Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: NJDevils on 15 June 2004, 03:13
-
Man, this is a sad forum for name calling. But I really want to know what the mac crowd here thinks.
I've been a Mac user since 99. And its true, MacOS, though it had a lovely interface, was a pain in the ass to use, and it crashed, most horribly, all the time. Tradeoff, it was damned fast. Faster than any other operating system, because it didn't have the bells and whistles.
OSX was a boon for me. But I have found that it crashes from time to time (very rarely though, I have no mystery crashes). Mostly when I'm using a Java application (SWT based mostly), and when i am playing back a wonky video file that seems to lock up everything. If you have a second machine on the network that can ssh into your OSX box, you can kill the app and get it working, but from the machine itself, its gone.
Compare this to Windows? Win95, 98, and NT were real bad, depending on what hardware you ran. Win2k on the other hand was decent, and XP is mostly stable (though its godawful interface is a step backwards). I use windows on a daily basis at work, and considering the plethora of hardware it has to run on, it does a decent job. You also have to give some credit to Intel and the others for putting together better hardware.
Linux? Well, some of us like to tinker. I really do not want to come home to wrestle with yet another machine. Many a times i've had my mandrake install kill itself on an X upgrade (mysteriously murdered? wtf?). Its got a way to go, and I'd rather have a company behind the OS to go and fight for it (Apple, Microsoft, Sun, etc...).
In the end, OSX and the Mac have been good to me. I know Apple locks us in, and we overpay (until recently, now Apple has been aggressively pricing). But it really does live up to its name, everything just works. I've plugged in my dv camera, usb camera, firewire drives, installed various apps, and done my own development, and it just works.
My opinion, I've sacrificed speed and flexibility for convenience, and I'm satisfied (I own a 1Ghz Albook).
What are other mac user experiences?
-
my experience is iBooks suck ass. I want a Powerbook G3 but people are way too proud of em ($400 for an old ass machine like that? COME ON!)
Apple's stuff isn't what it used to be, that's for sure.
-
I LOVE my iBook, it works great. Although I have had it lock up on me when running garageband but only like once every eliptical allighning of the planets.
-
I had an old tangerine iBook and it was great. I only wish I put a bigger harddrive it it. lol. yeah right. Ever tried to do that?
-
you can't
-
Yes you can.
-
If you know how to open the case without breaking it.
-
im on a tangerine g3 :D
-
I'm on an orginal 12" powerbook with a 60GB Hard Drive & 640MB ram, i've hardly had anything go wrong
-
Well, I started with Mac back in 1999 as well, I was in a Art Class and they had a Apple Mac G3 Running OS 9m and I hated it, Thought it was Ugly looking and Slow and crashed alot, now forward a year, 2000 My friend has G3 Running OS X, it was AWSOME!!! it was pretty, fast and everything inbetween and it was only a 500Mhz Processor and 256MB RAM, man thats crazy! in 2002 I bought myself a PowerMac G4, Dual 1.25Ghz G4 and I loaded OS X as well, OH MY LORD! FAST!, I had it for 2 years now and the longest I had it running was about 4 months straight, never once shutting off and never once a single flicker or slight imlication of a crash, yes, some programs do screw up sometimes, but nothing big, I updated the system, it has 2GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Video Card and 4 Maxtor Plus II Harddrives, its a dream machine, I love Apple, I have not one bad comment, only that OS 9 and below was horrid and the systems are expensive, but worth it, but OS X makes it up, big time! I also have a 900Mhz iBook and it runs incredible as well, but soon I'm going all out and I'm purchasing a G5, but not intell the Dual 3Ghz comes in effect, whenever that is...
-
I purchased my first Mac in 2002 -- a Quicksilver 2002. It's honestly the only computer I've ever owned that I have absolutely no complaints about. It's been updated from 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 without a clean install, and runs just as fast (perhaps faster, because of QE) than the day I bought it.
A year later I bought a 12" 800mhz G3 iBook. It suffered from one logic board failure, but has been fine ever since. The battery life is great (sometimes close to 6 hours), and the size is perfect. I haven't found anything comparable to Apple's laptop offerings in the PC world, especially in the 12" form. The x86 laptops I did like made no mention of Linux support, and I refuse to run another Microsoft OS in my life.
My dad is the owner of a 1ghz eMac, and it's been completely trouble free. I've been a computer user since 1985, when I received a c64 and I was PC user from probably '88-2002. As far as a desktop OS, there's nothing comparable to OS X.
The only OS I ever used comparable to OS X was BeOS. If Be was still adequately supported I'd probably still be using it.
I've kernel paniced OS X a couple times, but both times it was my fault. I don't know that I've had a Windows install last more than 6 months without going awry. As long as Steve Jobs keeps doing his magic, I'll be a loyal Apple customer.
Oh, and BTW: Microsoft could make the best OS in the world; I would never support them. It's a moral issue to me. They want to control every computer in the world, eliminate open standards, and subsequently control the exchange of information itself. Whether you install a pirated copy of Windows or not, by running their OS, or helping other people use it, you're just perpetuating a dictatorship.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
you can't
You sure can. Watched my old man do it to a friend's 'book.
-
i have a g3 ibook running in OS9 right now and i am NOT having any problems!ive had an OS9 application crash, but it didnt bring the whole system down like in windows!now for X, by far the greatest OS ever! i NEVER have problems, i have NO complaints about it, its just perfect!hell, with every new OS, thing just get faster! in windows everything just getss even slower!
-
quote:
bedouin: The only OS I ever used comparable to OS X was BeOS. If Be was still adequately supported I'd probably still be using it.
Have you tried BeOS Max (http://www.beosmax.org/)? It's BeOS Personal with modern drivers, DivX plugins, Heretic, Doom, etc.
Install it if you haven't, it's really awesome (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
Have you tried BeOS Max (http://www.beosmax.org/)?
I looked at it once or twice, but never installed it. I actually purchased r4.5.2, r5 Pro, and even the BeOS Bible. If there was an underdog I ever wanted to win, BeOS was it.
Ever attempted running BeOS Max in VirtualPC? I'm pretty much all Mac now, so that'd be the easiest method for me to check it out. I'm more interested in seeing how the OpenBeOS project (now Haiku) progresses over the years.
After seeing BeOS fail I realized what Amiga folks must have felt like. Superior product in nearly every way destined for failure. Net+ was an insanely functional browser (for its time), and weighed in at like what -- 1.3mb? Boot times at 5-10 seconds on a 266mhz machine; 10 mp3s playing on that same box with no stuttering . . . etc.
With that said though, I think Apple probably made the right decision by going with NeXT instead of BeOS. I'm not so sure OS X would have all the geek notoriety it current enjoys if it weren't possible to compile so much OSS stuff on it. Not to mention Be had no multiuser support, making it pretty much worthless as a server OS.
-
quote:
Compare this to Windows? Win95, 98, and NT were real bad, depending on what hardware you ran.
Maby, but they are more usable and have less compatibility problems compared with the other M$ OS'es.
quote:
Win2k on the other hand was decent, and XP is mostly stable
Lets see. Win2k, 2k3 and XP is less usable, slow as shit, has just a mount of viruses, trojans and spyware pluse idiotic 'anti-piracy' shit so that you have to by another license if you install a new card. Pluse all the usual hunting around for shitty drivers. Not to mention XP is just as stable as the rest of the M$ family. With really realy really powerful hardware and 'proper' drivers ME CAn be more stable than XP!
quote:
(though its godawful interface is a step backwards).
No arguments there.
quote:
I use windows on a daily basis at work, and considering the plethora of hardware it has to run on, it does a decent job.
Then why does every M$ zealot out there always give the exuse that its always bad drivers and never windows fault for stability? Considering that XP is the defacto deskto it has THE shittiest driver support I have EVER SEEN!
quote:
You also have to give some credit to Intel and the others for putting together better hardware.
Really? Then when XP does crash on those name brand hardware's it isn't their fault but windows aftter all.
quote:
Linux? Well, some of us like to tinker. I really do not want to come home to wrestle with yet another machine.
Myth! I run Red Hat and SuSE. NEVER 'tinkered' as much than on windows. No registry hacks, dll hell etc...
If I want to install a peace of hardware I plug it in and thats it. No hunting around for drivers that don't work anyway!
quote:
Many a times i've had my mandrake install kill itself on an X upgrade (mysteriously murdered? wtf?).
I've never even heard of that happening. But I have seen all generations of windows lock up during its install!
quote:
Its got a way to go, and I'd rather have a company behind the OS to go and fight for it (Apple, Microsoft, Sun, etc...).
IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
To say that Linux is hard to use, doesn't have good driver support or crashes mystically is myth. Likewize saying XP is stable, windows has good driver support and is secure is also a myth!
-
quote:
Maby, but they are more usable and have less compatibility problems compared with the other M$ OS'es.
And what compatibility problems are those?
And define "more useable". Windows 95 was the height of 1990s Windows. For its time, it had great hardware support, and it had a simiple, clean UI. The Win9x appearance is, IMHO a work of art.
XP is great, although it's in flux. It's a mix of next-gen MS ideas on task-based UI (which I'm disliking less and less) and of classic Win95-style UI.
quote:
Lets see. Win2k, 2k3 and XP is less usable, slow as shit, has just a mount of viruses, trojans and spyware pluse idiotic 'anti-piracy' shit so that you have to by another license if you install a new card.
I installed a vid card, removed a modem and added a second NIC and it didn't ask to reactivate.
[quote[Pluse all the usual hunting around for shitty drivers.[/quote]
I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works. 'Nuff said.
quote:
Not to mention XP is just as stable as the rest of the M$ family.
Untrue. XP and Server 2003 are better than 2000.
quote:
With really realy really powerful hardware and 'proper' drivers ME CAn be more stable than XP!
Lies.
9x is not as watertight as NT.
quote:
Then why does every M$ zealot out there always give the exuse that its always bad drivers and never windows fault for stability? Considering that XP is the defacto deskto it has THE shittiest driver support I have EVER SEEN!
Because a poorly written device driver WILL CRASH ANY SYSTEM. I had OS X go south and destroy itself because of a buggy driver. Same will happen to Linux. A driver is software, like any other thing. Write it badly and it fucks up. When something runs that closely to the kernel, it fucks up big time.
Stop confusing lazy developers and shitty, cheap hardware companies with the OS's "driver support".
quote:
Really? Then when XP does crash on those name brand hardware's it isn't their fault but windows aftter all.
Why does any OS crash?
And no, it can't be the hardware maker's fault for using shitty hardware. It can't be a simple manufacturing defect. THERE'S NO WAY THAT A COMPUTER COULD BE A LEMON!
quote:
Myth! I run Red Hat and SuSE. NEVER 'tinkered' as much than on windows. No registry hacks, dll hell etc...
If I want to install a peace of hardware I plug it in and thats it. No hunting around for drivers that don't work anyway!
First off... NEVER... NEVER act like your experience with something is the same as everybody's. Saying that it's a myth is supreme arrogance. I have to jump through hoops to get my GeForce 4 to work in Red Hat 9 because for some reason it simply does not detect it and use it by default. Even when I deactivate built-in Intel 810 video in the BIOS, X11 uses it and it configures for it.
This is inexplicable behavior and it would RUIN A N00B ON LINUX.
Things don't always go perfectly in Linux, just as Windows isn't always shitty. 2000 never worked right on my old AMD box, but now XP is WITHOUT FLAW on my P3.
quote:
IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
To say that Linux is hard to use, doesn't have good driver support or crashes mystically is myth. Likewize saying XP is stable, windows has good driver support and is secure is also a myth!
Windows XP is stable, has good driver support, and my install is secure.
For some people Linux is hard to use, doesn't support any of their hardware, and crashes inexplicably.
I've seen both.
oh, btw...
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/shutup2.jpg)
This is a Mac thread. Leave. Now.
-
quote:
And what compatibility problems are those?
Try running Office on Office XP or 2k or 2k3.
Because of NT compatibility most porgrams that run in 9x cannot run on XP, 2k and 2k3. Such database programs that are used by many business cannot run on different version of windows. Infact, even the same systems can cause problems do to diffrent version'ings in .dll files and how they are implimented in the program.
quote:
And define "more useable". Windows 95 was the height of 1990s Windows. For its time, it had great hardware support, and it had a simiple, clean UI. The Win9x appearance is, IMHO a work of art.
I agree, it stayed the same right through untill XP. However driver support was never great. Win95 had better support for driver install. Due to wizards etc. Which put it above windows 3.1. But it has no where as near as linux and this has been around a hell of a lot longer.
I've fixed dozons of windows boxes of all versions and guess what. They all have the same problem. Instead of the drivers being built in with an auto detection system. You have to hunt around for them. When one does install the correct drivers for the correct version of windows it still fucks up windows. When one tries to fix the problem its always the same exuse. Its badhardwaresoftwareenduser's fault.
quote:
XP is great,
Lets see, its slow as shit. The interface is damn ugly. It does the same as all windows. It has a stupid anti piracy shit built into it. Still has viruses. It needs even more hardware power etc etc etc.....
quote:
although it's in flux. It's a mix of next-gen MS ideas on task-based UI (which I'm disliking less and less) and of classic Win95-style UI.
The only 'classic' UI style it has is if you turn off that awful fisher price GUI. Even that is STILL slow and very unproductive.
quote:
I installed a vid card, removed a modem and added a second NIC and it didn't ask to reactivate.
No the corperate version does not. But most people have the home or OEM version. That does. Also. Adding any kind of hardware takes separate drivers that seem to never work.
quote:
I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works. 'Nuff said.
I've worked as a sys admin and tech support. I've NEVER seen a windows box that did not ask for some sort of drivers. You have to have them!
quote:
Untrue. XP and Server 2003 are better than 2000.
Really? Lets see. Same viruses, trojans, spyware, idiotic updates etc. Oh I see the differense. win2k3 even MORE hardware. Pluse the expensive licensing etc... Yea. Real different.
quote:
Lies.
Nope!
quote:
9x is not as watertight as NT.
Yep, it is! Its the same thing over and over and over.....
quote:
Because a poorly written device driver WILL CRASH ANY SYSTEM.
I'm running my web server on a P2 233mhz, 24mb ram with ony a 2gig hard drive. Windows, no matter what version crashed it. Execept 2k3 and Xp simply because those verions just cannot run on such hardware.
Fedore Core Linux however, installed and worked out of the box, is able to run KDE 3.1 all on a 2gig 24mb of ram. Why is it that Linux has no problem running but windows has. Why is it that an updated state of the art Linux box can run fine but the latest windows box can't even run properly without of gig of ram!?
quote:
I had OS X go south and destroy itself because of a buggy driver.
quote:
Same will happen to Linux. A driver is software, like any other thing. Write it badly and it fucks up.
Show me one. I've haven't seen any and I've been running linux since the 2.2 kernel! I've never seen 'bad drivers' in linux. But then there is a community behind linux not corperations that care more about the bottem line then they do about a product.
quote:
When something runs that closely to the kernel, it fucks up big time.
Ok, proof please!
quote:
Stop confusing lazy developers and shitty, cheap hardware companies with the OS's "driver support".
I'm not. But you CAN stop with the bullshit. Oh its badhardwaresoftwareendusers fault! The same exuse ofver and over and over! M$ has been around a long time yet Linux has better support!
Figure that out. I've never seen a crash because some driver faild unless its on windows!
quote:
Why does any OS crash?
If Linux crashes because its some old hard drive or ram that has been running for ever. Eventualy all hardware will age and eventually die. However. All you have to do on windows is even look at it wrong and it does not matter what version it is!
quote:
And no, it can't be the hardware maker's fault for using shitty hardware.
Nope, expecialy when Linux or any other OS can run on it just fine!
quote:
It can't be a simple manufacturing defect.
Not if all windows behave the same way on the same machine yet other OS'es on that same machine works fine!
quote:
THERE'S NO WAY THAT A COMPUTER COULD BE A LEMON!
It could. But not to the point of what windows zealots make them out to be.
quote:
First off... NEVER... NEVER act like your experience with something is the same as everybody's.
I'm not saying its like same as everybody's. But the argument of Linux not supporting hardware is long gone and is no longer a valid exuse!
quote:
Saying that it's a myth is supreme arrogance.
Really.
I quote you!
"I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works."
So what you say is fact? Yep that there is pritty
arrogent to me. Expecialy when Me and everyone else in the world have to jump through hoops just to install any kind of hardware in windows!
quote:
I have to jump through hoops to get my GeForce 4 to work in Red Hat 9 because for some reason it simply does not detect it and use it by default. Even when I deactivate built-in Intel 810 video in the BIOS, X11 uses it and it configures for it.
Well. I've never ran that type of card. But I have installed out of the box using RH9 a readon 7500 with S-Vidio out. Everything works INCLUDING the S-Video out. If I couldn't get something to run I ask on the billions of Linux help boards out there and look through the many helpful of books, without having to wait for expensive tech support or listen to the same old exuse.
"Your using badsoftwarehardware, try reinstalling it..."
quote:
This is inexplicable behavior and it would RUIN A N00B ON LINUX.
No, since most 'n00bs' actually get help. Not just install it once then say fuck it.
quote:
Things don't always go perfectly in Linux,
No its not the perfect OS. But for an OS that is pritty much new. Can out perform the biggest corperation in the OS business. It has that title for a reason!
quote:
just as Windows isn't always shitty. 2000 never worked right on my old AMD box, but now XP is WITHOUT FLAW on my P3.
If Xp has over a gig of ram it would run fine. Give windows 2k runs with over a gig of ram it runs fine too! Heck give winME 500mb of ram and it runs smooth! But the same problems of viruses, trojans and constant updates are still gonna be there.
quote:IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
quote:
Windows XP is stable, has good driver support, and my install is secure.
Why is it that the rest of the M$ install base really dissagree's with you.
It could be for you. But for me and for many others we don't buy that same old exuse of its the hardware's fault! Windows is simply insecure, buggy and has bad driver support.
I Know great many windows users and they ALWAYS have something to complain about when it comes to windows. But when it comes to other OS'es those complaints arn't there.
There is a difference between quality and marketing. Apple is a corperation yet its FAR supirior than windows its even better than Linux!
Why is it that Apple has gotten the message but Microsoft has not?
because every other OS out there is about people using their product not just some marketing PR.
quote:
For some people Linux is hard to use,
That goes for windows as well. Fighting with the machine just to get even simple tasks done because of its instability and security is not 'ease of use.'
quote:
doesn't support any of their hardware
,
It might not support EVERY hardware out there BUT it DOES have better support with more help avilable than that of windows and yet windows has been around!
quote:
and crashes inexplicably.
Linux DOES NOT crash almost everyday to a few times a month. There have been Linux boxes out there that have an uptime of 2 years or more. Not just 6 months!
Linux may crash. Just like all OS'es but not to the extent of windows!
quote:
I've seen both.
So have I but most often that not on Windows!
oh, btw...
STFU!!!!
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/shutup2.jpg)
[ August 03, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by bedouin:
I purchased my first Mac in 2002 -- a Quicksilver 2002. It's honestly the only computer I've ever owned that I have absolutely no complaints about. It's been updated from 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 without a clean install, and runs just as fast (perhaps faster, because of QE) than the day I bought it.
A year later I bought a 12" 800mhz G3 iBook. It suffered from one logic board failure, but has been fine ever since. The battery life is great (sometimes close to 6 hours), and the size is perfect. I haven't found anything comparable to Apple's laptop offerings in the PC world, especially in the 12" form. The x86 laptops I did like made no mention of Linux support, and I refuse to run another Microsoft OS in my life.
My dad is the owner of a 1ghz eMac, and it's been completely trouble free. I've been a computer user since 1985, when I received a c64 and I was PC user from probably '88-2002. As far as a desktop OS, there's nothing comparable to OS X.
The only OS I ever used comparable to OS X was BeOS. If Be was still adequately supported I'd probably still be using it.
I've kernel paniced OS X a couple times, but both times it was my fault. I don't know that I've had a Windows install last more than 6 months without going awry. As long as Steve Jobs keeps doing his magic, I'll be a loyal Apple customer.
Oh, and BTW: Microsoft could make the best OS in the world; I would never support them. It's a moral issue to me. They want to control every computer in the world, eliminate open standards, and subsequently control the exchange of information itself. Whether you install a pirated copy of Windows or not, by running their OS, or helping other people use it, you're just perpetuating a dictatorship.
That last part was very well written! I couldn't agree with you more! (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
-
I'm sorry...
did you say something?
-
hmmm.... when I upgraded my box to 2.6.0, right after it came out, even though I had the drivers I needed installed,...or so said "make menuconfig",
my NIC and sound drivers did not work, and even though the reiserfs driver was selected, and not a module it would not boot, it failed with a kernel panic. I have spent more like in make menuconfig hunting the right module down, then installing drivers. which was completely straightforward, no "hunting for drivers" as you call it.
the hardware problems I have had in linux are only in linux.
I have never had a problem with any of my hardware in Windows.
all of said hardware is well-respected name-brand stuff too, no obscure no-name stuff either.
Solaris, in your eyes, is there anything Microsoft can do RIGHT?!
it seems to me you are just pooh-pooh-ing them for no real reason.
PS. I have never seen a linux box report anuptime of more than 497 days. I have seen windows boxes keep on chugging for longer than that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron The Deceivenator:
PS. I have never seen a linux box report anuptime of more than 497 days. I have seen windows boxes keep on chugging for longer than that.
Hmm, the stats:
Linux (http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/stats.php?op=all&os=Linux) vs. Windows (http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/stats.php?op=all&os=Windows)
Not that they really mean anything.
-
Solaris,
WinDOS (Any version before ME) called the DOS kernel for some things and 95+ had Win32 slapped on top. NT is based on VMS an OS that used to be as good as UNIX , MS did fuck if up a bit though but it is still better than WinDOS.
XP is both better and worse than Win2K, I prefer Win2Ks UI and its faster, but XP boots up quicker and the registry is also journaled.
Windows can be faster than Linux if you have shit Linux drivers and good Windows drivers. Because of this I run XP on 256MB of RAM and its faster than RedHat 9 on the same hardware, but it still doesn't beat Vector Linux though.
Drivers run together with the kernel in ring 0 so they have access to the entire system, (greater privilege level than root), and your all programs run at a lower privilege level, thus if you have a bad driver on any OS it can severely fuck it up.
I find driver trouble shooting in Windows very easy, if you install the wrong driver Windows will roll back to the previous one, even in Win95 if you installed the wrong vidio driver it would default to a genercic VGA driver.
Often Linux drivers are worse than Windows drivers , because the hardware manufactures won't write drivers or disclose details about their hardware to protect trade secrets. Linux drivers are often hacked together by reverse engineering, a classic example of this is the Linux NTFS driver which is no where near as good as the Windows NTFS driver. This is often also the case with some video card and printer drivers, indeed it is the case with my S3 savage pro graphics card.
Windows driver support is excellent since MS monopoly position forces hardware manufactures to write drivers.
But having said that, if you are very careful and only buy Linux compatable hardware you won't have a problem and Linux will run and run.
Anyway this section is ment to be about Macs, not Windows, I know how easy it is to change the subject but thist debate belongs in the Windows/Linux section.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
WinDOS (Any version before ME) called the DOS kernel for some things and 95+ had Win32 slapped on top. NT is based on VMS an OS that used to be as good as UNIX , MS did fuck if up a bit though but it is still better than WinDOS.
That's kind of true. A lot of former Digital employees worked on NT, but it wasn't like they just lifted source code from VMS and used it to build NT. There's significant architectural influences, but it's not quite the same as say, the BSD influences in Darwin.
'Used to be as good' is questionable as well (http://smile.gif) There's still some things VMS can arguably do better than UNIX. VMS is probably the first multiuser OS I had experience with, and the first OS I used to accesses the Internet, so it'll always be special to me.
-
quote:
PS. I have never seen a linux box report an uptime of more than 497 days.
From Netcraft, right? There's a bug in Netcraft's software that prevents uptimes greater than 497 from showing.
quote:
mmm.... when I upgraded my box to 2.6.0, right after it came out, even though I had the drivers I needed installed,...or so said "make menuconfig", my NIC and sound drivers did not work, and even though the reiserfs driver was selected, and not a module it would not boot, it failed with a kernel panic.
I'd expect nothing more from 2.6.0.
[ August 03, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
[QB]
From Netcraft, right? There's a bug in Netcraft's software that prevents uptimes greater than 497 from showing.
It's actually a bug in the kernel. It was fixed in early 2.5.x development, unfortunately that was less than 497 days ago so we won't see any uptimes over 497 on there for a while.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron The Deceivenator:
my NIC and sound drivers did not work, and even though the reiserfs driver was selected, and not a module it would not boot, it failed with a kernel panic.
It probably would have been a better idea to put your filesystem driver in the initrd, right ;)
And also like WMD said, you had just jumped on the brand spanking new release. This isn't really common among users and is itself evidence that you have a degree of technical confidence.
The average Joe user will not have had any trouble because the major distributors let things settle somewhat before they introduced the 2.6 series into their distributions.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron The Deceivenator:
hmmm.... when I upgraded my box to 2.6.0, right after it came out, even though I had the drivers I needed installed,...or so said "make menuconfig",
That kernel is still new. I remeber when the 2.4 came out. I waited a long time before I switched. In the current 2.4 kernel I'v never seen such a thing. I'm using th 2.4.20 kernel and it suits me fine.
quote:
my NIC and sound drivers did not work, and even though the reiserfs driver was selected, and not a module it would not boot, it failed with a kernel panic. I have spent more like in make menuconfig hunting the right module down, then installing drivers. which was completely straightforward, no "hunting for drivers" as you call it.
On a 2.6 right? Well yea. Like I've said. Evgen though it has released there are some bugs to work out. Its new with a new setup. But its not the same as windows where it hasn't changed since 1989! To boot no matter what version, it always need some sort of drivers that has to be installed that never work properly. By now you would think they would get it but they haven't thus M$ is nothing more than a marketing machine and has nothing to do with the OS industry. Linux, BSD and Apple do.
quote:
the hardware problems I have had in linux are only in linux
Well for me it has been opposit. People always say that "linux has bad driver support." This is infact wrong! The fact is that considering that Linux being Open source, has to rewrite the drivers and may not have a corperation's help. Pluse givin the fact of Linux age. It has WAY better support than windows!
quote:
I have never had a problem with any of my hardware in Windows.
Maby for the few. But as someone who is a sysadmin and someone who has worked for tech support I can definnatly tell you that lots of people have and blaming the end user, bad hard ware and or software is not an exuse!
quote:
all of said hardware is well-respected name-brand stuff too, no obscure no-name stuff either.
I have a p4 running a radeon7500 with Sound Blaster Live! All quality name brand stuff. Guess what? Linux works! I've even installed it on 'crappy' OEM's that the Windows Zealots claim that windows only crashes on those boxes because of that same 'shitty hardware.' Guess what? Linux runs fine!
quote:
Solaris, in your eyes, is there anything Microsoft can do RIGHT?!
Of course they can. Because of windows. Writing a virus, trojan or spyware of some kind has never been easier!
quote:
it seems to me you are just pooh-pooh-ing them for no real reason.
Typical Windows Zealot response. These are LEGITIMATE problems but for windows lovers its always the enduserbadhardwaresoftware's fault. Never the OS. No no. M$ is perfect!
quote:
PS. I have never seen a linux box report anuptime of more than 497 days. I have seen windows boxes keep on chugging for longer than that.
Well I've never even seen a windows box last longer than 6 months tops. I have seen a Linux box run over 3 years without any stability or security problems and I've seen FreeBSD and BSD/OS last longer than that!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Solaris,
WinDOS (Any version before ME) called the DOS kernel for some things and 95+ had Win32 slapped on top. NT is based on VMS an OS that used to be as good as UNIX , MS did fuck if up a bit though but it is still better than WinDOS.
We all know the technical differences between 9x and NT. That was not my point. My point was the actual use with security and stability in mind. In that point. Both OS'es ARE the same.
You can make ME just as stable and just as 'secure' as any other windows. The only difference is that 9x takes a heck of alot less computer power and any program will not run on another version of windows or windows program.
quote:
XP is both better and worse than Win2K, I prefer Win2Ks UI and its faster, but XP boots up quicker and the registry is also journaled.
Again you are right when it comes to the technical aspect. No one is going to argue with that. But, I found XP extreamly slow! Not only in the UI but also in the boot up process. Its the same as win2k and NT4. Its the same as 9x if 9x had to boot and go through check all the time.
quote:
Windows can be faster than Linux if you have shit Linux drivers and good Windows drivers. Because of this I run XP on 256MB of RAM and its faster than RedHat 9 on the same hardware, but it still doesn't beat Vector Linux though.
Key word, "IF" Thats a big if! The majority of drivers do not work properly with windows and this includes name brand stuff. Windows can be faster if also it boots with no virus scanner, no adware removal scanner, no reset back software, had no updates (Service Packs/virus dats,) had no software but what it came with installed and no fire wall! But if we are going to set up such a system then the stability of windows will also increase greatly.
Linux with all the things it has compared with all the things windows needs, virus scanner, ad remover, firewall etc... boots a heck of a lot faster!
quote:
Drivers run together with the kernel in ring 0 so they have access to the entire system, (greater privilege level than root), and your all programs run at a lower privilege level, thus if you have a bad driver on any OS it can severely fuck it up.
To a point yes. But being that its Open Source. I find that a greater care is made when writing such drivers with plenty of tests. Everything avilable thus I see a better quaility job done with the work when it comes to drivers and Linux.
Thus I find that you will not have the same problems under Linux as you do with winows. Because Linux is also modulated it can easily see what drivers it needs, select it and install it without any kind of user intervetion. A great stress releaf when you have to repair 100's of boxes in a week!
Comepare this with windows where you need to find the correct drivers in th first place, limited help avilable and even though you may have the correct drivers for the correct version of windows its STILL fucks up!
quote:
I find driver trouble shooting in Windows very easy,
I found it to be opposit. Booting into 'safe mode' and/or DOS. Finding out that some software and or hardware install had fucked up the registry or a .dll fil came currupt or is some how 'missing' an extream pain in the ass!
quote:
if you install the wrong driver Windows will roll back to the previous one, even in Win95 if you installed the wrong vidio driver it would default to a genercic VGA driver.
I know that feature. It doesn't work. When I roll back the system, the problem is STILL there and unreslved. The best way of solving it is to give it a fresh reinstall and hope for the best. Pluse now you have the added stress of putting all your other software back onto the system. The whole thing can take upto 3 days depending what you have and what you use the system for! Also rolling back to a 'standard vga' driver does not help as well. Expecialy when you do have that name brand hardware and a top noch monitor and all you can see is that ugly 16 bit color low resolution setup and the drivers for your graphics card somehow sit silent even though you've tried your hardest to get the damn thing to work.
Personaly I've spent long hours fixing windows where I could of taken that time and spent it on my family. Thats my beef with windows! But the fact that it IS so insecure is great too. If you want to set up your own test box and want to know how an 'explot' works, then its a great learning tool!
quote:
Often Linux drivers are worse thahn Windows drivers , because the hardware manufactures won't write drivers or disclose details about their hardware to protect trade secrets.
Actually that right there is WHY linux drivers are better! The fact is not only are the copanies themselves are keeping secrests but so are the people under windows. This lack of communication brings about the problem of windows! The fact is the people under Linux has the whole OS open to them so the can figure the problems out. Pluse even though a corperation does not back them, any errors that the drivers produce can be easily fixed and retested by a large group of talented people. Because the drive is to make a quality driver that is not driven by the hype of marketing and protected by 'trade secrets.'
quote:
Linux drivers are often hacked together by reverse engineering, a classic example of this is the Linux NTFS driver which is no where near as good as the Windows NTFS driver.
But why should linux even use NTFS? FAT works great with linux and raiserFS or any othet native file system works great with linux. Linux is not windows and not Microsoft so why should NTFS work as great as windows. The fact that NTFS works under linux speaks volums of linux since windows can't even run a linux file system properly. But then again windows is not linux! Most drivers are not 'hacked together' as you put it, likewize the people who make windows drivers are not 'lazy.' The difference between the to is what the OS strides for. Windows was made in a time when marketing and Licensces rule. That is quickly changing. As we become more dependent on these machines we want better quality than just simple PR and FUD! Thus the days of windows is over.
quote:
This is often also the case with some video card and printer drivers,
I disagree! I've gotten may radeon with S-video out to work like a charm! I've gotten my sound card to work with little problems and there has been plent of help. Appart for the simple 'make,' 'make install' to update my printer drivers, yast or any other configuration wizard has worked great at setting up my printer!
quote:
indeed it is the case with my S3 savage pro graphics card.
I run that card on on of my older machines. It worked great under Fedora Core 1 and SuSE. Dell Optiplex uses such a card.
quote:
Windows driver support is excellent since MS monopoly position forces hardware manufactures to write drivers.
Key word here 'forces.' Lack of communication between Microsoft and the copanies that write the drives pluse lack of help for the end user, I feel, is why windows drivers are so bad. If what you say is true then the driver problem in windows would of been corrected and solved by windows 98! It has not! Its the same problem through out the windows family! Thus they have not only failed at solving the problem but these are the same problems since the days of win95! Yet Linux has progressed passed that stage!
quote:
But having said that, if you are very careful and only buy Linux compatable hardware you won't have a problem and Linux will run and run.
If you buy the correct hardware for windows, then the same should happen. Infact I've seen those machines with the 'offical built for windows blah blah blah' stuck on the side yet I still see the same insecure and unstable troubles.
quote:
Anyway this section is ment to be about Macs, not Windows, I know how easy it is to change the subject but thist debate belongs in the Windows/Linux section.
Not really. Even though it has alot of windows and Linux in it. Its because the creater of the threat, I feel, had put out some FUD and I felt that should of been corrected. Because anyone reading that would assume that Linux has bad driver support when in fact it does not! Its as bad as me assuming that Mac's are shit because I only tried it once and complain that its hard to use. Its stupid!
Even though I am not a Mac user I can tell you that Macs ARE very secure and VERY easy to use!
You, or I for that matter. May not be used to it, thus may find it difficult in some areas. But its not like windows where instead of getting used to the machine then getting your work done, you are actualy fixing problems!
I don't know about the 'wonky video crashes a mac' but I have never seen such a thing and my friends that DO use that OS do not find such a thing occuring eather. The beuty of a MAC is that you can go out and by a brand new machine that will work for ever, is secure, stable and can install hardware easily!
Because of such things there is no need to spend extra amount of money in tech support, warrenties and the likes thus Macs are cheeper than windows!
The beuty of Linux is that is a cheep afordable OS that can do lots of things on cheep old hardware and the x86 platform without spending a whole lot on warrenties and repairs and hardware can be installed easily!
They both have their strengths an weekness'es but they are good OS'es if you wnat to get your work done!
They are not maketing toys put out by a mega giant that just has no clue about the OS industry!
However, windows does have its place. Its greatist weekness is also its strength! Thus a great OS to tinker with as a hobby!
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
We all know the technical differences between 9x and NT. That was not my point. My point was the actual use with security and stability in mind. In that point. Both OS'es ARE the same.
Yes and its these technical differences that make NT better than Win95 to ME.
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
You can make ME just as stable and just as !secure' as any other windows. The only difference is that 9x takes a heck of alot less computer power and any program will not run on another persion of windows or windows program.
FUD!
Read my previous post again,the NT kernel was not made by MS, VMS developers were drafted
in, thus it contains some VMS code and is a lot better that Win95 to ME. VMS was an industrial strength
operating system that beat UNIX in someways.
Win95 to ME was shit, the crappy FAT32 file system was unstable and more prone to corruption than NTFS.
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
Again you are right when it comes to the technical aspect. No one is going to argue with that. But, I found XP extreamly slow! Not only in the UI but also in the boot up process. Its the same as win2k and NT4. Its the same as 9x if 9x had to boot and to through check all the time.
FUD!
Win95 to ME used FAT/F32 which was shit and slowed things down.
XP boots up a lot quicker than Win2k it features pre-emptive booting, meaning that for the first 3
boots XP aranges the File system so that the boot up files are in the correct boot order.
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
Key word, "IF" Thats a big if! The majority of drivers do not work properly with windows and this includes name brand stuff.
FUD!
Its not unusual for hardware to work under Linux but be far from fully funtional, printer/scanners
often print but don't scan, sound cards often work but the 3D without enhancement and graphics cards often work but the 3D accelerator doesn't. In Windows most drivers work very well often the drivers aren't written by MS at all but funneyly enough by the hardware manufacturer.
For example my printer/scanner came with both Windows and Mac drivers, they were suplied by Leximark so the Windows driver is as good/bad as the Mac driver.
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
Windows can be faster if also it boots with no virus scanner, no adware removal scanner, no reset back software, had no updates (Service Packs/virus dats,) had no software but what it came with installed and no fire wall! But if we are going to set up such a system then the stability of windows will also increase greatly.
Linux with all the things it has compared with all the things windows needs, virus scanner, ad remover, firewall etc... boots a heck of a lot faster!
True.
I agree, you shouldn't need any of that shit, it should be built in to the OS, but never the less XP still boots faster than Win2K.
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
To a point yes. But being that its Open Source. I find that a greater care is made when writing such drivers with plenty of tests. Everything avilable thus I see a better quaility job done with the work when it comes to drivers and Linux.
Thus I find that you will not have the same problems under Linux as you do with winows. Because Linux is also modulated it can easily see what drivers it needs, select it and install it without any kind of user intervetion. A great stress releaf when you have to repair 100's of boxes in a week!
Comepare this with windows where you need to find the correct drivers in th first place, limited help avilable and even though you may have the correct drivers for the correct version of windows
its STILL fucks up!
The open source argument doesn
-
Dear Aloone,
Thank ye for the kickass post!
Sincerely,
The Jimmy James
Only a couple of points. Please stop referring to Windows 95 - Windows Me as "WinDOS". There is an old software package that was called WinDOS. Just call them Windows 9x.
Also, the NT kernel was made by MS. Dave Cutler led the project, and his previous job was developing VMS at DEC. Several DEC coders came to join him, and they likely used the same programming concepts and structures, as well as similar mechanisms to do things. Plese don't claim that the NT kernel is the VMS kernel.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Dear Aloone,
Thank ye for the kickass post!
Sincerely,
The Jimmy James
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif) Thanks!
Edit: Don't I get any stars then? :D
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Only a couple of points. Please stop referring to Windows 95 - Windows Me as "WinDOS". There is an old software package that was called WinDOS. Just call them Windows 9x.
Sorry, I've never heard of WinDOS, I will now edit my previous post for you.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Also, the NT kernel was made by MS. Dave Cutler led the project, and his previous job was developing VMS at DEC. Several DEC coders came to join him, and they likely used the same programming concepts and structures, as well as similar mechanisms to do things.
I did think about including this, but I thought the post was already long enough.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Plese don't claim that the NT kernel is the VMS kernel.
Bad wording on my part, I never meant to imply that.
NT won't run VMS software or use any VMS drivers and vice versa.
NT is different to VMS, although it wouldn't surprise me if Cutler used some modified VMS code.
[ August 05, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
WinDOS
It looks like a very cheap and nasty GUI shell for DOS, this is extremely lame.
(http://www.geocities.com/hitech_laboratories/disktop.gif) (http://www.geocities.com/hitech_laboratories/windos.html)
The website look awful, the yellow text on a snot green background makes it hard to read!
EDIT:
I thought this looked familiar, I have already downloaded it and tried it before a few years ago, its not too bad its just fucking pointless.
[ August 05, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Yes and its these technical differences that make NT better than Win95 to ME.
How is it better if it gets infected with the same viruses, spyware etc.... How is it better if the stability and security is the same as 9x?
Its the same thing over and over and over....
quote:
FUD!
Read my previous post again,the NT kernel was not made by MS, VMS developers were drafted
in, thus it contains some VMS code and is a lot better that Win95 to ME. VMS was an industrial strength
operating system that beat UNIX in someways.
TRUE!!!!
Again who gives a shit who did what! I really don't care if M$ windows is made with uber l33t Unix code. My point was that it does the same thing!
quote:
Win95 to ME was shit, the crappy FAT32 file system was unstable and more prone to corruption than NTFS.
WinNT for me was shit! The fact that it costs more and needs more hardware just to do the same thing is not very impressive.
quote:
FUD!
Win95 to ME used FAT/F32 which was shit and slowed things down.
True!!!!
Win NT to me was shit. At least with FAT some things did work abit not very well.
quote:
XP boots up a lot quicker than Win2k it features pre-emptive booting, meaning that for the first 3
boots XP aranges the File system so that the boot up files are in the correct boot order.
That may be. But then why is it when I booted XP it took for ever. Yes win2k boots slow but then so does XP. I do NOT CARE about the technical aspect of it. I'm intrested in it via the end user's point of view. I've used 2k and XP they are both crap!
quote:
FUD!
Its not unusual for hardware to work under Linux but be far from fully funtional, printer/scanners
often print but don't scan, sound cards often work but the 3D without enhancement and graphics cards often work but the 3D accelerator doesn't. In Windows most drivers work very well often the drivers aren't written by MS at all but funneyly enough by the hardware manufacturer.
TRUE!
I've used linux AND windows. I'm not someone who tries to install it and give up on its first instance. The problem you report can be the same with windows. What you are telling me is that the majority of linux drivers are shit?
No! Infact at least the majority of them works out of the box!
I'm running sound blaster with RH9 and it detected it! So its you thats spreading the FUD campain here!
quote:
For example my printer/scanner came with both Windows and Mac drivers,
Yes, so did mine. But when I install sead driver for windows (which was ment for that version) it fucks things up.
I pluged in my printer scanner (HP PSC) and kudzo detected it and installed it then carried on booting.
My point was that since M$ HAS been around for a long time its stupid that it STILL has bad driver support and no you can't blame hardware manufactures.
quote:
they were suplied by Leximark so the Windows driver is as good/bad as the Mac driver.
So? the MAC driver always work. How come this does not apply for windows? Both OS'es are closed source.
quote:
Linux with all the things it has compared with all the things windows needs, virus scanner, ad remover, firewall etc... boots a heck of a lot faster!
Bullshit. I run SuSE here on my laptop which dual boots with 2k! It has a p2 266mhz 96mb ram! Linux boots faster! That is what I have seen! Windows IS slow.
quote:
True.
I agree, you shouldn't need any of that shit, it should be built in to the OS, but never the less XP still boots faster than Win2K.
Again I've worked with both! They are the same with little difference between the too. What you are saying does not match what truly happens.
I find they are the same.
quote:
The open source argument doesn
-
Do you really think people actually read you long ass posts?? GIVE IT A REST!!!!
-
Don Paladino, easy - I find these "scintilating" exchanges quite amusing these days. Just thought I should point out though - to anyone with big enough cajones, it's pretty simple to tweak Windows. Either pick up some freeware or start modding the registry and pray nothing bad happens. Then again, the WORST that can happen is that you'd fuck over Windows... :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
Don Paladino, easy - I find these "scintilating" exchanges quite amusing these days. Just thought I should point out though - to anyone with big enough cajones, it's pretty simple to tweak Windows. Either pick up some freeware or start modding the registry and pray nothing bad happens. Then again, the WORST that can happen is that you'd fuck over Windows... :D
Very true.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
I find these "scintilating" exchanges quite amusing these days.
Maybe, but these days I just find them to be irritating. It gets old after a while.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Edit: Don't I get any stars then? :D
Done! (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
[QB]WinDOS
It looks like a very cheap and nasty GUI shell for DOS, this is extremely lame.
Arachne (http://www.arachne.cz/) kicks more ass (http://smile.gif) (even though the website isn't what it used to be :( ).
Here's the original Arachne WWW browser for DOS:
http://browser.arachne.cz/archn170.exe (http://browser.arachne.cz/archn170.exe)
Try it out Aloone, it's awesome.
[ August 06, 2004: Message edited by: Refalm/BOB ]
-
Ok Solaris, I'm going to make this a short as possible:
Learn to quote people properly, and they just might take you seriously.
READ MY PREVIOUS POST AGAIN, I DIDN'T SAY THIS:
quote:
Linux with all the things it has compared with all the things windows needs, virus scanner, ad remover, firewall etc... boots a heck of a lot faster!
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Congratulations Solaris,
By misquoting me you have now lost all of your respect, not just from me but form the other members of this forum, now no intelligent person is going to believe a single word you say.
Oh well there might be some stupid people reading this, so I should still continue debunk your FUD campaign.
I never said that most Linux drivers are crap, I was stating the reason why some are.
I didn't say that Linux lacks standards, Linux is fully compliant with all the UNIX standards.
I didn't imply that most hardware manufactures keep things secret, I just said that a lot do. I know there are some manufactures that write open source drivers, but they are a minority group.
You Solaris, are trying to put your bullshit in my mouth and it
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm/BOB:
Arachne (http://www.arachne.cz/) kicks more ass (http://smile.gif) (even though the website isn't what it used to be :( ).
Here's the original Arachne WWW browser for DOS:
http://browser.arachne.cz/archn170.exe (http://browser.arachne.cz/archn170.exe)
Try it out Aloone, it's awesome.
[ August 06, 2004: Message edited by: Refalm/BOB ]
I bet it can't beat FireFox for quality and speed.
I can see a security advantage though, if used it in a DOS partition you can't get any Windows viruses, and if you get a DOS virus it won't take long to reformat a <2GB FAT partition and reinstall it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
Don Paladino, easy - I find these "scintilating" exchanges quite amusing these days.
Don't wory theres plenty more from where that came from. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
Just thought I should point out though - to anyone with big enough cajones, it's pretty simple to tweak Windows. Either pick up some freeware or start modding the registry and pray nothing bad happens.
There
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
[QB]Ok Solaris, I'm going to make this a short as possible:
quote:
Learn to quote people properly, and they just might take you seriously.
You should follow your own advice on that, PLUS learn what FUD is BEFORE you use it!
quote:
READ MY PREVIOUS POST AGAIN, I DIDN'T SAY THIS:
*re reads post*
recorrects mistake
quote:
True.
I agree, you shouldn't need any of that shit, it should be built in to the OS, but never the less XP still boots faster than Win2K.
My point was that WinXp and 2k boots around the same time. There IS no difference betwwen them!
quote:
By misquoting me you have now lost all of your respect, not just from me but form the other members of this forum, now no intelligent person is going to believe a single word you say.
An intelligent person would of stated that he did not say that then let the other person re-read and correct it. Not go off with a silly rant just because of a mistake. Thus intelligence is not counted when we speek of you.
quote:
Oh well there might be some stupid people reading this, so I should still continue debunk your FUD campaign.
Thus I will be replying to stop YOU from spreading FUD since what YOU have stated is nothing but bullshit.
"I.E. Windows XP boots faster than 2k!"
I did not say those words, you did!
quote:
I never said that most Linux drivers are crap, I was stating the reason why some are.
Some drivers are, there is no arguing on that, however they get corrected and better tested than those that are provided for windows!
quote:
I didn't say that Linux lacks standards, Linux is fully compliant with all the UNIX standards.
Yes you did!
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002564&p=3 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002564&p=3)
quote:
I didn't imply that most hardware manufactures keep things secret, I just said that a lot do. I know there are some manufactures that write open source drivers, but they are a minority group.
IBM, HP, Radeon, Nvida... These are minorities? Most people who works with hardware usually release some specs. Its how developments of the industry works. The only company that does not do this but STILL releases something is Microsoft. Of course they maby some out there that follows this lone giant but I have not come accross any that practice it.
quote:
You Solaris, are trying to put your bullshit in my mouth and it
-
Wait a minute arn't you the guy thats stupid enough to say that wine is an emulator?
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000082 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000082)
quote:
"Wine and VMware are both emulators."
Hey, yea you are! LOL No wonder your spewing such bullshit. I had to wonder for a minute.
Well since I now know i'm not even going to bother. You can't have a conversation with a dummy. (http://tongue.gif)
Well this is a MAC forum. I just wanted to correct that first post and I did so getting it back on track
MACS ARE GREAT AND THEY REALLY LOOK GREAT TOO!!!!
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
-
quote:
Ues you did!
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002564&p=3 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002564&p=3)
Not in this thread.
This is information is out of date, I have changed my opinion since then, this was my first experience with Linux, and this sort of experience has also put many people of using Linux.
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000082 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000082)
Again not in this thread.
Out of date again, I have already apologised about the WINE argument before, it was more about the interpretation of the word emulator than anything technical.
Linspire is relevant to this thread, it is like your posts - a classic example of Linux FUD.
Nowadays MS gives out too much information, not only about APIs but exploits too. How do you think people are able to write viruses without this?
Like I have said before Linux doesn't have these problems as like UNIX, the security is built at the kernel level. Windows was originally designed at a time when most people weren't connected to the Internet, so security wasn't a prime concern. Things have changed since then and MS has fucked up by patching instead of rewriting.
I say Windows driver support is good and I give a reason.
You say (or words to the effect of)"not in my experience"
No proof.
I give technical reasons as to why NT is better than Win9x/ME.
You say (or words to the effect of)"not that I've noticed"
No proof.
I give up, you obviously don't know enough about computers to understand the technical explanations I have given as to why NT is better than Win9x/ME.
I've said Linux divers are often poor as lots of hardware manufacturers don't release enough information.
You say (or words to the effect of) "This is very rare and as they're open source it makes them better as they can be improved easily"
Open source doesn't make bad drivers better, if its because the developers don't know about the hardware.
True if the manufactures do provide them with information being open source is a big advantage and will result in better drivers.
Windows of any flavor will work well as long as you don't connect it to the Internet. As I have said before Drivers aren't the problem security is!
We use Win2k at work and the only problems we get are on the Internet machines.
Oh and I don't believe your misquoting was a genuine mistake, I have seen you do a similar thing before.
Oh sorry this irrelevant to this thread, no its not as you misquoted me in this thread.
Never mind, I forgive you. (http://smile.gif)
I have not tried to quote you literally in this post that would be a waste of time.
LOL! You fucked up your previous post too, at least you edited it before anyone noticed it, at least you're learning from your mistakes.
[ August 07, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
I can't be botherd any more your're right Linux roolz, it's perfect there is no problem with Linux driver support.
Thats why everyone uses it!
Windows drulez, the driver support is shit, Windows has got worse and not better, MS keep on thinking about ways to make it more unstable and bugey, and SP2 will only make it worse.
This is also why people don't buy it anymore.
LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
[ August 06, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
sure. whatever.
I've never had any problems with drivers on Windows or Linux on my own machine. I had one problem with a driver on OS X.
However, I've seen Windows be flaky because of a shitty driver on someone else's machine. I've seen Windows be flaky for no apparent reason on yet another machine. I've seen Linux be flaky because of a bad driver on another machine. I've seen Linux be flaky for no reason on a machine that was built specifically to run it (all hardware chosen because of built-in Linux drivers in the distro)
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
sure. whatever.
I was being sarcastic towards Solaris, just humour him. :D
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I've never had any problems with drivers on Windows or Linux on my own machine. I had one problem with a driver on OS X.
I have had one problem with a Windows driver and 3 problems with Linux drivers, none if these have fucked either OS up.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
However, I've seen Windows be flaky because of a shitty driver on someone else's machine.
So have I.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I've seen Windows be flaky for no apparent reason on yet another machine.
So have I, maybe it was due to a virus, or a bad installation.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I've seen Linux be flaky because of a bad driver on another machine.
A bad driver on any OS will fuck it up.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I've seen Linux be flaky for no reason on a machine that was built specifically to run it (all hardware chosen because of built-in Linux drivers in the distro)
Was it an OEM install?
Any OS can get fucked up by a bad installation. I badly fucked up my first installation of RedHat 9, there was often a kernel panic (Linux version of a BSOD?) on boot up.
-
no, it wasn't. the guy ordered all the parts, put it all together himself, and installed Linux (SuSE).
it was crash-tastic. He never got it working right. tried everything, including RAM!
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
Lets see. Win2k, 2k3 and XP is less usable, slow as shit, has just a mount of viruses, trojans and spyware pluse idiotic 'anti-piracy' shit so that you have to by another license if you install a new card. Pluse all the usual hunting around for shitty drivers. Not to mention XP is just as stable as the rest of the M$ family. With really realy really powerful hardware and 'proper' drivers ME CAn be more stable than XP!
I don't know what system(s) you have tried XP on. If you have 128MB or less ram it may be slow. If you try to install it on a Pentium 1/II it will be slow. It runs just fine on 500mhz+ PIII/Athlons w/192MB+ ram. It also helps to have a hard drive that isn't running in PIO mode 4 and it helps to have a video card that actually offers 3D acceleration ;P.
XP flies on my [email protected] on 1066mhz FSB w/HT box(it flies when the CPU is running at stock 2.4ghz too) and it flies on my Athlon 64 3200+ box. It even runs well on my old 1ghz PIII and 1.4ghz Athlon T-bird boxes. Every one of the systems have at least 256MB of ram.
Now Linux on the other hand I can't say the same about. KDE is slow as shit even on the Athlon 64. Out of all of the distros I have used KDE performs the best in Suse 9.1. IT still isn't as snappy as 2K/XP. I do not like Gnome at all even though it performs a little better(still not as fast as 2K/XP's explorer). Every distro of Linux I have tired take a lot longer to boot up than 2K/XP as well.
Now where in the hell do you get the 2K/XP is less usable crap? They do everything that Win9x can do and more(except run DOS apps good..but who uses DOS apps anymore?).
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Don't use KDE it's slow and bloated and it gives Linux a bad name.
I've found XP a lot faster but this could be due to the crappy unaccelerated Linux driver.
Have you tried GNOME?
It's not faster than KDE for me, but other people have told me that it's faster than KDE for them.
Also you could try; Fluxbox, Xfce or ICEwm. I have used them all before and they are all a lot faster than KDE.
Try Vector Linux (http://www.vectorlinux.com), it's the fastest and most fully functional distro I've seen.
[ August 15, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
Finder
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Finder
?