Originally Posted by alphonsus
Originally Posted by alphonsus
Interesting to find this thead. I just wrote a little tidbit about 'Windows Vs. Linux' this morning.
HaHa nice example but if you were smart you would have used a better example because photographs can be displayed thru a web browser heheQuote:
Originally Posted by sumit_b
I used Windows XP on my Epia M, but it was before I truyed to run Windows 2000 on it. After that it will be only Win 2K on my CarPuter.
Linux is a great OS but only for Servers. I have used linux in 8 years now, but it is still an OS for Servers.
I know that many of you guys are using Linux as Desctop OS but, but no it is still the Best Server OS. :)
I am not starting Linux vs. Windows discussion!
Just saying what I mean.
But you have to agree that Windows has the best Use Interface of all OSes.. :)
Linux is perfect for uber-geek-man. I happen to like it, but you're right. It's a server OS that wants to be a desktop. It certainly has a little trouble fitting into the carPC field. While it can work some crazy cool stuff, I feel it's a little too complex to mess with for portability. When I need a server that won't crash and can't be hacked, I will have Linux/Apache take it on. When I want multimedia, I will be asking Windows to please stand up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose
(Although there are some sweet and free apps out there that are perfect for DJs and radio show hosts for Linux...)
OOohhh... harsh! Stability is in the eye of the user! I've been running XP since about two months before it came out (thanks MSDN!) and have never had an "unexpected" crash with it. I say unexpected because there have been times that I intentionally made it go down, just to see what it took. Linux is simply beautiful, but I myself consider it a server OS because it takes so much time and effort to get it "just so." Once you get it the way you like it, it's best to just walk away and let it do its thing. THAT'S a server!Quote:
Originally Posted by psyclobe
Me, I want a desktop that's as flexible as it can get while maintaining as much stability as possible. Microsoft may have some really crappy business practices, but I will use XP just the same. Playing Unreal Tournament is much easier when all I have to do is double click the icon to install, rather than going through the hassle to install WINE, and then.... oh wait.. I'm missing a package dependency... well lemme go get that then.... crap! There's another one I need! I just want to get WINE working people!!! Wait. Wasn't I doing something else a couple hours ago? Something about a game.......?
It's not about being a stupid (or even lazy) user. It's just that I would rather spend time USING the OS than screwing around under the hood. There are tweakers and there are mechanics. I don't just tune the carb to make it sound better. I want to DRIVE THAT BASTARD TOO! Heheheheeheheh...
Well sure, it sounds better, but will it feed my ferrets now?
Heh, the reason I switched from XP to linux was I got tired of fixing it all the time. The weekly updates from microsoft (after installing them on a few hundred servers at work even with automated tools), the stupid web sites changing my home page, runnign ad-aware nightly to clean crap up. I spent more time working on my xp box that using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by deadweasel
IMHO I've NEVER had a stable ME machine. Had great results with 2000 when running it, but had a few harware/irq conflicts with it. I run XP scaled down to only the services I need and get a boot in about 30 seconds, which is good enough for me. I think most people just use what they're more familiar with, or whatever LEGAL version of OS they can get their hands on easily. Cuz I know nobody in their right mind would pirate software... :-"
Originally Posted by Jackso
XP is the most stable version of Windows out there. If you don't install third-party drivers, blue screens and crashes are virtually non-existent. It's the drivers that destabilize things. If a driver is not certified and you want stability, don't install it. For example ATI has very few certified drivers. Why? Because they were unable to pass the certification tests because they are buggy crap. And yet people still install them and then when their system blue screens, they blame XP.
Of course, from the user's point of view, it's hard to see why this is. But try it sometime... don't install any new or third-party drivers and see the difference.
The only complaint I have is the memory footprint of XP, which is pretty big. And to address the Linux person who said that they switched from XP to Linux because they had to do less patching: Linux has security and bug patches too, most people just don't apply them (or even know where to get them!). It's the same story, different pile.
Funny. All my Debian and Gentoo head friends spend more time making their machines work then I ever do with 2k or XP (I have heard "****! Where did my kernel go?" on more then one occation). I guess it depends on your distro and what you're used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugenen
apt-get is a wonderfull thing.
What kind of system do you have that would get system resource confilcts? I haven't seen a single resource conflict on any windows machine since everything became PnP.