xp is awesome

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<<

<<
Why is Linux not as good as FreeBSD for the desktop ? What does it have that any other Linux desktop does not have ?
>>



Mature developers. Look into linux kernels 2.4.10 (vm change) and 2.4.11 (symlink issues) for information about MASSIVE problems in a STABLE kernel. >>


since when do mature developers have anything to do with the desktop? you seem bitter for some reason.

 

[marylandnorthwoodclock]

Xp is very cool, just got it as well. Except that it looks like someone got a box of crayola's and ran amuck.

 

[kellygirlbeads]

<< since when do mature developers have anything to do with the desktop? you seem bitter for some reason. >>




Consider this.

You have just installed linux. Congratulations.
You go to rebuild a custom kernel. There is a brand new kernel in the stable tree, so you download, configure, build, and install it. All simple steps in the howto.
You then reboot your desktop box, create and manipulate a few symlinks, and suddenly very bad things start happening.

This is not only possible, but it happened. The 2.4.11 kernel mutilated symlink handling, causing inodes to be damaged (IIRC) and abandoned. Very , very bad.

I'm not really bitter, I've just been seeing a large tend towards linux as the save-all,cure-all for PC's, when it seems to cause as many problems as it fixes. (That, and there's a large percentage of zealots, which bothers me occasionally. Read slashdot.org for example. Perhaps I tend towards the bsd zealot side from time to time, but I try to keep that in moderation.)

 

[CrowDog]

Ive been runing xp pro since it camje out and havent had any problems at all.

Ill never understand all the the bandwagon peeps that bash everything for the hell of it. Everyone that bashes xp just does it for something to do...wtf cares if you dont like xp? I sure as hell dont....get a friend or sumthin and take yur prozac. "Oh it hogs all me memory"...wahhhhh...buy a frikin stick of ram...its cheap as hell. This is my first response to all xp bashers.....been listining to it from morons that have never even used it for months and months now.....sick of it!!!!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Ive been runing xp pro since it camje out and havent had any problems at all.

Ill never understand all the the bandwagon peeps that bash everything for the hell of it. Everyone that bashes xp just does it for something to do...wtf cares if you dont like xp? I sure as hell dont....get a friend or sumthin and take yur prozac. "Oh it hogs all me memory"...wahhhhh...buy a frikin stick of ram...its cheap as hell. This is my first response to all xp bashers.....been listining to it from morons that have never even used it for months and months now.....sick of it!!!! >>



Microsoft good!

 

[johnlog]

>>><FONT size=1>you gotta try OS X <<<

The X in OSX stands for it SuX. Just kidding. Apple computers are OK for the fringe group but it is definitely not mainstream. If Apple has 5% market share that is quite good for a single company with a proprietary system.

</FONT>

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< >>><FONT size=1>you gotta try OS X <<<

The X in OSX stands for it SuX. Just kidding. Apple computers are OK for the fringe group but it is definitely not mainstream. If Apple has 5% market share that is quite good for a single company with a proprietary system.

</FONT> >>



Well Microsoft did even better. Their proprietary software (which plenty of people admit to being hypocrites about) has 93-95% of the market.

 

[evlyons]

If I have to use or choose Windows, I choose Win2K. I don't care for Microsoft XP product activation tactics. If I want to install an OS on all 5 of my computers in my house I don't want to have to purchase a separate license for each computer. Or if I want to wipe my HD out and do a new complete install, I do not want to have to reactivate and call MS to get my OS running again. It doesn't really bug me too much that the desktop looks cartoon-like. I really do believe that it is a good OS for gaming, but it seems to be a hassle with this whole "activation" thing. Bill Gates is already the richest man in the United States, why the need for activation? Hasn't Bill made enough money off of us in the first place? It's not going to stop the actual problem, which is the corporate side. Corporate versions of XP require no activation, therefore the opportunity for abuse is much greater. The only people affected by this "activation" are household users. How many copies of XP Pro am I required to purchase to have all 5 of my computers up and running it. Next time my computer crashes, do I really want to be on the phone with MS trying to reactive my OS.

I think I'll stick with Win2K and my Linux and BSD OS's.

-earle.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< Apple computers are OK for the fringe group but it is definitely not mainstream. If Apple has 5% market share that is quite good for a single company with a proprietary system. >>


that makes no sense. the only thing you cant do on a Mac is game, at least not all the games that are on PC. and MS is quite proprietary, more so than apple (software wise)

 

[CTho9305]

you port X to x86 and I'll use it
personally I like XP, but I think X is the best OS out there right now. I haven't played with it much, so there are probably some quirks, but they do a lot of things the way I like.
linux is pretty good, but not pretty enough for "average" users

 

[johnlog]

>>><FONT size=1>i guess xp is awesome... if you are willing to sacrifice memory and processing time for pretty graphics and useless transition effects. <<<

If you had a modicum of computer experience you would know you can turn off or on all those things you are senslessly complaining about.

I use to be a dos-aholic and know how tough it is to change from a slow DOS computer to a faster running and many times more powerful Windows XP computer.

He who has little or no computer experience will complain, complain all the time. I feel sorry for the complainers.


</FONT>

 

[johnlog]

Bingbangfooey,
>>><FONT size=1>that makes no sense. the only thing you cant do on a Mac is game, at least not all the games that are on PC. and MS is quite proprietary, more so than apple (software wise) <<<</FONT>
Let me put it this way. Windows computers are manufactured probably by hundreds of manufacturers around the world.

Apple computers only work with proprietary OS Apple SAYS YOU MUST USE WITH NO CHOICE!! Except for oldere apple OSs.

With Windows we have many choices. Mainly what you cannot do on an Apple I can easily do on a Windows XP computer. I do not do games.

 

[johnlog]

n0cm
>>><FONT size=1>Well Microsoft did even better. Their proprietary software (which plenty of people admit to being hypocrites about) has 93-95% of the market. <<<

If millions of persons and companies are using the Microsoft OS and software we have one of two choices to think about.

1) Most persons/companies running computers with Windows installed are very smart persons.

2) They are dumb and to stupid to know better.

Proprietary to me means one company controls the OS and controls the manufacture of the computer. That is what I call proprietary. When hundreds of computer manufacturers around the world build Windows compatible computers and it works I do not call that proprietary as MS does not in any way force only one manufacturer to build compatible computers.

Plus the many software manufacturers who are creating very good Windows compatible productivity software.

</FONT>

 

[x1xBugsBunnyx1x]

We have been using & testing it since it was whistler, there are still problems with XP to watch if you are new to it, it has compatibility issues w/some other software that may be fine on your friends system with XP but it may crash your system permanently or just cause your system to reboot when you click shutdown. 2 i know are quirky EZ CD creator5.XX even the newest version will work in some & crash others upon install, Adobe Acrobat4 full seems to cause the reboot issue as well, the newer acrobat5 full works sweet.
im getting lazy so i been using for the same reason
Good luck

 

[Nothinman]

Apple computers only work with proprietary OS Apple SAYS YOU MUST USE WITH NO CHOICE!! Except for oldere apple OSs.

With Windows we have many choices. Mainly what you cannot do on an Apple I can easily do on a Windows XP computer. I do not do games.

Apple computers just don't work with Windows, they run Linux, older BeOS builds, bsds, etc just fine. Just because one OS doesn't work on it, doesn't mean it's proprietary. Hell all the new Macs are practically all commodity parts like IDE drives, SDRAM, etc with a special chipset, firmware and CPU.

Care to give an example of something you can do so easily in XP that can't be done in OS X?

If millions of persons and companies are using the Microsoft OS and software we have one of two choices to think about.

1) Most persons/companies running computers with Windows installed are very smart persons.

2) They are dumb and to stupid to know better.

Those same millions of AOL users must know something I don't too then...

Proprietary to me means one company controls the OS and controls the manufacture of the computer

Not even by a long shot.

courtesy of dictionary.com:

<< pro·pri·e·tar·y Pronunciation Key (pr-pr-tr)

1. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.
2. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug.
>>


When hundreds of computer manufacturers around the world build Windows compatible computers and it works I do not call that proprietary as MS does not in any way force only one manufacturer to build compatible computers

You must have missed the Gateway rep's testimony during the trial about how MS would give Windows-only PC company big deals and threaten the ones that sold non-MS software, even so far as to threaten to take away their rights to OEM Windows.

MS has been already been declared a monopoly, that's not up for discussion any more but nor is it illegal. What is up for discussion is how badly they abuse it, and frankly they abuse it with everything they do.

 

[johnlog]

Nothingman came up with nothing again. Just the same old tired MS bashing. To bad.

I have Win XP installed and it is an outstandingly good solid OS. It is as steady as a rock and I have not had any problems opening and running multiple programs at the same time. I have several other programs running perfectly right now in the background as I type this note. Me happy person. I have 256 megs RAM installed. (s)

 

[Nothinman]

bashing? Point out one thing that isn't truth in my post.

I never said anything bad about the software, although I do believe XP's VM is less tuned (or atleast tuned differently in a bad way) than 2K's, but otherwise I have no problems with it.

If you're happy simply because you can run a few programs at once and not crash, you've got major issues.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

johnlog: it seems to me that you are the one doing the bashing, while Nothinman is making some very good arguments.

and when you post, don't use html tags, they don't work. use the Quote button and take a hint from the tags it uses.

 

[LoTecha]

I recently put Win2k on my system. It's not flashy like WinXP, but it's a heckuva lot less annoying IMO. It does it's job reliably and that's what I want from my desktop. Granted, I haven't spent too much time with WinXP, but I'm not too thrilled with it. If I were to build another desktop, I would definitely run Win2k on it.

Linux is great too, especially for a free os.

 

[OracleMan]

Windows XP = Windows X Problems.
I have 18GB hard drive, use half, 47% free (formatted as NTFS the whole 18GB as C partition).
Every time I boot the system up it alert me that I am running out of space on C drive...
what a headache!

 

[johnlog]

Fooey,
>>><FONT size=1>If you're happy simply because you can run a few programs at once and not crash, you've got major issues. <<<

Sounds like bashing to me. I have XP installed and it runs all of my programs perfectly. I do not play games as I leave that to the children.

</FONT>

 

[johnlog]

You can turn off many of the things you dislike in XP. Open a few menus and check it out. You can set it to look like Win98 if that makes you happy.

 

[OracleMan]

OSX is a better version of XP. Apple make their OSX GUI in form of aqua. Microsoft saw OH! it looks nice, let do some make up on our Windows XP. let's make it more colorful! Sure Windows may capture market share but only for desktop!

When you need warehouse server, what do you run? Solaris! HPUX! IBM AIX!
When graphics professional work, what do they run? Apple OSX or SGI!
Pharmaceuticals, what do they run? Apple OSX.

OSX and SGI process graphic much better!

anyways what do I know I use windows too! browse internet of course.

 

[mee987]

the problem with all of the non-MS OS's like osx and linux is that all new games are released for windows

 

[Nothinman]

Sounds like bashing to me. I have XP installed and it runs all of my programs perfectly. I do not play games as I leave that to the children

If you had a clue, you'd realize I wasn't bashing XP. XP and the whole line of NT OSes are decent, I was taking a jab at the fact that you seem to come from running Win9X and are amazed at how stable XP is compared to it.