bvc Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 funny, I had win2k running for 6 mths b4 it's first and only crash......that blows any linux I've ever had away. Currently have xp and it rebooted itself twice...that all. Updates? I d/k anything about doing it without my consent....I have control of mine....most haven't a clue. I can get them and be done with in an hour, so it sounds like we have an end user issue with your friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexpank Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I must admit too that I have had problems with Mdk -- it is MDK9.0, but that shouldn't matter so much -- that I never had with Windows. Sure, this could be something to do with the way that my system is set up and the fact that I'm still new to Linux and probably haven't done a lot of things I should have, but this doesn't explain everything. Yes, I have had a better experience with MDK as far as tinkering goes (I just about killed the other computer running WinME through little more than installing stuff, updating it when a new version came out and uninstalling it when I didn't use it any more), but Windows isn't as black as it is painted. I'm sure that if you're just the average schmo who doesn't ever install any new programs, or update anything, or use the internet, or need to connect to a network, you'd be just fine. :P Linux still kicks Windows' butt. I'm just saying that Windows isn't a complete basket case ;) BTW, I still think Microsoft's business practices stink, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ral Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 funny, I had win2k running for 6 mths b4 it's first and only crash...... Yup, Windows 2000 is a pretty good OS. I don't remember it crashing the year I had it installed. Why I upgraded to XP, I will never know (since the only impovements I have noticed are graphical). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 Win2K was probably the best OS MS will ever have come up with. They are already on their way down IMHO.... XP is ... well XP.. using it makes me feel dirty. .... I have to use it at work and it stinks. Win2K was fairly stable, I seem to remember multi-month uptimes... however bvc if you cant keep a linux box going for 6 months sometihng is wrong with the hardware. Linux is hardly the most stable OS compared to BSD or Solaris/AIX but 6 months should be a no brainer. Unless of course you use the nvidia driver.... It amuses me the number of people who think the nvidia driver is stable and have uptimes < 1 month. How would they know ??? XP is not an OS its a virus ...or perhaops trojan it affects everything.. it wrecks your PC after changing it unless you let MS search your PC again... and stability is down over Win2K Its full of security holes BUT unlike Linux you cant get the source so your forced to use patches from MS or suffer the vulnerabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 Yup, Windows 2000 is a pretty good OS. I don't remember it crashing the year I had it installed. its the best of the MS operating systems that I have used (except XP which i havent tried yet and dont have plans to in the near future). As for crashing, i have experienced it a few times since I push it to the limit as I am into development support. but the crashing is far in between. most of the time it has just slowed to the speed of blazing molasses and i have no other option than to reboot it. quite frequently i have to reach for the power button as it stops responding completely. now anybody know how to implement in linux the feature that when i press the power button for a few minutes then the operating starts shutting down gracefully? i am currently using a dell optiplex here at work. ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitor Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 cracks me up when ppl compare a 2004 OS to a 1998 OS Duh?? Of course people do that. Often Linux is the only legal choice against an old Winbloze people have. Either their HW is not heavy enough or the finances are not there for a purchase of a new version. So this choice is reality for those people. Linux they can get without problems the newest and greatest. On Winbloze they are stuck with the preïnstalled version from years ago. In what way this comparison would not be fair then? Ciao, Sitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 cracks me up when ppl compare a 2004 OS to a 1998 OS In what way this comparison would not be fair then? Ciao, Sitor Install a linux from 1998, wait....no, 2001 and it'll be painfully obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 2001... that would be Mandrake 8.1-8.2 ....RH 7.1 (we might forget 7.0) So where is the comparison .... which mail server does Win2k have ??? can i get another free http server except IIS ? etc. etc. I had a win2k server back then but used it mainly for scanning and a coupe of MS specific progs. Since then windows has got worse and worse.... in every conceivable way except prettyness. Like Ramfree says, its not just forced crashes its that damned registry growing and 1001 other things that a heavily used machine accumualtes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 Actually, I was more thinking about Mandrake-7.2.....8.2 was 2002 (could be wrong, who cares?) If you don't see the obvious comparison I don't think you can be helped I wouldn't race any type of 98 race car with a 2004, would you? <yes sir, I need another engine for my car....got anything built in 1998?> Yes, I'm comparing......If you don't see the obvio........ I did it. Sorry, didn't fly...half the hardware didn't work, and I mean chipsets etc....It could run 98, ME, and 2k but not ML-7.2. It now happily runs ML-10 only....no win's. I also can NOT run 'any' linux on a 1997 box at work, but it'll run 95, 98 and 2k. 2k is wonderful on it. In an attempt to discuss desktops I won't touch the server issue....pointless anyway....but since we're in OT you can if you want.... ....and free? Please don't mention the most damaging aspect of OpenSource. I know someone will ask but I won't answer coz again, it's obvious and there ten threads about it....go read them if you like. I don't see everyones beef with xp....I was deceived for a long time by everyones judgement, or lack of it. Seems to be a great improvement over 2k for me.....I really like it. In all my statements I'm generalizing. Is everyone else? It's no different than going from ML-9.0 to 9.2 or 9.2 to 10 and having loads of problems and it seeming like 2 completely different distros. Hardware is hardware, os's are os's, and the kernel is the kernel whether win or lin, lin more than win, IMO/experience, which is all I can go by. The article itself is disturbing to me and is like all others I've read along the same lines. How come we don't get to see her install the digital camera, scanner, nvidia and whatever else drivers and upgrade the kernel, sheesh... edit the bootloader or fstab after upgrading the kernel becasue of updates? You can say the there are control centers for this but why are we here? Because they always work? Because no one ever needs to go to console, init 1, or rescue mode and fix stuff? How about editing a pic and printing it so not to use 3x the expensive photopaper than should be necessary? BTW, my wife 'can' do all these things in linux including install it, which is the easy part.....but guess what? She uses windows. Reasons should be obvious, otherwise you are decieving yourselves. Read this board lately? Anyone can install linux, but how many can or more importantly 'will' run linux? :bvc: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 bvc... could be that you had more experience getting windows to work.... at the time. I remember vividly, I was in Norway at the time and had my win2k box and RH6.0 .... (and actually Solaris 7 for intel) It was a bitch getting everything working but .... after recompiling a kernel for the chipsets it did work. Once it worked I ran Oracle 8i as soon as it was released on linux. The win2K box was fine. BUT It would have cost a small fortune to buy photoshop/office etc. Granted GIMP wsnt quite so good then and OO didnt exist :D but Hardware is hardware, os's are os's, and the kernel is the kernel whether win or lin, lin more than win, IMO/experience, which is all I can go by. Except Linux kernel doesnt inclde XFREE and KDE/Gnome... Thats a BIG difference... However the biggest difference to me is illustrated by looking at Win98 and XP compared to the Linux of then and now. But I also remember in 95 buying win95 and running in SAFEMODE for 6 months... on my shiny P90 :D If this had been linux I could have compiled it myself. And its the SAME TODAY.. Look at AMD64 or even INTEL. WinBlows still dont have a verson wheras MDK, SUSE etc. already do and if you want you can always build it yourself anyway ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarissi Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I run Linux for all of my Internet. That includes email. What I do in Windows, there is no Linux equivalent for. Poser from Curious Labs is a very good example of this. See www.curiouslabs.com for more information on this program. Sure there are 3D CGI Modeling apps for Linux. Wings 3D is a good one. Then there are the Studio Grade 3D CGI apps like Maya 5 (Complete and Unlimited), Houdini, and a few others. However, those are hugely expensive. Unless there is something like Poser for Linux, I am basically stuck in Windows for that. Windows games, I will play in Windows. Unlike many, My Win98SE is totally stable. It helps to run it on good hardware. I guess the same is true for any OS and/or software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 (edited) bvc... could be that you had more experience getting windows to work.... at the time. Uh..yeah!...I didn't have to do anything but make it secure, which is how it has always been for me. Like Sarissi, 98se has always been very stable in comparison to what others claim, maybe one crash every 2 weeks? I can alsmost say the same for ML-10-CE after the updates....All I have to do is install nvidia, which I can almost do in my sleep, wait....that IS how I do it (I need to start getting more than 4 hrs a night). But this isn't about someone like me, it's about newbies. Why are you talking about compiling kernels and 64bit arch's? I thought the article was about an easy desktop? :unsure: I've never had to get win to work....it always has. Click Click Click Click Click done. Edited May 4, 2004 by bvc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ral Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I don't see everyones beef with xp.... Well you have a point. It is much more stable than 95, 98, 98SE or ME. It is not to far from Win2K as near as I can tell. As a long time 98SE user, Win2K seems more familiar to me. If you are not into PC's, WinXP would reallty be a great help for you. It is very user friendly. That is something that I don't appreciate much, but something I acknowledge is important. If you have been using a PC for a long time... WinXP runs fast enough and is pretty stable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I don't see everyones beef with xp.... Well you have a point. It is much more stable than 95, 98, 98SE or ME. It is not to far from Win2K as near as I can tell. As a long time 98SE user, Win2K seems more familiar to me. If you are not into PC's, WinXP would reallty be a great help for you. It is very user friendly. That is something that I don't appreciate much, but something I acknowledge is important. If you have been using a PC for a long time... WinXP runs fast enough and is pretty stable. WinXP is good enough... until you start to demand more from an OS :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I don't see everyones beef with xp.... Well you have a point. It is much more stable than 95, 98, 98SE or ME. It is not to far from Win2K as near as I can tell. As a long time 98SE user, Win2K seems more familiar to me. If you are not into PC's, WinXP would reallty be a great help for you. It is very user friendly. That is something that I don't appreciate much, but something I acknowledge is important. If you have been using a PC for a long time... WinXP runs fast enough and is pretty stable. WinXP is good enough... until you start to demand more from an OS :P such as? (desktop) :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.