Miscellaneous > The Lounge
trolled at Windows BBS
hm_murdock:
I'd like to try building a Power Mac, but I'm gonna wait until the CHRP boards support G5s, rather than that sad sack of shit G4... or I'll get something with an IBM 750GX so I can have a 200MHz bus and all kinds of cool stuff for less doh than a G5.
If they put OpenBeOS or YellowTab out for PPC, I'd love to toss something together for that, although OpenBeOS will be better than YellowTab.
YellowTab seems to be going the way of Linux, with TOO MANY options, and not enough compatibility, and too much focus on how cool it is to have 50 compilers.
AmigaOS 4 might also be fun to futz with, as well.
As for something Fett said... it is rather sad, IMHO, the attitudes of some of the people here toward people that actually like Windows, and are able to justify it. Ya know, there are people who *don't like Linux*... and there's NOTHING WRONG with that. Some people actually like these other things. Zombie is able to say in intelligent terms why he prefers it. It does the things he wants, and in his case, does it well.
Case in point:
Recently, myself and two friends moved to Fayetteville and into an apt. We hooked up with cable internet, and I set up a gateway server. I first tried with Red Hat 8. I coudn't make it work. I tried using XP's internet connection sharing, and it worked... first time. I downloaded and installed the free trial of Windows Server 2003, and I've run the peecee headless now for over two months and there's been absolutely no problems. Every machine in the house gets a fast, reliable connection from it. It does, indeed work. I'm sure I could have made Linux work, too. But I really didn't want to sit there and fiddle with it for hours, especially when Windows did it right off the bat.
Now my Macs get their internet hookup from it, and I don't have to use it at all. It's just there.
Sure.. MS sux, but give em some credit. Their stuff does things for people, and those people have valid reasons for using it. You'll do better to try to simply show them how to live as MS free as possible, rather than insisting they completely give up something that does actually work for them, and insulting them for not doing it.
I've found that you get much farther than you bargain for. A friend of mine was having internet troubles, and I pointed him toward Mozilla Firebird, and two weeks later he'd ordered an eMac because during further investigation of alternative browsers, he found Safari, and fell in love with Mac OS X.
I used to insult Windows and MS all the time, and tell people they were morons for even having Windows. But I've learned that I can get much farther by simply offering small suggestions as to how to slowly get rid of MS.
JUST MY TAKE ON THINGS
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James is COOL ]
Laukev7:
BeOS should work with a pentium 4, as it is a i686 like the pentium 3. Your audigy sound card might work with this driver.
As for your Geforce, they are developping drivers for the unsupported nvidia graphic cards, including the Geforce 5200 FX. You may want to check for updates, as this looks promising.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/be-hold/BeOS/NVdriver/index.html
quote: I used to insult Windows and MS all the time, and tell people they were morons for even having Windows. But I've learned that I can get much farther by simply offering small suggestions as to how to slowly get rid of MS.
--- End quote ---
True. But it's also about suggesting the right alternative, rather than blindly forcing Linux on people. I've tried to like Linux, but somehow, even though I knew how to use it, it just didn't click with me. I toyed with many OSes by emulation, including Mac OS, Amiga and Acorn Archimedes, and I find all of those much more intuitive than recent Linux distros, even though much older. BeOS was my first Windows alternative for PC (other than emulation), and it was love at first sight. Red Hat Linux 6.0, OTOH, was a different story, needless to say. But one thing has to be said, with Linux, I learnt a lot about computers.
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7: Defender of Canada ]
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7: Defender of Canada ]
hm_murdock:
when Be development is back in full swing, with the new open source versions goin' down, it'll be a very good, very easy and intuitive alternative to suggest to people. And we can always tell them to try BeOS 5 Personal using the cool virtual disk that it shipped with. If they like it, go get OpenBeOS
emh:
quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
I've used Linux. I've used it numerous times(including some of the most recent Mandrake, Redhat and SuSe distros). Linux is getting better, but I still come back to Windows.
--- End quote ---
Part of it has to do with having years of Windows experience and having maybe a few weeks of Linux experience. One tends to stick with what's familiar.
quote:
Why? Because every piece of software that I use on a daily basis doesn't run natively in Linux(alot of it won't even run emulated in bullshit like Wine/WineX).
--- End quote ---
Such as?
quote:
I like the Windows interface better. My music sounds better in Windows due to the fact that the media players for Windows have better audio enhancements. Even the standard "Play Control" audio adjuster that comes with Windows gives me more options to make my audio sound better than anything I've seen in Linux. The Linux equivalent to "Play Control" doesn't even let me adjust my bass and treble. On crappy speakers something like that doesn't matter. On 6.1 surround sound speakers it makes a world of difference.
--- End quote ---
What sound card do you use? I have access to all of those functions in Linux with my Sound blaster Live, with no more configuring than I do in Windows.
quote:
I'm not even going to get into 3D audio support(lack of) in Linux(like Advanced HD EAX, Aureal A3D emulation on the Audigy 2, etc.).
--- End quote ---
See Above
quote:
Where is the soundfont support for Linux?
--- End quote ---
Try a program called Fluidsynth.
quote:
Where is the Environmental Audio/Reverb support in Linux(for everything...including Audio CD's, MP3's, etc.)?
--- End quote ---
I haven't messed with it much, but I believe XMMS has these kinds of plugins.
quote:
Where is the voice changer in Linux?
--- End quote ---
I don't know what this is, so I can't comment.
quote:
My opinion is Linux audio support is just basic(it sucks).
--- End quote ---
Speaking as somebody that does audio and MIDI recording regularly on my Linux machine, I respectfully disagree.
quote:
Why in hell do I have a DirectX 9 videocard(GeForce FX5900 Ultra) if Linux doesn't even support DirectX?
--- End quote ---
If DirectX was open source, more OS's besides Windows would support it.
quote:
Yes, DirectX is a better API than OpenGL. DirectX has more capabilites(Pixel shaders, Vertex Shaders, Advanced Pixel Shaders, Enviromental Bumpmapping, etc.) that in the end produces better graphics when utilized.
--- End quote ---
What difference will this make to the average user if the program works?
quote:
Why is it, when I try to install a driver in Linux it takes alot more effort to get it working than it does in Windows? Why is it such a pain in the ass to install software in Linux? I want to be able to run an installer and have the software ready to go after it is installed. In Linux you have to go to the Konsole and do extra configuring after running an RPM(to get the files unpacked to the proper location) to get the fucking software to work.
--- End quote ---
This is an area that needs some work. Although it's not that bad for most software. And even then, a standard installer for all Linux distros can work. (as can be seen for the installers for RealPlayer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Codeweavers's software, the Lexmark printer drivers, and probably some commercial Linux games, although I'm not a gamer, so I can't say this for certain). Not everything has to be installed via the distro's package format.
quote:
Example, it took me over an hour to get MPlayer working in Linux.
--- End quote ---
MPlayer is probably the most difficult program you could possibly install, that I'm aware of. Everything else is far easier.
quote:
In Windows, something like Winamp, Windows Media Player 9, Foobar, Real Player, Quicktime, etc. is installed and ready to use in a matter of seconds with a few simple mouse clicks.
--- End quote ---
And ready to crash with a few simple mouse clicks.... ;) Seriously, you do have a point.
quote:
I have a lot more quirks about Linux that I'd like to list but I'm tired and I'm ready to get some sleep so it will have to wait until later. ;P
--- End quote ---
quote:
To make a long story short. Hardware support in Linux is good enough to get you by....it is basic...you don't get the cool extra features out of your hardware(the features you paid for when you bought the hardware).
--- End quote ---
It varies with the hardware, but a lot of it is just as much supported as it is in Windows.
quote:
The hardware driver installation method in Linux could use alot of refinement(needs to be made easier like it is in Windows).
--- End quote ---
Good point.
quote:
The software installation methods need to be re-thought up..and Linux could definatley use mainstream software support.
--- End quote ---
As more mainstream software support comes, easier software installation will follow.
quote:
Linux is good for the hobbyists, it isn't good for people who don't have alot of time to spend configuring thier computer anytime they want to get work done(or play when they are taking a break from thier work).
--- End quote ---
I disagree. You spend time configuring Linux once, (and it's mostly just adding a few programs or changing some desktop settings), then the rest of the time, you're simply able to get work done without fear of the OS crashing or hardware randomly deciding not to work (my girlfriend has the latter problem with her WinXP computer constantly). Now, the options are there if you want to configure or tweak it to your liking, but it's never necessary to configure your computer every time you want to get work done.
quote:
FYI - I don't need an OS that runs on a 200mhz 586, 32MB of Ram and 3 gig(PIO mode 4) hard drive because I have a 3ghz+ CPU (P4 2.4c ghz, HT enabled, 800mhz FSB o/ced to 3.12ghz)w/512MB of Ram(2x256MB DDR400 Dimms in a Dual Channel DDR configuration), 2x100GB ATA133 IDE hard drives(in RAID0), a 80GB ATA133 IDE drive and a 80GB Serial ATA hard drive(using an Asus P4P800 Deluxe motherboard..i865PE w/ICH5R chipset and PAT enabled) in this box. A 1.5gb Windows installation doesn't even make a dent in my drive space. The processes running in Windows doesn't even make my system flinch because I have plenty of Ram and it is fast, fast, fast(I'm getting about 6gbps of bandwidth out of my Ram). My system is not slow by any means and Windows doesn't run slow at all. Honestly, I need something that will tax my system more than what Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 can. I guess I'll have to wait until Longhorn. ;P
--- End quote ---
My system isn't quite that powerful.
quote:
Nowadays people shouldn't even bitch about how big Windows is getting because storage is so cheap. It is less than a $1 per GB anymore. Ram is dirt cheap anymore. High speed CPU's aren't all that expensive anymore. This isn't the mid 90's anymore people.
--- End quote ---
Just because faster processors/bigger RAM/bigger hard drives are available and cheap, doesn't mean the host operating system should require exponentially more system resources than its previous version just to run itself. We need to work for efficiency of resources, not use more and more just because it's there.
There are more things I'd like to reply to in your other posts, but it's 11:00 and I have to get up at 5:30 a.m. for work, so it will have to wait until later.
Zombie9920:
quote:Part of it has to do with having years of Windows experience and having maybe a few weeks of Linux experience. One tends to stick with what's familiar.
--- End quote ---
Not nessicarily. I enjoy using BeOS. I enjoyed it since the first time I used it...and it was new to me at the time when I first used it. ;P
quote:Such as?
--- End quote ---
Adobe Photoshop 7.0, Premier 6.5 and After Effects 6.0, Microsoft Office 11 Beta, Macromedia Fireworks MX and Studio MX, my games, etc.
quote:What sound card do you use? I have access to all of those functions in Linux with my Sound blaster Live, with no more configuring than I do in Windows.
--- End quote ---
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum EX. Oh yeah, I forgot that my Audigy Drive doesn't function correctly in Linux either.
quote:Try a program called Fluidsynth.
--- End quote ---
Will this program allow me to load large soundfont sets(60MB+)? The reason I ask is because the soundfont that I normally use is 63MB. It is huge but damn do the instruments in the set sound good.
If so, I'll check it out the next time I install Linux.
quote:I don't know what this is, so I can't comment.
--- End quote ---
It is just a silly little toy that changes your voice as you speak in the mic. It is useful for making funny sound files, pissing people off in chat rooms, disguising your voice for a laugh if you call someone using a PC2phone program and to wow your friends. It isn't really signifigant. It is just a play toy.
quote:If DirectX was open source, more OS's besides Windows would support it.
--- End quote ---
Heh, good point. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops. ;P I prefer the graphics quality of DirectX. I haven't tried any DX9 games, I've only seen DX9 demos...but I have a few games that use DirectX 8.1's features(like Morrowind). Pixel shaders, Advanced Pixel shaders and EVB make a big difference in background and scene quality.
quote:What difference will this make to the average user if the program works?
--- End quote ---
Gamers buy high end 3D cards that produce stunning graphics for a reason. They want thier games to look better and more realistic. If you use Linux for games you may as well stick with a GeForce 2, Radeon 7500 or GeForce 4 MX because they all render OpenGL the same as the newest cards(some are just faster at rendering it than others).
quote:Just because faster processors/bigger RAM/bigger hard drives are available and cheap, doesn't mean the host operating system should require exponentially more system resources than its previous version just to run itself. We need to work for efficiency of resources, not use more and more just because it's there.
--- End quote ---
Not true. A mainstream OS that taxes hardware more and more every release is the reason why our hardware is so powerful and cheap nowadays. Back in the mid 90's a 2GB hard drive costed over $150. Nobody needed anything much larger than that because Windows 95 didn't take much space. Now, a 2gig hard drive wouldn't last past an OS install....hell, I have like 20GB of MP3's and another 40GB of movies and and music videos on my drive. All made possible by having such large storage solutions. If you told people back in the 90's that you could store thousands and thousands of songs on your computer they wouldn't have believed you. It is a reality now.
BAck in the early 90's an OEM 486DX 33 computer costed over 3 thousand $$$. That isn't the case now. You can have a 3ghz+ fully loaded computer for alot less than that nowadays. Intel didn't design the Pentium until it was close to time for MS to release Windows 98(it was created in the Beta stages of 98 so 98 would run decently). The Pentium II was released near the time when Windows 2000 was going to be released and Intel just kept rolling out more and more faster processors after that. Back then a 16MB stick of EDO Ram costed near $100. Nowadays you can have a 512MB stick of PC 3700 DDR-Ram for less than that($97 right now).
Back in the day, 16MB was high end though because Windows 95 ran good on 8MB. When Windows 98 was released 16MB became minimum and 32MB became high end. Win2K raised 32MB to be minimum and 64MB to be high end. After that Ram started getting cheaper and cheaper(than it was already getting) for larger amounts. It is good that MS drove and still drives hardware companies to make todays technology obsolete because of new technology that they keep releasing to replace the old. Quite frankly, if Linux was top dawg a P233MMX w/32MB of Ram would likely still be considered high end. I for one like having a 3ghz+ PC for less than what an old 486 used to cost.
[ August 25, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version