Why do you hate Windows XP

[Master of Reality]

1 terabyte? Linux Red Hat only supports up to 64 Gigabytes of physical RAM. Solaris, however, supports up to 16 terabytes.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]

[slave]

Pardon my silence, but I've been on vacation for the past week.

I see nothing has changed; you're all still huge Linux liars who would rather commit suicide than admit Linux has flaws written all over its ugly face.  

The fact is, Linux does run dog slow if you use KDE.  Those of you who are saying "but it works fine on this pentium 166" are not using KDE, at least not the most recent version.

Let's compare the speed of Linux/KDE and Windows XP

Machine: Mandrake Linux 8.2 / Windows XP Pro running on a 1.73 ghz athlon and 512 megs RAM.

Boot time

Linux: 21 seconds brom BIOS to login prompt; 10 more seconds for KDE 3.0 to load.

Total time: 31 seconds

Windows XP: 16 seconds from BIOS to desktop

Web browser load time

Mozilla:
Windows XP (with quicklaunch): less than 0.1 second
Linux: 1 second

IE: Instantly

File manager load time:

Konqueror: 2 seconds
Windows Explorer: Instantly

Office program:

MS Office: Less than 0.5 second
Openoffice.org(Linux): 8 seconds
Openoffice.org(Windows XP): 5 seconds
Staroffice 5.2: 12 seconds

[Master of Reality]

.. my ass.
DO you think anyone really cares about your slanted ass benchmarking???
People dont care if someone says that they can get their windows to load faster. Most people choose their OS on their fucking experience with them... not with your experience with them.

[Calum]

why would anybody waste the time to even type all that crap out? go on holiday for another week i say!

"linux liars", that's no way to gain credibility, you know. I begin to believe now that you really are 12 yrs old, xp loser!

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:

Linux: 21 seconds brom BIOS to login prompt; 10 more seconds for KDE 3.0 to load.

This is only a concern if you are running XP because it crashes every 5 minutes.  Never have to shut Linux off for anything.  BTW, get lost dumb ass!

[choasforages]

ummmm, i don't use much kde anymore, i use window maker. window maker loads in two seconds from the login prompt. the gui on my dads windows box takes like 1.5 minutes to load. and on most *NIX systems, they are right, boot up time doesn't really mater, cuase you don't have to reboot every time you run a program

[ecsyle_one]

huh... my xp box takes "dayz" to load, and then im lucky if it doesnt crash as soon as i get to the destkop. (had that happen like 4 times last week). As for linux i dont know, i havent installed it yet. I cant get the cd to boot. My g4 loads far faster than my winblows machine also.

Anyways, i have to thank everyone on this forum for helping me to see the light. I have downloaded Mandrake 8.2 and am going to dual boot with xp for now. Im leaving windows on it for autocad & 3d Max(until im more comfortable with maya). I also worked out a trade for a G4. I love it.

[WaWAR_FA]

sorry not 1024gig i ment 1024meg

sorry.

[autismuk]

XPloser is right about the boot times. It does take longer to boot Linux. However, the crash rate of Windross tends to cancel out that advantage.

Apps do IMO load quicker as well - first time anyway. Of course, using 'quicklaunch' is blatant cheating - there's a similar application for OpenOffice and all it does is load the app into memory and keep it there.... big deal.

However, whether they run quicker, and whether they run reliably is very much a moot point. I'd say not. My experience of IE (for example) is that it does load quicker than Konqueror. It also crashes on an extremely regular basis, often bringing the whole system down. Konqueror browser is a bit unstable on SuSE 8.0 - by Linux standards. (this is a known problem on the SuSE msg boards). By M$ standards it is rock solid.

[lazygamer]

Well it's gonna take more then slightly longer load times to discourage me. I've seen how crappy Windows is first hand.

[Lloydr]

lol....i run the newest KDE and gnome in Redhat 7.3 with the newest kernel on the pentium 1 that i clock at 51mhz (i believe it's a 60mhz that was clocked down for some odd reason) and it's not extremely sluggish at loading considering it's running that slow of a processor.....i'm checking on what the processor is exactly and figure out what intel rated it as....as far as i can tell so far it's a p1 60mhz....very very stable lol running LINUX atleast!!!!!....lol l8r

[slave]

Don't lie, you deviant Linux user.

[Master of Reality]

It seems that windows users have a very hard time trusting or believing anyone. I am almost positive that this must e caused by the microsoft influence. I have almost never seen a very untrusting Linux or Mac user, But most of the windows users have a very hard time believing any of the capabilities of anything that runs better than windows.

[choasforages]

its pbecuase a lot of linux user are not afriad of there systems and new things, and if some one says, X.Y.Z kicks ass, we will go see for ourselves. windiods are afriad of new things and don't want to try new things. i specificatly went through a shitload of trouble to get OpenBSD installed on my 100mhz system. i did so cuase i heard that it was fast and quite nice. in the process i have also learned that it is simpler then say FreeBSD, with less stuff./*try installing FreeBSD, youll know what im talking about*/ and once i heard that windows NT 4.0 wasn't as bad as win95, so i tried it. turns out it is better then win95 in many ways. i have experience with all the members of the windows family since 3.1, it about learning things about computers.

[Master of Reality]

I've installed FreeBSD numerous times, but I've never actually used it. It is a bitch to install. Debian is annoying to install too (not hard, just annoying).