02:04 PM

I don't see how you got 'pro Microsoft' out of any of my comments. I certainly dislike Microsoft. However, Windows bashing just for the sake of Windows bashing isn't a good thing. Recognizing that Windows, in certain aspects, is still superior to ANY Linux is just recognizing the facts. I don't have a Windows box in my home; however, if I played anything nowadays besides the occasional bzflag and ET, I probably would. Microsoft still has much, much, much more support from hardware and software vendors. It's just the plain, cold truth. Do we have to like it? No. But we certainly have to understand and recognize that fact, if it's going to change.

Why do you dislike microsoft? That's the question. Is it because they're selling their software? Because they close the source code? Their monopoly in the operating system market? That's not their fault, that's life.

Also, although linux devs have 'run with' microsofts dropped ideas; it doesn't mean they've actually turned them into anything near a finished product.

The thing is, though, that it depends on what we're talking about. (like jdonson was saying) It really just matters on what our individual needs are (or what we like). I seriously don't think linux is anywhere near microsoft in the desktop computer field. Windows is a lot more cohesive for now, and when longhorn comes out it will be far more so. We'll see how things work out; but when you look at windows fron the right direction it's not all that bad.

(these are all personal opinions, and I completely stand by linux; but I just think people go to far in bashing microsoft.)

Luke

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Why do you dislike microsoft? That's the question. Is it because they're selling their software? Because they close the source code? Their monopoly in the operating system market? That's not their fault, that's life.

I dislike Microsoft for one very simple reason: I paid good money for their products, and I didn't get my money's worth. If I pay hundreds of dollars for software, I expect to get good software. I don't expect to get bug-ridden garbage.

jdodson

April 15th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Their monopoly in the operating system market? That's not their fault, that's life.

microsofts monopoly on software is in fact their fault. its not like they just stumbled upon everyones desktop by accident. microsoft has been anti-competitive for some time now, some would even argue they have always been. it is a sad state of affairs when 98% of all computers run windows. seriously, what other kind of dominace does any other company have like that? they are the tried and true defintion of "the man" or "big brother" corporations. they use un ethical practices and break the law to advance the consumers purchase of windows products. they have thier hands in almost every computing cookie jar from operating systems, to media players to gaming consoles to HDDVD codecs. it will not end unless people realize that there is a problem and it beings with the word "microsoft."

Also, although linux devs have 'run with' microsofts dropped ideas; it doesn't mean they've actually turned them into anything near a finished product.

if we are pointing fingers and who came up with what idea first i really dont think microsoft came up with much on thier own. they are not a technology innovator, they are a very good empire at cloning things though. there is one company that stands out as the most innovative that i know of and that is apple. microsoft wishes they were half as clever as the jobs corporation. i do not think innovation is the sole reason to use free software though.

(these are all personal opinions, and I completely stand by linux; but I just think people go to far in bashing microsoft.)

i really think that when you are on a gnu/linux forum you should expect much anti-microsoft sentament. i am using ubuntu for the reason i can no longer morally let microsoft own my computing lifestyle along with other reasons.

totalshredder

April 15th, 2005, 02:17 PM

I dislike Microsoft for one very simple reason: I paid good money for their products, and I didn't get my money's worth. If I pay hundreds of dollars for software, I expect to get good software. I don't expect to get bug-ridden garbage.

Here's somethings to think about;

1. I have never had problems with windows unless I have broken it myself
2. Everyone I know finds windows as a very find piece of software. When people have super powered computers, windows looks amazing! (I have slow computers, so... blegh)
3. Once you get a half good firewall and firefox, things work much, much better; and many people have learned how to do that.
4. When you're paying for windows, you're almost paying for all the software you can buy for it. When was the last time you were able to go into best buy and look through software and actually pick out what you wanted instead of what was compatible?
5. People these days don't pay for windows... or so they think... They're getting it 'free' with their computers; and to them; there's no reason to switch to linux.

Just more thoughts from a retarded guy.

Jdonson:

Yeah, I wasn't thinking there when I said that linux stole microsofts ideas, but I had a friend come to my house, use firefox to get his taxes stuff and print them out; along with checking his email; he didn't notice it was linux! That's how crazy things are now! (that doesn't really have to do with anything)

On your last comment; I agree that we should be execting windows bashing; but most of what people say is not true. I understand that people probably use linux for more things than a desktop OS though. But you gotta give props to windows for sticking with it's apps; like, in linux I'll often randomly have apps close on me when my processer is going fast enough. Strange stuff.

Luke

(I don't want to be a troll here, like, seriously, just trying to state some opinions!)

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 02:45 PM

totalshredder

April 15th, 2005, 03:06 PM

I should mention that the last time I used Windows at home (buying it and other Microsoft products) was in 1998. Remember Windows 98? Windows 2000, on the other hand, isn't bad at all. I wouldn't use it at home, but it's bearable at work.

That says a lot, because windows 98 was pretty bad. 2000 and XP are pretty good though; I lived with them most of my life :)

Luke

geekgod

April 15th, 2005, 03:15 PM

Windows like anything else is as stable or as unstable, as secure or as un secure as the user makes it. I can safely say if i gave the average end user a linux box with root access, then say have at it a user will hose it up just as bad as a regular pc, case in point, I gave a linux box to my step dad who is a "computer hobbiest" and he wanted root access. Not my Box No Harm ...... I reinstalled 2 days later and gave him a linux book and saifd after he reads it he can be root again.

Computers, and software are dumb devices. they do exactly as they are told. I often find my computer does what I tell it to, not what I want it to. :razz:

jdodson

April 15th, 2005, 03:22 PM

Yeah, I wasn't thinking there when I said that linux stole microsofts ideas, but I had a friend come to my house, use firefox to get his taxes stuff and print them out; along with checking his email; he didn't notice it was linux! That's how crazy things are now! (that doesn't really have to do with anything)

i agree, things have come along way!

On your last comment; I agree that we should be execting windows bashing; but most of what people say is not true.

yeah well i think(for me) i try to keep my comments as true as i understand things to be. as for anyone else, i can not comment on that much.

I understand that people probably use linux for more things than a desktop OS though. But you gotta give props to windows for sticking with it's apps; like, in linux I'll often randomly have apps close on me when my processer is going fast enough. Strange stuff.

i have not experienced that as much as i did in xp(ie xp was less stable than gnu/linux, however stability is not the only reason i use gnu/linux, it is only a benefit). milage really varies on stablity of things i have found.

(I don't want to be a troll here, like, seriously, just trying to state some opinions!)

respectful disagreement is not trolling, it is part of the ubuntu philosophy of community.:)

SolidAndShade

April 15th, 2005, 04:02 PM

Here's somethings to think about;

1. I have never had problems with windows unless I have broken it myself
2. Everyone I know finds windows as a very find piece of software. When people have super powered computers, windows looks amazing! (I have slow computers, so... blegh)
3. Once you get a half good firewall and firefox, things work much, much better; and many people have learned how to do that.
4. When you're paying for windows, you're almost paying for all the software you can buy for it. When was the last time you were able to go into best buy and look through software and actually pick out what you wanted instead of what was compatible?
5. People these days don't pay for windows... or so they think... They're getting it 'free' with their computers; and to them; there's no reason to switch to linux.

Never any problems with spyware or updates? Maybe you're just lucky. For a one-month period from February to March this year, the only computer I had access to was running Win XP. It took the machine about 5 minutes to load up all the anti-virus stuff, after which I had to terminate a bunch of the little taskbar programs to free up some badly needed CPU time. Firefox worked smoothly enough, but browsing my CF card would introduce more quirks to the system, and exiting Descent Freespace would sometimes cause the system to freeze. After I'd played Freespace, processed some raw image files from the card, logged onto a dial-up internet account and opened a few tabs in FireFox, the system was ready for a reboot. I had to restart it an average of once every one or two days I used it. Still, as you said, it's much better than Win 98, which I could usually crash within a few hours by opening three Netscape windows, Word, Windows Media Player and a Nintendo emulator. But XP is not rock-solid. In my university's main computer lab, they do maintenance work on the computers at the beginning of each quarter. By the end of most quarters, about half of the XP machines are out of order. If Longhorn is truly stable I'll be impressed, but given Microsoft's track record I doubt it's going to happen.

SolidAndShade

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 04:13 PM

(these are all personal opinions, and I completely stand by linux; but I just think people go to far in bashing microsoft.
Luke
If you'd read the posts you'd note that I was defending Microsoft to some extent. So I see no reason as to why you're now responding to me about this.

KiwiNZ

April 15th, 2005, 04:22 PM

I agree, especially considering how much better Windows has gotten. Everyone should focus their hate in a better direction, like, say, software patents.

Amen:)

KiwiNZ

April 15th, 2005, 04:26 PM

I dislike Microsoft for one very simple reason: I paid good money for their products, and I didn't get my money's worth. If I pay hundreds of dollars for software, I expect to get good software. I don't expect to get bug-ridden garbage.

Very true , I believe thateveryone that paid for Windows ME should have their money refunded. What an abomination.

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 04:31 PM

Very true , I believe thateveryone that paid for Windows ME should have their money refunded. What an abomination.

Actually, it was Windows 98 that soured me on Microsoft. I knew I'd never a get a refund but I actually sent the software I bought back to Microsoft with a letter stating that after paying several hundred dollars I did not expect to get an OS that required re-installation after 48 hours.

I'll admit that I'm not at all forgiving. :)

dataw0lf

April 15th, 2005, 04:33 PM

Actually, it was Windows 98 that soured me on Microsoft. I knew I'd never a get a refund but I actually sent the software I bought back to Microsoft with a letter stating that after paying several hundred dollars I did not expect to get an OS that required re-installation after 48 hours.

I'll admit that I'm not at all forgiving. :)

Indeed. It was Windows 98 that made me forsake Windows forever and use Linux primarily.

poofyhairguy

April 15th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Sure Windows has a use. It make a pretty fantasy. Joe Smith (close to my name BTW) can buy a computer knowing darn well that his investment in Dell (or HP or whoever he buys the computer from) is worth it because it has Windows and Intel inside. They are heavily marketed, comfortable terms that MOVE HARDWARE!!!!

Sure that Windows might not last a day if you plug your new Dell into your new broadband without knowledge of a NAT firewall and some anti-virus and anti-malware software, yet millions of people buy it so it must be good enough for you. I remember how much hardware costed before Windows and Intel came along big with marketing and put PCs in a lot of homes. Every Windows box sold means cheaper hardware for those that don't use Windows. In the best case sceniario, the person who buys Windows might get something out of it as well (besides headaches). Then all benefit.

MetalMusicAddict

April 15th, 2005, 04:55 PM

Seriously, bashing Windows is getting old. Although Linux keeps getting easier to work with, it still has a long way to go.
Amen.

I love Ubuntu but XP has been great to work with. Just as many freeware/open-source apps as linux. Honestly I havnt had problem 1 since it came out. Like ANYTHING, you just gotta know what your doin. ;)

jdodson

April 15th, 2005, 05:03 PM

skoal

April 15th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Windows use? What about AOL CD(s)? I'm wiping the beer bottle sweat off mine right now.

Windows use? yes. Is there anyone here who wasn't 'potty trained' on a computer using Windows first? That's not to say I still don't mess myself every once in a while using 'rm -rf' as root in Linux either. Windows use? hmm....Cedega anyone?

poofyhairguy

April 15th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Like ANYTHING, you just gotta know what your doin. ;)

Therein lies the problem with Microsoft. They sell a marketing fantasy that implies that the above statement isn't true.

totalshredder

April 15th, 2005, 05:27 PM

http://news.com.com/An+early+peek+at+Longhorn/2100-1016_3-5671586.html?tag=nefd.lede

check out a feature they mention in the article:

"But while the OS bears plenty of similarities to Tiger, Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file. Folders, too, show glimpses of what's inside."

THIS IS NOT NEW GROUND! welcome to gnome release 2.8! the other changes they are adding to longhorn are just copies of apple or gnome coolness. *shakes head in disgust*

the article also mentions security as the "new" feature of longhorn as seen through a more rigid unix like permission base........ i stopped reading the article.

then again, gnu/linux has borrow many features from other operating systems(like unix) so its not too bad. the thing that really irks me is the fact that they claim it is new ground, when in fact it is just a copy.

I agree! That was a good artical; what I really want to see in gnome\linux is the ability to make a folder that always has specific documents in it (thats a bad way to put it)
Like, you make a document called my documents; and it puts any documents that have your name somewhere in it; inside of it (no matter where on the computer). Or something like that; I suck at explaining ;) They mention that feature is going to be in longhorn... I want that in gnome too!

Luke

Brunellus

April 15th, 2005, 05:45 PM

Windows 'just works' because nobody actually installs it: Microsoft's dominance of the OEM market means that anyone buying a new computer that *will* run Windows already has it installed. Why go through the trouble to install an operating system when you already have one out of the box?

And let's not have any talk about making people sell computers *without* operating systems. It's not the '80s anymore, guys--consumers want to take their shiny electronic toy home, plug it in, and then play with it.

Two things Windows does better than any Linux distribution (or FreeBSD flavour):

1) Closed Hardware. Manufacturers support the Windows platform, and often supply binary device drivers only for that platform. Software modems and wireless LAN manufacturers are notorious for this. OF course, since they are not total morons, they ensure that binary drivers are available for the dominant OS on the market--Windows.

2) Closed Software. I miss Civ3, the Total War series of games. Other guys will miss their favourite twitch games. That's just the beginning: gnu/linux seems to have gained quite a following in the physical sciences and in the engineering community (all my friends in grad school for mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry and bio have had some exposure to the platform) but is not nearly as good for social-scientists. There is no equivalent to Statlab or SPSS that I"m aware of, for instance.

For my uses, and my level of skill, Linux is more than satisfactory. But Windows continues to have its uses--and while I'd like for my OS of choice to continue to improve, I'd be a fool not to acknowledge at least those advantages.

In the interest of equal time: the downsides of windows:

1) It's expensive. I can't afford a full-blown single-user licence. (this is true of most nonfree productivity apps, as well...it's tough to maintain a computer habit on my very low wages)

2) It's unstable. Ubuntu Warty hasn't locked up on me nearly as much as Win XP did. I've not yet run into an awe-inspiring showstopper error. Window's Blue Screen of Death, while oddly pretty, is not what I want to see anymore.

3) It's bloated. Ubuntu is running very responsively, thank you very much, on a celeron 800 with 256 mb of ram. WinXP on this box would have been a lot less fun--and I wouldn't have had the option (as I have in ubuntu) of running a fairly minimalistic desktop environment. A source of mine reports that Longhorn can and has brought machines with a GIGABYTE of physical RAM to their knees. I can't afford that kind of horsepower!

panickedthumb

April 15th, 2005, 09:26 PM

This thread, with the exception of the first few posts, is running much more smoothly than I'd expected reading the title.
:)

Now I'll chime in-- Windows is not a bad product, but it's not worth the money they charge, considering you have no rights to the source. It's also not very extendable, since again, the source is closed. It just doesn't fit what I want out of my PC. Windows 95, 98, ME, they were terrible. TERRIBLE. 2000 and XP are really pretty good.

Microsoft, on the other hand, are shady at absolute best. Downright illegal and anti-competitive is more like it. I dislike Microsoft, and I dislike Windows. However, I don't think Windows is a bad product, but I DO think Microsoft is a terrible company

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 10:13 PM

And let's not have any talk about making people sell computers *without* operating systems. It's not the '80s anymore, guys--consumers want to take their shiny electronic toy home, plug it in, and then play with it.

You won't hear such talk from me. Being a long-haired capitalist pig-dog, I say "laissez-faire" as long as fraud and violence aren't involved. Not to mention "caveat emptor"

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 10:15 PM

I agree! That was a good artical; what I really want to see in gnome\linux is the ability to make a folder that always has specific documents in it (thats a bad way to put it)
Like, you make a document called my documents; and it puts any documents that have your name somewhere in it; inside of it (no matter where on the computer). Or something like that; I suck at explaining ;) They mention that feature is going to be in longhorn... I want that in gnome too!

Luke

I already have something like that. So does my wife. Mine is called /home/matthew and my wife's is called /home/catherine.

Brunellus

April 15th, 2005, 11:34 PM

I think he meant something like this: the folder is really a metafolder--when you open it, it shows you a 'directory' of everything that matches your search criteria, wherever they are in the filesystem. from what I understand, it'd be kind of like integrating beagle into nautilus?

panickedthumb

April 15th, 2005, 11:39 PM

Heh, I was about to point out the same thing-- basically Windows wants to do away with file system structure-- as far as the user is concerned. So it IS like integrating beagle and nautilus

Stormy Eyes

April 15th, 2005, 11:44 PM

darkoptix

April 16th, 2005, 12:09 AM

I think windows ain't that bad, and there are some uses for it. Gaming is one of them.

I think if you have broadband you get way more screwed than a dialup connection because on windows i have no firewall/no antivirus/no spyware/adware remover and have no issues with anything. Ever since SP2 came out, I have been virus free. However, I don't use retail winxp. I used a program called Nlite and took out many things that I never used/didn't want(IE for example), and also intergrated SP2. That install has worked great for everyone I gave to reinstall on their computer.

You also must remember that to fix any major issues/some minor issues formating and reinstalling is a good way to fix it / maybe the only way.

I also have not purchased a real copy of any windows version since win95. Now with windows xp getting old, Linux is a better answer. I don't think I will upgrade to Longhorn, just because it sounds stupid. Gaming is the only reason I would. Right now, I have not booted into windows for awhile except to put songs on my minidisc player. However that came with lots of errors on Sony's part.

Linux does do many things much easier than windows does, such as media and many others. One of the main reasons I would try to stick with it.

mark

April 16th, 2005, 12:16 AM

As a confirmed, uh, non-admirer of Microsoft, I have to admit that Windows does have it's place. Not too long ago, I wrote a semi-scathing email to MS (inspired by one of Ballmer's escapades) that stated that I was removing any and all MS software from my personal computers.

Okay, I've backed up on that a bit (don't tell Steve!). I'm now dual-booting on my desktop (W2K & Ubuntu) and laptop (WXP & Ubuntu) again. Certain operations, like BIOS (and other firmware) upgrades are not just easier in Windows, there's no way to do them in Linux. Also, my boss (a once-and-former bean-counter) insists on riddling his Excel spreadsheets with macros that OO.o and Gnumeric just don't know what to make of.

Do I like and/or embrace Microsoft to a greater extent now? I do not. However, at some level, pragmatism kicks in for me - I do what I gotta do in a way that causes me the least grief.

My default OS at boot? Ubuntu, of course...

sonny

April 16th, 2005, 01:37 PM

Well... I don't see a problem in buying WinXP (2k, 98, Longhorn, or any other), or buying Mac OS X, or pay a few buck for Red-Hat, Linspire, or Mandrake, or even get a free (K)Ubuntu as your OS ;-) . For me the problem is that if I use one of them it won't be compatible with the rest (except for the Linux ones of course, but only in Linux world). If you use Mac your'e as close as if you were using Windows, or Linux. I think that the goal has to be compatibility, I don't care if my neigborg uses windows, and my uncle uses Mac OS, as long as I 'm able to give them one of my files and they'd be able to open it and see it as I wrote it (don't tell me that they can with open office because it is not quite accuarate, becuase you are not able to see the math formulas of MS-office in Open Office; and vice-versa, and sometimes the text format is not the same), I mean compatibillity as if they were using the same programs as the ones I use. I won't say windows is worst than Linux, I'll jut say it doesn't fulfill my needs as user.

If people want to spend their money in expensive software that's their problem, if they want it for free I don't care... but they should be able to do and view all the files in avery OS as they would with another (the same goes for gamming, ;-) ) I suuport open software, but I know there's people that the fact of buying their software gives them some feeling of secureness, and that 's fine with me.

I think that we'll never see a free-software world but we have more chances of seeing a compatible-software wolrd.

UbuWu

April 16th, 2005, 07:44 PM

I think that we'll never see a free-software world but we have more chances of seeing a compatible-software wolrd.

That would already be the case if microsoft would support the open document format...

Stormy Eyes

April 16th, 2005, 08:40 PM

That would already be the case if microsoft would support the open document format...

Why not just ask the the board at Microsoft to slit their wrists? Like it or not; Microsoft has little to gain from cooperating. They've got the market share, which makes their formats a de facto standard.

occy8

April 17th, 2005, 09:28 PM

I'm still a newbie but haven't used Windows an awfull lot lately.
I have a use for it that is as a backup system. I'm currently reinstalling Hoary and have problems with eciadsl, again...it seems Hoary final has some differences to Hoary pre. Anyway with Windows I can get on the net to get help.
Otherwise the only use is to play games

J. S. Jackson

April 17th, 2005, 10:30 PM

yeah, i know there is a sentament amongst forum peoples that is pro microsoft. thats fine. as differing members of the community gather, we are going to disagree.

it seems strange that these forums take a pro-microsoft stance as often as they do. i am not condoning flaming at all, i just think it strange.
What I find strange is people who think they must choose a side, and if they choose gnu/linux, then they are required to bash MS at every opportunity.

There are a lot of reasons why people (me included) dislike Microsoft... predatory business practices, terrible history of security, closed source, etc; but the bottom line is that XP is a damn good OS, and MS has done a great deal to solve many of these issues. Anyone who says otherwise is just not being honest, or hasn't used it.

It also makes a person look ridiculous when they make outlandish claims about how often Windows crashes, or security problems. Windows 95 is long gone folks, when comparing the latest and greatest of the open source world, it's only fair to compare it to the latest and greatest from MS.

So again, why can't people just be happy to use Gnu/Linux? Why do they, almost invariably, feel compelled to bash MS? Who cares about MS? If you don't like them, don't use their products.

Former Windows users who have switched to Linux are worse than ex-smokers, I tell you!

I happen to like Windows XP as an OS. I haven't seen a Linux distro that can top it, when *everything* is taken into account. MAC OS-X is close, but can't beat XP either. The reason I use Linux is not because I think it's a better OS, but because it's OSS, and I dislike MS's way of doing business.

panickedthumb

April 18th, 2005, 03:52 AM

J. S. Jackson

April 18th, 2005, 05:14 AM

Now I'd have to disagree that with EVERYTHING taken into account, Windows takes the cake. I'd say that you could argue that Windows would take out Linux, but OSX? Not so sure. OSX is amazing. I'd say that in every aspect it takes out Windows.
Yea, OSX is pretty slick. It's better than XP except for two major issues. The thing is, they are issues that are deal breakers for a lot of people:

1. Nearly every piece of desktop software made works with Windows.

2. I like to mix and match my hardware as I see fit.

OSX just seems higher quality, overall, when you use it, but I would not consider completely replacing XP with OSX; mainly due to reason #1. I wouldn't even own a MAC if not for the fact that I work closely with graphic artists every day.

Ubuntu works flawlessly for me. All of my hardware works fine, but sometimes I really get tired of jumping through hoops trying to get my favorite software working. I suspect that this is THE most common beef that people have with Linux (and Apple).

panickedthumb

April 18th, 2005, 05:20 AM

Yes, yes, the software support is a major issue, but previously I wasn't including it as a comparing factor between the OS's since it really isn't their faults who writes software for them ;) But yes I agree-- and this is one deal breaker that is going to be hard to overcome!

jdodson

April 18th, 2005, 11:40 AM

It also makes a person look ridiculous when they make outlandish claims about how often Windows crashes, or security problems. Windows 95 is long gone folks, when comparing the latest and greatest of the open source world, it's only fair to compare it to the latest and greatest from MS.

i was not comparing windows 95 to the ubuntu. when i compare windows to gnu/linux i am comparing xp to ubuntu. and from what i have seen xp is far less stable and secure than ubuntu.

milage varies though.

J. S. Jackson

April 18th, 2005, 05:08 PM

i was not comparing windows 95 to the ubuntu. when i compare windows to gnu/linux i am comparing xp to ubuntu. and from what i have seen xp is far less stable and secure than ubuntu.

milage varies though.
I was, kind of, rambling there. I didn't mean you specifically (even though I quoted you).

Just in general - I think that many of the XPvsOSXvsLinux comments/articles I read seem to be comparing older versions of Windows. In fact, many people that I've seen bash Windows will often admit they don't even own a copy of XP.

We've got two machines here (small office of medical editors) running XP, and two MACs. I use Ubuntu on my home machine. All three OS's seem rock solid. I can't recall any crashes on any of them in recent memory.

Windows certainly has the worst track record in regards to fixing security issues in a timely fashion, but I think they come a long way in the last year or two...

I guess my bottom line is that it doesn't help the OSS community gain wide acceptance by constantly bashing Windows; similar to a politician who bases his compaign on smearing his opponent, rather than concentrating on what he has to offer. It's immature, and makes the gnu/linux community look like a bunch of teenage rebels.

panickedthumb

April 18th, 2005, 05:36 PM

I totally agree. Windows bashing-- ANY bashing gets quite annoying. Legitimate criticism is one thing, but bashing is what you usually see.

Now as far as people not owning a copy of XP-- that depends on your definition of "own"

Turin Turambar

April 25th, 2005, 07:37 PM

I have both WindowsXP and Ubuntu installed on my system. I've been a Windows user since Windows 3.1 and "owned" every OS from 3.1 -> XP. Only recently (few months ago) I switched to Linux for the first time. I'm more a hardcore Windows user, simply because I don't have much experience with Linux.

The biggest problem I find in Windows systems is their highly corruptible registry that just gets bigger and bigger and has a life of its own, which is pretty much out of control. System speed, performance and security is decreasing over the time. That's a fact. Running as an Administrator all the time is also a bad option, security wise.

Now, XP is a very stable OS, you can run any application and any hardware from it, almost instantly.
Yes, it's user friendly or better say - "mass friendly", because even dumbasses can work on it. However, as the time goes by, a typical Windows machine gets FULL of spyware, junk, broken links, bloated registry with hundreds of bad entries, viruses, uneeded files, dirs, tmps, etc, etc. It remains more or less stable with many programs not working and decreased speed & security.
So, although Windows CAN be used by an idiot, it will not operate correctly unless some skillful human cleans&fixes it, at least from time to time. So, I'd question the M$'s philosophy of "computers/windows for everyone". Computers are still NOT for everyone, and by this I mean that one person is able to install/use/keep the system running and keep it safe, stable & clean. We are still far from it. Micro$oft is a direct sponsor of malicious software. Out of the box, XP comes with a primitive firewall and uneeded/risky services running.
I maintain the Windows systems for my friends & distant family. They all have Windows 2000, XP or even ME. So far I didn't see a single Windows machine that was in a good shape in terms of security & performance.

Linux? Different concept, different file system, everything is new, many do this-do that, but once completed, it feels safe, quiet and clean.
The only thing I REALLY miss in Linux are Adobe CS applications, like Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign. That's why I still have a Windows partition on my drive. Other than that, my Ubuntu is running faster than XP! :)

poofyhairguy

April 25th, 2005, 09:38 PM

Yea, OSX is pretty slick. It's better than XP except for two major issues. The thing is, they are issues that are deal breakers for a lot of people:

1. Nearly every piece of desktop software made works with Windows.

I have predicted for a while that Linux will overtake Windows when a version of Windows is released that is less compatible with the previous version than WINE.

panickedthumb

April 25th, 2005, 10:08 PM

Which may be longhorn, from the way they're talking, or longhorn+1 if nothing else. WINE is doing a fine job.

BAshworth

April 25th, 2005, 10:38 PM

Brunellus

April 25th, 2005, 10:51 PM

Longhorn is essentially a rewrite of the Windows os, so there will be problems with running your current software on it.

However, when XP first came out, it broke backwards compatibility for most older software too. People adjusted, Microsoft released patches to allow some older software to work, and the machine that is Microsoft marched on.

The major attribute I see to Windows is that when I am looking up a fix for a problem, or a setting to squeeze out some more performance, I don't have to sort through settings for Fedora, versus Debian, versus Suse, versus Slack, versus FreeBSD, or Gnome versus KDE. That's something that the linux community has to find some way to come together on.
GNU/Linux requires a change in mindset more than anything else. Windows makes you think of everything as a single, integrated box. Linux encourages you to disaggregate the various functions on your computer and treat each as a separate thing.

Example: Windows has only one graphical environment. Linux has loads: Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Rox, Fluxbox, IceWM, Enlightenment....each accomplishes the task of being your system's GUI, so in a sense, they are all interchangeable. Each has its pluses and minuses. The great thing is that you can choose which one works best for you and your uses. Windows? No joy.

In this respect, I find it *easier* to squeeze out some more performance from a machine that's running Linux, because I can take a more critical look at what exactly I'm running and why. I have a system without much RAM, so I run fluxbox; if I had more, I'd run Gnome. With Windows, my choice is...slow windows or slow windows.

panickedthumb

April 25th, 2005, 11:10 PM

"The great thing is that you can choose which one works best for you and your uses. Windows? No joy."
Well, in Windows you CAN use things like Litestep/Darkstep, etc, but that doesn't decrease resource load by that much. At one time I had totally fallen in love with Litestep. You could REALLY make Windows look the way you wanted... but it was more of a pain to get going than any of the *box environments.

BAshworth

April 25th, 2005, 11:32 PM

GNU/Linux requires a change in mindset more than anything else. Windows makes you think of everything as a single, integrated box. Linux encourages you to disaggregate the various functions on your computer and treat each as a separate thing.

Very true, but if the shortcomings of Linux (driver support, software) are going to go away, it will have to become more viable for your everyday "doesn't care about the various functions" user.

In this respect, I find it *easier* to squeeze out some more performance from a machine that's running Linux, because I can take a more critical look at what exactly I'm running and why. I have a system without much RAM, so I run fluxbox; if I had more, I'd run Gnome. With Windows, my choice is...slow windows or slow windows.

As I become more comfortable with working in the LInux environment, I'm sure I will see this as true too. I've been using a Microsoft OS since DOS 3.1, so I know my way around the file sytem, and can tweak it all to hell. I'm sitting at a useable XP desktop within 15 seconds of hitting my power button, and I haven't had to reinstall or do anything heroic to it in about eight months now.

On the other hand, I broke Fedora about 9 times in the past four months. Given my lack of experience, each time resulted in a complete reinstall. So far, I haven't killed Ubuntu. (crosses fingers, knock on wood, tosses salt over shoulder) That's mainly due to the wonderful amount of support available for it. If it wasn't for ubuntuguide.org, and fixes I've found on this forum, I would probably already have broken this thing about 4 times.

Getting back to the original topic though, Window's main use for me right now, is to be able to get on the net, and figure out what I did to screw up Linux, and how to fix it. :D

Jarz Corp

May 1st, 2005, 05:59 PM

All this is just useless banter.

Use what suits your needs and your way of thinking, this is why I use linux.

I run on a 64Amd and am therefore sometimes forced to boot into my XP, that I actually paid for unlike a lot of the people who normally bitch about Microsoft.
I would have liked to stay out of the, microsoft made pc's userfriendly rant, but here goes.
Microsft didn't do anything, just like Apple didn't do anything. They went down to Palo Alto saw all the nice stuff the Xerox guys was fiddling with and stole everything.
The discussion whether Longhorn, if it will come out and if it will still have that name when it comes out, can do this or that is useless. Os'es are hopefully ever changing and ever improving, windows on some areas, I guess, and Linux on other areas.
I have a dream: One day all Microsoft products will be totally non-pirateable. And everyone running a copy of Microsoft Windows xx, Office, Exchange server, would actually have to pay for it, that is the only thing which could ever make people look around for serious alternatives. And don't get into the: "ohh it is soo expensive" argument, no matter what the price people still make pirate copies of windows, because they can, and because the MUST have Microsoft Office Super duper Pro version 29999000 because that is what they have at work or what their brother-in-law in the next village uses.

So use whatever takes your fancy and stop wasting time on discussing how stupid all the other os'es/users are. Do U shout at/hit people in the street because they drink another softdrink brand then your favourite. Hmm thats a thought, I will hence forth start thumping anyone who doesn't drink the same as me.

Sorry about the lenght of this.

WildTangent

May 1st, 2005, 07:21 PM

i dont know why any of you are bashing windows XP, for me its always been stable, ive never had it crash to an extent that i have to do a hard reboot. windows is very good at being a "simple" OS. anyone can learn to use windows, anyone can install a program. have you ever found a windows program that required you to edit a config file versus having a wizard? i havent, barring apache 1.3, but that was originally a linux app so it doesnt really count

-Wild

panickedthumb

May 1st, 2005, 07:36 PM

Well, I've had to do plenty of hard reboots, and yes I have had to edit config files for programs that weren't originally on Linux, but that doesn't matter. Windows is a simple OS, but that makes some things harder, in the long run, because you can't change it in the way you want.

I'm not bashing Windows, though I DON'T like it, but people do have a point when bashing it.

And dude, that avatar is freaky!

WildTangent

May 1st, 2005, 08:13 PM

in the long run, yes linux is better, especially if you have the time and dedication to learn how to use it, but im saying, for the time being, windows is much easier, which is a good thing. itd be nice if you had a choice to use a wizard or edit config files, in both OSes. you could stick with wizards until you learn how to edit it more thoroughly.

sweet, within 1 day of joining ive already freaked out a mod, a true victory for the horde ^_^

-Wild

XDevHald

May 1st, 2005, 08:19 PM

Hmm, I work at Dell, and yes, Windows is actually got some use, to show users how to use it, then let them destroy it and call tech support because they got 4 virus's and 2 of them got to the registry, and their bootup screen shows blue screen and then shuts off and won't turn on, so yea, it's useful to an extent ;)

And yes, that baby looks like he/she wants to break someones head off, lol great avatar!

mark

May 1st, 2005, 08:20 PM

I've just finished installing Windows XP Professional (OEM version) on a system - and anybody that raps Linux for being difficult to install is invited to the Windows from Hell 101 class I could start. You'd better have every driver known to man before you start this installation - i.e., it won't even try to find drivers - you have to point it to them.

Oh, well...

The Producer

May 2nd, 2005, 04:50 AM

I use Windows 2000 Professional along side Ubuntu....

With ZoneAlarm, and Firefox, my Windows is perfectly fine. I've never had a virus or spyware invasion or etc in my entire history of using Windows.

Windows XP Home (in my opinion) is lower in stability than W2K...and why I won't use a XP system other than WinXP Professional...which works as smoothly as Win2K from my experience in using it on 3D animation workstations at school. The only reason I don't have it is because of the ridiculous price....

Windows does have a use. Audio/Video editing, Flash, 2D/3D animation, and other creative works.

The reason I came to Linux was because of curiousity, a break from the Windows "norm", and to check out the various professional apps that have migrated over (Blender, XSI...I haven't been able to try Maya because i've yet to own a copy)

Neither Linux and Windows have yet to fail me, and I don't think they will in the future.

raven

May 2nd, 2005, 06:36 PM

I've been a user of windows since win95, I used all of win versions,
what panichedthumb said win95/98/ME are terrible I agree,
but remember what Linux was at that time,
would not be practical for the average user for sure, but winNT4/2k/xp
are very good systems, I works on win2k at work, I have around
a good 20 active app on the desktop in the same time, and win2k
deliver,

I have winxp at home, and been using it since coming out on market
I never fomated never slowed down now almost 5 years,
I have all kind of app that I use, from web DEV app,
.NET IDE, music app, DVD all kind of freewares which
I test on a box before installing on main box, if an app is badly written, we will
blame the OS, but in my experience a lot of time is the app that is badly writen.

My point, if we compare WIN & Linux, what the main difference are the users,
in win some user have a warning slaping them in the face
telling them not to install this software cause contain a
virus or what ever nuisanse, they still click "Yes Install"
I know at first hand cause I work in ISP support
and I deal with your average joe

now imagine a newbie in Linux, would ask for help,
and he found some help telling him to download a script that
would install all his favorite apps (which exist on this forums) ,
or gives him the sudo commands telling him
type sudo wget http ://maliciousweb.com
I bet he would not look at the code of the script,
now a malicious programer, could very easily include some codes,
which include some kind of keyloggers or kind of spywares
to learn his surfing habits or passwords (let your imagination go wild)
now if some commercial compagnies are intrested when linux grows
to the extend that it worth the investment, I believe we would have some cases
and vulnrability will be discovered.

and a lot of new user which do not have time nor experience
to troubleshoot would just reinstall their Linux box.

conclusion from my experience, most problems are
initiated from the user side, some for sure are from the OS

I would like to thanks the opensource comunity for all the
Greats apps that they offer us (FREE) so we can learn
and enjoy this world of PC's

zkissane

May 2nd, 2005, 11:16 PM

The Producer

May 3rd, 2005, 12:03 AM

I like Windows. Similar to others on this thread, since I started using 2000 and later XP Pro, I've not had any problems that couldn't be traced back to my dumb self or to faulty hardware.

I'm a pragmatist at heart. "Use the best tool for the job" is my motto. Honestly, the open source philosophy means nothing to me. I won't use a specific program just because it's open source, and I won't discount using a closed source program because of that fact.

I agree...well said.

Camo R

May 3rd, 2005, 01:59 AM

i've noticed that people who bash windows will put up with all sorts of stuff under *nix.
take me for instance, i have spent an ungodly amount of time trying to get ubuntu to work smoothly, but i get all crazy when xp has a hiccup.

ps.
still cant get wlan to scan. will have to try kernel 2.6.11.x or 2.6.11.8. The adventure continues.

Rogee

May 3rd, 2005, 02:16 AM

I've only read this thread up to page 5, but here's my opinion.

I like Windows. Similar to others on this thread, since I started using 2000 and later XP Pro, I've not had any problems that couldn't be traced back to my dumb self or to faulty hardware. I use Opera now, but even when I was using IE I didn't have a problem with malware. I've been using MS OS's in various forms since 1992 and I've never picked up a virus in my life. At work, my 2000 machine ran for over 60 days before I finally let it reboot to finish some updates. I'm sure it could have run for another 60 if I had let it, and this while using Opera, VC++, and the simulation my team works on.

I'm a pragmatist at heart. "Use the best tool for the job" is my motto. Honestly, the open source philosophy means nothing to me. I won't use a specific program just because it's open source, and I won't discount using a closed source program because of that fact.

My last venture with Linux was in 2001 with Debian's potato release. I installed Ubuntu because I wanted to (re-)learn *nix stuff. Windows continues to be my default OS, though.

The story of my life, too. As much as I love Ubuntu, I am still a 90% XP user. Windows has never let me down, I've never had a virus, and never a massive amount of spyware.

I'm mostly interested in Linux due it being free (as in beer). I would love to eventually only have to pay for hardware, and get my software for free. I guess I can do that now, but Windows is still more efficient for the things I do.

Ubuntu is a lot of fun to use though. If they could get ClearType fonts and DVD backup software on Linux, I'd be so happy!

poofyhairguy

May 3rd, 2005, 02:20 AM

ps.
still cant get wlan to scan. will have to try kernel 2.6.11.x or 2.6.11.8. The adventure continues.

You forgot to sacrifice a virgin to the god of "802.11b" while floating 2 inches off the ground with an albino alligator skinned headress on...

(actually that sounds a little easier than some of the crap I had to go through to get my Orinoco silver card to scan correctly. I hope Mark means there are going to hit the floor on better wireless support in the next release when he says that Breezy will focus on laptops).

Stormy Eyes

May 3rd, 2005, 09:32 AM

take me for instance, i have spent an ungodly amount of time trying to get ubuntu to work smoothly, but i get all crazy when xp has a hiccup.

I snarl too when Windows does something stupid. It's a matter of expections: with the prices Microsoft demands for Windows and the amount of money Microsoft has, they should be able to do a lot better than they do by virtue of their massive resources. Instead, Microsoft gets its *** kicked by a loose collective of volunteers with a smattering of paid developers.

Besides, with Microsoft, I'm a paying customer and expect to get my money's worth.
I'm not a paying customer of Canonical, so I can't reasonably snarl at something I'm not paying for.

pdpi

May 3rd, 2005, 11:32 AM

Well, I only started using Linux about a year ago, and started off by using slackware. About 3 weeks ago I shifted into Ubuntu. On the other hand, I started using computers when I was at age 3, which was 19 years ago (Space Invaders rocked at that time...), and have gone through like 4 MS-DOS versions, and all of the post-Win 3.0 windows versions.

This short introduction aside, a number of things is certain:

- With only a small fraction of experience in linux as I have in windows, I'm much more productive in Linux than I am in windows. This is mostly a subjective comparison, but many factors help here. Many of them will be elaborated upon later in this post. I also managed to get a sort of understanding of the organization and workings of linux that I never achieved in windows in a very small amount of time. The "keep it simple, stupid" philosophy of slackware probably contributed to it, though.

- I bought a new computer in mid-February. A nice, high-end, almost cutting-edge thing: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard, PCI-E 6800 GT graphics, Athlon 64 3500+, Audigy 2 ZS sound card being the more interesting and potentially problematic components.
In windows it took me 2 days and loads of digging around to get the processor to do the speedstep thing. In Ubuntu, it worked out of the box.
In windows, flaky drivers mean I can't use Bit torrent with the nVidia network interface, as in it crashes windows with a BSoD. The second interface works fine, though. Ubuntu will use either interface without complaint.
Both operating systems required extra drivers to get the graphics card doing the acceleration thing, but Ubuntu's default driver provided a much better looking default than Windows.
The soundcard was trickier in Ubuntu, I had to unmute a channel in alsamixer, but it's been working fine since 10 minutes after the install was completed. On the other hand, the Windows Audio service has taken the habit of crashing at boot. If it weren't for the fact that I had stumbled upon the existence of that service, It probably would've taken ages to figure out why I had system sounds, but no sound in games. And I still have to manually start the service every time I boot into windows.

- One of the reasons my productivity is increased in Ubuntu is the terminal. Bash is brilliant, the Windows command line is mostly brain dead. The GNU toolchain is also of brilliant usefulness. The fact that I can easily sed or indent my way out of inconsistent code pragmatics, for example, is something of use. That I can just do
for FILE in *.c; do echo $FILE; cat $FILE |grep identifier; done to locate all references to an identifier in a series of source files means I don't have to manually search each file without knowing whether or not the file's there.

- Despite much grumbling and moaning IN THE WRONG DIRECTION (in my not so humble opinion), Linux documentation is in general MUCH, MUCH better than Windows documentation, and easier to find too. I had a very easy time looking for solutions to my problems in linux. Windows problems have this far been a pain to locate answers to.
Plus, I had a much easier time getting a few nifty tricks under my belt in Linux than I did in windows. The general idea of small, focused programs rather than huge integrated ones fits me quite well, though. I know I want to use gvim to edit, make to ensure using gcc to compile is simple and easy, and gdb to debug. Each of these limited-scope programs has a set of good documentation that a quick read through gave enough knowledge to competently use in my day to day activities.
The idea of the size of Visual Studio and its myriad options and features and what-nots makes me tremble.

- One aspect of this ease of getting around in Linux that is conspicuous in its absence in Windows is the community. Within a day or two of using linux, I had stumbled into the linuxquestions.org and the linuxpackages.net forums, which both provided quite well for my slackware support needs. Within two minutes of looking for the Ubuntu CDs, I had found this forum, which I have already used to get my NTFS partitions working. I am yet to find this sort of high-quality community support for windows. Maybe when Bill Gates himself starts showing up in forums? Do note how solid this comparison is. Actual developer input is quite common in the Linux world, whereas Microsoft is a faceless monolith that only lets you see Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.

- For my gaming "needs", I still have to use windows, though I'm starting to have some success in Linux as well. I can play starcraft through cedega, even if the battle.net support is a bit klunky, and I have native support for quake 3 and ut2k4. But I can't get morrowind to play in cedega, and most of my other games aren't even "supported" by it.

This said, note that I have specifically stayed away from things such as DVD/MP3 playback, open/closed source, et al. While my own views of the subject boil down to thinking that closed formats are somewhat evil and that open source as a model is better than closed source (not to mention the free software movement which I do differentiate from the open source one), I tried to keep my comparison to more practical aspects.

J. S. Jackson

May 4th, 2005, 12:08 AM

I snarl too when Windows does something stupid. It's a matter of expections: with the prices Microsoft demands for Windows
I generally agree with your comments, except this part. MS doesn't "demand" anything. They offer a product for a price, if you don't agree with the price, you certainly don't have to buy it. Especially now that gnu/linux has reached such a high level of functionality.

Personally, I find the cost very reasonable. US $100 - $150 every three or four years is not a big burden on my budget.

I'm a big fan of open source, competition, and gnu/linux in general, but I don't find Windows, in it's latest form (XP), to be a bad product in any respect really.

Even Linus Torvalds himself has stated over and over again that closed source software, and charging money for software is certainly not "evil". After all, he used BitKeeper (closed source, non-free) until just a few months ago to maintain the Linux source code.

Stormy Eyes

May 4th, 2005, 08:46 AM

Even Linus Torvalds himself has stated over and over again that closed source software, and charging money for software is certainly not "evil". After all, he used BitKeeper (closed source, non-free) until just a few months ago to maintain the Linux source code.

Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. Charging for software isn't evil. Not giving the user his money's worth is. My sole beef with Microsoft is that, when it comes to their software, I don't get my money's worth. They make nice keyboards and trackballs. Unfortunately, Windows 98 was a misbegotten POS (it was also what drove me to Linux in '99), and there are a lot of things about XP that just **** me off. It seems to me that XP was designed by people arrogant enough to make me look humble, people who think that nobody outside of Microsoft HQ has the slightest idea about how to use a PC.

poofyhairguy

May 4th, 2005, 02:46 PM

They make nice keyboards and trackballs

Not anymore. Their bluetooth set went from being the best keyboard and mouse ever to being cheap, light pieces of crap (I can't wait for ebay to find me a first gen).

The best thing they have sold is this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006IJO7/qid=1115232256/sr=1-17/ref=sr_1_17/104-9456091-4019111?v=glance&s=pc

A wireless card that works better in Linux than Windows.

SteelValor

May 4th, 2005, 04:30 PM

I guess people have forgotten about the vast amount of quality games produced for Windows.

.

Nu-Buntu

May 4th, 2005, 05:29 PM

I think XP is by far the best version of Windows ever. I have used it intermitently since Windows 286. Who else remembers when Excel for Windows came with a "run-time" version of Windows to allow it to run on everyone's DOS machines? I also don't fault Microsoft for making a profit. That said, I don't like the following about Windows (and MS products in general):

1. To be legal, one must buy a copy for every PC in their home
2. Three words . . . Windows Product Activation

MS Office is also a very capable product, albeit bloated with "features" that take up room and do annoying things by default, such as autocorrect, autoformat, and truncated menus. Even on the Windows platform, I have taken to using open source software, such as OpenOffice.org, Abiword, MySQL, Audacity, NVU, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. Back when a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 cost $500, who would have foreseen the great, OSS available for a download. Wow!

Still, I find myself using Linux more and more and Windows less and less. At least at home. At work, we have to use WinXP. I also can't run SimCity 4 on Linux, so there you go.

kvidell

May 4th, 2005, 05:33 PM

Yeah, I found a couple of uses. A lot of apps don't have Linux-alternatives and Wine isn't great either. I also have a laptop, Windows never crashes, my external mouse works in Windows, Windows recognises my mp3-player, Windows just works pretty well on my laptop.

Seriously, bashing Windows is getting old. Although Linux keeps getting easier to work with, it still has a long way to go.

- HH
Hoary loves my IBM T42p. It even recognizes, with little effort, my little BlueTooth mousey I'm borrowing from a Mac enthusiast friend.

And aside from games, I use windows for Photoshop and Illustrator... which I wont need to do for long as I'm aquiring a MacMini for my WebDev. (GIMPShop is cute, but it just doesn't cut it).

jkndrkn

May 5th, 2005, 01:08 AM

My install of Windows XP gives me very few problems. I spent more time trying to get my printer to work in Ubuntu than any other problems I've had with Windows all year so far. Linux takes work. I almost consider it the hobbyists operating system.

There are a few things windows does better, and a few things that linux does better.

However, I favor Linux because it is based on a development philosophy that makes very good sense to me.

weekend warrior

May 5th, 2005, 05:24 AM

Haven't read through everything here but I'll add my two cents.

I've had a hard time setting up my internet connection with ubuntu and called my ISP. Of course the person there didn't know linux so their "linux expert" would have to call me back. Long story short they said I needed to set up the connection in winblows first because they didn't have anything available for my type of configuration (they had setup files for PPPoA but I need PPPoE basically). Well the problem here isn't ubuntu or linux. The problem is M$ dominating to such an extent that my ISP isn't prepared (or willing?) to offer equal services to other operating systems. This is the problem I have with M$ and by extension windoze.

Of course it doesn't help that losedoze is really awfully thought out sometimes, uhhm...so who's bright idea was it to name both the shell and file explorer as explorer.exe? Yeah shell switchers just love this :roll: Oh but wait, you're only supposed to use the Monopoly System shell, right? This is just garbage in, garbage out folks. Heh, in fact Bill Gates even admitted his code was/is garbage.

Interviewer: "Is studying computer science the best way to prepare to be a programmer?"

Gates: "No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system."

Source: Programmers at Work by Susan Lammers (1986), ISBN 0914845713 erm... there's a reason they threw it away Billy [-X

And I don't even want to get started on the ticking time bomb registry, dlls, memory management, multi-tasking, defragging etc. Defrag? so you mean this OS can't even keep it's own ***** together? Get real. Get a real OS. << how's that for a good linux slogan?

This site says pretty much what I feel about M$ and Bimbows. http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

weekend warrior

May 5th, 2005, 05:41 AM

Another classic Gates quote:

"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."

So the ubuntu reply would be:

"It might not look the best, but it is the best"

:)

Stormy Eyes

May 5th, 2005, 09:13 AM

Not anymore. Their bluetooth set went from being the best keyboard and mouse ever to being cheap, light pieces of crap (I can't wait for ebay to find me a first gen).

OK. I haven't used their bluetooth gear, just their "internet keyboard" and their USB optical trackball. Both have served me well. I avoid wireless keyboards and mice because of two words: cordless headshot (http://www.megatokyo.com).

I don't want my batteries to die on me if I'm in the middle of a game or while writing.

panickedthumb

May 5th, 2005, 09:19 AM

umm... that megatokyo link didn't seem to have anything about wireless keyboards/mice, or cordless headshots ;) Maybe I'm missing some back issues.

Stormy Eyes

May 5th, 2005, 09:21 AM

umm... that megatokyo link didn't seem to have anything about wireless keyboards/mice, or cordless headshots ;) Maybe I'm missing some back issues.

Here's the one. (http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=305)

abowman

May 9th, 2005, 08:19 AM

binary-boy

May 9th, 2005, 04:11 PM

For a healthy market, both need to exist in balance.

Microsoft needs open source as a deterent from it's current monopolistic position.

Open source needs Microsoft for motivation to keep developing and trying to stay ahead.

Competition is not a bad thing and I certainly wouldn't want the world to have grown up in a Linux monopoly instead of a Windows one, or we'd all still be using the command line for everything!

I'm looking forward to a 50/50 market share....

Kimm

May 9th, 2005, 04:45 PM

One thing that I still use windows for (although emulated in VMWare..):

Programming with windows libraries in Delphi for school

thats the only thing, I can think of something else that I realy miss from windows however, and this is the fact that apps start just so very very much faster!!

Competition is not a bad thing and I certainly wouldn't want the world to have grown up in a Linux monopoly instead of a Windows one, or we'd all still be using the command line for everything!

Ofcourse, that is a good argument, using a graphical environment is just so very much more eficient, you have the ability to run multiple apps more simultaniouesly then in a command line. So, ok, perhaps microsoft has had some good efects in software developement, but there are more down then up sides to the story!

I hate it that, when the first time I start windows something has to go wrong, like something crashes or whatever, something almost allways go wrong!

And!

When I found this article in a computer magazine a couple of weeks back: "64 bit windows is done, the IT revolution is here!", I was nothing but angry and felt nothing but a strong erge to burn the magazine and send them a threatning letter. Saying that just becos windows is 64 bit the IT revolution is there is nothing but BS! Especialy since Linux has been 64 bit for ages, and other OS's before that, todays work is just so "Microsoftanized" that people just cant see just how far behind they acctually are, both in stability and in the fact that it takes them forever to create a special version for a different CPU...

I have a friend in my class hwom I resently gave my old computer to (1,6 ghz Athlon XP, 256 MB DDR RAM and broken motherboard ;-) ...but he knew that!), and today I got my pressed Ubuntu CD's, I'll give one to him and after he fixes the computer I will do anything in my power to make him install it! He does seem a bit curios about it, my main problem would be his old class mates hwo go by the lines of "Microsoft and windows is superior to all!" when they havnt even looked at it, when I show one of them screenshots of my XFCE desktop with Nautilus as my filmanager, he discardes it as: "Omfg, its so f*ckin uggly", then when I try to show him a KDE desktop (more eye candy) and can go a bit more toward... ok! but he says "that thing at the bottom still looks mighty uggly".

People need to open their eyes!!

binary-boy

May 9th, 2005, 04:56 PM

Even if the majority of the world were to move to Linux, most people wouldn't know or care how the O/S works - and quite rightly too. We are in a minority of people who see the operating system as an elegant creation as opposed to a means to end as is the case with Joe Public.

I have worked with Windows a lot and while I'm no Microsoft supporter, they have done some great things for computing (e.g. .NET, whcih is what Java should have been). They may have pinched a lot of their ideas from other places, but so have Linux developers.

At the end of the day, computing is still a very immature science and thus has a hell of a lot of growing up to do - there is no perfect O/S.

Slapdash

May 10th, 2005, 06:21 AM

Linux for OS -- Work, net, IM, development, PS2 and soon PS3 for games.

I dont do gaming on the PC much anymore, too expensive to upgrade all the time + you are forced to buy MS windows uless you pirate.

Kimm

May 10th, 2005, 09:48 AM

in sweden its legal to download software for own use (not to sell it thought ofcourse), so downloadig windows is completely legal, sharing is a different mather however ;-)

Brunellus

May 10th, 2005, 10:06 AM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I prefer XFCE or Gnome or Fluxbox over WinXP's GUI. But then, my preference is for less (silly) eyecandy.

If it had to be on prettiness, I'd have to go with the Mac OSX Tiger GUI--but then, that's been written to take advantage of the GPUs that ship with Apple hardware.

The thing that I notice is that most people aren't willing to invest even the minimal effort it would take to try something new.

Mr Hatch

May 10th, 2005, 05:54 PM

I have been using linux for a fair while now, and have been a big fan of ubuntu since i came across it 6 months ago. I have have it on my laptop and use it for everything, i have even got my parents using it! However recently i was beginning to worry that maybe it wasnt as fast as windows, maybe those occasional bugs that caused something to die werent there in windows. After all you have to pay for that, a lot of money so it must be good!

So here is why Windows is useful, i booted in to it on my laptop (i keep it there for...i dunno really, no reason!) and it is fully updated and has not got any extra software installed apart from anti virus! And it was slow, crashed 3 times installing my printer, IE stopped and i had to reboot after the smallest update. It was also very ugly in my mind, things seemed harsh on the eye. After twenty minutes of playing around on it i rebooted and ubuntu is back to being a joy! Use windows once a month or if you are having a problem with something and you will remember why you have been using linux!!

Anyone else found any uses? I once saw a windows PC being used as a door wedge by the IT guys at the school i used to go to!
Anyone else found

Well, I can only partially confirm your statements as far as speed of WindowsXP is concerned. I have to keep it for mere audioprocessing and some graphic works that have to be done in CMYK, and I'm afraid I have to say that my windows-installation is by far faster than ubuntu or just any other linux distribution I've tried so far. I have no idea, I mean, so many times I hear people complaining about windows freezing, being slow and so on... possibly I'm just really lucky, because I haven't got the slightest problems with it. It just costs money, and the upcoming version are kind of restrictive in my eyes, so I will keep using ubuntu for everyday tasks, because I simply don't want to update windows any more.

But, as you see, different people, different experience...

poofyhairguy

May 10th, 2005, 07:32 PM

while I'm no Microsoft supporter, they have done some great things for computing

Like sell them. I remember before MS came along, top end desktop computers cost twice as much as they do now. MS marketed to people who wouldn't buy a computer for the fun of it and it was a great success for them. Sure XP is being eaten alive by malware creators, but people still keep buying Dells by the thousands.

Now I can hotrod my computer for so cheap and parts can be aquired easily.

Xbot

May 16th, 2005, 09:55 PM

Yeah Windows has issues, but lets not forget it made computing easy for 'normal' people to get into.

The only problem I have with Windows is the cost of software when there is so much great free stuff I can just apt-get using Ubuntu. It would be nice though if Macromedia would make Flash MX in a version that works on *nix systems, that and games is why I have a 30 gig XP partition on this box.

Baza
It's my main OS unfortunatly. My iMac G3 has OS9/X/Hoary on it (Gnome + KDE). I really like the way I have it configured. XP on this machine works perfectly (try setting the theme to the classic, for some reason my computer is more stable this way).

XP for the past *gasp* 3 days has been STABLE. My USB SB Audigy2 NX HAS BEEN WORKING! It normally dies after 2 hours or so, then I have to reboot. But it's been stable for 3 days. 3 DAYS PEOPLE!

I also use 2003 on my server, and XP on my TV Machine. When I can install programs in a GUI interface with Linux, I will gladly switch. I might be a geek at heart, but unfortunatly I just can't ween myself off of pretty GUIs :)

And mabye my reluctance to use Linux sprouts from my beginnings - I used Icepack first, then IMMEDIATELY went to Debian. I don't think that's the best way to go about Linux, eh?

bored2k

May 16th, 2005, 10:00 PM

It's my main OS unfortunatly. My iMac G3 has OS9/X/Hoary on it (Gnome + KDE). I really like the way I have it configured. XP on this machine works perfectly (try setting the theme to the classic, for some reason my computer is more stable this way).

XP for the past *gasp* 3 days has been STABLE. My USB SB Audigy2 NX HAS BEEN WORKING! It normally dies after 2 hours or so, then I have to reboot. But it's been stable for 3 days. 3 DAYS PEOPLE!

I also use 2003 on my server, and XP on my TV Machine. When I can install programs in a GUI interface with Linux, I will gladly switch. I might be a geek at heart, but unfortunatly I just can't ween myself off of pretty GUIs :)

And mabye my reluctance to use Linux sprouts from my beginnings - I used Icepack first, then IMMEDIATELY went to Debian. I don't think that's the best way to go about Linux, eh?
I wish mine was stable. It loads uber fast, but just right clicking reminds me what XP is. I'd usually reinstall it every 2 weeks or so, but every time I do so my brother's settings get completely lost, and him being such a newcomer, it's hard for him. He just uses it in all its slowness like if that was a feature or "that is just how it is because.. it is".

rogus

August 19th, 2005, 06:53 PM

Well hmm you should try some more serious rendering or mathematical operations. Linux is much more stable - not even talking about blender, but about XSI which i use very often.

With Windos I do photoshoping + C1Pro decoding. Xp is quite good especially if you have sweetly configured corp version. But hmm i wouldn't be able to use it as my one and only system. It cost me lot of trouble. In Linux I can use more space rather than RAID and backing up. In Windoz it's hardly possible...

sapo

August 19th, 2005, 09:04 PM

man.. i had to install windows some days ago.. and those severel reboots to install simple apps really stressed me out... ](*,)

Angry penguin

October 17th, 2005, 03:08 AM

I dont know if anyone has said this yet but windows is extremely useful....I use the Windows XP cd as a beer coaster. Its kinda crappy though because it a has a hole in it.:D
Inferior OS=Inferior coaster.
:razz:

arXonik

October 25th, 2005, 02:32 PM

Not sure about that. Have you seen all the features they dropped from Longhorn? And Linux developers just picked those up and started running with them.
I think Linux has caught up (or past) Windows in many areas, but the 'user friendly desktop' isn't one of them.

I simply have to reply to this one, how is Linux user-unfriendly/not-noob-user-ready/difficult/complicated/uncooperative? You have Live distros, small distros, big distros, custom distros, you can even built your own! IT IS WORKING OUT OF THE BOX! You have to provide even less information to the linux installation (like Ubuntu, which is geared towards a new user, I would say) and once it is installed, you can browse the web, type your new friendly documents, print and chat over the internet, EVERYTHING a simple user needs. My parents could be using it. SAME AS WINDOWS!

If you want to tweak your computer performancewise, like gaming, do you realise, what there is to do in windows? Downloading drivers for mainboard, graphics card, directx, vga, game controller, any special devices, patches that is NOT userfriendly in my book, that is just plain MEAN, especially when I am supposed to be paying for that. SO IT'S JUST AS USER FRIENDLY AS LINUX.

I'd say lots of the statements that were glued to linux as compared to MS are more than outdated today, especially with Ubuntu proving me with every new release that Linux CAN be the choice and it can MORE than get the work done, THANK YOU GUYS, keep up the good work, ONE FAN HERE.

If the guys had the revenues of MS, linux would be probably controlling your pacer next and it would be nice and user friendly the way YOU seem to like it :cool:

And since I completely indulged myself in flaming, i completely forgot to add my useful tip, windows xp install cd is GREAT for restoring your MBR and messing your partitions :)

Malphas

October 25th, 2005, 03:19 PM

I simply have to reply to this one, how is Linux user-unfriendly/not-noob-user-ready/difficult/complicated/uncooperative? You have Live distros, small distros, big distros, custom distros, you can even built your own! IT IS WORKING OUT OF THE BOX! You have to provide even less information to the linux installation (like Ubuntu, which is geared towards a new user, I would say) and once it is installed, you can browse the web, type your new friendly documents, print and chat over the internet, EVERYTHING a simple user needs. My parents could be using it. SAME AS WINDOWS!

If you want to tweak your computer performancewise, like gaming, do you realise, what there is to do in windows? Downloading drivers for mainboard, graphics card, directx, vga, game controller, any special devices, patches that is NOT userfriendly in my book, that is just plain MEAN, especially when I am supposed to be paying for that. SO IT'S JUST AS USER FRIENDLY AS LINUX.

I'd say lots of the statements that were glued to linux as compared to MS are more than outdated today, especially with Ubuntu proving me with every new release that Linux CAN be the choice and it can MORE than get the work done, THANK YOU GUYS, keep up the good work, ONE FAN HERE.

If the guys had the revenues of MS, linux would be probably controlling your pacer next and it would be nice and user friendly the way YOU seem to like it :cool:

And since I completely indulged myself in flaming, i completely forgot to add my useful tip, windows xp install cd is GREAT for restoring your MBR and messing your partitions :)
Agreed (mostly). Pre-installed Windows obviously works better "out of the box" than most - if not all - GNU/Linux distributions, but it's nothing like as clear cut when installing from scratch and comparing XP to user-friendly distributions like Ubuntu.

Also, I don't seem to have experienced the problems that some users are complaining about in regard to Windows - not since XP anyway. Obviously GNU/Linux is generally superior with regard to security and stability but it really doesn't take that much to secure and maintain XP. I thought Linux users were supposed to be IT proficient, I'd usually associate most of the problems people here are mentioning with people who've just bought their first PC.

thechitowncubs

October 25th, 2005, 06:03 PM

only beef i have with windows is not supporting my hardware from a clean install

ubuntu did that for free, and that is why i use it :D , plus its better :KS :KS

period.:rolleyes:

BatsotO

October 25th, 2005, 06:30 PM

I think windows have something that linux doesn't (beside spam and malware).
Linux only have root and non root, while windows have administrator, power user and regular user.
Previously I use win2000 before to run diskless network with 1 P4 1,8Ghz and 1 Gig RAM, 12 thin clients (using LTSP). With power user privilage the operator can manage the system without need to have administrator privilage, like fixing corupted user profile, do some update, and kill process.
With linux running diskless (same pc's) the memory heavily loaded with clients trying to run gdm at the same time and doesn't take long before it will crash ( I found it only support 6 to 8 clients max, more will be disaster) .
When some aplication crash, exspecially users session-manager, the operator will spent some time to search to whom the application belong, su to the user account, kill the process, wait sometime for the process to be killed to free valuable space in the memory, something that can be done by 2 clicks on windows task manager thanks to power user account.
Honestly, I found win2k advance server to be better in handling 12 diskless clients