"Usability Study" crap like is also a good laugh of a read. The "usability" of Windows is essentially UNchanged since Windows 3.0. You still use the mouse, you still use the keyboard, you can still set up shortcuts (icons and keystrokes), you still double- or single-click stuff, you still click-and-drag, you still have menus, windows can still overlap, voice-command and text-to-speech has been around before, etc. etc. etc.! Just because XP introduced some new UI tricks and flashy colors does not affect "usability" any more than usual, does it? I mean come on already. Windows is still Windows!!!

So I wonder what all the lawyer types think about a law suite against Microsoft Asking for a $1000.00 or so "privately owned hardware charge" for using ones privately owned computer to generate their windows activation key? After all, they expect to be paid when we use their software so we should get something for them using our hardware to protect their product.

Such grandiose rediculousity!

I don't know whether any of you have read the December 2001 edition of Computer Shopper, but there are a couple of pages slagging off the bugs in IE6. I have an AMD Athlon 1400MHz on an Asus A7A266 motherboard, with 512MB RAM, a 60GB HD, and a GeForce3 video card, all using the latest drivers. I run Win98SE, and had an incredibly stable system until I installed IE6. I run Dr. Watson in the system tray, so that when the computer crashes, it tells me whether something had clobbered the memory space of another app. In every case where I ran IE6, Dr. Watson would report that the system got a video driver clobbered in memory. Eventually, the system would become so unstable, that all the applications running would crash one by one. I have since reverted to IE5.5 SP2, although I am tempted to go to Netscape 6.2. I have had no problems since, and Dr. Watson reports everything is fine. Now, I was not convinced that IE6 was at fault until I tried it on my work PC. This is a Pentium III 450MHz with 128MB RAM and a 13GB HD, with S3 graphics (crap!). Again, putting Dr. Watson in the system tray at startup, I loaded up IE6, and got the same kind of message, that memory was being clobbered in the video driver memory space. Back to IE5.5 SP2 and all is now well. If IE6 is going out on all XP machines, there are going to be a lot of distraught users out there who aren't going to be very happy with Microsoft's inability to bring out anything that's bug-free. They must have rushed this one out, though, because their own debug tool (Dr. Watson) reports problems with IE6 ! Must have been the Netscape pressure. Also, check out the default XP raw sockets settings. For the home user they leave the back door wide open! Take a look at http://www.mjwizard.co.uk/forum.htm#xpsec

Mark Jacobs
mj@mjwizard.co.uk
http://www.mjwizard.co.uk

Have you tried running IE6 without Dr Watson running? Could be something like I have seen with "FirstAid"- everything is fine until FirstAid was running, then it said WordPerfect was gonna crash, wanted to fix it, then I could not run WordPerfect again. No matter things ran great BEFORE I put FirstAid in...dunno, just an idea. I have seen no problems with IE6, althought I have seen PLENTY with Netscape 6.0. I am to "chicken" to try Netscape 6.2, expecially on my store system.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Have you ever given though to maybe it just happening to you or as jamwheat said as a result of Dr. Watson? I have IE6 installed on my PC at home (98 and 2000) and at work (NT and 2000) and haven't had a single problem with it, and neither have most people especially not to the extent that you talk about.
And yes, those evil Raw Sockets....it'll be the end of the world! Planes will fall out of the sky! Oh hang on, that was Y2K.

Thats funny, I run Win98SE with IE 6.0 and have NO problems whatsoever. Maybe thats because I don't run beta hardware(AMD)? Dual P2-350's with 392 Megs RAM run that setup just fine and my hardware is weak by today's standards. Still, weak Intel setups are better than strong AMD setups.

Ya know, sometimes your comments make me think you are paid to make them. :-P hahahaha

LOL. if that was the case, I'd be rich by now :)

Another thing, IE 6.0 was not even designed for use with Win9X. They only ported it over towards the end of the beta. IE 6.0 works just fine with XP.

hahahaha I think we need an irc channel or something.. LOL!

(In best macho voice) *I'll put my AMD Thunderbird against your Intel anyday!!"
Hehehe...That's up to you if you don't like AMD. I rather enjoy my AMD!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Hi Compdoc,

I think you've got things backward. If you want to talk about beta hardware talk about Intel P4. At the moment AMD is doing all the right things concerning 32 bit CPU architecture.

Well if you guys would use it, I'm sure something can be arranged :) At least until we get the new talkback/forum code complete.

I'd use it heh heh

yeah then i can laugh at fewts ever increasing insanity in real time :)

LOL!!!!!!!

Fred! How ya been? Good to see you posting again :)

Linux will then be mashed into dust. It's already well on it's way with Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server and Windows XP 32 and 64 bit versions.

Wow, and you said *I* was bias LOL! What was amazon.com thinking migrating all of their unix servers to Linux! I should rush out, buy XP and install it on every computer I see!

I'm curious...although saying that .NET Datacenter will mash Linux into dust is an unbelievable naive comment...what the hell does amazon.com have to do with anything? Who cares what amazon.com do? Maybe they are migrating to Linux because they're trying to make a profit for once!

It was in attempt to show that Linux is no where near dead ;-) Unfortunately my sarcasm /sarcasm tags didn't show up haha

This is for those of you who say XP is merely Win2k w/ a pretty interface (or fisher price, depending on who you talk to).

http://msdn.microsoft.co...2/XPKernel/XPKernel.asp

crayola? :-P haha

No Sh** XP was really fixing a lot of speed issues that win2k had. Unfortunately MS doesnt support AMD proccessors, so where speeds are reported diffrent look at what benchmark machines they are using.

What are you talking about, MS supports AMD processors.

Now, there are more optimizations for Intel processors, but MS still supports them, and even has optimizations for them.

Go to tomshardwareguide.com and check out the new benchmarks between Intel P4 and AMDXP CPUs, all tested on systems running WINDOWS XP

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

(I wanted to start a new thread up here since people don't read all the way down.)
I'm the typical guy that works with both OS'es where I see fit. I've learned to see the good and bad with most OS'es.
(I don't have a good workstation until it's Win2k/XP with an X-Server running.)

Well, anyways. My experience tells me, that what is better with Windows compared to Linux (as of now) is: Multimedia, Browser, More Games/Office Applications
And Linux compared to Windows: Requires less hardware resources, lowers TCO (costs about 1/5 to setup, compared to windows), is more stable, has more developed server services, has a more configurable optional GUI, better integration between applications.

I'd like you all to think again. Pure Windows-users, why does Linux "suck" ? Have you tried it? Have you compared the systems?

And Linux praisers, if you were to work as a sysadmin, how would you tell the boss that Linux is better? Do you think anyone could administer routine stuff on that server?

Sure, I love Linux. So much you can't do in Windows.
But I also like Windows. I can't be without its browser and multimedia support.

And as I final note.. I have never heard about anyone that learned linux good, forgot about it, and went back to Windows.. ?

Can the "mighty" Linux provide SMP with anything close to Windows 2000 Advanced Server which supports up to eight-way SMP? Can it EVER, in it's WILDEST dreams, support up to 32-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) and up to 64 gigabytes (GB) of physical memory like Windows 2000 Datacenter Server?! And you think that these OS'S are toys??!!

Tell me, can Windows run 65,000 simultaneous sessions on an OS/390? LOL scale to 8 procs, that's a no brainer :-P

Windows: "Multimedia, Browser, More Games/Office Applications"

I have to agree with you concerning Games and Office applications. That is changing, but not as fast as I would like to see it. As far as Multimedia, and Browsing I think the playing field is pretty level. There isn't much that I can't do with Netscape that I can with IE. Now that NS 6.2 is out, it is that much better. I have yet to find a video that I can't play too. ( Some references: http://mplayer.sourceforge.net and http://xine.sourceforge.net )

Linux: "Requires less hardware resources, lowers TCO (costs about 1/5 to setup, compared to windows), is more stable, has more developed server services, has a more configurable optional GUI, better integration between applications."

I agree almost completely. The only exception that I would make is that the integration between server applications is better on Linux than Windows, and the integration between desktop applications is better on Windows than Linux.

yeah, my bad LOL I ment S/390

I've used every version of windows since 3.11, and have also used slackware since I *believe* slackware '95 was what it was called...came bundled with a big-ass book, and that was in mid-1995. Last release I used was 8.0. I suppose the only way someone can truely say one or the other "sucks" is to use both of them, over a long term basis. For many -many- years I dual-booted between the two, and still, to a certain degree, I feel that's the only way someone can truly get the most out of their system these days. I love linux, only problem is, that not being in an IT field, and not being a sysadmin in any way, shape or form, there was really very few compelling reasons for me to have it on my system. However, when I get a second HD in a month or so, I do plan on going back to a dual boot XP Pro/Slackware 8 setup, just for giggles...(and please, don't give me opinions on partition schemes, it's a personal preference; i don't like two operating systems on one physical disk, i'm just anal that way.) Anyways, I think before anyone slams *anything*, they should base their opinions on cold, hard -personal- facts, not the blatherings of others. You wanna slam XP? Use it for a month, exclusively...same as with Linux. Then decide what -you- need.

I don't think that Linux sucks and by saying so is lame! Quite the opposite I think that Linux is a fine OS. However, it has its shortcomings (which you can address yourself as the list varies from person to person).
Windows donesn't "suck" either and saying so limits any point one is trying to make. I know why I choose to use Windows (which also has shortcomings).
I think the reason that some people hate that others use Windows has less to do with the merits of each OS and more to do with ideology. An ideology that says that using MS products means that you are weak and buy into Microsofts "corprate plan". This back lash aganist MS is (I beleive) fostered in Liberal Arts Universities; who's teachers have extream socialist, left wing agendas ( I went to such a University). These indivduals beleive that any company as profitable and huge as MS MUST be corrupt and that any open and free OS will somehow make the world a better place. The back-lash is also partly Microsofts fault too. MS should have dumped DOS seven years ago but they didn't so live with it. Microsoft as a company over-hypes their product but, what company doesn't?
Until someone markets a viable Unix computer that anyone can use for anything that they want (and I'm not going to hold my breath) Windows will be the OS of choice for most people and not beacause Linux sucks but because Windows doesn't!
(now if you are smart you can figure out that last sentence

You didn't answer any of the questions...

n/m the same question has been asked several times.

Don't ya love when the questions are ignored?

Please note the subject "Windows vs. Linux"

I did answer them, several times infact. You also posted them in the other news article remember? :-P

I don't get the point of testing XP on new computer users, like your average new computer user even knows the difference between 98 and xp? I don't think so, and even if that were the case, would those of us who can perform the challanging task for opening notepad pay them any attention? I didn't get past page 2 personally.

After reading all the posts I laughed like I never done before. I tested Beta XP and all I have to say is paying all the money and then having to have to either replace my software or wait until the companies update drivers I will just wait as XP to me is not worth the money. Guess I have my win 98SE tweaked so well I have not crashed in over a year plus keep everything updated which matters a lot. Also all you Linux people I also have it partitioned so I have both here. Isnt Linux like Linus in peanuts you all have to have a security blanket. I sure crash alot more on Linux then Windows but still use both os's and actually both work fine for me. As for WindowsXP when I become a millioniare I will install it but for now win98se sure works find for me and when that fails I will just switch to my RedHat.

Trying to say you haven't crashed Windows9x in a year is like saying you found a RedHat release that was secure by default ... impossible

Get your head out of your ass. WindowsXP is far superior to Win9x in every way, as long as your computer can handle it.

ok, for one thing, the test used for the differ of Windows XP and Windows 98 are way to easy. Saving to a floppy disk or sending an e-mail use the same basic functions for each task. Try setting up hardware and installing drivers. Add a new sound card and a video card, and then see which OS works better. XP will of course, XP detects it and sets it up without you ever knowing. Try setting up DSL on 98 and then XP, with 98 you need third party software, with XP you just make a broadband connection. And for those of you with Celerons or Durons, don't bother with Windows XP, your machines dont deserve them, lol. Go spend 400$ on a better machine on Ebay.com
Later
--William
P.S. I might be a little mean in this post, but I honestly don't care. I know the tests are for newbies, but come on....... Give me a break.

it doesn't require 3rd party software to install dsl on 98, many isp's have 3rd party software (but its usually stupid crap like msie with their logo instead of the "e")

Actually, if you've even used XP, you would know that XP has task panes in explorer windows that allow to e-mail, copy, paste, etc... when you click on 1 or more files.

Sounds like they have been studying nautilus ;-)

How many students in a university (any university) have a difficulty performing any these tasks? How many of them don't know how to operate a computer? Most use a computer on a daily basis! When you use a computer regularly for your regular tasks, then you develop a routine. For example, you may perform one task using a routine that is more complex than a different routine. In the end, both routines accomplish same task. However, to you, the complex way is the easy way. I, for example prefer to say shut down the computer, not "turn off the computer". I got used to the old way of doing/saying it. I never use the windows explorer for moving/viewing files. I open My Computer...etc

This looks like a marketing scheme. What they should have done is take senior citizens and other people who hardly or never use a computer and have them perform these tasks. If you could have a grandma perform theses tasks and provide her feedback on ease of use, I would believe what she is saying to be true. Telling a teenager to turn off a computer and asking which os is easier to use is not significant. In my university, we use SUN UNIX servers and everyone uses pine to read their mail. Pine, at a first glance appears to be way more complex than outlook express. However, most people are wizzards on pine and perform their tasks just as easily on pine as others do on outlook.

There is a certain level of "ease of use" that can be reached. Education will HAVE to play a role...you MUST learn something eventually...people shouldn't expect stare at their computers and have the thing spit out their balanced check book.

When things are too simple, they lack features. When features are present, things become too difficult...round 'n round we go.

I would like to see a completely unbiased study (I wouldn't know where to start in creating it myself) that put Windows XP (and/or 2000) next to OS/X, KDE, GNOME, WindowMaker, BEOS, Mac OS9, etc and have a REAL use ability study. Something that was completely third party run with strict guidelines, IE, a person who scores one O/S can not touch another O/S for a week, etc.. That to me would go a long way.

The thing is, whenever the scores are wbat MS wanted (like Windows beating RH, or, in this case, WinXP coming out to be easier than Win98), you complain that the study is biased (you being any anti-MS person on the face of the damn planet)

That's just it, if it were a completely non-bias study, maybe run by a group of universities all merging their notes for a final score, then you wouldn't hear a word about it if Windows did happen to win.

Exactly. First of all it's difficult to find enough people that are completely unbiased - I say enough people because otherwise the study is useless if it's based around 6 people.
Secondly, no matter what the outcome of such a study is there will always be people who think it's completely biast and sponsored by the company that made the product.

Good Grief... given your past in this forum I would have to say that you are either A. Lying or B. realize that that no study would be good enough for your tastes.

go sell it somewhere else

Windows already DID win:

http://www.microsoft.com.../NTServer/nt4vLinux.asp

LOL You are going to point me to a study hosted at MICROSOFT.COM and tell me that Windows did win? That's pretty good, even for you LOL!

LOL and they list Linux as being more prone to security bugs than NT Server.

no wonder no perf test was included. Xp feels much more sluggish on my duron 1000/256 RAM that I downgraded to win98SE...

What is wrong with u? probably u got VERY unsupported hardware, such as the motherboard. get some drivers. i have a Duron 750 MHz with 384 RAM and 64 shared to video. is a crappy cheap a** system but XP runs better than ANY os. BeOS was the only fast OS but no programs. after i got the WinXP Pro i will never go back to Win2k or anything. XP is great. for ANY otehr posters who are about to say that WinXP sux, better check ur hardware and hard drive before saying it's sluggish. WinXP pro is much faster even on my web server and internal network router on my Pentium I 200 MHz with 128 ram. it's faster than win2k on that machine. so stop b****ing all of u ppl. read some more, tweak if necessary. i've done NO tweaking whatsoever and WinXP is the best OS so far that MS came up with.

Motherboard Abit KT7-RAID with all latest drivers and BIOS
Sound card MX-300 w/latest drivers
Vid card voodoo3 3000 pci w/ latest drivers
HD quantum fireball lct08 26 gig

I don't think my motherboard is unsupported as it is very common and uses the popular via chipset. I did apply all the tweaks that i know, (menushow delay, hardware GDI acceleration, ConservativeSwapFileUsage, + many more)in addition to disabling system restore, almost all programs loaded at startup, and all the new visual effects. Still XP is sluggish opening the start menu, new windows, exploring folders and all other common tasks, when compared to Win98SE/installed with 98lite.

I agree however that my old Voodoo3 3000 PCI with only 16 MB video Ram and my 5400 RPM HD are very limiting, but i didn't expect such a performance drop.

Hmm...sound card and video card have only the most basic of drivers under WinXP, and that hard drive isn't going to win any speed awards either. No wonder your performance is lacking.

Silly AMD/VIA systems

Yeah, LOL {:P

you paid money for a AMD with VIA chipset .... bwahahahahahahahahah

on the server i have soma crappy unknown motherboard with i have no idea what chiset. 200 MHz poentium S, 128 RAM in 72 pin RAM... old 60 ns ram. a 5400 RPM HDD (2GB) and a 2 MB pci video card. and is hella fast. faster than win2k would run on it. and NO tewaking. so there is something wrong with ur system. on the other machine i have standard hardware that windows detects upon instalation and is a SIS730 chipset motherboard with shared video. onboard sound, video, lan, modem. is a crappy system with 384 RAM (320 to system and 64 to VGA). AMD Duron 750 MHz and a 13 GB 7200 rpm HDD. is a cheap system but is fast. and i have no difference in speed if the luna interface is on or off. the same thing. try other things. use XP on another syystem. but don;t say it's SLOW cuz it ran like that on ur system. ur system is not the center of the universe. buy another one from me at http://ar.hopto.org have fun.

Whats a "poentium"?

Thats cuz AMD STILL sucks. I don't believe that they have the floating point problems ironed out though they may claim to.

Absolutely false. Athlon/Duron's FPU is actually much faster than Intel's. Check ANY benchmark.

Benchmarks are test tube in nature and have little basis for any real conclusions on AMD vs Intel hardware. VIA chipsets suck so it doesn't much matter if the floating point of AMD CPU's have improved, they still can't touch Intel. Where are the 2 Ghz. Athlons? Har. How about 64 Bit? Will there even be competition when the Intel® Itanium™ arrives? Where is AMD's competition to the Xeon?

a) Some benchmarks are "test tube in nature" but others which use real world applications are not. Athlon's FPU consistently outperforms Intel's across the board.
b) Chipsets have nothing to do with FPU performance.
c) We don't need a 2 GHz Athlon yet because the fastest Athlon already performs on the level of a 2 GHz P4.

OK, but answer these:

How about 64 Bit?

Will there even be competition when the Intel® Itanium™ arrives?

Where is AMD's competition to the Xeon?

a) 64-bit will be available in the next AMD chip.
b) Sure, there will be PLENTY of competition. The only place Itanium will be used in the near future is in high-end server and workstation applications. Everywhere else the x86 architecture will still be used.
c) The Athlon MP meets and exceeds Xeon's performance in most applications.

a) When? Itanium is almost here...
b) "The only place Itanium will be used in the near future is in high-end server and workstation applications" Hmm, there are ALOT of people that just LOVE to have the latest HIGH END workstation and AMD has nothing to offer.
c) "The Athlon MP meets and exceeds Xeon's performance in most applications." MOST does NOT cut it.

a) Soon; work already began months ago to get Linux running on it.
b) Not really; keep in mind that Itanium runs x86 code (e.g. ALL current apps) slower than Pentium/Athlon. It won't be an attractive upgrade for a long time to come.
c) Sure it does. If you don't run programs that can really utilize the larger cache of the Xeon, then you don't need one. Besides, you can easily buy a pair of Athlon MP's for the price of a single Xeon.

LOL AMD doesn't need 2GHz Athlons, their 1.53GHz chip beats the Pentium 4 2GHz. The P4 does less per clock cycle than an AMD (that is why it, the P4, needs to run faster to keep pace with the AMD CPU).

You know Compdoc; the Itanium chip has been "almost" here for the last 6 years. And most of the things Intel promissed would be new in the Itanium is already included in the 32bit CPU architecture. (pipelines, onboard L1 and L2 cache, superscalar execution, out of order execution, prediction, etc.)

Oh and one other thing if they didn't cripple the new PIII-M (based on .13 micron architecture - it would've beat the pants off the P4). Anyways a 1.2GHz one outperforms a 1.5GHz P4.

I have been reading betanews articles for quite some time now, I find most of them VERY interesting and thought provoking. This literally is my very 1st post. I have been running the final version of WindowsXP PRO on my main system for a couple of months now and I have found it to be completely troublefree and very easy to use (even for my not-so-bright clients). Granted my system is quite new (P4-1500, 512MB). I have also found very few problems with older systems as well. I've had some issues with printer drivers, scanners and some odd pieces of hardware, but mostly old periperals that never worked well with Win98 anyway. I do however think that WinME is a total waste of money, stick with Win98, I feel it's more stable. But in closing, for enterprise, serious computer users that don't need/want the 'cartoony' WinXP, Windows2000 is DaBomb.....it's speedy, easy to use....without all the decorations and funkyness.

PS. Linux is cool, very stable.....but definately not ready for the desktop, let's leave the Apple OS discussions for the Apple hobbyists.

Well stated, I agree with most of your points. But give XP a try, you'll be impressed after a few days, even if you feel 2000 was good enough for you. The little things: better device support, more customization, instant access to cameras, portable audio, etc. really make XP stand out, even if applications run the same.

Honestly, I used winxp on several different machines...all 1 Ghz and above, quality hardware, (winxp supported hardware) and the thing has more glitches than win2k. I use it because I hate the instability of win98. However I like to play games and win2k isn't that great at it. Some games will not work. So, my only choice is winxp. Although there are many issues in winxp, I'm sure a service pack or two will fix them.

I've read some posts below and I'm posting up here because I want people to read this. Some don't go to the buttom and read everything. Linux is NOT crap. Its not a toy. It is an excellent operating system used for its share of purposes. I won't compare it or discuss it here. People out there that use linux, you understand :)

I find it MUCH easier to share files over a network in Linux and set permisions for certain files and directories than in win98/nt/xp/2k!
Figure that out. Try this in windows. Have several (say 10) people in one group, everyone can read a particular file accept for two people. Only 5 people can actually edit the file. The rest can read only, accept the two that can't even open the file. I find this to be extremely simple on linux and other *nixes.

Most people I came across play solitaire and do other "advanced office productivity" on windows pcs. When they touch linux, its a whole new world. Think of linux as the machine that teaches and enables people to create your windows xp os. Most people that learn to program learn by starting out on Linux. When you use linux, its almost impossible not to look at a piece of source code...if it strikes your interest, you quickly learn to program. If not, then be happy w/ what you use. Each os has its use. Linux=desktop-server - Unix=Servers - Apple=Graphics/Digital Media Windows=games/office/and a warm inviting center for hackers.

Nate: sorry, my comment was not directed to respond to your comment. I meant to start a new thread.

"Figure that out. Try this in windows. Have several (say 10) people in one group, everyone can read a particular file accept for two people. Only 5 people can actually edit the file. The rest can read only, accept the two that can't even open the file. I find this to be extremely simple on linux and other *nixes."

..10 users all in the same group, 1 file
..8 can read, 2 cannot
..5 can edit, 5 cannot

Can you please tell me how you do this given that they all in the same group? Sure using chmod and chgrp is damn easy if the users are in diff groups...but if the users are in different groups this task is just as easy in Win 2000/XP. Not that I need to do this, but I'm curious.

'Most people that learn to program learn by starting out on Linux.' WTF??? Most? Over 50% (by definition) of people that learn to program learn by starting out on Linux? Where did you find this wonderful statistic? Does this mean there were no programs pre-Linux? These sort of comments never cease to amaze me!

And those final os comments should be modified to something looking like this: "Windows - desktop, Linux - poor man's server"

i quote

"let's leave the Apple OS discussions for the Apple hobbyists."

i don't think that the Apple OS is just a hobby, most people who use the Mac OS don't just use it just to tinkle around with. It's quite stable and responsive and now that Mac OS X.1 is out its practically drool worthy so don't put the Mac OS down, if it weren't for Apple you wouldn't have such usable operating system.

That's a very bias comment, and totally un-necessary. You are no better than any Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, BEOS, SUNOS, HPUX, AIX, etc user out there, and you have no right to tell them that they can't post in a message forum. MacOS is far more than a hobby OS (Though once upon a time I would have agreed with you) If Linux is no where near desktop ready then why is it being deployed by corporations and governemt offices all over the world? (Burlington Coat Factory, Walmart, Ford Europe, City of Lutz FL, etc)

"Windows - Mom and Dad's PC Linux - Corporate Desktop, Enterprise Server"

Since those are your statistics, you answer your own quetion. How did you learn to read?

and to further answer your question, in our university most programming is done on unix...

In an NTFS enviroment, this is incredibly simple.

What exactly are those issues that you are having?

1 Firewall: It takes outlook express a very long time to check mail when it is enabled.
2 Slow GUI. You can see the window "paint in" as you open them up. This never happened in windows 2000.
3 Sometimes windows freeze.. i.e when My docs are open they'll freeze.
4. When playing music (mp3 for example) and you right click on a different mp3 file, sometimes the music will stop playing.
5. Windows freeze often. Say I have my docs open or other windows, they'll freeze for a few moments.
6. The end task in windoes 2000 usually cause programs to quit right away...here I notice they'll be up for a bit...

It is a good OS, but not perfect. I'm sure some people don't experience these problems..some do. Btw, these problems that I encountered were on multiple machines...not just the one I use.

Question:

What hardware is common to all the systems you have this problem with? Software? That may help find the problem(s)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

The screen painting sounds like a video driver, If it feels "sticky" (IE, the mouse stops moving for a second or teo, then releases) then it is likely an IDE chipset driver problem. I had a very similar problem with one of my desktops here in the office. Under Win2K I just had to update the IDE driver. As soon as I did that, the mouse stopped "sticking" when it was under a load.

I agree that people should not disrespect Linux, but they should not look down on Windows either. The task came up with is very easy to do with NTFS. I suggest you learn more about Windows before making bold comments.

PS I suppose you meant - "except the two that can't even open the file" when you said "accept the two that can't even open the file"

fewt, you're a dumba**.

first, "you have no right to tell them that they can't post in a message forum."

do you just make stuff up in your head as you read people's posts? How in the world does saying that Apple OS discussions should be left for the Apple hobbyists even *imply* that he said he doesn't want those people posting here.

second, as for Linux, get your head out of your ass. It is used on the desktop by people for whom its price is more important than its complete inadequacy (particularly government offices, which are always fighting budget cuts). Notice that almost no big corporations actually use it, since they would loose far too much money teaching people how to recompile their kernels every other day and all the other bs associtated with Linux. As for places like Walmart, they just load one app (inventory or whatever) on their computers and let it run all day. People there don't even use Linux, they just click on the buttons in the apps. In fact, if you notice, most of the stores run DOS on their computers or something like that, using software that's at least 10 years old.

Linux can be pretty cool, but only if you know what you're doing. It'd definately not a desktop os, AND IT NEVER WILL BE without completely removing everything that makes it interesting (such as open source, and being able to get hard core with it). Making Linux usable means throwing all that stuff out.

"since they would loose far too much money teaching people how to recompile their kernels every other day and all the other bs associtated with Linux"

Can you pull your head out of your a** a little more, I don't think I heard that correctly. Since when does an end user compile a kernel? That's like asking an end user to reinstall their Windows OS because it blue screened. Dumb ass..

In addition to the other two posts, are you using an SB Live, with Live!Ware 3 drivers?

I love arguing with you about this faaaar too much =)
"Windows - Mom and Dad's PC"...definetely agree, you could even go as far as saying "WindowsXP - Family PC". But that's not all it is limited to.

As for Linux being a corporate desktop/enterprise server, I was a bit harsh calling it a poor man's server, but there is no way you could convince me to run linux as my enterprise server when there are so many much better and much more stable *nixes to choose from. There's nothing 'wrong' with using Linux as a server, but if you need an Enterprise level server I think you'd choose something a lot more stable and secure than Linux.

You still haven't answered my question about how to give those users different permissions given that they are all in the same group. Please answer this, I'm curious to know.

My statistics? That over 50% is most? No, as I mentioned, by definition, MOST has to be over 50%, I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand! If only 49% learnt to program using Linux than a great majority (i.e. most) pople did not. There's no difficult statistics here for you, I've made it fairly simple.

How did I learn to read? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is it a problem for you that I'm picking up on all the FUD you're spreading around?

At my university we did just about all our programming on Unix too, but most people knew how to program a long time before starting University and very few of those if any on Linux.

All depends on the task. :-) I would trust Linux to host a large majority of applications, but you are correct for specific tasks (Oracle comes to mind ) I'd prefer a datacenter hardened Unix myself. Enterprise level intranets, DNS, NFS, Basic file and print, and similar tasks can be considered mission critical services, and can be best served in many cases on Linux.

OMG fewt! You took that WAY too personal.

LOL!! {8-P

One cannot be denied the right to dream.................

Sounds very similar to the problems I saw with RH 7.0 and 7.1, maybe 7.2 will be OK?

yeah have your fun. you're ignorant and c***y but thats cause you're behind a keyboard. see people like you feel insecure about themselves...they're "little people that get picked on in real life." that is why you come here and smart off to everyone and comments ALWAYS have to be putting something down.

I'm using a GeForce2 GTS, Sblive platinum, and i have no ide devices. My dvd, burner, and two hard drives are scsi. I have an adaptec 39160. I downloaded the latest drivers for my hardware...Errors didn't go away.

The other computers I've been using have experienced the same problems and they are pretty much configured similarly.

Scsi Devices, Geforce cards, sblive cards.

to add, you missed the point on running a linux server on a very low end computer. If you want to store some files say on an ftp server. Win98 and Me aren't going to cut it if you want to have that thing on all the time. Winxp and nt won't even run on that. So what are your options? Win98/me will crash even if you just boot the thing after a number of days due to memory leaks. I run a so called linux server (1 of 4) for friends to ul files. The thing has been up for this many days:

6:36pm up 186 days, 7:59, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.00, 0.01
Can a win98 box or even win xp do that on 100 Mhz 24mb ram?

Don't like it when a Windows user bites back? I think the "little people that get picked on in real life." comment applies more to Linux users than those of Windows. After all, to run the latest version of Windows, means you "should" have the latest hardware which in turn means you need a good paying job. Linux users who still have their P-100's with 24 megs of RAM most likely went to Linux because they were upset that they couldn't afford to run the latest version of Windows. Linux = poverty Windows = prosperity

AND, you still didn't answer THIS: Can the "mighty" Linux provide SMP with anything close to Windows 2000 Advanced Server which supports up to eight-way SMP? Can it EVER, in it's WILDEST dreams, support up to 32-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) and up to 64 gigabytes (GB) of physical memory like Windows 2000 Datacenter Server?! And you think that these OS'S are toys??!! Go piss in the corner of your bubble!

Also, NT, 2000 AND XP could do that.

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. ;-)

One really can't help it when confronted with the simple minded attitude that *several* people here seem to have.

I agree, it can happen on any intel hardware if it is not configured correctly, or driver support isn't available TO configure it correctly. ;-)

Err no concerning the 64GB of memory part though, no 32bit O/S that I am aware of can address that much memory.

Not with a 100MHz proc, and 24MB of ram it couldn't ;-)

I agree

Actually, the end user would recompile the kernel to:
1) apply the latest kernel updates and patches for some distros
2) update some device drivers
3) setup the kernel for their hardware, instead of using the "generic" setup

That sound about right?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

1) apply the latest kernel updates and patches for some distros

No, if you are using a canned kernel, you would just need to upgrade to it. (rpm -Uvh kernel_name from CLI, or whatever gui tool is shipped) Power users may opt to download the source patch it and compile, but it's not really necessary. That's where the dollars RedHat asks for for their boxed O/S version goes ;-)

2) update some device drivers

You likely wouldn't have to compile the kernel, most manufacturers provide drivers precompiled for canned kernels, all one usually needs to do is click a shell script. If the driver needs to be compiled, then it is as simple as compiling the module, not the whole kernel. (Though Kernel source would need to be installed)

3) setup the kernel for their hardware, instead of using the "generic" setup

Yes, in this case you would want to compile your own kernel. It's not really necessary for most users though. :-)

I know of one, why don't you head over to... http://www.microsoft.com...ss/overview/default.asp

NT4 can.

If you are using Live!Ware 3 drivers, then you need to uninstall them, use the default XP drivers, and then get the update off of WindowsUpdate..... Creative's SIGNED Win2k drivers totally screw up XP... go figure.

But it can not address 64GB directly, it has to page it in and out 4GB at a time ;-)

Agreed.

Why would you actually *want* to run on that old a system? Unless you are using it as just a router of file server, I guess...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

[sarcasm]
Wow! A server serving 1 person! I am impressed! Must be the coolest thing to go around and brag to everyone you run a server for yourself that's been up for 186 days!
[/sarcasm]

fewt, can you answer my question in regards to setting those permissions? It seems wnowak1 cannot answer for whatever reason.

You can use acl's to assign more granular rights, but I am not familiar with how you would do it. I have seen kernel support for it, and FS support for it, but regular unix perms have always been enough for me. Lemme research it a bit, and I'll give you a detailed how-to :-)

Here is an entire site dedicated to Linux ACL's ;-)

http://acl.bestbits.at/

"you're ignorant and c***y but thats cause you're behind a keyboard"
Well gee, that's most everyone that posts here (behind a keyboard). I take it you also meant to add "posting anonymously".

James Wheat
http"//belprecomputerwizard.com

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

FTP is no amazing feat either.

I'm not aware if it has to page 4 GB at a time but nevertheless, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server makes ANY distro of Linux look like a steaming pile O penguin crap. Just wait till .NET Datacenter Server >:) It will be available in both 32 AND 64 Bit versions.

It's right there when you hit Microsoft's datacenter page. Funny, if Datacenter is SO good, then why isn't my vendor (HPaq) trying to sell it to me? :-P

Thanks. From the documentation on that page it seems you can only use ACL's on directories not files (for the time being) hence what wnowak1 suggested, i.e. those permissions being set for a particular file is not actually possible. Would it be safe to assume he was talking out of his ass? Or that he messed up and actually meant different users groups?

The whole ACL thing is still currently a major hack =) but it'll be a good feature once it's finished and supported.

Lets see (I never really read the comment before )

"Have several (say 10) people in one group, everyone can read a particular file accept for two people. Only 5 people can actually edit the file. The rest can read only, accept the two that can't even open the file. I find this to be extremely simple on linux and other *nixes."

10 users in one group (blah) all but 2 users can read a file called foo hmm, need another group (moblah) assign 8 users to moblah, chown nobody:moblah foo now to grant 5 users edit permission on the file I would have to create yet another group (evenmoblah) assign evenmoblah to moblah, and set permissions. Nope, I can still read and write to that file if I am in the moblah group, and I chown it to evenmoblah. I believe it can be done on other unixes, but I don't see an apparent way to do it on Linux. (maybe the CVS version of the ACL functions?) I'm not going to go as far as to say that it absolutely can't be don't though because I've only spent 5 minutes working on it. If it can be done, I'd like to know how.

Obviously you are doing something wrong, because if you had such a great system it would perform wonderfully just like mine does.

And not only do we still need to find out from wnowak1 how this can be done using only 1 group, we also need to find out how this can be done SIMPLY on Linux! (i.e. "I find this to be extremely simple on linux and other *nixes.")

That was a good read, though you would expect some of the things to break even. Does XP include some super-code which saves to a floppy disk at lightning speed? How could it possiblly be easier than Windows 98? Hell, saving to a floppy disk was sinch with the Disk OS.

Please explain.

From a general perspective, you're right -- saving to a floppy is saving to a floppy, hard to really make it any easier. But remember, XP has menu options within Explorer to make things like this only one click away instead of a few. Plus, copying and moving files is more self explanatory to the novice Windows user who may not be experienced with ctrl-c and ctrl-v. It's the little things that slightly differentiate simple taks like copying to a floppy.

There's no way it can be easier with one of them. Two clicks. Use Send To...

Newbies/Clubies don't know to use the right click, so now in XP, they can use the task pane that has rename, move, copy, etc...

There are some statistical issues with this study that shade its findings. When using a scale like they did, you're not supposed to do averages based on these numbers and use them this way, although it is commonly slipped in. The problem is that (a) these 1-to-7 choices are not a continuous range (i.e. there is no 3.5 for users to choose), and (b) each value is not necessarily proportional to every other (i.e. "very easy" may have a broader meaning to the subject than other options have, making "7" non-equal to other digits. Typically 1 and 7 would be the most debated choices here.) The survey relies a lot on such averages and the differences between them when really the majority of them *may* be attributed to this issue. There are statistical methods worth applying to this data, but averaging this type of survey data isn't the most reliable route.

That said, I'd still pick Windows XP over Windows 98 any day, and I do find it much easier to use once I turn off all the over-the-top helpers.

Win2000 should be included in this study. Comparing 9X to a NT platform is like comparing green apples to ripe apples. I guess they didnt want to accidently promote Win2000 and mess up XP's Billion dollar marketing ploy, which by the way doesnt look like they will get thier money's worth. Read an article that Win2000pro multitasks up to twice as fast compared to XPpro. Checked this out at work, since we are evaluating XP. Guess what the article was right! We have also found that XP would likly be a bugger to support in a enterprise. If we can figure out how to remove all the fluff it may pass. We randomly picked 100 users and had them use Win2k and XP. Our finding's showed 92% preferred Win2k over XP. We wont go the XP route, instead we will complete our plans to have a total W2k network. Maybe MS's next release will fit our needs, maybe not.

Personally, I put XP in the same catagory as WinME. Just a bunch of bug fix's with a prettier front end, nothing more. Will I use it, NO! Win2k works just fine.

No, it's not comparing apples to oranges, the interfaces between Win98 and Win2k are mostly the same (until you start getting into themore advanced tasks).

Well said. Plus the majority of consumers run Windows 98, not Windows 2000 (unfortunately so), which means a better comparison is to what people are currently using.

What I think is really missing is to incluse performance testing. I found XP so sluggish on my duron 1000 256 MB ram that I downgraded to win98SE. I didn't think the UI would be so slow, even after putting all the settings to "Classical view" to get rid of the fancy stuff and applying many registry + system tweaks (menushow delay, hardware GDI acceleration, conservativeswapfileusage, + many more)

I didnt compare apples to orange's. I compared green apples to ripe apples. It showes me that you jump to conclusion's without really reading the post.

What is not mentioned is what OSs people had used before (or if they had never seen or used a PC before -- NOT!). As mentioned in some comments already it compares tasks that people are doing -- not really OS tasks in most cases but application tasks.

It should be labled as a study on how well a SYSTEM like XP that comes with certain applications and common tasks that are needed and used in 2001 compares to an OS like W98 that has a base function and then applications are added onto it to provide those tasks. W98 / W2K were designed as a shell to which applications are tacked on.

Looking at it this manner the study was more in line of common tasks that people are doing NOW and how easy it is to accomplish those tasks using an OS designed in 1996 (W98)as compared to an OS that was designed in 1999 (WXP)(and constantly modified in design along the way) and how well that has these now "common" tasks are incorporated into the OS as a base function as compared to W98.

In this respect the study is likely valid given the above modified paramters as the study basis. Everything that the study looked at doing can be done in W98 -- given more time and more effort on the user's part after downloading new componenets, installing non installation default features, OS configuration changes etc.

Can be done in W98 yes, easily, no. WXP makes new now "common" tasks easier than trying to do them in W98.

If you notice, for many of the so-called XP advantages, the difference between the win98 and XP group is small. Depending upon the distribution of the scores (which for some was wide). The difference between XP and Win98 may not be statitically significant. Why is this important? Well, if you were to conduct this test say 100 times, that means win98 would win as well. Idiotic study not backed up by controls, stats or any other type of usuability study measures.

Was this a Microsoft funded study? LOL!

Of course it is. Microsoft funds *everything*...and Bill Gates is the current president of the Illuminati.

Great handle by the way, it fits your personallity (FOOL)

I would figure as much as people give you a hard time in most threads you would not have the audacity to ridicule others. I have yet to see a truly intelligent comment from you. If you hate windows so much don’t use it. Or are you going to admit that Linux can not do everything and that we need windows or an OS like windows that does not have the same issues as an OS such as Linux. Such as everyone and their brother writing a distribution and making it harder and herder for any one app to work reliably across multiple versions.

Nothing Microsoft did with WindowsXP makes it better than any of their other operating systems in the Windows family other than the support of themes and a few other idea's. Then you have the normal bug fixes, security upgrades...etc. etc.

Microsoft has always been big on backwards compatibility, what works in WindowsXP will also work in Windows95 assuming it's 9x based of course. But still, you get my point I hope.

It's really hard to make an operating system any better than that base structure of start button, taskbar, desktop. That is the base for everything. Then of course everything else falls in line that is impossible to change without destroying backwards compatibility again.

I believe Microsoft has done a good job with WindowsXP, it's a good operating system...for home users. You have to remember that, this was made for any Joe that walks into a computer store and says "I wanna do computer stuff!" this is the perfect operating system for that person. Professional and Bussiness users I would suggest staying back to Windows 2000 for a year or so, drivers need to be made, services started, bug fixes and service packs...XP already has one. This product will have a long life span, so don't jump into it too early.

I think it's a great O/S if you are under 21 and play lots of games I wouldn't recommend it in a corporate environment because it has too many "features" that will keep people from actually doing their jobs. ;-) "Why did that reactor meltdown occur?" - "Well I was IMing Joe, and I just didn't pay attention to that red flashing light because his reply covered it." Yeaah, I'll pass ;-)

I agree with the under 21 comment. I found it to be very cartoonish. However, messing in the settings you can revert back to the "classic view" which I found to be rather complimentary to the old 2000 look & feel. If you create a build for your business environment you can set the "classic view" as your default style. To me this is a smart move when transitioning to XP. Then as their leisure can switch to the new look & feel when they are ready or desire the cartoonish look.

I like the red button comment. LOL.. if they don't use MSN Messenger (providing you allowed it to be installed in your corporate build) they'll pry have Sametime, ICQ, or AOLIM instead. So I guess it pry doesn't matter what OS you are running. Employees are gonna mess around regardless. "Are those 2 planes heading to tall buildings? bah, I'll let someone know after I finish this IM message to Joe."

ROTFLMFAO!!!! (policies can be a good thing )

Hey fewt or Ativo, or whoever you are. We get the point, you love linux and hate Windows. That's great we're all proud of you. You supposedly work for a really big company (I say supposedly because I have a thoery that you're actually 12 or something) we're all proud of you. Now that we get the point, you can lay off the "Linux is better than Windows" talk. We're all happy you sleep with a stuffed penguin at night and have 1 billion servers that have 99.9999999999% uptime becuase you run Linux. YEAH FOR FEWT HE RUNS LINUX!!! Ok, now that you know were all proud, you can move on with your life.

whats this under 21 crap? do you think everyone loves a "cartoonish" OS then people turn 21 suddenly they dont want a "cartoonish" looking OS? that can't be a well thought out comment, seriously. i would have hated the look of XP when i first started using computers in 4th grade, and i still think it looks like a pile of crap, but wait its GUI is changeable just like every other microsoft release that looks stupid out of the box, imagine that. do you also assume that once someone is 21 then suddenly they are a "power user" and need a more advanced OS? whats your deal man, come on think before you type

an another note: win98 is a horrible excuse for an OS i'd rather use dos

You can easily rescrict access to many applications in Windows XP home and professional to users you don't want to give access to. Simply create your login as administrator and the rest you restrict their privilages to certain applications that you only want them to use. Simple, same as Windows 2000/NT, I honestly don't think you really know what you are talking about. Restricting access is as simple if not more simple to do in Windows XP.

Yes I do know what I am talking about. If you'll simply follow the thread a bit more, you will see that I'm praising policies. No I haven't used XP, I don't have a copy yet, and I'm sure as hell not going to waste my money on it since I will not use it for anything other than testing. When it arrives in my MSDN I'll put it on a test machine and see for myself just how good or bad it is. I don't buy the whole "It's solid this time" arguement, I've been hearing it since Windows 3.1 (Which by the way was supposed to be way more solid than 3.0)

You have got to be kidding me!!! You haven't even installed XP on a computer yet and you have the nerve to comment on how unstable it is? Fewt, you just totally lost any crediablity with me (it's not like you had any to begin with anyway)

keep you MS bashing comments to yourself or at least install XP before you start! I can't beleive you actually admitted that you haven't installed XP yet OMFG!!!!

If you would actually open your eyes and learn how to read, you'll find that I have said that in the past also. I said that I will start comparing XP as soon as I can test it for myself. As for losing credibility, I don't much care what the trailer trash MCSE wanna-be's like yourself think about me.

That's the thing I've always liked about win 9x, it almost is dos. I really hate seeing autoexec run whenever I boot my 98 SE. I can't upgrade though, as I can't afford either the new OS or the hardware I would need (I'm running an old celeron here).

As far as I'm concerned, MS went off the track when they released NT 3, but didn't make it their primary OS. They had a brand new kernel rather than the old rehashed dos based thing they used otherwise, and yet they've only just decided to use it for a "personal" OS, by which time so much software and so many drivers have been written than rely on the old dos/9x platform.

Goes to show that Microsoft didn't really improve their Operating System, but that they improved the applications built into the Operating System. Obviously, after 3 or so years, they'd actually get the functionality and usability right. The question is, did Microsoft actually get the OS part right? This study is useless, since it falsely says that WinXP is easier to use over Win98, when if fact it should be about using applications such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and whatever other applications they used that are built in. Is there really an advantage over seeing the "Power Off" button, and seeing an option that says "Shut Down" with different options inside that dialog box? I doubt that makes the OS better in any way. The better study would be to pit WinXP with Mac OSX 10.1 instead. That I'd like to see.

While I agree a study against Mac OS X would be very interesting, I disagree with your assessment here. Many applications are part of the operating system and tie into other features (such as improved networking, or better support for peripherals). Sending e-mail or importing pictures are tools inherent to the operating system. Thus, it is very cool to know if Windows XP really IS any better when it comes to usability. It's also neat to see the differences in an educational environment, where most are running Windows 98 or Windows NT -- and never upgraded. Microsoft has indeed improved on a lot with Windows XP and impressed a lot of people. Obviously these students seem to agree that it is easier to accomplish tasks in XP than it is in current environments.

nicely said. although there is one problem... applications such as mail and picture viewers do not really make an operating system's usability. that would be a study on the usability of the applications (outlook express, picture viewing, installation of apps). and therefore, you can easily install most of the applications that are used in winxp (ex. outlook express, or a picture viewer). my point was that it would be more worthwhile to make a usability study between two different platforms instead. it doesn't make sense to make this study between two platforms that are essentially the same. a comparison between win 3.11 and winxp, no challenge, winxp wins. a comparison between win98 and winxp, there really isn't much to compare since the GUI design is essentially the same. plus, they used students for the study... which means that they already have backgrounds in computer use. it would probably be more correct to setup a group that doesn't or hardly use computers, let them use mac osx and winxp, and compare which one is actually easier to use.

I'm not certain if that is the most prudent decision at this time. Whereas consumers have had countless years through forced use of the Windows operating system to become accustomed to its quirks, most people have not even seen Mac OS X 10.1 and its radical GUI. Having worked with the OS for over a year now, I've found that it takes some getting used to, but once you make OS X part of your regular life you see how it is unbelivably more intuitive than XP will ever be. In addition, did we mention iTunes 2 and the fact that Apple is not a "secure" system which is riddled with DRM? But I digress; in order to really appreciate OS X, you must first allow yourself to experience it for an extended period of time.

Oh yeah, and ... OS X is the only really *new* OS out right now. XP is just a shell of NT. I don't know if XP will save the PC industry, but I know that I bought a G4 simply because OS X doesn't run very well on anything slower. If Apple used the Intel platform, PCs would be flying out of the shelves right now. Sigh, well, we've got Motorola ... (and G4s are fast enough anyways).

I agree with your comment about OS/X on PC hardware. My wife and I were amazed when we saw OS/X running on a powerbook at the apple store the other day.

We can dream :)

In the meantime, check out:
http://www.betanews.com/...cle.php3?sid=1004384740

"Goes to show that Microsoft didn't really improve their Operating System, but that they improved the applications built into the Operating System."

Yeah we all know that all XP is is themes and stuff, not like they would improve drivers, networking, DirectX, wireless networking integration, ClearType, system stability and protected memory just to mention a few. :rolleyes:

Usability with Windows is still better then any other OS out right now.

You must be blind, go to apple store, and play with OS/X for a little while then tell me that it's not as easy as XP.

MaximumPC magazine (one of my favorites) did a face-off article between MacOS X (10.1) and Windows XP. Windows XP prevails.

Of course it did, what is there target market? Well, there you go. I'm sure Mac magazines did exactly the opposite. That is exactly why most modern PC mags are useless.

"Oh yeah, and ... OS X is the only really *new* OS out right now. XP is just a shell of NT."

Am I the only one who finds this hilariously ironic? OS X is not "new." It's based on BSD UNIX and the Mach kernel. Much as the Windows 2000 boot screen greets you with a "Based on NT Technology" preamble. Having said that, this is the first time in about 10 years I've considered using a Mac again. OS X is interesting.

You must be dumb, go to any store that has an apple and run your favorite application...oh wait that doesn't work.
What other OS is as easy to use and as stable as XP for a PC? I didn't think u knew of any (you did have to revert to apple when brought up after all...).

-Niro

oh yea...so tell me, what exactly makes windows XP suck? Have you used it...no I didn't think so, you're still busy recompiling your kernel to of even had time to load XP. I dunno...your argument that windows sucks is VERY convincing...almost had me believing it sucks too. After all that evidence you pointed at that makes XP sucks, who could disagree???

-Niro

Yeah buddy, I recompile my kernel 5-6 times a day, woohoo I'm a big bad a** script kiddie just like you. LOL I have given lots of reasons why and how Windows sucks. It's not my fault you are too stupid to see them with your own eyes. Take off your blinders, use something other than Windows for a long while, and maybe you will become educated to the fact that it isn't end all be all you think it is. In the process you may just become more valuable in the marketplace.

lets see...and I quote...
fewt:
"You must be blind, go to apple store, and play with OS/X for a little while then tell me that it's not as easy as XP."
fewt:
"It's a toy OS"

Now there's alot of good reasons in those statements...now I understand, sorry for overseeing that.

BTW...you're telling me to use an OS other then windows...I maintain my companies Unix servers and Windows 2000 servers. Unix is a great OS...to use as a server. It's not a great OS for most consumers.

-Niro
;)

Yes, valuable in the marketplace. You could go work for VA Linux! Oh wait...where did they go? Windows is no more a toy OS than linux is, perhaps if you are using linux on a -SERVER- then its purpose just goes up a notch. But only an utter moron would cage themselves into using linux at home. Nothing like using a crappy netscape browser to read about current games, software, applications that other home users have access to, while you click the nite away playing Tuxracer. Wooohoo!

Actually fewt- in regards to the comment about Max PC biasing the XP/Mac OS study due to their PC target audience- the same people who make Maximum PC also make the magazine Mac Addict- Same publisher, and staff- they have staff from Mac Addict over to do the testing on their side and the PC crew to do the XP testing. Windows XP won.

You Mac people need to go smoke some more crack so you can keep believeing your joke machines that you call computers are good.

You linux users need to find a new argument for why linux is better other than its more stable because, unfortunately, your last valid argument for why Linux is better is gone.

I repesct the open source community and would like to see it foster- but it never will. Its a highly liberal and utterly doomed idea. Consumers- the main driving force of the market spend money on things- money makes greed and greed forces companies to innovate to get more money- thus the real talent goes to the companies because they have the money- your enthusiastic hobbiests will work on open source projects on the side- but thats all they will ever be- hobbiests- Linux will eventually sunder, as will Apple.

I think I will stay off of these forums from now on. It seems the forum community here is a fostering minority of Linux/Mac Addicts who love to make thousands of posts to foster the illusion that they are a legitimate and powerful voice in the PC industry. The silent majority who have lives and run WINDOWS- dont have time to entertain your personal imperfections.

funny...all I ever see you posting is insults against other people and what they are capable of doing...when you STILL haven't said anything about WHY windows XP sucks so bad (or even mentioned if you bothered using it or not!). So...I guess since you have nothing to say about the actual topic...you resort to insulting people...when you get out of High School tell your parents to buy you a copy of windows XP so you could try it out.

-Niro

You and your two man company ("and the otherguy's my admin') can go take a flying leap.

Actually, I've used OSX, and I think it's very asthetically pleasing, but the useability of the interface really isn't as good as it is with XP... it would be nice to have a combonation of the two.

They created Maximum Linux too, I bought a copy, and almost immediately trashed it. The company with the most advertisement gets the best reviews. Unfortunately there are only a few mags left out there that have any value (SysAdmin being one of them).

I wouldn't mind seeing a good combination of the two myself. Maybe a grass roots effort to create a single OSS desktop environment (err WindowManager) for many platforms combining the best features of all of the current stars? (Luna/OSX/KDE/GNOME/DESKTOPX)? I would be willing to help work on it.

Come on! OS X is the first Apple OS to have anything like a Start Menu, the dock, and it still isn't as good as the start menu.

Windows has had a better way of starting programs since Windows95, mac still hasn't got it yet

Have fun being a script kiddie, you'll get along with the AOLamers well.

Windows = getting work done as fast and reliably as possible

Linux = meant to be a server, just a joke as a desktop

Settle down fewt you ask for this kind of treatment. Those of us that actually use windows on a daily basis and have to support end users running windows already know that if you supply windows with the right hardware and make sure you are running stable drivers can enjoy a fairly trouble free environment. Usually when one of my users call me with a complaint I find their problem is due to some app they have been running that cause a memory leak, coupled with the fact the have not rebooted in three months. All in all a pretty simple fix. Not at all like when my Linux fax server goes down when I install a new app just because one of the 12 other software programs it relies on has been upgraded. Linux has its uses but please keep it away from my user’s desktops for crying out loud I have no desire to go back to the days we had multiple versions of DOS.

You would think after all this time he would finaly get the hint and leave. Glad he has not though his coments usualy give me the laugh I need during the day.

I make time every so often just to get fewt riled.

I didn't know that a start button was required. How did we ever get along before Windows introduced it? LOL!

Whats the deal with wanting to go back to the windows 2000 interface for buisness? why? its just so oridinary looking just like windows 95.. jesus christ...so many people are afraid of change...it intiminates them...oh well..im stronger than that i guess

I did not ask for this kind of treatment, but if they want to troll then lets get it on! FYI, I also manage Windows systems on a daily basis, which is why I can make an educated arguement *FOR* or *AGAINST* them. Windows systems definately have purpose. Not in mission critical environments, and I think (And I will actually test my theory when MSDN arrives) that it has lost it's use on the corporate desktop as well. Mentioning that I manage more than just Linux though seems to also come back to haunt me LOL! I can't seem to win for losing in this vast pool of leet burger flippers.

Yep I get the hint alright, TOUGH s***. If you don't like my comments you have two choices. A: Go to Hell, B: Go to Hell. I'm not going anywhere any time soon, so either shut the hell up and quit replying with your FUD bulls*** and let the smart folks converse in peace, or well, we can just keep on as we are now.

Well, it's not working, I am sitting back laughing at all of you attempting to chase the "Windows hater" off LOL! I liken you guys to old school salem, burn that witch! Screw you, it's not my fault you are blind. :-P

Yeah how true, we dom't need the Start Menu, navigating our Hard Drive to launch programs is soooo much better.

You are an idiot

BTW: Since the Start Menu isn't so good, internesting to see every other OS (INCLUDING X WINDOWS YOU wh***!) copy it

I didn't say that it wasn't good, dumb ass.. New computer user: "Where's the start button! I just don't know what to do without it even though I have no g** d*** idea what a start button is since I've never actually used a computer before!!" HAHAHA You've proven yourself a dumba** with that statement, let me tell ya. Most people would just pick up the "Getting Started" guide that came with their computer and read the first page. It's not like operatings have menuing systems that hide the file browser. Hell even Windows 3.x had one. MacOS, insert floppy: Icon pops up on the desktop, one clicks it twice, it opens with a window and an application icon, the user clicks that and program starts (or installer) how hard is that? Even you could do it without any effort! :-P

every other operating system INCLUDING X WINDOWS...

Please, check what you're saying before you say it. Otherwise you will look like a fool. The X Windowing System is purely a system for drawing the graphics. It is not an operating system. It does not have a start button.

>Have fun being a script kiddie, you'll get along with the AOLamers well.

What makes you think I am a script kiddie? The fact that I don't agree with you? I thought my opinion was a constitutional right, or am I not in America anymore when I post to this site?

>Windows = getting work done as fast and reliably as possible

Windows = What do you want exploited today?

>Linux = meant to be a server, just a joke as a desktop

Linux = Designed to be a server, now conquering desktops worldwide with the help of corporations and users everywhere.

I was waiting for that, thanks

To continue,

X is a TCP based protocol, used to draw pixels on the screen.A WINDOW MANAGER is responsible for displaying the titlebars, and general clicking functions of the desktop.
A Desktop Environment (KDE/GNOME) is designed to integrate all of the pieces into a single unified package.
What you are referring (mrastudent) to is a "PANEL" It is very similar to a "Start Menu" but it can be reconfigured to look like anything the user wants, or even turned off, completely removing it from memory if the user so desires.

Yeah, that's right you have a choice. Finish being "A Student" and enter the real world before you make stupid comments like that :-P

Yeah, but wait until you have to eject the floppy, stupid Macs

What's so hard about dragging it to the trash? It's in the getting started guide isn't it? (I'm making an educated guess here)

I'm sure you do know all that, you are one of the brightest in the bunch aren't ya.

:-P

How about......because it's the most NON-intuitive way of ejecting a floppy disk! Why in the world would dragging a floppy disk icon onto the trash icon eject the disk from the floppy drive?!!?!?!?! Wouldn't that be more of a 'delete everything on the disk' command? It's idiotic and non-intuitive.

"I thought my opinion was a constitutional right"
It is a right...you're very lucky, as a lot of us are, to live in a country which allows free speech. In the same way someone also has the right to judge you to be a 'script-kiddie' based on your opinion.

Exactly my point. If I were some n00b to computers and got a Mac, I sure as heck wouldn't be wanting to throw my disk in the trash

Copying windows? How do you come up with that friend? The X windows system began development
in the early 80's at MIT. The current schema, look and feel for Windows (i.e. the start menu) 9x/NT/2K/XP didn't really come into play till the mid 90's.

If the current MS Windows look and feel was designed after the fact, how then could X Windows have copied Microsoft?

I don't know what all the bickering is about. I'm a devout Linux/UNIX user, and I'll be the first to admit XP is
a very good OS. On the downside, XP is a bit cost prohibitive to some folks. I feel that Linux and UNIX like
OSes were meant for the academic community. You will not see grandma running the next version of RH any
time soon, because grandma is not supposed to be running Linux. Linux is awesome on the server end, but lacks when you figure in the desktop part of the equation. However you may feel, neither OS is crap. Years of research and development have gone into both sides of this equation. I would conclude that each OS has its purpose, each one is a tool. Make sure you use the right tool for the right job.

Ya know whats really fun... go it to a Apple store and act really interested in a IMac like you are going to buy it. Then ask the salesperson for a larger monitor and a built in floppy drive... biggest laugh I ever had.

yeah fewt; being that you have NEVER USED XP how can you say that OSX is as easy to use?!

If you've seen one rendition of explorer you have seen them all. XP may change that, (I've seen screenshots, and it looks like it was designed by a kindergardener) I doubt the change will be that significant. The study above seems to prove that theory.

The only?/most popular widget set used in the 80's for X was Motif - which just about everyone will tell you in the ugliest widget set that could have ever been created. I've worked a fair bit with Motif so I don't have the same hatred for it, but it isn't the prettiest thing to look at at the best of times.

However, modern window managers and desktop environments for Linux have taken bits from not only Windows but MAC OS etc. There's probably no better proof of this than fvm95 and KDE 1.0.

Having said all that, there's no such thing as X Windows, it's simply X - which is an absolutely horrible implementation if you ask just about anyone other than a *nix zealot and a few kiddies who have no idea about X except for the fact it gives them a gui from which they can run their exploits and feel cool.

"If you've seen one rendition of explorer you have seen them all"

Ouch...I've ran a few of the v1.2 kernels of Linux, should I base the lastest distro's based on my experiences with the v1.2 kernels? After all, if you've seen one kernel you've seen them all right?

Damn, you got me heh heh ;-) I wasn't going that far back though :-P (And I have seen screenshots of it ;-)

I'll agree with that ;)

I'll agree with that ;)

I would be the first to admit that I neither understand much of US law, nor like much of what I do. But how do the parts on libel and similar go?