Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Odyssey on October 31, 2003, 02:23:02 pm
-
After trying to set up a webcam on my sister's PC, windows gave me this:
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Odyssey/dumbwindows.gif)
(Image, 14.4KB)
C'mon, even for windows, don't you think that's a little blunt? ^_^
-
...........:wtf:
-
Originally posted by an0n
...........:wtf:
-
I think whoever programmed Code 11 was having a cynical moment.
-
more or less :lol:
-
lady's and gentelmen, that's why i switched to linux.
-
That's a gem. Moved. :)
-
Thanks Setekh.
Kasperl - I don't think my sister would appreciate it if she woke up one morning to find her computer running Linux. She gets very confused whenever she encounters one of my boxes running Linux or FreeBSD...
-
Confused and frightened and fearful, as one should be when confronted with the demonic creation known as linux.
-
:lol: I think that one should be called the 'Poor Ickle Windows' error ;)
-
/me shoots Zeronet -- bloody n00b
-
That's funny coming from a Red Hat user :D
-
That got a chuckle out of my instructor.
And me to, of course.
It's blunt and impossible to misinterpret, just as an error message should be!
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Confused and frightened and fearful, as one should be when confronted with the demonic creation known as linux.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. One day, they will stop following that retarded penguin and let the Daemon show them what true power is. ;)
Seriously, whilst I dislike Linux for its complete lack of standards, its a better choice than Windows or Mac for anything but gaming and graphics work.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
After trying to set up a webcam on my sister's PC, windows gave me this:
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Odyssey/dumbwindows.gif)
(Image, 14.4KB)
C'mon, even for windows, don't you think that's a little blunt? ^_^
Lemme guess: Windows ME? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. One day, they will stop following that retarded penguin and let the Daemon show them what true power is. ;)
Seriously, whilst I dislike Linux for its complete lack of standards, its a better choice than Windows or Mac for anything but gaming and graphics work.
I'd love to try FreeBSD but since nVidia don't supply a BSD version of the nForce LAN driver (and I don't want to replace my perfectly good onboard LAN with a PCI card just for one OS no matter how good it's claimed to be) it'd be as useless as mammaries on the male bovine. Though if the BSD guys can make something out of this (http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34487) then I'd try it in a heartbeat.
-
I fear integrated LAN, video and sound. These things are an evil beyond compare.
-
The problem is, it seems that most affordable and decent AMD (or Intel) motherboard solutions have integrated something. Server boards might lack the ( however they're usually hellishly expensive as well) and even they're starting to get integrated stuff.
-
From what I understand, the Soundstorm thingy on the Nforce is actually built into the south bridge, thus taking a step out of the processing. Also, the Nforce2 as a whole product seems to be decent and almost designed for the Value market. I mean you've got decent video and good sound on a board that has been acknowledged as one of the best available for AMD stuff, I mean slap a processor and memory on one of those babies and you've got a machine that, while not uberfied, is still leaps and bounds available from other companies at the same pricepoint.
-
Just get Windows XP! Its t3h l33t.
-
Feh. Integrated stuff tends to hog up on CPU and/or system RAM. All of my boards that have extraneous integrated stuff (except for SATA, SCSI, Firewire or USB) have that stuff disabled.
Of course, I usually disable serial and parallel ports, and any other unused ports in the BIOS anyway. You'd be surprised at how much more stable a system is when you rip out unused hardware, compatibility layers, and useless convenience stuff.
OH wait. You probably wouldn't. You run a sane OS (well, marginally) that already leaves out the extraneous compatibility layers and useless convenience stuff. But a Windows user might notice.:)
-
The integrated hardware on nForce is, for the most part,just that, hardware. Since it doesn't rely on software drivers to do the leg work CPU utilisation is quite low. The boards with integrated graphics do share system RAM though and the audio on boards with the MCP south bridge is basic (read: ****) AC'97 stuff but with boards based on the SPP+MCP-T combination it's all done entirely in hardware.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Lemme guess: Windows ME? :rolleyes:
Nah, 98SE. I'm really seriously considering forcing her to use Linux or FreeBSD (downloaded BSD, got an old machine I can use for testing, just not got around to trying it yet) and showing her that with openoffice and a few media programmes she can do everything on it that she currently does in Windows... I'm sick of fixing her machine's problems as it stands currently :p
-
well, RH pretty much feels like windows, so if you find a way to show the win98SE startup screen, change a few icons and ****, i might even doubt that she'd notice for quite some time.
-
my parents may get their asses migrated to linux :D
-
on the linux stuff, is there some RPM'd package that can do MSN? i'm using RH9, and i can only really use RPM's since i don't have not time at all and no way to do anything but double click an icon and hope it works.
-
How would Linux be hard to use. I've tried it (I have not yet installed on one of my systems but I see a Red Hat install on an older machine very soon) and it looks just like windows and operates almost like windows.
The learning curve is negligable...however throw a Mac OS X at her :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
How would Linux be hard to use. I've tried it (I have not yet installed on one of my systems but I see a Red Hat install on an older machine very soon) and it looks just like windows and operates almost like windows.
The learning curve is negligable...however throw a Mac OS X at her :D
Actually, the one time I tried Linux (about 3 years ago), I could not for the life of me figure out how to switch from 640x480 to something higher. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, the one time I tried Linux (about 3 years ago), I could not for the life of me figure out how to switch from 640x480 to something higher. :p
ctrl-alt-+ didn't werk for ye?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
on the linux stuff, is there some RPM'd package that can do MSN? i'm using RH9, and i can only really use RPM's since i don't have not time at all and no way to do anything but double click an icon and hope it works.
http://gaim.sourceforge.net
Does MSN, ICQ, Yahoo and AIM as well as Jabber, Napster(!) IRC and Gadu-Gadu.
-
I actually tried Corel Linux at one point. I spent about 2 hours trying to install it and then discovered that it wouldn't boot if the boot partition was more than 8 Gig in size.
At that point I gave up on linux cause even windows no matter how much I hate it wasn't that stupid. I'm sure that's really unfair to lots of Linux distros but after paying for a product I can't use I'm not really tempted to try again (and no I don't particularly fancy downloading a Gig of data to try one of the free distros)
-
You tried exactly the wrong distro, it would've helped to do some research first. Anyhow, that "gig of data" assesment is wrong, ever heard of "damn small linux"?
50 megabytes and it's still rather usable. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
You can find some floppy-disk distros if you're still gonna complain about size.
-
Kara, the best thing you can do is find a copy of Gnoppix (or Knoppix). You could download the ISO overnight and burn that to a CD.
Gnoppix is a CD based distro. You boot your machine from the CD and you can work with the linux kernel and all the nifty utilities and Xwindows without having to do repartition or anything. At worst, all you've done is wasted an overnight download and a blank CDR.
-
Knoppix is great, especially as a "trial taste". Too bad they don't have nethack by default.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I fear integrated LAN, video and sound. These things are an evil beyond compare.
Ahhhh-men, lord.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Knoppix is great, especially as a "trial taste". Too bad they don't have nethack by default.
how do you mean, Knoppix can use a standard windows netowrk with shared net acces without problems.
and i tried GAIM, it needed some plugin for msn, which needed something else, wich needed something else, and everything was only available in source.
-
Get Windows XP instead to follow that lamey penguin...
If you have an older machine, then 2000 will work fine...
linsux is for messers
-
A lot of the systems here at Bristol University use Linux. My favourite aspect of Linux is the Terminal.
I know someone who's writing a terminal for Windows XP. Even so, I prefer Linux. However, it won't run any of my games so I'll always have a Windows XP partition just for that (and for using Visual Studio 6, coz the VC++ development environment has a debugger that beats the hell out of Linux's own).
As soon as I can get a cheap 80Gb hard disk, I'm putting Linux on my own computer. My old 40Gb is totally full.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
You tried exactly the wrong distro, it would've helped to do some research first. Anyhow, that "gig of data" assesment is wrong, ever heard of "damn small linux"?
50 megabytes and it's still rather usable. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
You can find some floppy-disk distros if you're still gonna complain about size.
I did some research actually. I choose Corel precisely because it was supposedly the easiest Linux distro to use (Even most Linux users were saying so at the time - At least on the boards I looked at).
As for the CD based versions wouldn't I have to set them up for my preferences every time I booted them?
I 'm saying that Linux has to be big just that most of the Distros are quite large and besides I've now got my hard drive partitioned the way I like it so if I were to install Linux I'd have to either move all my files around or get myself another hard drive. As you say I can use a CD based distro but that seems quite inefficient to me.
Lastly any reason why I shouldn't look into one of the BSD's instead of Linux? I've heard of a lot of good things about BSD.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
how do you mean, Knoppix can use a standard windows netowrk with shared net acces without problems.
and i tried GAIM, it needed some plugin for msn, which needed something else, wich needed something else, and everything was only available in source.
nethack is a game... you should try it. maybe.
-
where do i find it?
and IIRC you can save your settings to a floppy when you use Knoppix, and it can boot from that floppy.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
where do i find it?
I heard it was on the internet.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
Nah, 98SE. I'm really seriously considering forcing her to use Linux or FreeBSD (downloaded BSD, got an old machine I can use for testing, just not got around to trying it yet) and showing her that with openoffice and a few media programmes she can do everything on it that she currently does in Windows... I'm sick of fixing her machine's problems as it stands currently :p
I have 98 SE on two of my computers and I have never seen it do anything like that.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Lastly any reason why I shouldn't look into one of the BSD's instead of Linux? I've heard of a lot of good things about BSD.
Personally, I always recommend FreeBSD. Its rock solid stable, its not as much of a moving target as any of the Linux distributions, it doesn't suffer from the kind of zealotry/bigotry/fundamentalism endemic to the Windows/Linux communities, and most importantly, its got /usr/ports (source based automatic application building/installing).
If you ever want to talk to someone about *BSD, just drop me a PM. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
-
just to let you know, becase of this thread I fanaly got open office, and from the looks of it, I'm never going to be cursed with MS office again :D
I'm realy starting to want to get a dual boot with Linux and XP(only bewcase I have to) the only problem is it's going to be an ubber hassle becase I'd have to reformat c: (make partisions for the OSs) and I already need to reformat d: and there isn't enough room on d: for everything that's on c:
I don't supose XP will just let me add a FAT32 partition to an NTFS drive without reformating the entire thing,
no, didn't think so
-
You can just resize partitions instead of screwing around with copying and such. If you get the parted program (There are some other programs, like partition magic, but I don't know any free ones other than parted) you can resize (without fragmenting). Easiest way that I know to use parted is to boot the redhat install disk 1 in rescue mode.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
and i tried GAIM, it needed some plugin for msn, which needed something else, wich needed something else, and everything was only available in source.
That's not exactly gaims fault, it's this new encryption business that MS has implemented on MSN logins. gaim relies on part of Mozilla, the Network Security Services (NSS) (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/), in order to support this and it's MSN support won't work without it. If you have Mozilla 1.4 (http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.4b/contributed/Red_Hat_8x_RPMS/gtk2/i386/) installed then it should work just fine.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Personally, I always recommend FreeBSD. Its rock solid stable, its not as much of a moving target as any of the Linux distributions, it doesn't suffer from the kind of zealotry/bigotry/fundamentalism endemic to the Windows/Linux communities, and most importantly, its got /usr/ports (source based automatic application building/installing).
If you ever want to talk to someone about *BSD, just drop me a PM. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
That's the sort of thing I've heard about BSD that makes me more interested in it than Linux. I don't suppose there is a bootable CD version of that too though?
Just quickly though why FreeBSD instead of Open or Net?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
just to let you know, becase of this thread I fanaly got open office, and from the looks of it, I'm never going to be cursed with MS office again :D
Good for you! It really is easy to transfer to, isn't it?
Originally posted by Kosh
I have 98 SE on two of my computers and I have never seen it do anything like that.
Neither had I.
-
OO and M$O are pretty much compatible. OO has good saving options for M$O, and it can read it fine too. M$O can't read OO native tough.
i use it myself under linux, and i used it under windows, and it works fine, except for some memory issues under linux. somehow, it takes up 200MB out of my 192MB
-
I noticed that the quickload thing in Windows for OpenOffice takes up 20 megs or so of memory, but then if I load any of the programs it doesn't increase a jot, which means a lovely efficient quickloader - each individual M$ office app takes up way over 40mb when you start them individually. So if you load 'em all it kills speeds pretty quickly.
Quite what OpenOffice is doing in Linux I don't know, I never had that problem... I'm trying the FreeBSD port soon, we'll see what happens...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's the sort of thing I've heard about BSD that makes me more interested in it than Linux. I don't suppose there is a bootable CD version of that too though?
Just quickly though why FreeBSD instead of Open or Net?
OpenBSD has a couple of things that turn me off, but neither is really a showstopper. First, Theo deRaadt is a bit of a prick (this is extreme understatement). Since its his project, well, lots of OpenBSDers feel they should follow his lead. They're not as bad as the Linux Zealots I meet, but I understand they're working on this with training camps and carefully guided indoctrination. Second, OpenBSD focuses on security. Hugely. They do line by line audits of their code continually. Now, this in itself is a very very good thing. The problem is that it makes the incredibly slow when it comes to the uptake of new hardware.
NetBSD has a rather promiscuous take on hardware: if there's hardware, we'll run on it. They've ported NetBSD to pretty much anything with a keyboard (and somethings without) in existence. They support hardware faster and more often than the rest of the BSDs, but the overall package is not as polished, in my opinion, as it could be.
FreeBSD seems to fit rather firmly in the center of these two extremes, taking security updates from OpenBSD and hardware updates from NetBSD, and giving both back in both directions. The nice thing is that the BSDs tend to be pretty consistent. IF you know your way around one BSD box, you should be able to make your way around a foreign BSD box. The layout is documented in excruciating detail in the "hier" manpage. The same cannot be said about Linux: SuSe and RedHat and Debian all have different philosophies about the filesystem layout.
The main thing I like about FreeBSD is that its easy to maintain and use. The thing I hate about it (like all BSDs and most Linuxes) is that the installer isn't very friendly. Its not actively user-homicidal like the Debian installer, but its not as friendly as the Mandrake installer either.
Finally: there's no CD based BSD distribution. There's really only 3.5 distros of BSD: Open, Free and Net. The other .5 is "DragonFly" which is intended to be a continuation of the FreeBSD-4.x line when FreeBSD goes to 5.x.
-
which one was it one can get with debian packaging support? I mean apt.
-
I know you can get Debian support for FreeBSD and maybe NetBSD.
I wouldn't go that route though. Usually /usr/ports is better for FreeBSD (And build from source is a better fit for the BSD philosophy). If you really want Debian, I'd stick to Linux. The support there is more mature and up to date.
-
Ah-ha! Success! Her computer screwed up one too many times, so she's finally agreed to let me experiment with alternatives. Happy days...
-
/me wants to put linux on, but gets confused...
-
[color=cc9900]First time I tried was with Red Hat. It wasn't the friendliest ever, since the colourful graphic GUI didn't work and it went all DOS-esque text like. It wasn't all that bad though, still logical.
Where are you getting confused?[/color]
-
Well, I had mandrake once, but I didn't get the partition bit, and it both destroyed my MBR, and overwrote the bit I wanted to be spared.
Also, I didn't have any programs for it, at the time, and couldn't get online to get any/learn how to compile.
-
One word: Documentation.
Install help documentation is there for a reason.
-
I just "installed" Knoppix, and I must say, I'm impressed. :) It ran smooth as silk, with only the expected slowdowns due to running off a CD and not HDD.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
One word: Documentation.
Install help documentation is there for a reason.
Didn't help me any. I probably read it wrong though, but when I attempted to do some of the things it said, such operations were invalid...
-
the Redhat stuff is clear as crystal, even i can install it.
using it for someting else then the standard apps, (browser, IRC, image editing like PSP, some cool games, office, FTP, all the good stuff), is rather hard.
-
I'll try linsux only when it will have something that has not already made better than Microsoft... the way it's going it means most likely i'll never try it...
-
[color=cc9900]Ehh... What? May I issue some examples?
Microsoft Office: Superseded by OpenOffice.
Internet Explorer: Superseded by Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird.
Outlook Express: Superseded by Mozilla and Mozille Thunderbird.
Windows: Superseded by Linux (in all its lovely variants), and BSD (also in all its variants).
Sorry, what exactly was it that you were claiming Microsoft did better?[/color]
-
Everything. linsux and all the other stuff are just apeing Microsoft products.
-
And your suggesting that Microsoft developed them without outside influence. Infact they pretty much developed the whole Office lineup in the first place to stick it to IBM.
Nope sorry, I use Windows because my games are here. If they were elsewhere I would switch.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Everything. linsux and all the other stuff are just apeing Microsoft products.
[color=cc9900]No, they only made it look like Microsoft's products, to help people transfer. And functionality is a variable determined by what the user wants, not what a company makes, so you can expect that to be roughly equal in anything.[/color]
-
erm, memory management? (a 384MB swap partition instead of at least a gig)
boot time? (2 minutes (with bootloader) instead of five)
stabiltity(not a crash within all the time i used it, compared to 3 a day under win98SE)
btw, did you ever notice that sysreqs for linux ports of stuff are always half of that of the windows version?
-
Wow, you just reached Windows 3.1 level! something to be proud of! It's just that we are in 2003... Anyways, it will always remain way behind in compatibility and feature level... And about crashes... They never been a problem for me... once a week for 95/98/me, and never had since 2000/xp.
-
well, i am using win98SE for a few years now (3 reformats), i sued win3.11 for a year or 2, and i learned DOS when i was 6.
dos, never crashed, win3.11, i took it down once or twice, and 98SE is going down 3 times a day. linux, never, ever, crashed.
also, the security features in linux seem a lot better, and all the sttings are easier to find. and, a major feature, it is free. i won;t pay 1100 Euro for XP Pro, and then another 400Euro for office 2003 or wahtever it'scalled. these are the prices where iot's going now here, and a Euro is about a dollar. for linux, i download 3 discs, and get:
an OS comparable to XP = 1100
an office packet, better them MS Office = 300
a image editor like PSP = 700
a whole bunch of programming tools = 100 (probably more, but let's go easy)
and a lot of usefull apps, which you would have to download sepreately under windows. i get a total of 2200 Euro's spared, by downloading 3 discs. and for compatility, you can always run your old windows next to linux, or wait untill it's ported. which happens a lot to some older games.
-
Look, i don't want to start a flame here. linux is a decent server os, in fact even my website is hosted with it, but you cannot compare it to windows as an alternative for the average user.
I use PCs since 1988, so i think i know a bit about computers and software...
-
the only time i've ever crashed anything windows was when i did some real stupid mistakes like not freeing allocated memory. my linux router was extremely stable, but we had to replace it since it was destroying bandwith (like 1/6th of usual speed).
-
ok, you're older then i am, i am 15, and i use PCs since i was 6.
but, in my own experience, linux is more suitable for office work, due to it's stability. for the beginner, windows might be easier, since it's pre-installed on the PC when they buy it. give a n00b a linux box with the same manuals as they get with their windows box, and they'll be just as happy. and really, i want myOS and office packet's to be legal, and saving 2200 euro's does sound nice.
installing linux, and actually using it at full power, is indeed something for the more advanced user, but who uses his own windows install to the limits?
also, using linux for the same stuff as windows takes less of a system, so you could save on hardware upgrades too. no,w to be honest, i am typing this using windows, but that's jsut because i need MSN, and i haven;t gotten around to installing GAIM properly. but everything you'd normally use under windows, you can do under linux, with less power needed from your PC.
-
[color=66ff00]Zarax you don't work at the M$ lab at Redmond do you? :)
[/color]
-
I'm pretty far from Redmond Maeglamor... About an ocean and a continent and half... About resource usage... My PC change rate is around one in 4 years, and just because i use stuff with heavy hardware requisites (FlaskMPEG for example... My PIII 1ghz is aging now).
Anyways i talk with people at Microsoft at times, and i'm well aware of the problematics residing there.
Have you ever tried to be polite and ask them to help you?
Well, they will be happy to, and sometimes you discover interesting stuff (i.e. working around a suspect video codec issue i discovered a nasty bug in flaskmpeg thanks to their help)...
Anyways, when the Insatiable Borg Machine (IBM for friends) will start eating up all linux related companies and making trash of your beloved GPL you will discover why i'm so happy about Microsoft...
-
that reminds me, is the GPL admissable in court? i would image it is a legal grey area
-
Well, no one tried seriously to violate it yet, mainly due to the negative publicity that would come from that...
Anyways, the definition is blurry at best...
It would rather depend on the quality of the lawyers on both sides than the lincence itself...
-
Actually SCO (Santa Cruz Operation, made early x86 unix ports) is trying to (or already has) violate the GPL as we speak.
Anyhow, you cannot seriously consider yourself a skilled computer anything if you believe Windows is superior just because an average joe can use it. Windows goes nowhere near what is called "programming elegance".
-
[color=cc9900]By 'quality of lawyers', I presume you meant to say 'amount of highly-paid lawyers that Microsoft can afford to field due to the extortionate prices it charges in its software monopoly'?
And, Zarax, change your location then. It says Redmond. The fact you can put something completely wrong in such a simple field as 'location' seriously makes me consider your arguments a little.
And also, you cannot use your supposed 'experience' to back your viewpoints up. To make a comparison, if you grew up in a world such as George Orwell's 'Big Brother', and there had never been an alternative, you would hardly be qualified to speak about one if it popped up one day. Indeed, in this example you would probably be tortured if you said anything good about the opposition, but that's only my example. I don't imagine it'd be too far off though if Microsoft had their way.
And as for Windows and your praise of its compatibility level, may I add that WinXP wouldn't run on this laptop even if I tried. It would complain about 'not enough memory'. Since when did a decent operating system require 128mb of memory to 'barely' run? This laptop is only around 5 years old.[/color]
-
"only" 5 years?
On a such old hardware you should try Windows NT or 2000...
And about programming elegance... you are only making assumptions on something you cannot see... Fortunately, outside Microsoft few people has been privileged to see Microsoft's source...
About your orwellian stuff, i'd like to remember you that who is mainly backing up linsux is IBM, better known between older programmers just as the Big Brother... Poor thorvalds surely did not expect to clean such a reputation as IBM one... But don't worry, they will be so grateful that once the open source community will do the dirt work you can expect an OS3... Which will be very similar to linux, only not open source...
Finally, about my skills, i'll only say that i've started programming in COBOL long ago... i'll leave the rest of the assumptions to you omniscent people...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Finally, about my skills, i'll only say that i've started programming in COBOL long ago... i'll leave the rest of the assumptions to you omniscent people...
you're a sadomasochist?
-
No, just someone who started programming hierachic databases in the later eighties with a 286...
-
You know, I used to think the way Zarax did, until I actually started using FreeBSD on a daily basis.
The reason I'm able to do that is that I realized that what I do is determined not by my software, but my tasks. I do email, take notes, browse the web, program, and open shell connection to other machines. Sometimes, I actually need to read an Office document of some sort. All of these things I can do on FreeBSD using software that works exactly like Windows software (and is, in most cases, cross platform).
The only thing that Windows can do that my FreeBSD box cannot is play games and model. This is okay. I keep windows around so I can play games and do Lightwave work. No problem. These don't affect my work.
Now consider the average user... say, my mother, or my wife. Neither one is a techie. But when it comes down to it, what does Microsoft offer them that a BSD or Linux does not? Browsers? Email? text editors? Not really anything. If you're teaching a non-techie to use a computer from scratch, how likely is it that they will like Windows better? Not much. People just like to stick to what they're familiar with.
That's what I think Zarax's problem is: he doesn't want to use a nonMicrosoft OS because it is different from the familiar. That's okay, but its a far cry from "linsux will always be behind Microsoft'.
Side Note: 'Linsux' is every bit as moronic as 'Micro$oft' and 'M$'. Grow up.
-
[color=66ff00]WinXP is a good example of everything that is wrong with M$ in my opinion; unnecesarily large, irrelevant content, disturbing hardware requirements, what should be an illegal 'imposed security feature' i.e. the authentication (does this help the end user in any way? No. It simply makes life more profitiable for M$ at the expense of usability).
Win2K is where they should have stopped, had they given it the compatability of XP you would actually have an OS worth talking about. If Linux had the game compatability of Windows and an overall increase in ease of installation I guarantee you that M$ would lose a remarkable chunk of it's user base, a user base forced to utilise microsoft products due to the insidious method of their design. Gamers.
Blimey, I haven't been in rant mode for a while, only M$ has the cabability of doing it. ;) :lol:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Side Note: 'Linsux' is every bit as moronic as 'Micro$oft' and 'M$'. Grow up.
[color=66ff00]Heheh. :D
[/color]
-
Well, i have to admit that you have a lot of arguments...
Anyways, i see it's useless to try reasoning with so many prejudice filled people...
Eolas case just showed how everyone needs Microsoft based technology, even those that shouts around that are a "better alternative"... It's funny to see how W3C, which includes most MS competitors, rallied to help Microsoft in keeping Internet Explorer without changes... Just a lesson to all the zealots around.
-
Funny you should mention zealots., Zarax. You're sounding like one.
The Eolas case is interesting. Microsoft lost because of clear infringement. Microsoft's competitors backed up Microsoft NOT for Microsoft's benefit, but because the patent (and the system that allowed it in the first place) was hopelessly wrong. It should never have come down to that. Make sure when you cite a case like Eolas v. Microsoft Corp. you know the facts.
I think if you read more than this thread, you'll discover that most of us use Windows daily (whether we like it or not), but we chose (freely, and of our own will) something else for our favorite OS. That's not zealotry. That's freedom of choice. No one is telling you that YOU must use Linux or BSD. We're telling you why we don't like or use Microsoft.
Frankly, I don't care if you were patching jumpers on the face of Colossus. Having written in COBOL (which many of us have) on a 286 (which many of used) doesn't gain you points here. Your attitude, demeanor and ability to express your opinions in a cogent way do. Claiming 'I WRITE IN TEH COBOL!" is the same as saying "RESPECT ME. I HAVE A HIGH POST COUNT". It is meaningless.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
"only" 5 years?
On a such old hardware you should try Windows NT or 2000...
[color=cc9900]You're saying 5 years is a long time? You can't have been alive as long as you say you have then, if that's your viewpoint on things.
Uhh... Yeah... Somehow I doubt 2000 would run with ~42 megs of memory. Something to do with being overly bloated, and, well... Microsofty. Yes, WinNT 4.0 runs on it, as does Win98SE. But slowly.
Now Linux, there's a different matter - 70mhz, whatever you might say, is not slow when it's running a proper operating system.
Now, I don't understand your hatred of IBM... Something to do with Microsoft stealing stuff from them way back, maybe?[/color]
-
Nah, IBM was a monster back in the old days, Odyssey. IBM was the original tech monopolist, and earned a serious reputation for evil. They seem to have repented after the minicomputer market died.
-
It was to do with how Microsoft was formed if I recall.
Bill Gates used to get a fixed amount for each new version of MS-DOS (This was before it came to light that MS-DOS wasn't even written by BG ) however, as sales grew, it became apparent to BG that he was being ripped off. Now, our Bill, he doesn't like being the 'rippee', he much prefers being the 'ripper', so he quit IBM and started his own show.
Please note that BG only looked like he was being ripped off, and casually forgot that the original MS-DOS software was a very slightly altered version of a Swedish program.
That said, I like Windows, yes, It's a resource hog, but if you are lazy, like me, it really is the best OS to have :)
Flipside :D
-
5 years are a long time for a PC, simply that... And about IBM... 20 years ago people plauded MS as a savior, since OS2 was the most monstrous OS ever made... if you thing something made by MS is bad, you never saw that thing, which required 15 minutes to boot and was a pc port of an abortive mainframe os...
Microsoft market dominance came by the fact that Windows was faster, nimbler and did require less hardware... not to mention backward compatibility... which is the true factor about MS success...
-
OS/2 was a joint project between IBM and microsoft, and it was not 20 years ago that. And it was seksi as hell. I'd use it today, if I could only find my discs.
-
i think i have a big OS/2 box lying around somewhere
-
Originally posted by Zarax
not to mention backward compatibility... which is the true factor about MS success...
[color=cc9900]Something they seem to have forgotten with XP etc. and drivers, methinks.[/color]
-
LOL I had the horrible Amstrad 6128 'answer' to OS/2, I can't even remember what it was called! Oh yes, and the old Windows 3.00 and Windows for Workgroups was, and still is, a bloody awesome piece of software :)
Flipside :D
-
[color=cc9900]Ah crud... Not even Linux could save the laptop from a half-pint of a non-alcoholic liquid. Me and my clumsy hands... Ah well, I'll set it out to dry, it oughta work fine in the morning, it's pretty darn solid.[/color]
-
You have my sympathy Odyssey, the worst part about it is the terrible action on the keys for weeks afterwards :(
-
[color=cc9900]The first thing that happened after I'd mopped up and tried to turn it on afterwards was it switched to 'ready to reflash BIOS' mode. Damn fruit juice, knows exactly what keys to short to put the laptop in setup modes ^_^ Then it got past post then froze, then it got to post and froze, now it... turns on. But doesn't initialise the monitor. Or do much else. HD still spins though. Hmm...[/color]
-
Originally posted by Zarax
5 years are a long time for a PC, simply that... And about IBM... 20 years ago people plauded MS as a savior, since OS2 was the most monstrous OS ever made... if you thing something made by MS is bad, you never saw that thing, which required 15 minutes to boot and was a pc port of an abortive mainframe os...
Microsoft market dominance came by the fact that Windows was faster, nimbler and did require less hardware... not to mention backward compatibility... which is the true factor about MS success...
You've failed your computer history Zarax. And somehow, I suspect you weren't there.
If you think that OS/2 was "an abortive mainframe os", you don't know enough about the history of your OS, nor the corporations that were involved in its creation. Just as a side note, to remind everyone: MS-DOS 1.0 debuted in 1981 on IBM computers through a deal between IBM and Microsoft. OS/2 debuted in 1987.
OS/2 was a joint project between IBM and Microsoft. After Microsoft declared the partnership null and void, they each went their own way. OS/2 continued as a successor to Windows and Microsoft created WindowsNT. Neither was fast, but neither was particularly faster than the other. Each could run the other's programs back then. Both were backward compatible with all the software that was out there at the time. Even after Microsoft dropped all but OS/2 console compatibility, OS/2 maintained a win32 compaitibility layer, so you could use your Win16 programs. When Windows For Workgroups and NT3.51 came out, OS2 had already been doing everything either of the Microsoft offerings could do and booted faster, was more memory efficient and was more stable as well. Oh, and OS/2 could preemptively multitask, which Windows could not do until Win95 and NT3.51
The problem was one of image. Microsoft's WFW3.11 and WinNT3.51 succeeded because they looked like what everyone was familiar with: Windows 3.0. OS/2 looked different. It did things differently than people expected. It was never marketted at home users. Microsoft on the other hand, aggressively pursued the home market, and the educational systems.
-
Odyssey... fruit juice is bad, acid on circuitboards :(
Well, you're best bet is to open it up and clean it, but since it is a laptop, I'm not sure how easy or practical it would be. Your second best bet is to leave it to dry, the water in juice may be causing problems, and a nap can often help PC's ;)
Flipside :D
-
[color=cc9900]I don't have the time to take it apart right now as I need sleep, so yeah, I'm just leaving it to dry. I don't think the acid is too much of a problem, I seriously doubt there is any actual fruit in the stuff anyway :p[/color]
-
i spilled coke on my old 33.6 external modem. it still worked
-
Tobacco is my keyboards enemy :(
Flipside :D
-
Regarding the eternal battle of Open Source vs. Microsoft: I believe the correct term is 'Holy Wars'.
I've used all Microsoft's operating systems from MS-DOS 6.22 up to Windows XP Pro. I also write code for them, so I've got a good idea of how they're structured. I know how the Windows Memory Manager works (because I've written a similar one, but only as an exercise, not a full-fledged program).
I've been using Linux for about five weeks, ie. since I found the Linux computer room at University. Linux is more stable than Windows (that is a FACT), but it does have a slightly steeper learning curve. It puts me in mind of DOS, but done correctly.
I've also used OS/2 Warp. In fact, for several weeks it was the only operating system on our Pentium 60, because the hard drive got wiped and the 'backup' my Dad had done turned out to be the output of the OS/2 install disk factory, which didn't include DOS and Win3.11. I hated OS/2. It took a week for us to figure out how to make it install correctly. It never did what I wanted it to (even if I used the command line). It didn't seem to have a standard method for installing device drivers: some were done with install programs, some had to be done directly by the OS, some required the driver to be installed before the hardware, and some were bizarre combinations of the three. OK, so neither does Windows, but at least when I tell it to install a certain driver IT ACTUALLY DOES IT! As for OS/2 being stable... it sure as hell wasn't on a Pentium 60. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it was a great relief when we bought MS-DOS 6.22.
I now have Windows XP Home and it has never crashed on this computer. Programs running under it have, but the OS has never gone down. Even when I wrote a program specifically to make it crash, it notified me and then quietly terminated the offending process. I dislike the 'angry fruit salad' default interface, and it's now set to Windows Classic which works fine. I turned off shadows and menu fade effects, and generally set the interface to resemble Win98SE, and the OS runs quite smoothly. But it is bulky, and it is bloatware, and the only reason I haven't switched over to Linux is because all my games are made for Windows or DOS.
As soon as my new hard drive arrives, I'm creating a Linux partition for running applications, because LaTeX and Open Office beat the crap out of Microsoft Office. Linux is smaller, faster, and more powerful if you can handle the terminal. But it doesn't run any of my 60+ games.
Both Windows and Linux have their advantages and disadvantages. Windows is now the accepted standard around the world, so it'll be a long time before I can do without it. And although the Windows API is clumsy and requires an Encyclopaedia Britannica-sized reference manual, I've come to like it.
I've been programming variously in BASIC, C, C++, Assembler, and 80x86 machine code for 11 years. I DO understand how Windows and Linux work. And yes, Windows is far bigger and slower than it needs to be. I expect Linux has some redundant code in it too, although probably not much since the people working on Linux have the time to find out exactly what a function does, instead of working to a stringent time limit and just ignoring code they don't understand.
So please stop saying that one OS is better than the other. From the point of view of the average computer user, Windows is better. It's probably what they use at school or work. It's familiar. And Microsoft have dominated the market to the point where many people believe that Windows is the ONLY operating system. Yes, they need to be shown the light, but if they're forced to use Linux before they're ready they'll cling to Windows all the stronger.
And I have to say that I really do like the DirectX 9 API. Which is why yet another games programmer is developing games for Windows instead of Linux.
[edit]I think my computer's got bit-rot. I know the message didn't have that many typos in it when I clicked 'Post'.[/edit]
-
Odd, throw a pint of water after it if the drink was sugary, then let it dry for a week or two. don't take my word for it, but it ought to work better then.
-
[color=cc9900]I just propped it on its side overnight on my desk. Works like a charm now, rugged little bastard that it is ^_^[/color]
-
Things I've discovered not to do with XP: Never, ever, uninstall your motherboard drivers before overwriting them. In one swift move, I managed to invalidate my activation, corrupt my audio drivers, and screw up my winmodem install.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I managed to invalidate my activation
There has never been a more eloquent argument against installing WindowsXP.
-
Yeah. And their stupid automated tech support didn't work right, either.
Well, next comp I get (~1.5 years), I'm thinking W2k/Linux dual boot....
-
If you install XP correctly (;)) then you don't get the activation BS at all ;)
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
If you install XP correctly (;)) then you don't get the activation BS at all ;)
[color=cc9900]Shh you :p[/color]
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
If you install XP correctly (;)) then you don't get the activation BS at all ;)
The only 'correct' way to install XP is to install Win2k. ;)
Don't even get me started on the correct way to install Linux. :D
-
The correct way to install XP is to use Pro edition. No activation required. And if, like me, you already have Win98SE, using the XP Pro Upgrade CD is viable. And cheaper than forking out several hundred quid for the non-upgrade CD.
-
Actually, a store-bought version of XP Pro still has the activation, it's the corporate edition (which is designed for huge roll-outs in which licences are bought in bulk and installations are made from only a handful of CDs) of XP Pro (all MS'll sell to this market now) that lacks the activation.
And 2000 sucks **** through a straw, getting rid of it was the best thing I ever did to my PC. You couldn't even pay me to put that POS back on now. Until the FreeBSD guys port forcedeth that'll suck **** through a straw as well ;)
-
[color=cc9900]I remember one Windows, I think it was 95, where you just bought the upgrade CD for around half the price of the full, then when it asked for evidence of previous Windows installations, you pointed it to the CD drive, hence itself. And it worked.
Those were the days...[/color]
-
You know, I had a sudden revelation today: Potentially, although it seems to make sense, ditching 3.1's status as solely a shell was potentially one of the stupidest moves ever made by MS. Picture how much easier it would be to ditch MS' products if DOS was still the true OS. You could use one of the alternate DOSes and have an open-source written shell. Or have I gone off the deep end?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You know, I had a sudden revelation today: Potentially, although it seems to make sense, ditching 3.1's status as solely a shell was potentially one of the stupidest moves ever made by MS. Picture how much easier it would be to ditch MS' products if DOS was still the true OS. You could use one of the alternate DOSes and have an open-source written shell. Or have I gone off the deep end?
That's exactly why it was a GOOD IDEA for Microsoft. Good idea for Microsoft is not the same thing as a good idea for the user.
Admiral LSD: I use Win2k for my game machines and used to do IIS webhosting on it as a day to day job. I find, in generall, it to be far more stable and capable than NT4 (which I found to be very stable and capable) or Win9x, and for more stable and less bloated than WinXP.
And back of FreeBSD. What is it you want ported again?
-
Ummm. Why would MS want to make it easier to ditch their products? :D
-
I'm saying from our point of view, not theirs :p
EDIT: I forgot to put in the "from the user's point of view" at the end.
Actually, I wonder why non of the open source groups are going back to that old style of development, using a DOS-like setup for the OS and a shell for the GUI....
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And back of FreeBSD. What is it you want ported again?
This. (http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34487)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, I wonder why non of the open source groups are going back to that old style of development, using a DOS-like setup for the OS and a shell for the GUI....
[color=cc9900]Err... They are. GUI shells are for example KDE, Gnome, IceWM, etc.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
This. (http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34487)
Bah. Use a decent motherboard. We've already had that discussion though. I fully understand your reasoning.
GreyWolf2009, Microsoft and Apple style fully-integreated OS/GUI setups have been long deprecated in the *nix world. You'll only find them in embedded projects. The way things are setup in the *nix world is like this:
Layer 0: Operating System -- Linux-flavor, BSD-flavor, or commercial Unix
Layer 1: Shell -- kinda like command.com in DOS/Win. tcsh, sh, bash, ksh, csh, zsh, ash, and a million others.
Layer 2: Windowing System -- Usually XFree86, which is based on X11R6 IIRC. It just does windows. It doesn't do anything but windows. It doesn't even have controls to move windows or resize them or anything. It just does windows.
Layer 3: Window manager -- This is where you get window controls for opening and closing stuff, menus, moving windows, etc. I'm fond of OLVWM, but lots of people use things like mwm, twm, blackbox, Enlightenment, etc.
Layer3 (another path): some people opt for full desktop environments rather than just window managers. a DE includes a window manager (and can use others) but also provides richer interaction between windows, theming/skinning capabilities, session management, etc. Gnome and KDE or the best known open source DEs. You can think of these as being roughly like Microsoft Windows (in terms of consistency of look and feel and applicatons and cross application communication)
The very idea of lumping the OS, shell, windowing system and window manager (or desktop environment) into a single monolithic OS-beast like Windows or MacOS is completely foreign to the *nix philosophy. Generally the idea is to keep things focused on a task, and limit it to that task. We like small, single purpose utilities and programs that the USER can put together to suit his needs, not what some programmer half way around the world THINKS are his needs.
-
For that matter, some *nix people are going on an even less monolithic path where the kernel is very small and most tasks are handled by by things living in user land. (e.g. Mach)
mikhael: Can you recommend a specific nforce-* alternative?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
actively user-homicidal like the Debian installer
Not for long! :D
http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=455&page=1
-
the debian isn't really that hard to grasp. getting the install right, however...
and I can't wait for the next debian...
-
I didn't quite realize that the different *nix flavors worked that way. Hmm... Now if only they could use Windows drivers and programs, I would switch in a minute...
And Kami, the only other real option for Athlon processors is a VIA chipset.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Now if only they could use Windows drivers and programs, I would switch in a minute...
[color=cc9900]They're trying. You've got Wine and WineX for programs, and I heard someone was doing something about trying to emulate drivers. Thing is, drivers are such a fundamental part, emulation isn't such a good idea. It'd be easier if manufacturers just released the source to their drivers etc., then stuff gets ported instantly.[/color]
-
I had a fun error message the other day:
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/saab/images/error.jpg)
Draw your own conclusions as to what it means
-
I finally got totally sick of the Microsoft Mentality on Thursday night, around about 17:00. I booted up using a Win98SE disk in order to format my C: drive, in preparation for installing XP. However, C: is an NTFS partition. Under Win98, the D: drive (the first FAT32 drive) became C:. And D: has all my work on it.
Now, in DOS 5.0 through to 6.22, there was an UNFORMAT command. A very useful tool. Then Microsoft suddenly thought, 'if we don't include this by default, we can sell to other companies the idea of charging extortionate amounts of money for the service.' To unformat my disk, with a utility which stands half a chance of working, would've required me to pay £100 for 2 gigs of disk quota on some penny-pinching company's server.
BASTARDS!
OK, so the really critical stuff is backed up on CD. But the other gig or so of stuff will take me a WEEK to regenerate!
So, can anyone recommend a Linux distribution for a total GNUbie? I have no idea which one the University uses. All I know is that the interface I normally use is Gnome, but any Linux distribution will run any interface, won't it?
I'm still maintaining a WinXP install, for playing games on. And programming in the Visual C++ 6 environment, which even the local Linux evangelist considers better than Linux's own C compiler/debugger system. But from now on, MS Word is going down the khazi. LaTeX is far better, and I need to learn how to use it to write reports and stuff for my CompSci course anyway...
-
the unformat thing wasn't that secure. and it took some space too. I always used /u when I formatted in dos.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
mikhael: Can you recommend a specific nforce-* alternative?
There isn't one, not for Athlon CPUs anyway. mikhael's letting his background in Servers get in the way again. For most tasks that "normal" users do, nForce/nForce2 is just fine.
-
For most tasks that normal users do, a non-nForce/nForce2 board is just fine too, Admiral LSD.
I can't even remember what chipset is on the board in this machine, and I'm too lazy to lay out the case and open it up. What I do know is that the chipset on the motherboard is not something I give a heck of a lot of thought to. Not using integrated sound, video or LAN stuff makes this a very easy thing to do.
-
As long as it isn't AMD, Via, SiS or ALi I don't give a heck of a lot of thought to motherboard chipsets either :p
-
for a linux n00b, i'd recommend that you try Knoppix first to get used to the way it handless HD's and stuff, and then dl Redhat. both of them can be installed by a trained monkey, though setting up the Redhat boot manager takes some remembring.
note to self: do not tell the damn thing that your FAT data partition is your windows drive.
-
I know enough about Linux to access drives and stuff. It just takes me rather more thought than Windoze does at the moment. I was thinking of going for Red Hat, but which one? There's lots of Red Hat based ones...
-
RH9, just go to redhat.com
-
or you choose something that is supported, like mandrake which is basically the same thing only easier.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
As long as it isn't AMD, Via, SiS or ALi I don't give a heck of a lot of thought to motherboard chipsets either :p
What do you have against VIA? The KT333, KT600, and K8T800 are all decent chipsets. Just don't mention the KT400.
-
KT400 is OK. I built a computer for someone with a GA-7VM400M mainboard. It works fine, but the onboard UniChrome graphics chip is unbelievably crap, so it's a good thing he never wanted to play games on it.
I'm the proud owner of a K7 Triton GA-7VT600L mainboard. It kicks ass.
-
Repeat after me: On Board Peripherals Are Proof That The Universe Hates Us. There's really just no damn reason to suffer such crap in anything but an ultra-super-duper-hyper-budget box--and if you're building one of those, chances are you don't mind the performance suck you're going to get.
I think the chipset on this motherboard is a KT333 or something. Works great for pretty much anything I need.
-
I actually miss my old KT333. MSI makes better mainboards than Soltek....
-
This nForce2 board is giving me nowt but grief. Sure it gives me a few more points on my 3D Mark over the Via version I used to have, but the gameport on my SB refuses to work and my USB is somewhat wobbly. And it cost me several pounds more than the Via version :hopping:
-
Serves you right for buying Asus :p
My 8RDA+ hasn't given me a shred of trouble the entire time I've had it.
-
Serves me right for taking advice from the self-declared experts on this board, I reckon :nod:
-
Ignore Admiral LSD. He's a techie-freak. Gotta have every nifty gadget ever. ;)
I tend to stick with a tight cluster of hardware: Asus, Abit, Gigabyte (for budget stuff) and Tyan (for cheap, reliable scsi controllers). The only grief I ever took on any of these boards was trying to find them without integrated peripherals (give up these days) and an annoying tendancy by Gigabyte to put tall caps right at the upper right corner of a board. In small cases, this can lead to a cap getting knocked off by a CDRom drive.
-
[color=cc9900]I've got an MSI motherboard, completely knocked a capacitor off the top of the motherboard when putting a CD drive in. Can only put a CD drive in one slot because of them. Thing is, I just stuck the capacitor back on its pins again and it worked fine. Other than that, no problems with the motherboard at all, not even with the onboard sound.[/color]
-
the only problem I _had_ with my MSI board I have now was the placement of the IDE connectors in combination with the ridiculously small case I got stuck with. The problem was that there was no room to put the cd drive where I wanted it.
I solved it by getting a dvd/cdrw combo that was a lot shorter than the old cdrw.
-
[color=66ff00]I have an Abit NF7, it has built on sound which is pretty great IMHO, sure it's no audigy but it really works well for what I need it to do. The built on NIC is good too. :nod:
[/color]
-
I wish I had that new MSI K8T NEO-FISR.....
(and the A64 3200+ and Mushkin Level II Black PC3500 RAM to go with it :p )