Thread: Why does it seem like everyone uses WinXP?

Originally Posted by jasonsp6

The main problem is that there are no vector based GPS programs that run on linux out there... Any maps must be downloaded in sections
(as images) from maquest in very small areas at a time. And because they are just images, we can't do any navigation, just display a moving map.

Does this already exsist?

Theres one (at least). Commercial, but cheap. With vector maps of Europe.
The page is in Czech but I believe you can find english mutation elsewhere. At least program itself offers 4 different languages and speech synthesys support for CZ, EN, DE, FR.
It exists for both Win32 and Linux.

check it out: http://www.mapfactor.cz/navigator.htm
you can download demo here: http://www.mapfactor.cz/download.htm

Originally Posted by shakes

yeah ... waht's up with mac running a linux core now? gives me a whole new respect for them.

Just thought I should set the record straight, Max OS X doesn't have a linux core, it run's Darwin, which in turn uses big portions of FreeBSD 4.x and 5. See http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/ for more info.

My next version of my Car PC will be Linux based, although I'm a FreeBSD and Windows 2000 and Solaris systems admin by trade.

Why though? Windows 2000 and Windows XP are by far reliable enough, if your hardware is up to scratch and your OS is configured correctly they will *never* crash, or at least crash as little as any Unix-like OS. That is fact, and have figures to prove it from the systems I run on a large, busy network.

The reasons I want to move to Linux is as follows:

• Framebuffer Console - Why have a 'WIMP' ui such as X or Win32 desktop when you aren't using a mouse?

• Easy to develop on - It's much easier to mix all kinds of scripting languages such as perl, bash scripts, even CLI php scripts which can run behind your UI, whenever you want

• Easier to remove the crap, and keep the crap out - Both WinNT 5,5.1 and Linux are half server, even in the WinNT desktop forms. It's easy enough to stop some stuff on both, but on Linux you don't need to install it in the first place.

Now of course you can do most of the above on WinNT, even any scripting purposes, using Windows Services for Unix it's not great for Car PC unless you want them slowing down a little.

So as soon as someone makes a decent GPS app like Destinator (with it's own API etc), I'll be able to move over and have a decent Car PC. In fact I have moved over, it's just useless in the car at the moment. It's by my desk occasionally switched on as kitt.aston.ac.uk

The main reason for the Linux was to have a faster boot. But that could be fixed with windows if you delete all their bloat-ware and make some changes.

But the other reason I liked it was that I could turn it off without a shutdown controller and it would not need to run scan disk or get corrupted after.

I think windows XP is OK, but It works little slowon EpiaM.

Windows ME is fast, and does not use many ressourses to run.

I use win2k. This proved to be most stable for me and like everyone else, I like being able to use my carputer for GPS navigation. Linux takes a lot of fumbeling around to get it to where it works great and to find the programs you want to use. There is just more selection and support for windows. Let's face it Microsoft has us by the balls

Windows 98 for me. It's relatively small, and if I don't need IE (which I don't at the moment), I can use 98Lite to shrink that puppy down and goose the boot times to 10-15 seconds. I'm not kidding. What most people don't stop to think about is that EVERY windows installation can be gimped by installing/uninstalling/re-installing programs from all corners of the globe, from developers as big as M$ themselves, right down to Joe Schmoe. Drivers and dlls start coming into the mix, and the registry gets hacked to holy high heaven. THAT's what causes instability for any user, its just that XP handles memory better than ANY other version, including 2000, which I can bring to its knees with just a few programs running simultaneously.

On my installation, I have the obligatory WMP, Winamp, and the VB frontend code I'm working on. So far, in the two years that the system has been in operation, I have NEVER experienced a crash of any sort. Fragmentation was negligible after a year of use, due to the fact that I'm not constantly adding and removing stuff from the drive. I do a bi-annual checkup on the machine, connected to the home PCs, and it turns out nearly perfect everytime.

98 might suck as a desktop OS compared to Linux or XP, but it makes for a great base OS for carPCs. There are three rules to portable computing that all users should adhere to if they want their OS of choice to be a good kid:

1) Install only the apps you require for what you will need on the go, and stick with them. Don't pull things off or keep adding apps just because, and if you're doing it for testing, be prepared to reformat and reinstall from scratch for the final use.

2) Never fill your drive nearly to capacity. This goes for Win and *nix users. Every OS needs extra space for it's swapfile to grow to simulate more memory as needed. This is especially important for folks running videos and GPS systems.

3) Use the OS with which you are most comfortable, and hear it sing your praises when you use it practically. No point in banging your head into brick walls with Linux when you know Windows, and all for the sake of a couple few seconds of saved boot time. Don't be the guy yelling at the microwave for taking 15 minutes to cook your turkey instead of 10.

/end rant

I like to use WindowsXP for two reasons:

* It has GPS software that works well
* It annoys people that think I should be using Linux

I'm for win98SE. I never have to worry about the OS or anything getting corrupted when I ungracefully cut the power to the mobo.

I see a lot of threads in the power supply forum about having special sequencer circuitry for gracefully shutting the system down.....why bother, just kill the juice when your done using the puter.

KISS.

Can anyone tell me if win2000 or XP will tolerate hundreds of ungraceful shutdowns?

Originally Posted by cyjad

Can anyone tell me if win2000 or XP will tolerate hundreds of ungraceful shutdowns?

XP certainly does! But 98??