Operating Systems > macOS
Hey Windows XP User, click here
Scotty:
Well Xpiss user.. I find your claims about bad networking and sucking graphics and fonts quite strange while you claim that have you used linux for an year. Of course there are some clitches and annoyances in linux but still.. I have managed to tweak up my mandrake so useful and gorgeous (can I say like this about os?? :D .. i have liquid and all) in a week! (after I read some docs. you see there is a real documentation in linux itself.)I have much better DVD playback and clearer sound in my rig nowadays not to mention how nvidia works under linux.. 2d/3d graphics are much better for that I have in my w2k.
A question: Have you ever knifed windows registry (because it's mandatory when you 'use' winblows) or any other OS configuration related stuff? Tweaking linux is far more easier and whole config stuff is put up more efficiently.
While you say that linux sucks because you used it for an year.. well it's quite a time but I HAVE FUCKING USED winblows for 10 years! until this xpiss came out (I couldn't take it anymore) and that is also quite a time to figure out what winblows is made of. I won't even tell you (if you like I'll enlight you) what shit I gone thru with different winblows version while attempting to run 24/7 industrial magnitude control software on it not to mention sql -stuff alone *shudders*.
While a customer asks me what OS should he/she pick.. I'll always say.. "Take unix or linux and if your software won't run on it and runs only on windows take dos 6.22 or NT4... everything else is murder believe me."
Can you honestly say that you CAN actually make winblows work for you as you would like? Winblows' greatest undoing is the fact that you can't control it. It does what it likes.. e.g phones home or keeps records of your personal choices while you surf on internet.. you name it.
Cheers.. happy xp using.. sincerely.. :D
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: SingleMalt ]
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5245625768598563312382456436374574573151:
Although this charlatan's rantings are clearly sarcastic, it does bring up something that you goons frequently spout off while you're wallowing in the self-gratifying sensation of blasting Microsoft.
Tell me, why do you people believe Windows is for idiots just because it's easy to use? If that is so, then Macs must be made for only the most cretinous individuals, since the person who would complain about Windows being "too hard to use" is exactly the same type of person who couldn't dress himself without having an entourage of people to help him into his pants.
--- End quote ---
what the fuck are you talking about, monkey mind? How can you possible start posting on a forum, and just tell people what their opinions are? I am astonished to find that i think all that stuff is true considering it's all bullshit.
I am perfectly inclined to believe that there is nothing wrong with the intellects of windows users. The other forum i moderate is made up almost entirely of windows users. It's not a computer forum though, and that's what this is about.
If you devote any large part of your thoughts towards systems, you cannot help but realise that the design and implementation of windows is sorely flawed, especially when compared to many unix style systems. It is that simple. Many people use windows and they put up with the glitches, crashes and not being able to do whatever they want to do exactly the way it should be, and they live with it. Their choice. Fair enough.
I do think it is a bit of a shame that the result of this apathy is that Microsoft gets a whole load of dough and then uses it to cripple other technologies whom it sees as "competition" rather than "fellows in arms".
What i am saying though is that many people don't have the time to agonise over the ins and outs of the information industry. Those people take the easiest way out and cobble together what knowledge they have gathered, to help them get by using the software that is handed to them.
For ages i didn't know the difference between netscape and internet explorer, despite having used both, i only found out about linux in 1997, and even then, i had a little trouble understanding what an operating system actually was.
If you consider yourself one of those people, then fine, that's no problem, but why are you posting here if that is the case? If you do not consider yourself one of those people then you would be a fool not to concede that windows in all its forms is poor at best. The only thing that keeps it from floundering completely is the cheapness of the hardware it runs on, and the readily availability of third party software binaries for that platform.
quote:I'd also like to rid you misguided souls of the notion that Windows is only for playing games and looking up porn. While it may be used for that a great deal, (Linux browsers don't display most porn pages correctly - don't ask me how I know this
--- End quote ---
why not? how do you know this?
quote:- and Linux doesn't have any good forms of gaming entertainment on it unless you consider spending ten hours of tweaking to get Diablo to run in a jerky wine window to be "entertainment".)
--- End quote ---
blah blah blah, heard it all before, first, most games are written by third party software developers, not Microsoft, second, don't use gaming as a benchmark, since many linux users could not give a monkeys about games, ipso facto game development may not be such a priority, thirdly, actually i have heard that games run a lot better on linux if they are ported properly, myself i prefer what are known as puzzle games, and they are not so intensive on sound, video, or fast movement.
I personally think linux is great for games. Mandrake 8.2 came with 30 or 40 puzzle games, and a couple of racers and so on, and what did i get with windows? minesweeper and solitaire. (i prefer the linux versions of those) Older versions of windows come with reversi, but not anymore. Luckily that was in the default install of linux too.
quote:Windows can actually do far, far more Linux users could ever dream of doing, which they'd see if they actually ever tried to use it.
--- End quote ---
Oh come on, i was trying to be serious before, but now i can see the foam at the corners of your mouth...
"if they actually ever tried to use it"? what are you on? it does not work that way round. Many linux users are seasoned windows veterans who have chosen linux (or BSD or whatever) because they know how to use windows so well. They know it inside out, see its flaws and they run for the cover of the nearest functional OS around.
Most if not all linux users are almost boringly competent at using windows, and have a decent grasp of DOS. Put the average winXP user in front of a DOS box and see what happens. Remember to put a bucket under their seat first though to catch the drips...
quote:Windows is used for professional graphics design, (like the Mac but without the expensive, overrated hardware and limited software choice)
--- End quote ---
Again, like many of your panty sniffing ilk, you fail to acknowledge that the range of software available for an OS is almost entirely down to what software companies deign to release.
There happen to be more people releasing for the winNT/DOS platform right now than for mac (although i bet that there's more choice per user for macs rather than windows). So fucking what? do you expect apple to singlehandedly take up the shortfall, just so they can say there's just as wide a range of software for their OS?
Also, let me ask you this, and this is the real point of this paragraph, what's the point in having a wider range of software when MOST of it is turgid, and ALL of it is unstable as fuck due to being forced into the iron maiden of the operating system it has to run on? Even decent code cannot transcend an operating system's limits.
Some would say that the hardware windows runs on contributes to it's instability, giving MacOS another good advantage. I am not so sure about this myself, since a number of OSs seem to run fine on the ix86 architecture, windows of course not being one of them. Pity that's the only architecture it runs on.
quote:Windows is used for professional graphics design, ... audio authoring/editing, 3d animation, web page design, business, and much more, and provides programmers with an excellent, consistent GUI API to write code in.
--- End quote ---
well all that pish about a programming GUI is a matter of opinion. if you mean programmers don't even have to know what the programming language they use means then yes it does have that, this method has the advantage of not being able to do any debugging efficiently, and as i understand it 90% of programming is debugging, am i right?
Plus, may i point out AGAIN, that windows is *not* used for all that stuff. *Programs* are used for that stuff, every single time. Windows just gets in the way quite well.
Also, your implication is that windows is the only system that has the capability to run programs that do all that stuff, what the fuck have you been sniffing? *many* other systems are used for doing *all* that stuff and they *all* do it a good site better than windows ever will.
quote:Also, while Linux may offer a "cheaper" solution for servers that looks free on the surface, the total cost of ownership can actually be higher for Linux than for Windows, especially if the IT people aren't familiar with Linux. Microsoft outlines the advantages of Windows 2000 Server over Linux and Unix on their website.
--- End quote ---
you are seriously joking aren't you? is that what you think free means?
It means not having to sign a non-disclosure licence when you buy a program. It means that when you get a program, you get the source code as well, so you can change it and recompile it to fit your personal needs, it means that you have the freedom to add to the program or streamline some of it to run better, and you can then sell it on, or give it away.
Free means "freedom", little boy, you have been completely swallowed up by the "me" orientation of our present culture if you missed that. Plus, why do you think Microsoft spouts all this laughable bullshit about open source anyway? because their software is shit, everybody's realising it, so they have to make a lot of noise, to try and make people think there's no alternative to windows, and that they might as well stick with it now they have got their feet wet.
Here's the true meaning of "free". Read the whole thing or i will not be able to begin to ever take you seriously.
quote:Windows can run just about every program in existance
--- End quote ---
What a pile of arsewank! windows itself runs on only one type of computer architecture, unix runs on dozens, so does linux, so does BSD, even BeOS runs on a few. That alone puts windows out of the running for "most" programs. Add to that the fact that unix, linux and BSD run a large selection of the programs written since the sixties including the DOS ones and a good few windows ones too, and that DOS, and its bastard son "Microsoft windows" has spent all its efforts trying to be incompatible with all other programs and systems, i think that what you just said deserves the most utter contempt imaginable.
quote:and, while most Windows programs aren't free, they are of a much higher quality than the pathetic open source imitations.
--- End quote ---
and this is how you want to end this travesty of a missive? what a joke. Grow up.
There is little more to say. i have not really addressed many of your points adequately. To do so would take several pages and quite frankly, you do not deserve it. I have got better things to do than explain the facts of life to every little prepubescent that comes along here spouting closedminded rubbish, especially when i know they will only attempt to insult me in return.
You should do well in life as a professional. You know what they say, 'hire kids while they still know it all'. Why not get in touch with zombie4136145145614561315? you two could set up a business together.....
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
slave:
quote: A question: Have you ever knifed windows registry (because it's mandatory when you 'use' winblows) or any other OS configuration related stuff? Tweaking linux is far more easier and whole config stuff is put up more efficiently.
--- End quote ---
Yes I have, and fortunately Windows XP makes it easy to restore the damage done with its system restore function. Even in Windows 98 it was easy to make complete backups of Windows's configuration settings, a feat which is quite hard under Linux due to the fact that the config files are scattered everywhere under the most dubious sounding names I have ever seen. While tweaking Linux, on the other hand, I have often run into trouble and in once instance found myself unable to log into my system just because I made one tiny change to the X config file, which, believe me, needs much tweaking to get a Linux system even remotely up to par. Another time Konqueror crashed every single time I started it, and do you know what had been done to offend it? It took me forever to figure this out but it was due to a corrupt thumbnail preview created in my home directory. Linux is consumed by bugs; don't believe me? Have a look at the buglists of most Linux projects. Name 10, even 5 bugs present in XP off the top of your head. Hard isn't it?
Furthermore, it is not mandatory to even touch the registry when you use Windows. Windows XP requires almost no tweaking because it works fine to begin with, unlike Linux, where one has to edit 8 config files just to get the fonts to not look like shit.
Windows works best for most jobs; it may be a little inflexible but it WORKS damn it and without a lot of tweaking, it is easy to write for and easy to use. Windows XP is a stable, robust system, and is much better than previous consumer versions of Windows such as 9x. I don't ever want to hear about Windows being bloated because it isn't when compared to Linux and Mac OS X. Mac OS X requires a minimum of 64 megs of ram to run, and on my machine the X Window System consumes an appalling 270 megs of RAM! Sure, a stripped down, text-only version of Linux may run on a 486, but MS-DOS can run on a 286, so your argument is a charade. Besides, which OS boots up the quickest? XP. Which OS has a lightweight display manager that has direct access to the computer's hardware? XP. Which OS is the most responsive? XP. (KDE and GNOME are slow, admit it) Which OS is based on the monolithic UNIX operating system that was originally designed for big, slow mainframes? Mac OS X and Linux. Windows can be embedded in PDAs, can Mac OS do that? This "bloat" you see in XP is functionality. Besides, all OS's, Linux and Mac included, have gotten much bigger over the years, with the possible exception of the Amiga OS, which is still very lightweight. (albeit obsolete)
quote: and this is how you want to end this travesty of a missive? what a joke. Grow up.
--- End quote ---
You have been deceived by the Linux zealots if you truly believe that the GIMP can compare to Photoshop, that OpenOffice even comes close to MS Office, that KDE or GNOME can compare to the Windows GUI, or that all the other sleezy open-source imitations written by kids during their spare time can compare to the hundreds of thousands of quality software titles available on Windows XP.
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Windows XP User #5225982375 ]
hoojchoons:
quote: .., a feat which is quite hard under Linux due to the fact that the config files are scattered everywhere..
--- End quote ---
If you've ever used Linux which I sincerely doubt, despite what you're telling us, you would know that any Unix like OS doesn't use drive letters (like C, D etc) to install the system files on. It incorporates them into the directory tree, so they 're not scattered everywhere like you think. everything is in place. If you even had the brains to devote some of your time you would know you ignorant piece of shit ;)
quote: ..and in one instance found myself unable to log into my system..
--- End quote ---
Of course, you brainless arrogant and utterly manipulated Windoze user. Configuring X under newer Linux distros is relly a piece of cake. Even a 5 yr old can do it since your hardware will automatically be configured during setup. Oh, sorry. I forgot that you lack even a 5 years old intellect. Sorry :D
quote: Linux is consumed by bugs
--- End quote ---
Of course. Like any other OS. Yes, even your beloved Windows. With the only difference being that those who take part in the Open Source community tend to be really honest and really work 24 hrs a day to fix those bugs unlike M$ of course.
slave:
quote: If you've ever used Linux which I sincerely doubt, despite what you're telling us, you would know that any Unix like OS doesn't use drive letters (like C, D etc) to install the system files on.
--- End quote ---
No, fool, I mean they are scattered in many different directories instead of one easy-to-backup registry file like Windows is.
quote: Of course, you brainless arrogant and utterly manipulated Windoze user. Configuring X under newer Linux distros is relly a piece of cake.
--- End quote ---
And you are a brainless, arrogant and utterly manipulated Linux user who I'm sure has never ever messed up his system screwing around in the esoteric config files attempting to discover the secret command to make his system stop locking up every time he runs an OpenGL application.
quote: With the only difference being that those who take part in the Open Source community tend to be really honest and really work 24 hrs a day to fix those bugs unlike M$ of course.
--- End quote ---
Actually they work on it in their spare time as a hobby.
Now that you have been sufficiently told, I can resume with my web surfing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version