Windows 98 was the old shit 16 bit windows, and utterly different to Win2K and XP. Win2K was the next version of NT. XP was when they took NT into the consumer line. As such XP was far better than 98, but not necessarily much better than 2K.
And that's the problem with every Linux build I've ever played with. I have a medium-high to high knowledge of computers and software, and I know how to locate the information I need to get something under Linux to work. However, that doesn't mean that I enjoy being forced to scour the net to find drivers that MIGHT make a certain peripheral work properly.
The average person will have no idea how to make anything work in a Linux build. Linux appeals to the computer geeks of the world, not to the average computer owner. (And no, there's nothing wrong with being a computer geek, as obviously I'm posting in USENET...so that's geekiness right there!).
And if it gets user-friendly enough to be used by "normal" people en masse, than it will become just as large a target of malware as Windows.
Linux offers me absolutely no advantage over Windows for the way *I* use my computer. Your mileage may vary. :)
I'll have to ask you the same thing you asked him... How on Earth do you make Windows crash every two days? My XP desktop at work has crashed exactly three times on me in three years. I've left it up and running for weeks at a time (to the annoyance of the IT department) with no reboots, intentional or otherwise.
At home, I have left my Win7 desktop and its Win2003 predecessor on for months at a time, rebooting only for the occasional hardware upgrade or security update. And that's using it as a networked music and movie server (before the term HTPC came into vogue).
I've never had a random crash occur that I couldn't trace back to faulty hardware (not the OS' fault) or misbehaving 3rd party software (main culprits are games and drivers).
I take that back... I have had an occasional Windows crash that wasn't necessarily the fault of 3rd party software... and that's when I'm maxing out my hardware's ability to keep up with my demands, and I start task switching. However, with my new build in which my x4 processor cost $90, my 4GB of 1066MHz RAM gost $47, my 1GB GPU cost $140, resources really aren't a concern, no matter what OS you choose to run.
As for reinstalling Windows... if you're doing it every two months, you're doing something beyond "normal" use of a computer. My 2003 installation was perfectly sound for over 5 years. I reinstalled twice because I upgraded motherboards.
Really, about the only think I prefer in Linux over Windows is the font rendering. Linux really does tend to be less straining on the eyes. That's not quite enough for me to give up many of my applications that don't have a Linux flavor.
But then, its what works for me. I'd never force my OS on anyone that doesn't want it. Except for the Mac. Can't stand it. I'm still biased from back in the day when they copied their GUI from the Commodore Amiga OS. Now THOSE were the days when you had a REAL choice of OS's!
I'm not so sure - I use win2k in a VM when I *have* to have Windows for something; it seems to be able as stable as Windows ever gets. My experiences of XP gave me the impression that it's really just win2k with a bunch of bloat and eye-candy thrown into the pot* - in other words it doesn't really offer any addtional benefit, and just "looks more pretty".
cheers
Jules
XP with SP2 is significantly more secure than any version of W2K. If your VM is connecting to the Internet I would recommend upgrading.
No, it's not - no way would I use any MS product with a direct 'net connection. :-)
Mmm.... not sure...
Win 3.x was bad, and '95 was based on it. And on MS-DOS, under the hood. 95 was developed into '98, which was.... OK, for a crude, unprotected, not properly multi-tasking OS. ME was a pile of ****.
The other side of the tree - Windows NT was solid as anything, and got better from 3.1 to 3.5 to 3.51. Then Win2000 put the '9x-family GUI on the top, and wrecked the stability. XP took a lot of the bugs out, and isn't too bad. Vista was all bells and whistles, and trying to protect you, and I find just gets in my way. Not too badly, and to be fair it's _way_ better that 2000, never mind ME. Though bear in mind I'm running it on a machine with two quad-core Xeons and 8gigs, so it ought to feel OK. But I've seen no real reason to go with Vista - it's just what the box came with.
Win7 I've only tried on a laptop. It feels pretty good - less of the silly prompt stuff than Vista, and seems to work better than XP. Certainly the wireless behaves better.
I've only really messed with Linux on the kind of marginal hardware that doesn't really run Windoze well. Ubuntu usually. And it doesn't run any better.
Andy
The default window manager in Ubuntu is Gnome. It's as much of a resource hog as its Windows equivalent. With Linux you do have the option of switching to a lightweight window manager which will run faster. If all you want to do is a little web browsing and word-processing that would be quite good enough. Linux is capable of doing useful work with limited hardware, but you do need to tweak the configuration.
You forgot NT4, which is where the 9x GUI came in.
We've got several Win2K servers which are having to be replaced now because of removal of support in about June - they've just sat there working fine for years.
About right that..
Remember ME;?..
Then there was Vista;(((((((( ..............
I tried ubuntu briefly, but really didn't like it - far too bloated. I went back to slackware (which is what I've typically run for as long as it's existed), but unfortunately the latest incarnation of KDE that comes with v13 seems to drag it down just as much as Gnome was doing on ubuntu...
"progress" I think they call it...
cheers
Jules
No, it was about 10% as solid as Unix, but 5 times solider than 98..
and got
Doesn't run any better?
Christ how on earth do you manage to make it crash every day?
The LONGEST I have had windows running is about 2 days. My Linux is dictated generally by the time between kernel upgrades, or a power cut, whichever is the sooner. That's the only time it ever gets rebooted. Unless I mess up its config and screw it beyond immediate redemption.
And it has never messed up so bad it needed reinstallation, except with definite terminal hardware problems.
Rssntalling windows is a two monthly exercise for most of my friends who use it as a desktop.
I woouldn;t know about that. BUT running the two on the same machione,simultaneously, the windows uses about 5 times the CPU to do the same thing, according to the monitor.
Neither use excessive RAM. And its cheap enough.
Window managers don't actually do very much more than manage windows..I cant really see what speed has to do with it.
I want speed in the programs. I dont give a shit about how fast the windows move.
If all you want to do is a little web browsing and
Normally, you dont.
Its faster stabler and better looking out of the box than windows.
The only downside is that windows programs and some peripherals don't run on it. Otherwise apart from being less plug'n'play its better in every respect.
>
Thats Yuppie flu innit?
Normally there is zero need.
The only problem I had here was my scanner, which simply wasn't supported period.
My wife now has it, and I bought a cheapo off ebay that was.
Linux appeals to the computer geeks of the world, not to
Not these days mate. Its come a long way.
(And no, there's nothing wrong with being a
Indeed, but its a tiugher nut to crack to start with. Prescisely because each distro is different enough to make one virus niot work etc..
For me the reverse is true.
memory leaks usually.
Especially kernel memory leaks.
Its littered with them itself, and the applications often are, and windows up to XP - which is as far as I have bothered to go - doesn't always free the crap up if a program that is locked up is forcibly 'dumped' - if indeed it will forcibly dump.
With Linux, a force quit generally works for a stuffed memory map, or at the worst a reload of the desktop. Memory leaks are by and large less prevalent and much better handled.
Which is because linux always was a reliable chassis with a rather poor dashboard glued on, whereas windows always was a sexy dashboard running on an unreliable chassis.
It depends on what you run. I run two programs on my XP virtualBox setup only, maybe three. Rhino CAD, Corel Draw and occasionally photopaint when the Gimp wont cut the mustard. All have severe memory problems and dont handle them well. Or can get into almost infinite loops of high CPU activity when asked to do 'difficult' transformations on vector or NURBS maps.
Everything else is handled by Linux, thank god.
yeah, fair enough except its they way things happen when that faulty software gets involved. Windows is dead meat. Linux you an usually just kill the process, without rebooting.
Faulty hardware will kill anything, so theres no advantage anywhere, unless teh slew of error messages that Linux produces is t a good sign that something is wrong..
Thats about what I have here, and with zero cost for Windows as well.
But sure I can max out the twin core CPUs. On Rhino its a piece of cake. Just try and get it to merge two solids that are almost exactly coincident..thats inside windows of course..
I don't reinstall windows anymore, because its in a virtual box. I just revert to last working snapshot. Triffic. I have to say it was rare for me to do it anyway when I used it as a desktop - my 98 ran for a long time..it juts got slower and slower..
The only thing I prefer in windows, is the fact it runs two apps I cant do without and cant get on Linux.
Ive used a mac as a desktop. And set a few up. Wife has one. OSX is largely indistinguishable from Linux, at the user level, but program installation is a shade easier, and its overall slicker graphics wise: Deeper its a bitch to fix problems on. Often needs a reboot when its font caches get mangled.
And being as it only runs on Apple hardware (easily) there is a far narrower range of hardware to support, so mostly it 'just works'
Definitely the OS of choice for people who want as little to do with computers as possible.
And can afford the price.
It's not as simple as that.
I'm a real computer geek and Linux just won't do the things I'm used to doing in Windows - not so much because of Linux itself, but because of the applications available for it.
My wife's more like a normal user and with the applications she uses she would hardly notice the difference.
One of my daughters managed a Linux install recently with no problems. Seems its getting easier..
What version were you using?, we have a couple of old machines that run WIN 2000 and they are up months at a time!....
Why?...
Well -make- it that way, keeps yer in a job doesn't it;?..
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.