All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Muzzy, why does Windows rule?
Aloone_Jonez:
piratePenguin,
Which Windows version did you find unstable?
Windows XP has only locked once in a year, and I've left my Windows 2000 box at work running for months with out a fuck up. So in my opinion Windows is very stable, going back more than 5 years to Windows ME was unstable the same goes for 3.x, 95, 95.
Why has Windows gone more stable you might think?
Because they've finally ditched theie shitty excuse for an operating system called MS-DOS. This was notoriously insecure and unstable and formed the base of all Windows desktop versions previous to 2000. They've replaced it with NT which Microsoft didn't initially develop, David Cutler and the VMS team from VAX systems were drafted in, but they did it to MS' specification hence NT isn't as secure or stable as VMS.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---That it?
And because X (where X is either software or hardware; I'm not talking about X11) wasn't designed/built for GNU/Linux, that is not a valid reson to believe that GNU/Linux is any worse than the OS (Windows/Mac OS X/whatever) that X was designed/built for. GNU/Linux can handle everything that was designed/built for it (within reason).
"GNU/Linux is shit 'cause I can't use (my) X on it" TOUGH SHIT! The vendors of X obviously (assuming you did a bit of research before complaining) didn't design/build X for GNU/Linux. You're just trapped on Windows/Mac OS X/whatever because that's what the vendors of X designed/built it for.
--- End quote ---
:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I saw Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I'm still not convinced that Windows (XP) boots faster... Maybe technically it does, but in practice, I would seriously doubt it. I've had Windows systems boot fast (but I never thought of timing my boot speeds), and I've had Windows systems boot sloooooooow, and I've had Windows systems fail to boot (far too often).
--- End quote ---
This does still depend on which Windows version you use and how it's configured, the same goes for Linux. The Windows version I'm refering to as far as boot speed is concerned is Windows XP, and I'm comparing this to Vector Linux and Redhat Linux. It's just my personal experiance and might be different to yours, anyway here are my results:
Windows
Time from when the boot selection screen disappeared to when the login screen apeared was 35 seconds.
Time from selecting my user area until the desktop appeared and the system became responsive was 15 seconds.
Vector Linux
38 seconds to boot to the menu.
Only 5 seconds to stard Xfce.
Knoppix
1 miniute 41 seconds
Yes Vector Linux is faster, but this is one of the lighter distros and it's running Xfce and not KDE
I remember waiting fucking ages for Redhat Linux to boot, it was noticeably longer than Windows. I'm not going to go to the bother of installing that shitty OS again just to do benchmarks on so I won't be able to give you the boot up time.
Vector Linux uses up very little recources compared to the modern full bloat distros like Mandrake, Linspire and Fedora etc. Knoppix is also a good example of a light distro.
In my opinion Knoppix wins this test, it was the longest to boot, but it was booting from a CD and having to detect all of my hardware, so 1:43 is a verry good time to do all this in.
This proves my point that Linux can very a lot, I could probably even get Windows XP to boot faster if I tweak it a little.
piratePenguin:
Alright.
Muzzy, why don't you like GNU/Linux?
Also, would you agree with this statement:
--- Quote from: me ---There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
--- End quote ---
?
Note that your secure, stable Windows system, and your bad experiences with GNU/Linux are accounted for in that statement. Do you agree that your experiences are rare?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Which Windows version did you find unstable?
--- End quote ---
Almost all of them. Windows 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP (and yes, with and without SP2).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Windows XP has only locked once in a year, and I've left my Windows 2000 box at work running for months with out a fuck up. So in my opinion Windows is very stable, going back more than 5 years to Windows ME was unstable the same goes for 3.x, 95, 95.
--- End quote ---
My systems never suffered a lock up. Well, ever since I started using GNU/Linux anyhow. Congrats, to both you and muzzy (and anyone else who finds Windows stable), on making Windows "stable" (I'm trusting you that your systems are stable).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I saw Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
--- End quote ---
:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say that you said that Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I say that you said that Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---This does still depend on which Windows version you use and how it's configured, the same goes for Linux. The Windows version I'm refering to as far as boot speed is concerned is Windows XP, and I'm comparing this to Vector Linux and Redhat Linux. It's just my personal experiance and might be different to yours, anyway here are my results:
[snip]
In my opinion Knoppix wins this test, it was the longest to boot, but it was booting from a CD and having to detect all of my hardware, so 1:43 is a verry good time to do all this in.
This proves my point that Linux can very a lot, I could probably even get Windows XP to boot faster if I tweak it a little.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, did you say Knoppix wins in your opinion? Incase you didn't know, Knoppix uses the Linux kernel. Oh no! Knoppix is a GNU/Linux distro!
Like I said, I've seen Windows XP (and I was referring to XP, that's why I put it in brackets) take ages to boot. EDIT: My Slackware system is faster booting that Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting, so no wonder I never noticed how fast XP "sometimes" was at booting.
:thumbup:
muzzy:
My friends tend to have well behaving windows systems, too. Then again, most of my real life friends are programmers/or and hackers.
I have to agree that most windows systems are insecure and badly maintained, however this is only a correlation, do you know what that means? It means that even if there's a link, it doesn't mean windows sucks, although it means that most systems that suck are windows. I believe that if linux gains some significant share of the desktop systems, we'll be seeing a strong amount of insecure linux systems as well. This will have nothing to do with the system itself, and everything to do with the users.
Anyway, it's getting late and I don't feel like explaining my reasons to dislike the evil empire of GNU. Let's just state that it breaks backwards compatibility, even for programming languages, and says it's ok because "GNU's Not Unix", and that means it doesn't have to work the same way. Ultimately, this means that anything written for the GNU system will have hard time working on non-GNU systems, especially if developers aren't careful about GNU-specific functionality. Sounds a lot like why some people hate Microsoft, doesn't it? Even Microsoft didn't go as far as breaking programming languages, the java deal was about APIs. GNU happily breaks m4 and smiles all the way through it. Fine, GNU version might be more usable, but I pity anyone who has to port GNU m4 scripts to original m4 language.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: muzzy ---My friends tend to have well behaving windows systems, too. Then again, most of my real life friends are programmers/or and hackers.
--- End quote ---
My friends tend to have badly behaving Windows systems. Then again, most of my real life friends are typical Windows users.
--- Quote from: muzzy ---I have to agree that most windows systems are insecure and badly maintained, however this is only a correlation, do you know what that means? It means that even if there's a link, it doesn't mean windows sucks, although it means that most systems that suck are windows. I believe that if linux gains some significant share of the desktop systems, we'll be seeing a strong amount of insecure linux systems as well. This will have nothing to do with the system itself, and everything to do with the users.
--- End quote ---
Are there any other non-Windows users present who have a nice stable system (be it GNU/Linux, *BSD, or Mac OS X, etc.), but previously owned an unstable, insecure, crap Windows system? 'Cause your saying that there aren't too many. I believe that you are wrong, but I can't prove it, unless more people own up!
--- Quote from: muzzy ---I pity anyone who has to port GNU m4 scripts to original m4 language.
--- End quote ---
Pity them all ya want. Which is better, GNU m4 or the original m4?
Is GNU UNIX? No, it is not. Is Windows GNU/Linux? No, it is not.
They're different OSes, incase you didn't know.
As for the whole bootup speed issue, I just timed my system booting up for the first time ever. I'm using Slackware 10.1 and here are the results:
Time from pressing enter at lilo, to login: 20.7s (almost exactly)
Time it took to get X11 + fluxbox (which is what I've used for 'bout a month now) up and running, after running 'startx': approx. 6 seconds.
Total time: approx. 26.7s
OWNED!
And I'm sure I could optimise it if I wanted to. But why would I want to? :p
It does vary between systems, and my system happens to be faster than Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting.
EDIT:
--- Quote from: me ---I never noticed how fast it sometimes was.
--- End quote ---
I take that back.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version