Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: gnomez on 9 March 2002, 07:36
-
One of the biggest wails heard by the most vocal and fanatical zealots in the Linux community is that Windows and most of the programs that run on it are bloated and slow, while screaming about how fast and "un-bloated" Linux is. Where this myth started I do not know, but it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics to tarnish the good name of Microsoft and Windows and to lure Linux newbies and those curious about the OS into making the fatal mistake of installing it on their computer. The fact that this alleged truth seems to go unquestioned shows how reluctant most Linux advocates are to admit that their once lightweight OS has degenerated into nothing more than piles and piles of spaghetti code and a huge mess of cheesy, mostly unused apps that is characteristic of most Linux distributions these days.
Now to dispel the myths:
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
This Linux Lie is often perpetrated when a newbie wants to try out Linux, but is reluctant to install it on his or her main computer (with good reason) Others replying to his question will say that it is fine to erase the hard drive of his old Pentium 166 with Windows 98 SE to prepare it for the Linux revolution, but the fact is that Linux performs horribly on slow computers in comparison to Windows. Sure, Linux may turn an older computer into a feeble server or a router, but try running things that you could run fairly quickly under Windows such as anything GUI, particularly an office app or a web browser, and Linux crawls, stutters, grinds the hard drive for 10 minutes, and generally eats up all the RAM in your poor machine's system like an obese glutton.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping. Many Linux purists will say that is not true, but since they choose to only use the command line or maybe blackbox or windowmaker they have no say. The very fact that they would be torturing themselves with such rubbish just goes to show that they find straining their eyes and wrists on the geeky command prompt or configuring their blackbox using text files less torturous than suffering through the unbelievably slow load times and bloated programs found in KDE and GNOME.
Myth 3.) Windows is bloated
This absurd statement is the most fictitious, and is spouted over and over again by the Linux faithful in the hopes that they will brainwash themselves into believing this most grievous of the Linux Lies. My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS. None of this speed or functionality was even remotely matched by any Linux GUI I ran on it. The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me, as I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I
-
Good name? (http://smile.gif) And how can installing something that costs you nothing be a fatal mistake? It's not like you can't put Windows back on if you don't like it, which most people won't at first (hell, I didn't like it at first, until I gave it a serious effort). And I don't know about bloated. I do know about choice. I know that for what I do most MS apps have very few features that I really need and very many that I don't need. And you don't have to install all 6 CDs that you might get with your Linux distro.
I would agree with you that for desktop work you need at least the system requirements of a Windows box but for many server tasks (not all) you can happily do on a 486 with very little RAM. Certainly don't need to waste any resources running a GUI on a server that you never need to touch the console on.
And for some young kid who wants to learn how to program and doesn't have rich parents there's nothing better than Linux. What does Visual Studio and MS SQL server cost now days? Especially if you want to use your SQL server on a public IIS server and license it legally?
And the time thing is complete bull shit. I can't tell you how much time I waste dicking with Microsoft servers because the MCSEs don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and never have to touch the *NIX boxes.
And automation is still just as much of a pain in the ass in XP as it was in DOS.
[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
I completely agree that Linux is very cost effective for servers and programming, and your comments are intelligent and well taken. (Why the hell do servers even need a GUI anyway?) I really should have emphasized that I was talking particuarally about Linux for desktop/home/office use, as that is what most people use computers for. Linux has its place, but I can't see it being in the desktop just yet.
-
And I would actually agree with you on that point. Although I see it getting closer to being viable. And it certainly can't hurt to encourage young people to learn how to program and make a contribution. As Linux get's closer to the desktop I think you will see more and more people contributing and more and more vendors porting. Then maybe you will not be dependent on a single company for your operating pleasure. Unless you work for Microsoft you can't help but at least be comforted that Linux and Macs are out there and if something ever happened to Microsoft you have something that is at least , if nothing else, usable.
I happen to find it very usable and am tickled that nearly 100% (if not 100%) of the people who came to this board looking for an alternative and tried it say they are very pleased. It is encouraging and makes me want to help them where I can.
-
While you post an intelligent argument, (a lot better than "Linux sucks..you fags!!!"), I would have to say the opposite is true, with me, personally. While everyone is different, I have found Linux to be 99.999% stable for me. Its been over a year since I had linux lock up on me, and the last time was when I had some bad memory sticks, and it would lock up regardless. Windows, however, has been a nightmare since 95.
I am one of those "old timers" (although only 24) who thinks DOS was Microsoft's last good OS. It was stable, powerful, just didnt multitask worth a crap. So I guess when they killed it, It started a grudge against Windows from Day 1. But I have had nothing but problems, and I pushed, and pushed, learned the OS inside and out, and still found, no matter what, "freak" things would happen, blue-screens, memory leaks, etc, data corruption, and in my Anger and hatred of 95, I turned to Linux. In 1996, someone gave me a copy, and it was rough at first (VI? THIS SUCKS) but I struggled with it, read the manpages, documentation, etc, and its been cake since then.
I have seen an improvement in Linux, without a doubt, in the last few years. It was clunky, it was shaky, and meant for a server. But I think its readiness for the desktop is approaching. While I think Gnome is mostly a pile of Crap (Sorry Gnomers, but KDE is for me) it's still better than any Windows system, for me.
While I have had to spend more time learning, now, years later, I spend more time productively, enjoying my computer, rather than fumbling with it, trying to make it work. Its really nice. I spend my time "tweaking" or "playing with things" at my own leisure, rather than "fixing" things. XP has been a heap of sh*t (Can you cuss on this board) that makes my tbird run like a duron, sorry. With a tbird 1400, with 512MB DDR, and Raid, yeah, it takes longer to boot up than XP, but once I get in and start the X server, its a Rocket from there. No waiting for anything.
And all I have to do, when I set it up is, install the OS, (with complete control of what happens with it)
setup my window manager, install a few programs, pimp out the kernel, slide it in, and its a joyride from there. Worry free computing. Thats what I love.
I have reinstalled XP three times since I installed RH 7.2 For a while, I just ran Redhat, without XP, and waited until I needed it, to put it on. (They need AutoCAD for linux dammit).
While it doesnt run on old hardware well, what OS does? But I must say, when I had setup a print and proxy server at home, I wouldnt have considered Windows for a second. It was a Pentium 100 with 16mb of Ram, and I'd like to see someone put Win2k on it, and have it do the job, like FreeBSD did, effortlessly.
While Linux may have been a bad experience for you, and I agree, its not 100% ready for the desktop, and not ready for my mom to use it, its great for me.
Just my opinion.
[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Heywood ]
-
A brief testimony.
Once Upon A Time......
Like many, my first PC was windows. And second. The difference was my first was a hand-me-down win 95, the second was win 98se that I paid to have custom built (by some OEM). Keeping a potentially long story short...I was cracked very thoroughly. Neither myself or the OEM could reinstall win on the disk without it reverting to the post crack condition in a few days. I had very limited, virtually non-existent computer skills. I heard about linux from a friend and saw a RedHat 7.0 boxed set and gave it a whirl. Thankfully, 30-day phone and 180-day web support was included with the purchase. It was a challenge to be sure, but I stuck with it for a year and a half. 7.0 to 7.1 to 7.2.
Now to the crux of this bizkit.
I have three machines for the family. All are duell boot linux/win98. Our internet connection is a DSL pppoe. We would normally connect each machine independently as needed. Two machines are booted into linux 99% of the time and they connected to our ISP 99% of the time we want them to. One box is almost always used by the kids for playing games and using MSN, Morpheus, etc. Twice in the last 3 months, a condition arose where the win box would fail to negotiate a connection. The linux machines were unaffected, including the linux install on the other half of the win box. My ISP gave me the same old song and dance about removing and reinstalling the software, rebooting, rebooting, rebooting. I did this the first time it happened and the problem was at their end. I would not do it again. WHATEVER THEIR problem was, it did NOT affect our linux machines at all.
Where am I going with this anyway? Oh.....
The solution took a little configuring, but all the necessary tools and kernel modules came stock in my FREE ISO download of RedHat Linux. I set up one linux machine as a gateway masq router firewall. No more failed connections for win. The win box is even more secure with packets going through a linux kernel first. Initially I was amazed at the amount of unsolicited packets to and from the win box. Aren't iptables, netfilter and stateful inspections GREAT?
Anyhow, in conclusion:
1. I spent $200 bucks on win98se two years ago and still have win98se.
2. I spent $60 bucks on RedHat 7.0 a year and a half ago and now have RedHat 7.2.
3. I spent $50 bucks on a firewall for win98se and it was still cracked.
4. I spent a few hours setting up the linux kernels built-in packet filters and have not been cracked.
5. I did NOT spend $500 bucks on Photoshop, I HAVE the GIMP.
6. I did NOT spend $500 bucks on Office2000 I HAVE Koffice and StarOffice.
7. I did NOT have to buy CD burning software, I HAVE XCDRoast.
8. I did NOT have to go online and activate my personal copy of a M$ product in order to use it and get a personal Passport.
9. I DID register my OS with RedHat and I DO get regular Eratta sent by email notifying me of software updates and bug fixes.
10. I get more frags Quakeing in linux than I do in win.
/etc/yadda/yadda/yadda../we/all/know/the/rest
And we all live hippily over ether.
farmer6re9
-
Learn something about c or assembly and we will have a discussion. Until then i will treat you like ignorant person you are. Fucking gotards everywhere, i swear. Theres a reason why people leave garden gnomes outside with the dogs.
-
Originally posted by lost:
Help me, Help me! I'm a mere spreader of lies!
Sorry , I can't help you or hear you.
Nice comments everybody. I actually wrote the whole thing out of devilishness and frustration because KDE was giving me the shits, and all the other GUI's are not nearly as powerful, good looking, etc. Taking so long to start everything on my uber-box made me want to bite Linus's head off like Ozzie Osborne. Then I made the foolish mistake of upgrading KDE in hopes that the newer version would be faster, which caused all sorts of problems, so I had to spend forever getting back to the original RedHat installation. I have been using Linux for over 2 years now and it frustrated me that while the quality of the software greatly improved, the speed seemed to get much worse. I tried asking around on message boards why it was so slow, and most of the replies I got were from retards telling me I had screwed up my computer or that there was something wrong with me, not Linux, blah blah blah. Even though it had been slow since I first installed it. (Red hat 7.2) I tried Mandrake 8.1 and a couple of others but they were actually slower. I really wanted it to work since I don't like Microsoft as a company very much and was ticked that I had to download an illegal hack just to install the copy of Windows XP that I bought with my own money on my other computer. Sheesh, I've given you over a thousand dollars Bill, what more could you possibly want?!?! Besides world domination...
I don't claim to be a computer know-it-all although I am pretty knowledgeable about computers in general and am planning to major in computer science when I go to college, and yes, I do know some programming, just not enough. I really admire the work people are doing on Linux to try to make it better, and I hope it will become a viable alternative to Microsoft and Mac sometime soon. Don't make Linux be just for servers! Most people don't even know what a server is and they deserve an alternative too, regardless of how geeky they are.
[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]
[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]
-
Sorry to swear but I liked win 3.1 . I ran a 486dx with it & 8mg ram & now run an Athlon 800 with win98 & 256 mg . The only difference in speed I notice ( with stuff like word, excel etc.)is that I can scroll more quickly down windows. I've tried to think of other advantages of win 98 over 3.1 but having several hundred meg of what seems like unnecessary clutter doesn't seem to count. IEEradicator made a visible difference in speed to pop-up menus on 98. My system now has over 17,000 files/folders and I reckon that I'm responsible for about 1500 of those. So BillG & his system authored 15,500 (including files for non-M$ apps to let them 'interface' with win). That seems slightly bloated to me. And with Linux, as far as I can tell, you install what you want/need, not what BG decides you should have. At least I saved space by deleting IE & findfast (which, again as far as I can tell, sucks the will to live from your pc (and helps fill your hd - so you have to upgrade to keep up - BG memo Jan 1997 - get Joe Muglic to upgrade, take advantage of all that extra processing power, bulk up win to slow pc down, must upgrade, take advantage of all that extra processing power.....).As I find alternatives to M$ I replace them on system ( Linux by Xmas 2035 at this rate).
And for Yahoo chat, www.yahelite.tk (http://www.yahelite.tk) - no spam, instant , no ads, reams of inbuilt functionality (lots of whistles & bells), & someone'll tell me you get a free sub7 trojan on your system with it.....
Hope Bill never builds mobile phones - you'll need a lorry to transport the latest version, it'll be out of date last week and Estonia's national electricity production to run it.
One good thing about Bill's updated versions of wIMP$UCK - each version crashes more impressively than the last.
-
I tell you what. You're speed problem could be something as simple as using the "hdparm" command to tweak the throughput on your hard drive. I ran across a note on "hdparm" one day and noticed I was only getting around 4MB/s read/write speeds on my 350Mhz Dell Optiplex w/256MB RAM and 10GB hard drive (now a few years old). Everything was slow as you are experiencing. Web browser took forever to pop up. Well, within a minute or so of checking different parameters in hdparm I was getting 20MB/s throughput and the browser was loading MUCH faster, I was pleased. After adding the appropriate "hdparm" command to my /etc/rc.d/rc.local life was much brighter after that.
I've found with RedHat 7.2 I've never had to run that command on any machine. It seems to do a good job of setting disks up optimally at install time.
-
I have Lnux and Windows XP. They both work fine, though XP has some problems, like the fact that I have to reinstall it almost every day for one reason or another. To tell you the truth, I would get rid of XP from that computer, but I can't. Some of my software doesn't run on Linux (like my version of Mathematica and Autocad, I have the same problem as you Heywood). When it works though, XP it workable, but it's like comparing a BMW (Linux) to a Ford (Windows). They are both cars, but one is better then another (I know, it's on some site that I found on this forum, but I can't remember the name).
-
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day? I swear for such smart Linux users some people pretend to be it seems strange that they would have so much trouble with an OS that is nearly idiot-proof. (That doesn't mean XP is designed for idiots; I can make a guest account in Linux to idiot-proof the system so my dumb cousin won't stumble across "rm -Rf /" I haven't had any problems with XP yet. It has been very stable and easy to configure so far. Maybe you need to upgrade your brain?
My beef with XP isn't its quality, it's Microsoft's horrid business moves lately.
PS Hurray for ClearType! My eyes have never felt better
[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]
-
quote:
My system now has over 17,000 files/folders and I reckon that I'm responsible for about 1500 of those. So BillG & his system authored 15,500 (including files for non-M$ apps to let them 'interface' with win). That seems slightly bloated to me.
You call that bad? Do you even know how many trillions of files are in the /usr directory alone under Linux? Someone ought to do an exact count of the number of files in windows and the number in an average linux distribution, but I know from experience that Linux has more files. I'm not saying more files = bad but Linux definitely has a lot of files.
-
i have a box i dual boot... Win2K and SuSE 7.3 ... its an Athlon Tbird 800 with 512mb of PC100 ram a Geforce2 GTS, and a 20 gig ATA66 5400 rpm hard drive...
well i use linux almost always, the win2k is only so i can boot up and run my 2 accounts of EQ at the same time :-P
my linux runs noticably faster than Win2K...
i will agree that windows is ready for people that dont know what to do.. it very simple to set up and does almost everything itself, where in linux you have to do alot of tweaking. linux IS ready for the desktop, it just isnt ready for ignorant users of that desktop.
-
It's *always* the same-old, same-old.
So here we go again:
quote:
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
No myths here. I ran a Dell OptiPlex GSa (Pentium II, 232MHz, 32MB RAM, 2.0GB HD) a six year old rig. Last November, I did a full install of Mandrake 8.1 on this machine. This, *despite* the recommendation that Mandrake required a minimum of 64MB, *twice* what I had. I can tell you that the old Dell never ran so well, or looked so fine. The machine performed *better* than when it was running Win 95, with which it came as an OEM install. The one and only problem that I had was with Konqueror. That ran slow due to the lack of memory. So I didn't use it. No problem. Sorry: Mandrake was *very* good for that ol' box.
quote:
Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux.
Oh really? I've since acquired a new system that I have set up for multi-boot: Win 95, Mandrake, Red Hat, and QNX. So I did some checking with the df program to see how much disk space everything was taking. Here are the results:
Win 95 - 1.8GB
Mandrake - 2.086GB
Red Hat - 1.233GB
Mandrake takes up the most space as it's my main OS. Mandrake runs the GRUB bootloader, E-mail clients, Browsers, and Star Office. I have none of this on the Red Hat parts, nor do I store the bulk of my files there. I'm using Red as a development platform for GNOME, so naturally there's not as much there. The Mandrake parts are just somewhat larger than Win 95. However, I don't have *any* of the MS Office apps, I've also used IEradicator, so Internut Exploiter is gone, since I don't connect to the 'Net from a wide-open Win 95 - there is no anti-virus apps, no Web browsers of any sort, no E-mail clients. At the absolute *worst* Linux is no more bloated than Win 95.
quote:
Myth 3.) Windows is bloated
Look at what I've already said. That old Dell would be considered a mainframe by the standards of twenty years ago. And yet, I couldn't've used it to send an E-mail across town with Win XP on it. Why? Because the ol' Dell isn't powerful enough! Win XP hogs vast amounts of real estate on the HD, uses RAM like a hog, contains more bells and whistles and other crap than any ten people could ever use. Windows is horribly bloated since Win 95 was the last good idea they ever had. How do Win 98, Win 98SE, or Win ME *really* differ all that much from Win 95? Every few years Macro$uck comes along, makes a few minor changes, throws in more crap, and tries to convince us that the same old thing is really something grand and glorious. Bloat is the unavoidable, inevitable outcome.
quote:
To end, if you want to get some work done, don't use Linux, you'll spend all your time tweaking it and waiting for slow assed programs to load, I know Windows costs money but its not that expensive and besides Linux is only free if your time is worthless
Tell me, just where can I get these "slow assed" programs? I sure didn't find any on the Mandrake or Red Hat CDs :eek: OK: perhaps Linux doesn't boot up as fast as Winders. Here, it's kind of hard to compare as I can set Linux to boot up in either graphical mode or text mode, I can set it up to go into Run Level 3 or Run Level 5. Whatever you choose, you'll either speed it up or slow it down. And, of course, fast booting is a definite advantage in an OS that crashes often as you'll be booting it a lot.
quote:
I would get one but I don't want to re-buy all my commercial apps I have for windoze
I get *tons* of apps, all for free. There's precious little freeware for Winders.
[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
Linux IS ready for a lot of desktops but unfortunately it'll be a little while longer before most large corporations will put it out on their desktops. I think the day is definately coming though, and so does Microsoft, which is why they are getting so heavily in to other markets (gaming, phones, etc). I think they know that their days are numbered. Some people might think I'm loopy but it will happen.
-
Linux is not ready to take windows place on the desktop, YET. There are too many people who don't know anything about computers and would be totally lost with linux. Just the fact that you still have to do things in the command line will kill its chances.
I like linux, but I am not a command line nut. Give me a GUI anyday.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day? I swear for such smart Linux users some people pretend to be it seems strange that they would have so much trouble with an OS that is nearly idiot-proof.[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]
I never said I'm a "smart Linux user" but I do have to reinstall it almsot every day. And I did say that I think it's just my copy of XP, so don't start going nuts over this little post.
quote:
Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day?
For example, one day it just decided not to get an IP from my router. After hours listening to ech support, I was told I had to reinstall Windows because the "internet settings" had to be reinstalled and the only way to do so was to reinstall Windows. Maybe there is a way, but hell, not a way I heared of.
[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: LunchboX ]
-
Hey,
I really did not want to post to this thread. In fact I have been trying to avoid it. However there are things being said on both sides that I personally must disagree with based on my personal experience.
I am on an Athlon 1600 right now. I have a dual boot system with Win98SE (2 gig) and Mandrake 8.1 (28 gig). I only use Windows for a couple games nothing else.
First I want to defend a few points for Windows. (Yes I am shocked I am doing this also)
Win95 only requires 35-120 meg for an install. It will run on a 386 with 4 megs of ram. HEH but strangely it won't run on my Athlon.
My W98SE install totals 272 megs for the complete OS and programs. With the games I added the total is over 500 megs.
Windows programs are very bloated due to what is required for windows. The only exception to this is older versions of VB. In principle the runtime distribution allowed VB programs to be extremely small. Unfortunately it also caused them to be very slow.
Windows boots much faster than Linux.
Ok now why Windows sucks.
Windows is built on poor architecture.
Windows is a virus trap because of the poor architecture.
You constantly get blue screens of death causing you to reboot constantly.
Yes you do have to re-install alot. I re-installed at least once a month if not more when I was programming under windows. Hell sometimes I actually re-installed daily. Windows integration causes alot of this problem. That is a good reason to partition your Windows system with several drives.
Linux on the other hand is slow to boot up.
However on my Athlon once booted it screams although it ran slowly on the celeron (but that was a piece of shit "Made for Windows 98" Comp).
Yes Mandrake 8.1 IS ready for the desktop crowd. You can do anything you want in the GUI under Mandrake. No command line required. The only difference is you do have to get used to the way things are setup in Mandrake as compared to Windows. Basically you learn a different way of thinking. I don't know enough about the other distro's yet to say if they are ready for desktop users.
Stability....Mandrake does not lock up my comp. Rarely I have a program crash but it is only the program not the entire OS. If a program locks up I can click XKill and then click the program and boom it is fixed. No reboots required.
Everybody has the right to their choice of OS. My wife uses Win98 all the time and it works for her but she does not do anything heavy with her comp, just surfs the net, email, write web pages and work with her camera. So for her Win98 is OK. When I was using the comp she is using now (the celeron mentioned above) I ate it up constantly running windows.
Anyway I just wanted to clear up those points.
-
we've seen a bunch of dumbass posts in recent weeks, all about this exact same thing. The annoying thing about this one is that for a change, everyone is having a proper civilised discussion. This must be because of GardenGNOME's good communication skills in starting off on the right foot.
May i say my few cents' worth though?
Windows is bloated.
It really is.
i swear, my initial installation of windows took up about 500Mb of space, not too bad, but that was with no programs, well i installed MS office, and a few small apps like winzip, winrar, quicktime, etc, and HEY PRESTO! 4 gigabytes of space taken up, and a low disk space warning. Here's the rub: try uninstalling all those programs, and it will STILL take up 4 gigabytes. now that sucks.
I think my installation of redhat linux was about 600Mb and i have added a small few Mb of programs since, and... wait for it... it's STILL not got any bigger. Plus, i have hundreds of programs.
I may never use them, and i can get rid of them anytime i want, but hundreds is better than the dozen or so i have on windows, especially since they don't get any bigger on the disk...
Desktop OS. Windows is a bit easier to configure than linux, but it gives you less options. That's not strictly true though, but if you want to make changes that windows doesn't offer you, you will have to jump through hoops big time.
Linux has more options, a whole lot more, and this of course makes it bloody hard to figure out at first. i haven't figured out a way to not use the command line yet. Actually so far (i have had linux for nearly 2 weeks) it seems a lot easier to me to use the command line for a lot of things, it will be difficult though for me to introduce this OS to my M$ assimilated girlfriend... (she hates M$' business related antics with a passion, but i am dreading how she will relate to the physical workings of 'the alternative' to windows)
Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
I know a bunch of people who have odd soundcards, or USB devices or whatever that are a bitch to configure in linux. i understand that it is possible to get linux working with a lot of devices using redirects and bypasses (or whatever you call it in computerese!) whereas with windows, you would have to hope somebody had written a driver for whatever it was...
basically, it is possible to prove that x beats the pants off of y regardless of what x and y are, but it is all a matter of configuring and tweaking. Of course this brings up the issue of how much tweaking can be done based on time, expertise and of course luck. The answer to this will be different for each person.
My considered opinion is that the windows vs linux debate is moot, and that the real issue is M$'s political agenda. Of course my point of view may be moot to people whose priorities do not match my own.
that was maybe about ten cents worth i reckon, so sorry, but i feel okay about it because a lot of the other posts in this forum have been longies too.
-
quote:
Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
This is so true. Many recent Linux distributions such as Red Hat 7.2 and Mandrake 8.1 simply blow Win9x out of the water in terms of auto-detecting and configuring your hardware when you install the OS, and although it is a shame that many important perhipherals such as scanners, digital cameras, some printers, etc. are notautodetected or supported very well (or at all) by Linux, installing both of the Linux distributions mentioned was far easier than setting up Win 98 on the same computers. This is just a fact. In both Mandrake and Redhat you can set up your network and test your video card settings in 32-bit color before you have to reboot once, which is much better than having to install everything from driver-disks after several reboots and have a horrid 16 color 640x480 display until you intall your video card drivers. It is nice to have an installer that acknowledges that you might have more than one OS on your machine and kindly does not delete or make un-bootable your other OSes like a certain OS that will go unnamed. However, not everything with Linux is perfect in certain areas. Like I said earlier, scanner and camera support is wanting, especially for newer models. Furthermore, I have had some personal hurdles setting up hardware on various Linux systems around my house, the most severe case being on my main computer (an Alienware) where much tweaking was required to keep it from locking up. So yes, Linux can crash but ifit is set up right and doesn't have "issues" with your hardware then it is just as stable as Windows 2000, perhaps more. Maybe why for some people Windows behaves perfectly and for others it is a BSODing bitch is because unlike Linux you can't very well tweak it or recompile it for your hardware. Windows has been very nice on all of my computers, personally. (with the exception of the Windows 95 upgrade I bought a long time ago, which was buggier than a frat-house couch) If you want to avoid BSOD's on Windows then use a version that is based on the NT kernel (2000 or XP) With one exception, (Xp locked up on my brother once while he was playing dark age of camelot, but don't tell me you've never had Linux lockup in 3d-apps on an nvidia card..) I have never had either of these operating systems lock up on me. So some of these "Windows locks up on you every 5 minutes" claims are a little exaggerated. Even 95 didn't crash that much. Speaking of Windows XP, ignoring the fact that Microsoft made it, I found it to be a great operating system. I was curious about it so I used the CD from my brother's new computer to install it on mine. Installing it was a breeze, and it never asked me a single hardware question during the installation or anytime after, and configured all of it perfectly (amazing). Sure, OS X doesn't ask you hardware questions either, but most Macs have standardized hardware so it was more impressive when XP did it. (http://smile.gif) The only negative thing about installing XP is when it gets to the "Product Activation" part (luckilly it never came up, thanks to my hack.) Heheh. Sorry, Bill, but do I look like I have that kind of money? You 'bout broke my allowance with Visual C++ alone! One thing Microsoft needs to learn is that kids are the future. Most kids aren't willing or able to pay for all that expensive crap, and if all the young programmers leave Microsoft for something free then they (Microsoft) are making a big mistake.
-
A few things, first, I still stand by my saying that Windows isn't bloated for desktop use. For me, anyway. Windows 95 can run decently on a 486, try running a Linux gui of comparable functionality on a 486 (I dare you to run KDE or Gnome on anything below a Pentium II!) Hard drive space really isn't a sign of how bloated something is, what is a sign is how responsive it is. Although, my default installation of Win 98 took up just a little over 300 megs, which ain't bloated in my opinion. And that came with an email program, browser, media player, file manager, a (measly) paint program, several text editors and a bunch of themes and wallpapers. You can't say that Linux with Xfree86, QT, and KDE would take any less than that. Both Linux and Windows take up a lot of hard drive space. So what. Hard drive space is cheap-o these days, and what is truly a lightweight OS that puts both to shame is QNX. The whole OS, including a gui and a small web browser are able to fit on a floppy disk. (don't ask me what use this is, but it is surely a world record) So neither comes close to that! And until konqueror/galeon/mozilla stops taking 5 seconds to start, and Open Office/Star Office stops taking literally 10 seconds or more to start, I will have to say window
-
Hey Gnome, you sound like a pretty bright kid.. Too bad you spent all your money on VC++. Is there any way we could twist your arm to do some Linux development in your spare time? You've pointed out some areas that need work and the rest of us would sure appreciate it if you could help make our favorite OS better. I'm getting too old and crusty, my brain doesn't function as well as it used to so you are right, I am dependent on you smart kids. I'll even buy the compiler for you. (http://smile.gif)
-
I still have a lot, lot, lot to learn about programming, but I guarantee you that I will be contributing to Linux simply because it is a great environment to learn programming in. After all, there are a lot of things in Linux that I think "gee, it would be so much better if they made it like this." So instead of writing another post I'm going over and reading a few chapters of C++ in Plain English! ;)
-
You may have some decent arguments, but "the good name of microsoft" ?!?! what would that be? they make horrible software and OS's unless your a technology illiterate. (the idea of which they originally stole from other companies anyways) Linux is undesputably more stable, albeit slightly slower.
-
ok win98se on a 1994 nec 66mhz 8 meg edo ram generic vga video sb soundcard 4.3 gig hd
avg load time 3.5 mins
incredibally bad graphics from lack of available memory bad sound frequent crashes
redhat linux 7.1 same machine
avg load time 1 min inferior video and sound (but better than win98se) was better able to use the ammount of available ram but was still crawling
never crashed
win xp on a custom built machine
2x amd thunderbird 750
1536 meg ram
nvida geforce3 128 meg ddr ram
sb audigy pro soundcard
4x 160gig maxor 7200 rpm hds
usb and firewire
24/16/8/4 cd/dvd rw
52x cd
frequent crashes and virus problems with win xp
inferior sound and video even with superior hardware(sound pops when video runs)
with mandrake linux 8.1 same machine same hardware
havent had a problem yet
new machine fic sd11 mainboard
slot a athlon 750
326 meg ram
maxor 20 gig 5400 rpm hd
riva tnt 16 meg video
aztech washington soundcard
win 98 se frequent virus and blue screen failures
mandrake linux 8.1 no problems(becides unable to setup soundcard)
as you can see from the above windoze has a history of failure on any system old or new fast or slow it dosent matter
linux has never had a problem on any of my systems becides the old ass soundcards i use(im too cheap to buy new ones)
-
according to the windows crash theory (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/eric.price/humour2/0379.htm) windows98 cannot go more than 49.7 days without crashing.
-
Fascinating thread, I missed it while it was really active.
Garden GNOME - respect... intelligent argument from someone who obviously has experience with both sides.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Not all, but a lot. I have had to really, *really* work at getting a truly working Linux system on my various computers (in fact FreeBSD/KDE was a much easier install on one of them, but I prefer Linux for desktop use).
The hard work has paid off, though, and I now have completely functional Linux systems on all my home PC's (one dual-booting Win2000 for work purposes). I was surprised when I found that my Linux Celeron/400 actually plays MPG/DivX video far better than my Win2000 AMD/550 (both with ATI 8MB cards).
I too encountered strange problems to start with on one of the machines - at one point crashing every time KDE loaded. I think it may have been the same problem that you had with the NVidia card (which incidentally I couldn't get to work at all on Windows 98!). Fixed by installing KDE 2.2.2 and hasn't crashed since.
Linux does have a fair way to go on the desktop, it's true... but the useability gap is quickly closing. I believe the major obstacles for widespread adoption among the "non-geek" community are:
- availabilty of familiar, trusted applications
although equivalents for all the major players are already available, this just adds more levels of doubt to people thinking of switching. The GIMP is pretty good, but not up to the standards of Photoshop, and so many people are so familiar with MS Office they will be more reluctant to move away from that than moving away from Windows itself.
- proper compatibility of major websites with browsers other than IE.
very sadly, a large number of websites seem to be developed exclusively for IE... even to the point that a couple that I've come across actually redirect any other browsers to a page saying "please open this site with Internet Explorer". Many others fail to display correctly.
- integration of popular plugins in the default install of Linux browsers
It is a nightmare to gather together all the plugins you need and get them working with any/all of Mozilla/Konqueror/Nautilus/Galeon etc. And RealMedia really need to give us updated ports of their most recent versions!
- availability of complete systems preloaded with Linux.
How many normal home users have ever installed any operating system, even Windows? We know it's not difficult, but I remember the first time I ever installed an OS about 8 years ago (OS/2 bizarrely enough) and it was intimidating. It wasn't actually difficult, but it's the unknown factor that causes the problems...
A well put-together Linux preloaded system has the potential to be at least as easy to use as Windows. Sell it with the printer, scanner, modem all chosen for Linux compatibility and preconfigure the drivers. Preload OpenOffice and freely available DVD/AVI playing software, CD Writer etc. Bundle in Doom, Quake etc and whatever other games are cheaply/freely available at the time, and I reckon you've got a winning system.
Of course the major obstacle to achieving any of these goals is Microsoft themselves.
On another note, can't wait for the final stable release of KDE 3.0, should be any time now and if the hype on the KDE website is to be believed, it should be something special. Not risking installing dev releases at the moment, since I've got my systems the way I want them!
As for the recent posts...
Druaga: unbelieveble, but true - I once had a Windows 95 box up continuously for over six months running a PBX monitoring system.
striker: is your shift key broken/
Just my thoughts....
Ian
-
I really hate to say this.. but you guys talking bout having to reinstall windows xp over and over again..is just purely a problem on the user end as in YOU...
i dual boot with rh8/xp pro.. since red hat8 came out, and before that it was rh7.3...
ive NEVER had a problem with xp.. for many reasons..for one.. i checked the hardware compatability on the MS website, i also checked the compatability of all my programs..and got the ones that were xp ready.. hell i even did the computer compat test on the windows xp cd.
and i tweaked my MTU, my menus, my start up, my services, even my harddrives in the bios and/or registry..
ive done as much tweaking as linux users do comparatively on their boxes..
and ive had NO issues at all.. so i think, while NOT trying to start a flame in here.. since i use linux too..and when i get my scanner and dig/web cam working in linux, i may never again boot into windows... (since i got my cdrw 48/24/48 working even nicer in linux then windows..
so in closing i wanna say.. if you made all those comments bout crashing and reinstalling.. on 9x/me systems, even NT id believe it was totally the OS's fault..but in 2k/xp in my 3 1/2 years experience..ive had ONLY 2 bluescreens, and both were hardware related..
so dont go bitching bout xp/2k..cause in regards to stability..and tweakability... 2k/xp come closer to linux in those regards then ANY former MS product..
and as for open office..i use it, like it..but there is ONLY one flaw to it.. its ONE HUGE program..instead of many ones like office xp.. which take up lots of ram just to open.. in linux, but it still performs like a champ..
so like i said above , i'm not starting a flame war here..but most xp problems are "PBKnC" related..thats (Problem Between Keyboard n Chair)
well have fun.. i'm recompiling my kernel.. if i screw it up, i can just go into my MS repair console, fix the MBR, aNd start all over again installing linux..its FUN DAMNIT
(http://smile.gif)
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: BRaD_in_FLoRiDa ]
-
ok everyone repeat after me..
"windows 9x/ME sucks"
and YES i'm a windows user..
to make any comparison of 9x/me to linux is futile...
NOW if you wanna compare 2k/xp to linux, now theres a real fair comparison..
i think if some of you put as much effort into learning hot to install windows properly as some of you say you put into linux, you proberly would have a stable , clean, effeciet dual boot system..
**********************
ignorance is bliss, thanks for the orgasm
-
Sounds like you are having fun. One question though. Who's fault is it if you click on a web page that exploits the IE vulnerability which causes a virus to be installed, or an <iframe> encoded email message that includes a virus and installs without you even clicking on anything?
You may be one of the lucky ones and have never had a virus. To me the virus thing is one of the big problems Microsoft has had from day one and has yet to effectively solve. It's bad enough that you have to install 3rd party virus software, but even still that software is only as good as it's *.dat file.
I'm glad you have been having good experiences with Linux to this point. It's seems that it is advancing more rapidly in the last year and it's sure to keep getting better.
-
***********************
One question though. Who's fault is it if you click on a web page that exploits the IE vulnerability which causes a virus to be installed, or an <iframe> encoded email message that includes a virus and installs without you even clicking on anything?
***********************
that again, is First and foremost the USERS fault...
you MUST these days educate yourself on the computer you buy, instead of using your 2.8ghz w/512mb ram to surf your free 6 months of aol dial up..
people must get the latest AV protection, remove the vbs script file association out of windows explorer, so when 80per of virus are vb script related, windows wont even know how to execute them..
never open up attachments fromt hose you dont know..
and always scan... with above mentioned virus protection..
i know most of windows, if not ALL of them dont affect a linux box..but.. if you are uneducated bout linux, and get lucky and install it.. there is just as much a chance of you screwing somethning up, begging for help in a forum or doing an exhaustive search in help files, man pages, forums etc... as a windows user is clicking on " you won 1000 bucks" icon in a stray email..
so my point is.. even though windows is simplier, to figure out.. linux takes time and those that cant think outside the MS box , come in here with "linux sucks" posts..and by the same token, many linux zealots come in here with windoze sucks..which is fine and good, but most that say that, last experience with windows was 9x/or ME and never even seen a 2k/xp box..
-
So there should be a warning label on all copies of Windows "Under no circumstances should you be connected to a network if using this product". If you get a virus it's "your" fault.
I'm sorry but having to purchase virus software is a complete load of shit. And that virus software can only protect you from viruses it knows about. To this day I have never seen a virus on any UNIX or Linux system. I know one or two have been written but they don't go anywhere.
And I have plenty of Microsoft experience from DOS 2.x to Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I have no need to get WinXP since Linux does everything I need now. I believe for the amount of money I have given Microsoft over the last 15 years I have a right to say it sucks if I think it sucks.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
i agreed with brad to a point, but then came that hoary old crap: 'you bought it, now we wash our hands of it.'
in the *NIX world, it works the other way round (and so it should) and if you pay for something, you usually get support to a degree for it. it seems to me that the cost of a product in a *NIX situation reflects the level and duration of the support for the product. with windows, they just take your money and run.
Also, there are older operating systems than DOS/WinNT that are almost totally impervious to viruses et cetera, and the only reason microsoft windows still allows viruses is to generate cashflow for certain sectors of the industry (in other words, they deliberately fail to fix their software to get your money, what a surprise).
Now anybody that advocates these practices can receive a hefty metaphorical kick in the bags from me i think! (http://smile.gif)
-
hehehee, debian on a penium 60mhz, its actally usable/*anything based off of qt3.* or gtk2* probably would get done but owell, for a ti-89 programming station, its pretty cool*/
-
This thread was started in MAR 2001, how much has the desktop Linux quality changed in 1.6 years?
Some? Moderately? Majorly?
-
Majorly
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Majorly
And for Xp uhm Linux User to say that is a pretty big thing. 1.6 years ago he was an annoying windows troll pissing evferyone off with random "Xp Rox" etc. Linux would have to change alot, ie: Improve alot, for a former troll like Linux User to say that. Rating u 5 Stars.