Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: slave on 14 June 2002, 03:29
-
Of all the things ever despised in these forums, the thing that makes most of you go into the biggest rage is whenever anyone mentions Windows XP. Why is this? Why the extreme XP loathing? Windows XP is basically just Windows NT 5.1, and I've actually heard some of you Microsoft haters praise Windows NT/2000 before. Furthermore, of all the versions of Windows, Windows XP is the best. So why does it bear most of the hatred?
-
quote:
Windows XP is basically just Windows NT 5.1
notice the word basically, windows xp is the only OS i know of that can lock you out of it. the reason i hate it is becuase it deoisnt' like samba too much :mad: and i had to jump through flaming hopes to get my friends network to work .
P.S
it's not the only reason, its just the one i am pissed off about right now there are many more
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]
-
Hey Gates XPee Drinker #5225982375:
I have read alot of your posts, and I'm sorry to say, not one has posed even a decent argument for running XP. You ask all the questions, but never answer the ones asked of you. Have you ever even seen a Linux box in action, much less logged in and rooted your friends NT box with it. Yes linux isn't as easy to use as some other crap OSs, and granted you probably couldn't get past the Login: prompt, but when you can do a real comparison go ahead and tell us what you think.... You'll probably join us.
-
sad but true, one of my friends tryed linux then hated it for a while, then he tried it with an open mind and found out that windows doesn't stack up to the advanced features of unix
-
I didnt like Linux very much at first (a couple years ago) and then switched back to windows. But windows was absolutly horrible and kept getting me more pissed off, and i tried Linux again and noticed that it looked a lot better than last time. And now that I have started using Linux again just as KDE 3.0 came out, it is amazing compared to... any OS.
-
oh yeah... what i hate about XPiss is that it will contact MS all the time and it locks you out. It doesnt look nearly as good as KDE 3.0. There is always the consideration about it being made by a vicious monopoly. It is no where near as powerful as Linux and as a cant really comment on its stability i am still sure that it isnt as stable as Linux.
-
I have a better question. Why is it that XP Luser is still hanging around here? I swear he's gum on the bottom of my shoe. He has yet to convert one single person from *any* other OS to XP, yet hoards are making the switch from XP and every other M$ product to either Linux or Mac. Hmmmm, could it be that XP really sucks? I think so...
-
Most people switch from XP for "moral" reasons, not because the OS pisses them off or anything.
-
I think everyone is switching to Linux (and mac) because they are slow, bloated, take way too much resources. Fuck the resource and HD space usage is bad... I mean it hardly fit on my 137 MB hard drive and it almost takes up half of my 16 MB of RAM.
-
Yeah right, maybe you can run a text shell of Debian under those specs... get real, KDE won't work properly on anything under 600 mhz. The average Linux distribution takes up over 2 gigs of space as well. Windows XP "looks" like it takes up a lot, but if you disable system restore and decrease the swap space it really doesn't take up that much.
-
KDE 3.0 works just great on Red Hat 7.2 on my 200 MHZ 80MB RAM machine
-
How can you say that?!?! what the hell did you do to get it to run decently on 200 mhz?? It crawled so bad on my "old" 233 mhz/ 64 mb ram machine that it was a joke; it was like playing quake on a 486 and watching it move at 1 fps.
-
all i have to say is that kde 3.0 ran very nicely on my thinkpad-600 laptop /*it is now one of my three webservers*/, which by the way is a 266 machine, it has 192 megs of ram and can do many things at once, besides on a 15 inch monitor that pulls 640x480 at 8 bit color, how am i going to notice anit-aliased fonts, the one thing about kde that may be slow is the konsole, try using rxvt instead
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]
-
Really, If look and feel is that important then you need a slightly faster machine. I used to run Afterstep on my K5 100 w/ 32 megs of RAM, and it ran way faster than win95 and looked killer. You can still turn off all the animations and cool graphics in KDE just like in XP. And you can do that well below the bottom line requirements to run XP... Ok M$ says that it will run on a 233, but i'd like to see anyone do anything productive on it.
-
Eh, turning off all the detail in KDE didn't seem to speed it up much for me. Programs that don't use the QT framework run pretty decently on an old computer (GIMP, Xterm, etc.) but when you take the already bloated X and add something like KDE to that you incur a huge performance hit.
-
And by the way, I don't run XP because of moral reasons AND it pisses me off. I had to setup a demo SQL server on a new machine that came pre-loaded with XP. After the activation bullshit, it told me that SQL Server isn't supported under XP Professional. WHY! There is no reason that SQL could not run under XP Pro, only that M$ wants you to buy a more expensive version of windows to run as a DB server. That pisses me off. They've also excluded using PCAnywhere or any other non-M$ tool to remotely administer a machine unless both machines are running XP. Just more of the same shit with M$ forcing me to do something that I don't want to do.
-
o, so your telling me that nautlilus runs fast, its part of gnome, i hardly think so, nautlius is slow on anything including my friend's new athlon xp1700, /*xp as in the processor not os*/, well konquerer is quite quick on my laptop
-
I admit nautilus is horse shit. Konqueror is far, far better than that abomination.
-
hehehe,a s for moral issues, i didn't start getting into the moral issue of linux until a year after i started using it. me was da warez biyatch, hehehe, i even had a windows me cd that came up with the serial already in place. i switched cuase linux obeyed me and gave me far more control then windows ever did, and did't crash more
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Of all the things ever despised in these forums, the thing that makes most of you go into the biggest rage is whenever anyone mentions Windows XP. Why is this? Why the extreme XP loathing? Windows XP is basically just Windows NT 5.1, and I've actually heard some of you Microsoft haters praise Windows NT/2000 before. Furthermore, of all the versions of Windows, Windows XP is the best. So why does it bear most of the hatred?
Well.. my favourite XP-marketer. Have you replaced the previous guy from m$ dickware that tried to convince us of m$ goodness? Your tone has radically changed and you are even capable of making valid arguments (biased and very far from true.. but still).
Do you try to collect information on to m$ anti-linux campaign?
This time you have even got the names right concerning linux desktop.. Didn't your "linux is inferior software" shit work? And now you try different approach.. more polite and and speaking about the desktop (the only thing in linux that m$ can dream to argue for) I refer to your posts about kde and gnome stuff.
I'll answer for you only once more (your bla bla has taken too much of my time.)
1) quote:
Why the extreme XP loathing?
The reason: XP is constrictive spyware.
2) quote:
I've actually heard some of you Microsoft haters praise Windows NT/2000 before.
NONE of m$ dickware so called "operation systems" are good! Every windows version has severe flaws and security issues (search the web I won't bother to provide links) The only reason I mentioned NT4 (or dos) is that even unstable crappy NT4 can actually do things better than w2kp or xPiss. (Even shit's colour can vary :D )
Don't bother to argue this.. I have given examples and answered for you ad nauseum.
quote:
Furthermore, of all the versions of Windows, Windows XP is the best.
one question: How you know this is true? What makes you feel this is the case? That phrase isn't a fact like "humans are mortal creatures"
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: SingleMalt ]
-
hmmm, on the desktop area, lets compare ximian evolution to outlook. which one is most likey to comprimise your computer....
-
linux is frustrating as hell until you get all the commands by buying a $50 book (Canadian dollars) all based on commands (Linux In A Nutshell) then writing down other commands on a sheet of paper such as xinit, tar zxvf, how nice works, how the --prefix command works and so on..
after going to windows i noticed just how slow windows really was. my Celeron 500 boots into KDE in about....30 seconds i'd say, my AthlonXP 1700+ which is hella fast takes about 5 full minutes to boot WinXP Home then stop thinking (i mean when you can actually click on stuff and it pops up immediately instead of waiting 10 seconds before it even starts to load.
another pet peave about Linux is that absolutely NOTHING runs when i just click on it, i NEED to use the console.....it makes me learn very fast but it's a bitch sometimes.. like if i click on a shell script, it does nothing, if i click on an executable, it does nothing. Mandrake 8.0 btw
on a side notes, isn't WinXP supposed to be WinNT 6.0? there was NT4.0 then there was 2000 which was NT5.0 and now XP which is NT6.0
that's what i heard anyway
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Chooco ]
-
no it's NT 5.1
This thread is thick as mince. I don't hate XP, as i have never used it, although i do disapprove of it since it is more a marketting tool than a computer one.
At least topics like this keep XP Loser in his own threads with his moronic arguments and the huge number of irritated responses he generates.
-
why I dislike xp?
1. WPA
2. M$'s EULA
3. irq steering
4. nagging for updates
5. uninstallable middleware
6. it sucks with old DOS games
7. poor performance with games (see point 3)
8. poor security
9. The way it treats you like a complete idiot
edit:
then again, point 9 would be in xp luser's advantage
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]
-
how does this forum attract people like this, it makes me wonder
-
Actually I don't see why XP is so bad either, except for the bloat and the fact that that it wasn't much of an upgrade from 2k. Oh yeah, I hate not having dos also, stupid emulater doesn't cut it. But it's a hell of a lot better than 9x in terms of security, and ease of use.
-
Simply put, I do not like Windows XP because I like having total control, and XP doesnt allow that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by BadKarma:
9. The way it treats you like a complete idiot
edit:
then again, point 9 would be in xp luser's advantage
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]
Windows XP does treat you like a complete idiot. However, I think people must understand that in order to eradicate M$, you must make another OS also idiot proof. I mean, windows takes a lot of heat from power users for putting their regedit.exe in places hard to find, but can you imagine the damage a single idiot could do by deleting HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? And then, much to the suprise of people like me and probally you, he would complain to M$ that they make it to easy to fuck up his system. Linux is supremly easy to fuck up if youre logged in as root. I mean, just imagine someone deleting some config file or something, or maybe compiling an older version of a program in such a way that it will not work.
Imagine one of those idiots on a linux system. I didnt have too much trouble setting up grub for dual boot, but it was sort of a pain. Imagine one of those idiots to which M$ caters trying to set up grub. Also, redhat has this automounting system, (I dont think its conventional automount though). If the user did get a different distro however, I cant imagine them setting up automount all by themselfs, In fact, many programs require a considerable amount of configuring before they are used. One of the easiest ways to set up a program is to ./config make, make install, and that requires the console! The user hasnt required the DOS console since M$ win98 came out. Could you imagine their relucance to use the console.
Some people argue otherwize. I have heard of an example of an old couple that used Linux computer, and then whenever there was a problem they would get hs grandson, or son I forget which, to ssh. But lets face it, people wont always have someone we trust to ssh into their system to fix everything.
RedHat has taken some steps to idiotproof their systems. Somethings include RPMs, and the default alias of rm as rm -i, also the automount they seem to have, and numberous GUI adaptations of things like chgrp. Their manuals which dont seem to be directed toward computer programmers.
They have also taken steps to ease the instalation process. Some of these steps include something similar to plug and play. I can imagine the avrage user installing an OS w/o something similar to plug and play. So, in short, a major reason that linux will probally never catch on to the desktop market is that it in fact doesnt treat you like an idiot.
sorry about the quotation marks, deadkeys isnt working again
edit: added some things, paragraphed everything so it didnt look like one block
-Justice
[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: iustitia ]
-
that's the sad part about this whole thing, most people are stupid and Windows is for stupid people. sort of like the government isn't it? stupid people run the country.
can't wait for the smart people to take over the world and become a utopia where we are smart enough to solve a ton of problems without stupid people getting in the way (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Yeah right, maybe you can run a text shell of Debian under those specs... get real, KDE won't work properly on anything under 600 mhz. The average Linux distribution takes up over 2 gigs of space as well. Windows XP "looks" like it takes up a lot, but if you disable system restore and decrease the swap space it really doesn't take up that much.
u got that wrong BUB!!!! I've got many of systems running linux redhat 7.3 without 600mhz.....matter of fact right now i've got a Inel P3 450mhz with less than a 1gig hdd that linux is installed on(full server install) then it serves 192 webpages, an ftp server, and a mail server with it's 120gb hdd mounted in linux.....although it does have 512mb ram.....also have an original all intel chipset and intel pentium (original) 50mhz with 16mb ram and just shy of 1gb hdd with a second hdd with 4gb(an old computer i use to show what linux can even do without newest technology)the 2nd hdd is practically empty with maybe 20mb taken up....linux can run on anything u put it on.....everything i have running has Linux Redhat 7.3 Server full installation...also got high end systems running redhat apache and oracle9i servers......LINUX CAN DO IT ALL!!! and do it fast! and do it with complete stability! UNLIKE WINBLOWS XPos!!!!!!!!! winxp user, you are a F-in dumbass!!!! u don't know what your talking about! how much system experience have u had? and how much of that has been with UNIX/LINUX systems??? probaly like 2 weeks for a system and 0seconds with linux/unix??? right? LMFAO dumbass!!! lata
-
Win NT/2K is the most *nix like OS that Microsoft are knocking about at the moment. That is why is is the 'least hated'.
Win XP is Win2K loaded with loads of shite, spyware, bugs, help for dummies, and it needs a hefty system just to run its ugly GUI that seems to be designed for people with crap vision and mouse control that would miss stuff on screen if everything wasn't so massive.All of microsofts 'crapware' like IE and Media Player is linked too closely into the OS and eXtraPants just generally suxx.
It only has one good(ish) point and that is microsoft have finally reunited thier core.
(http://promote.opera.com/banners/linux/600/ol600_01ban.png)
Opera (http://www.opera.com/download/get.pl?platform=linux&force=6.01)
[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: * Tux * ]
-
Windows XP is horrible.
You think it doesn't crash - think again.
(http://pintclock.netfirms.com/error.JPG)
(http://pintclock.netfirms.com/gayxp.jpg)
-
(http://www.boomspeed.com/redrangersw/error-45.gif)
-
(http://www.boomspeed.com/redrangersw/error0.gif)
Seems Barrack doesn't like ACTION GoMac.
[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: * Red Ranger Software * ]
-
And here's the director's cut:
(http://www.boomspeed.com/redrangersw/errorghey.gif)
-
Gee, copying Mac OS 9 dialogs and changing them...
Your pethetic man... idiot...
("Aaack". Totally realistic *NOT*)
-
First of all, do not compare Win2k with Windoze XP. Although, they both seem to rely on the same (more or less) kernel, the latter has been so much tampered with, in order to be more user friendly than some of the previous NT versions, that you can't really call it NT any more. By that, I'm simply saying that M$ tried to bundle the Win32 API into the NT kernel to make it much more user friendly (yak!).
-
Actually, i like windows XP. The thing is, the stupid cd is ridiculously expensive. In order for a clean install(the method that works best) of XP home edition, i would have to pay $200 and an additional $100 for the "pro" version which is EXACTLY the same. Normally i would just obtain a compatible serial# from some site and a Windows cd from a friend (i've paid M$ enough in oems, keyboards, software, games, etc. for this to be justified) but Xp's stringent registration process cannot be passed. Regardless of XP's merits, the fact remains that the OS is costly and overrated. A few years ago this would not be a valid reply as macs were not fully compatible and linux distros were for techies, but the times have changed and it is becoming ever more apparent that windows is lacking. Why should i pay an additional 100 dollars for XP pro when Redhat's pro edition is an actual PRO OS, including additional documentation and cd's. Also, XP's user friendly advantage is no longer an issue now that the Lycoris desktop/lx release is imminent.
-
We have in one computers WIndows XP at my work and I installed XP at a friend's computer.
why i hate XP?
a) The activation shit. If i payt for something I own it. PERIOD. I dont need to pay more if i wanna install it on my second PC.
b) The fact that it does not give me total control. When XP doesnt agree with you, thats the end of the story. You dont have much say.
c) The look and functionality of XP is pure copycat from KDE-Gnome and Macs. The feel of IE is stolen from Galeon and such other borwsers. The taskbar also is a copycat from Linux and Macs.
d) Overpriced and no need for it in the market. Win2k does a much better job than XP.
e) I dont want the FUCKING thing chasing my ass like a horny bitch, asking me to sing in for a.NET passport all the time.
Thats about it.
I mainly use Linux (RH and Mandrake) and FreeBSD. When i wanna play a game i go to WIN98.
[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]
-
Even my mum who is fairly computer illiterate knows how dodgy and unreliable Microsoft products are (Especially window$)
-
I am running a version of XP that is the corporate version and is a very late beta. As such it doesn't seem to have XP's stupid stuff like this talking animation you can't get rid of, or that "call microsoft" stuff. Could anyone fill me in more on this version? I got it off my Brother. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
can't wait for the smart people to take over the world and become a utopia where we are smart enough to solve a ton of problems without stupid people getting in the way
This will never happen. The vast majority of the people in the world are stupid. Majority rules. Even if the governments rule such vast amounts of people, the majority still reigns in the end.
quote:
u got that wrong BUB!!!! I've got many of systems running linux redhat 7.3 without 600mhz.....matter of fact right now i've got a Inel P3 450mhz with less than a 1gig hdd that linux is installed on(full server install) then it serves 192 webpages, an ftp server, and a mail server with it's 120gb hdd mounted in linux.....although it does have 512mb ram.....also have an original all intel chipset and intel pentium (original) 50mhz with 16mb ram and just shy of 1gb hdd with a second hdd with 4gb(an old computer i use to show what linux can even do without newest technology)the 2nd hdd is practically empty with maybe 20mb taken up....linux can run on anything u put it on.....everything i have running has Linux Redhat 7.3 Server full installation...also got high end systems running redhat apache and oracle9i servers......LINUX CAN DO IT ALL!!! and do it fast! and do it with complete stability! UNLIKE WINBLOWS XPos!!!!!!!!! winxp user, you are a F-in dumbass!!!! u don't know what your talking about! how much system experience have u had? and how much of that has been with UNIX/LINUX systems??? probaly like 2 weeks for a system and 0seconds with linux/unix??? right? LMFAO dumbass!!! lata
Im curious, how does Linux run on a 286? Anyone tried? :D
Oh and XP user, I think your full of shit. However if your telling the truth of Linux running that badly, logic would suggest to try it all over again on another computer. You can't argue with all these diffrent Linux versions available(if Linux was a fucked up source, no one would bother making it better) and all these people backing up it's performance, then what you say is an isolated incident... or a lie.
-
when we put the i386 version of redhat 7.3 on the intel pentium 50....it jus left it under i386....it ddin't change it down to i286 or nothin but it works....jus slower than anything new we got LMFAO but who can argue...it works and is stable lol...and all our other systems runnin redhat just configure themselver up to i686 and run just fine also.....so far we haven't had a single reject out of the systems we've tried with redhat 7.3 lata
-
Why would it change it down to i286? A Pentium 50 would be an i586. But are you sure it was a Pentium and not a 486? I don't recall Intel ever producing a 50 Mhz Pentium. The earliest Pentium I recall was 75 Mhz. The fastest 80286 ran around 20 Mhz. 80386 was around 16-33Mhz, 80486 went all the way up to 120 Mhz with the DX4.
[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
yes it was a pentium....an extremely old pentium....its clocked at 50mhz.... may have been 75 to start but it's running 51mhz right now....buts it's not exactly the hottest or newest processor out there LOL....it may have lost a bit of clock speed through the years....but it configured itself up to i386.....thats what it's running as....but it's diffenateley a pentium I processor....100% of that...but as of this moment it's clock speed is 51mhz with 1-2mhz range of error......very sluggish but fun to mess around with...lol lata
-
I'm only sixteen, but I know my computer history, the slowest intel processor ever was the original 8086, It ran under 10 mhz, so it was like watching paint dry, it was only an 8bit system, if I remember correctly. IBM used it in the original Pc they desinged. Those ones were real useful, no input except for some BASIC programs you could enter with the handy dandy keyboard, It was great. I think it did use tape storage and some type of floppy drive/ Guess who this was also the beginning for- our friends at microsoft. IBM was looking for an OS to use, a big company turned them down, so they went to some loosers in washington. Microsoft designed (stole) MS-DOS 1.0 for IBM. Then some other companies got in on the action and Microsoft started selling MS-Dos to the public and to other PC companies. IBM eventually fell from compitition, and MS became rich. Thus beginning the shitty, anti compitition, anti piracy company, who used a form of piracy themselves to take over the computer market. It's all IBMs fault, wanna know why? Because they didn't fully licsence DOS for their system, if they had, Microsoft couldn't sell it to anyone else. We could have hacked away the seedling before it became a big fucking weed. My knowledge came from a book, there is no way I could remember all this stuff, This all happened before I was even born. Cool stuff though.
We now continue with XP users question- WIN XP sucks because there is too much spy ware, middleware, and XP has too much control over the system. It craps all over itself if you enter the fucking serial number wrong.
I guess I should watch what I say now that I've given away my age. So from now on I'll watch my fucking mouth, quick, someone get me a mirror.
-
did i here someone say that the slowest pentium was a 75 mhz. this 60 mhz dell sitting by my desk tells me other wise. im thinking about overclocking it to a whopping 66 mhz. as for xp luser. ignore this dumb shite idiot. even my dad how won't switch to linux says that microsoft sucks. and yes unfortuatly ibm did let ms slip away. o btw the 60 mhz dell is running the latest debian. hahahhaha i put a modern os on it. try that with windows,
-
I was thinking 60 too, and I originally had that in my message, but then I did a search and found a page that said 75 Mhz was the earliest Pentium. Obviously it was wrong. Good catch. Now how do you clock your Pentium down to 51Mhz????? Or maybe a more appropriate question, why? Could it have been on a 486 Motherboard that was maybe Pentium ready but only ran at 50 Mhz?
[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
I was thinking 60 too, and I originally had that in my message, but then I did a search and found a page that said 75 Mhz was the earliest Pentium. Obviously it was wrong. Good catch. Now how do you clock your Pentium down to 51Mhz????? Or maybe a more appropriate question, why? Could it have been on a 486 Motherboard that was maybe Pentium ready but only ran at 50 Mhz?
[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
It is easy to underclock a Pentium to 50mhz. Set the multiplier for the CPU on the motherboard(via a jumper) to 1x and set the FSB to 50mhz(via a jumper). Why anyone would want to underclock thier CPU is beyond me. Speaking of Pentiums, I remember my old 133mhz Pentium. It overclocked to 180mhz and always ran stable (3x multiplier 60mhz FSB).
His 50mhz Pentium may be a 486 overdrive chip..or he may even have the very first pentium(the one that is larger than a Socket 7 Pentium and has a gold colored plate over the chip....I think it was like Socket 6 or something like that).
[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
Gee, copying Mac OS 9 dialogs and changing them...
Your pethetic man... idiot...
("Aaack". Totally realistic *NOT*)
Yeah, He is just as pathetic as the other guy who copied Windows XP dialogs and changed them.
-
i haven't really checked out what the system processor is exactly....it's my dads....very bulky system and pretty sluggish lol....but i am 100% sure its a intel pentium with intel chipset.....just never really got a chance to check out everything its packing....my dad don't remember other than its a pentium I 50mhz and i clocked it and that what it reads out...51mhz with 1-2mhz margin of error....i've never underclocked it....nothin....thats just what its running...don't wanna chance burning out somethin that we've sorta put to good use lol lata
-
quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
did i here someone say that the slowest pentium was a 75 mhz. this 60 mhz dell sitting by my desk tells me other wise. im thinking about overclocking it to a whopping 66 mhz. as for xp luser. ignore this dumb shite idiot. even my dad how won't switch to linux says that microsoft sucks. and yes unfortuatly ibm did let ms slip away. o btw the 60 mhz dell is running the latest debian. hahahhaha i put a modern os on it. try that with windows,
yea my pentium that reads out at around 50mhz is running a modern os....try Redhat 7.3 Valhalla on for size LMFAO....just is kind slow at accessing drives and such lol...how is yours doing with debian? lata
-
hmmmm, with window maker it is pretty smooth/*one has too many computers hanging on to the ass end of their lives, owell, its all good*/, i would recomend try debain on it instead of redhat 7.3 you might notice it runing faster. i mainly use it for making boot disk's as it is the only system with a floppy drive in it
-
quote:
how does this forum attract people like this, it makes me wonder
Because they are idiots who buy into the dublethink, groupthink and outright lies of Microsoft, and feel like they have something to prove.
Or maybe because someone with a Linux box hacked his shitty XP box and he want's revenge.
quote:
However, I think people must understand that in order to eradicate M$, you must make another OS also idiot proof.
Nothing is idiot proof to a sufficiently talanted idiot.
quote:
Why anyone would want to underclock thier CPU is beyond me.
Well, I once hod to underclock a video card so it woulnd't give me graphical glitches in OpenGL mode...no noticable difference in performance... (stupid POS ATI cards). Perhaps the same could be said for CPU's (assuming that you are too lazy to get a new cooling system for the chip)
[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: AlexMax ]
-
naaa not too lazy.....didn't over clock it...didn't underclock it....thats what its been running for a few years now...around 50mhz....and my dad said it was a pentium I 50mhz with full intel chipset.....he's sure of that.....it's running actually a cooling system made for a p3 500mhz...copper base, 2 fan copper orb.....its not really loud or anything jus not extremely quiet either lol.....but it runs cool and very stable....also have a nice little copper heat sink and fan on the chipset and has a pretty good bit of circulation throught the case....dual fans on the hdd, dual fans sittin up in one of the open drive bay slots in front, 2 long neck blowers in the back slots that don't have a PCI slot the use them with....it has plenty of cooling and runs extremely cool for an old bulky processor......just tryin to make sure the ancient processor don't give out on us...we've had that thing for a very long time lol....lata
-
When you overclock a cpu, is there a chance that you can burn anything out? And what are jumpers, and where are they in the computer. My specialty is software, not hardware, the last time I cracked open this box, it took me 3 months to figure out what I did to the floppy drive and fix it. Can I overclock my p166 w mmx safely??
-
yes there is a chance you could burn out your processor.....if you overclock it a good bit and your fan blinks off for a few seconds, it can usually mean a smoky death to your system.....you can safely overclock a system by like 5 or 10mhz and still remain stable if your fan blinks in and out.....but the little bit of change doesn't make much of a difference.....i've never really had the need to overclock anything....too much risk for a little bit of speed that won't make much of a difference other than extra stress on the hardware.....better have a damn good cooling system, lata
[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: RedHat SeaWolf ]
-
Neo, actually the slowest Intel processor was the 4004, a 4 bit 4k address space CPU. Still, according to BillG, Windows 9x is perfectly usable on it.
Everything comes from this - the 4040 is more like a real MCU, the 8008 is an 8 bit version, and the 8080 (the basis for CP/M) is one of the classic 8 bit micros. (The Z80 is an extended 8080).
IMO the 8086 was actually designed to be a multitasking 8080, probably for a Multitasking version of CP/M. Some of the design of the 8008 especially is still visible today ; though the registers BC,DE and HL were renamed BX CX and DX (http://smile.gif)
Possibly the stupidest piece of design is the x86 ; which had a sort of multitasking mode as well as the 8086 mode. Unfortunately Intel did not put in proper instructions to switch between the two.....
-
ummm, yeah, x86 is a peice of shit, it should have been put down along time ago. but what does intel and amd do, they extend it bit more, trying to suck a litttle bit more life out of it. hell, apple put the m68k out to the pastures awhile ago. the only modern thing that i own that uses that chip is my ti89 calculator.
-
xp loser, i ran redhat 7.1 on a 66mhz pentium 1 with 16 meg of edo ram and a 4.3 gig hd with no problems as all. hell it ram faster than my current comp and it a 1.8ghz with 1024gig of DDR ram
-
Damn, you've got a TB of RAM in your desktop?
-
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 ]
-
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
-
LOL.. 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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
sorry not 1024gig i ment 1024meg
sorry.
-
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.
-
Well it's gonna take more then slightly longer load times to discourage me. I've seen how crappy Windows is first hand.
-
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
-
Don't lie, you deviant Linux user.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
i actally like FreeBSD alot, and i would use it on my desktop machine if it werent' for stuff like NVIDIA's gl drivers and WineX only for linux, linux emulations would not be a good idea under FreeBSD for WineX cuase that would just add more layers of abstraction and its slow enough as it is. maybe when i get that dec alpha ill put FreeBSD on it instead of linux
-
I have read this and many other threads in this forum and while im unhappy with its spyware attempts the constantly open ports (that no firewall will cover) and the fact that it anally backs up everthing you do in hidden files
the fact is that windows xp is extremely stable (if run on the correct hard ware) i currently run a dual boot with 98/2000/xp (im going to try linux soon) and in direct comparison to 98 or even 2000 it totally kicks ass it is more stable than 98 and easier to use than 2000 whilst at the same time maintaining (sometimes improving upon) the features of both of these previous titles as for most of the people who have tried it and found it to be buggy or unstable i would presume you were using a central processor that wasnt made for the operating system (try using a pentium four or atlon xp with at least 512 mbs of ram then make sure you have correct drivers for your hardware) when i am using xp the only times it turns off is when i have installed something that requires it to be restarted (i can leave it on 24/7 without it wiping out (i ve never seen a blue screen since ive had it) the integration of tools such as cd copying/auto tasking/auto thumnailing/displaying and zipfile browsing makes life a lot easier for me because i had to use separate programs to achieve these ends before
at the end of the day my view is if you want to get something done ie type a letter draw a picture without spending anytime on wondering how the operating system manges to do it then windows is for you (my six year old daughter is fully familiar with windows and can install program (and with supervision can install hardware just to show you how easy it is to use) :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Whats_ALL_This:
I have read this and many other threads in this forum and while im unhappy with its spyware attempts the constantly open ports (that no firewall will cover)
Zonealarm will cover them, do not assume that Microsoft's firewalls are better than the alternatives. Zonealarm is free for the individual to use and is a lot better and simple than a Microsoft firewall. quote:
and the fact that it anally backs up everthing you do in hidden files
that pisses me off too.
quote:
the fact is that windows xp is extremely stable (if run on the correct hard ware)
so what if your hardware is not "correct"? eh? i do not look forward to buying a new machine for every system "upgrade i endure. Linux runs on an enormous range of hardware. quote:
i currently run a dual boot with 98/2000/xp (im going to try linux soon)
do. It is very easy to procrastinate though, since you will have to start from scratch with linux and you probably already know windows inside out. It will be frustrating for a while. quote:
and in direct comparison to 98 or even 2000 it totally kicks ass it is more stable than 98 and easier to use than 2000 whilst at the same time maintaining (sometimes improving upon) the features of both of these previous titles as for most of the people who have tried it and found it to be buggy or unstable i would presume you were using a central processor that wasnt made for the operating system (try using a pentium four or atlon xp with at least 512 mbs of ram then make sure you have correct drivers for your hardware)
xp might be the best os Microsoft have come out with, but its sociopolitical crippleware bullshit will ensure that i never install or run it. Also, why should i have to buy a pentium 4 just to run my computer? a pentium 3 (what i have) is hardly obsolete, and any decent OS will include back compatibility to about 286 level! Many programs have not been optimised for the P4, so they run slower and buggier than on a P3! quote:
when i am using xp the only times it turns off is when i have installed something that requires it to be restarted (i can leave it on 24/7 without it wiping out (i ve never seen a blue screen since ive had it) the integration of tools such as cd copying/auto tasking/auto thumnailing/displaying and zipfile browsing makes life a lot easier for me because i had to use separate programs to achieve these ends before
at the end of the day my view is if you want to get something done ie type a letter draw a picture without spending anytime on wondering how the operating system manges to do it then windows is for you (my six year old daughter is fully familiar with windows and can install program (and with supervision can install hardware just to show you how easy it is to use) :D
All good comments, i cannot refute you since i will never use xp. However, VoidMain claims that his family uses red hat linux to do all that stuff, including his kids. Of course they presumably cannot install stuff because they would need the root password. Windows is a single user OS which means that any one user can fool with another user's files, or worse, with system files. This simply cannot happen in a unix environment. Each to their own, i am an advocate of choice.
I hope you are not angry after reading my response to you, whatsallthis, many people get annoyed with me for replying to them. HOWEVER i feel that your post was full of well thought out substance and therefore was easy to reply to with substantial comments.
Welcome to the board and don't hesitate to ask if you need to know something about your future linux system.
-
quote:
Many programs have not been optimised for the P4, so they run slower and buggier than on a P3!
It seems silly that they make chips so complex that the programmers actually have to OPTIMIZE their code for them. Isn't this the chip equivalent of the Microsoft incompetence syndrome?
Why can't any archetecture(sp) changes just involve getting the input/output faster, larger, and through the chip/motherboard more efficiently? Is this why X86 sux or from it being a hack of a hack of a hack?(Teh d00d with this sig, explain this concept please)
-
I could have bought XP PRO for 5 dollars. My college has that offer for its students, but I havent.
The thing that pissed me off and didnt even bother to learn what else is wrong with XP, is the fucking activation thing.
Yes i know Its nothing hard to do....but I DONT WANT ANYBODY getting info about me.
Not because i have anything to hide. But this activation shit and all that, that MS thinks of putting out in few years, are a bad omen of things to come in 40-60 years from now.
-
I have used Windows XP once. I was dealing with a problem with that particular PC and the first rule of M$ is Reboot. It took a whopping 7 minutes to do so. The reboot may have taken more than 7 minutes because I only started to time it after what seemed an age had gone by. I hate having to reboot any PC. Every f*****g day I have to reboot my own Win98 PC. Every f*****g day the PC fails to shut down properly, every f*****g day the f*****g scan disk runs. Some days I switch on my PC, go away and get a coffee, return and the f*****g thing is in "safe" mode and I reboot the f****g thing again. What is "safe" mode anyway ? Safe from what ? Some days the f*****g PC just sits there with that dopey Win98 flag fluttering on my screen. I haven't tried Linux as I am gathering info from a number of places. I just hope Linux can shift Gates. Windoze users are worse than the f****g Moonies.
-
i don't like FreeBSD that much, i tried FreeBSD 4.6 and it was kind of awkward. the console is not like BASH so i didn't know any of the commands, it didn't know 'ls' or 'startx' so i said screw it and went back to L00nix
-
quote:
SingleMalt:
NONE of m$ dickware so called "operation systems" are good! Every windows version has severe flaws and security issues (search the web I won't bother to provide links) The only reason I mentioned NT4 (or dos) is that even unstable crappy NT4 can actually do things better than w2kp or xPiss. (Even shit's colour can vary )
Don't bother to argue this.. I have given examples and answered for you ad nauseum.
Ok Excuse me but every Linux version has security flaws they put updates up for it so don't say just because windows is bad because it has security flaws. Every operation system may it be linux or MacOs it has to have flaws because it is a big program and there is no 100% guarantee that it is flaw proof.
-
I think you have only one good point:
It's virtually impossible to make a program that will run without ANY bugs, on ANY pc, ANY time.
Exept when you want it just to say 'howdy' or something.
But, if you'd compare what M$ delivered us until now, i think Linux (i don't know other M$ alternatives) did a far better job than ANY M$ crap.
I happen to know a little C ...
:D
-
Ahh, but there are mistakes in your code. First you need to include <stdlib.h> or "EXIT_SUCCESS" will be undeclared. Optionally you could replace "EXIT_SUCCESS" with "0" and not include <stdlib.h>. "fprint()" should be "printf()". I also believe there are non-code mistakes. I am no grammar expert but I do not believe there should be a comma in your output string, and there should be no space before the exclamation point. And I know that outside of the US it may be common to spell "neighbor" as "neighbour" but since I am revising it in the US I will use the US spelling:
Of course this assumes that your compiler is bug free as well and that you are using an ANSI C compliant compiler.
-
lol - Void, you made me roll over the floor here (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
Indeed, i once saw the word 'neighbour', and started using it.
I'll start using 'neighbor' from now on (http://tongue.gif)
I'm an absolute sucker for C, i've tried it (in linux) but it was really too complicated for me. Things like QuakeC or (don't be scared) basic work for me. I even didn't remember it was 'printf' instead of 'fprint'.
The EXIT_SUCCESS was a variable i remembered from an svgalib example. EXIT_SUCCESS, should, with the
right headers declared, get the value of 0.
But i forgot that :D
-
im sure all of this has been mentioned b4 but i didnt read most of this so....
I hate Xp because...
after a few MS updates windows media player will no longer play divx movies. i have to use Power dvd to play vcds.
The system logs your surfing.
if you do change a few of your cards at the same time, (video, Sound, and modem) you have to re-install and in most cases re register the shit.
everytime a program crashes it wants to cry MS about it.
the compatiblity modes for older programs almost never works.
NBA 2001 doesnt work for it, nor will it ever (thanks alot EA Sports)
-
A recent newspaper warned us about downloading updates for windoze media player: it would upgrade itself without your permission, and you couldn't shut the damn thing off .
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
I'm an absolute sucker for C, i've tried it (in linux) but it was really too complicated for me. Things like QuakeC or (don't be scared) basic work for me. I even didn't remember it was 'printf' instead of 'fprint'.
The EXIT_SUCCESS was a variable i remembered from an svgalib example. EXIT_SUCCESS, should, with the
right headers declared, get the value of 0.
QuakeC? What's that? Sounds like it might be C but with the Quake libraries and headers included.
To be honest, I rarely ever see "EXIT_SUCCESS" used. Normally people just use "0" to indicate a successful return from a function or the main program. Or they use a non-zero value for an unsuccessful return. In fact, normally you would create your own variable (like "rc" for instance indicating "return code") and you would manipulate that variable and when you need to exit from the routine or program you would "return rc;". But using "EXIT_SUCCESS" would likely be more "proper". Six of one, a half dozen of another.
-
quote:
outside of the US it may be common to spell "neighbor" as "neighbour"
"neighbour" is the correct spelling. I suspect that Microsoft themselves invented "US English" (an oxymoron if ever i heard one!) Sorry but "neighbor is incorrect. Same with "color" and "center", i'm sorry to say! Try writing the correct spellings in yr html and see how far you get though! i can't imagine a browser that treats "colour" and "centre" with the merit that they deserve!
Apart from that, top marks for your bugless code, VoidMain, you really pay attention to detail, and after all, like you say, "neighbor" is right since you're writing it in the US, at least that's what they probably teach in school over their (along with dubious defenitions of words like "pants" and "vest"...) And you're 100% right about the comma too.
PS, i know there are several grammatical errors in this text by the way folks, just before you think to tell me! :D
-
Heh heh, thanks Calum. "Bug Free" code is the easiest code to find bugs in. Sort of like Oracle proclaiming that their database is hack proof, of course not too much later vulnerabilities were found and hacked it was....
-
QuakeC is a nifty C-simplified programming language that the quake engine can read.
This way, you can make mods quite simply.
If i can do it, anyone can :D
If i hadn't moved all my Quake shite to my linux partition, i would've gotten you a sample, void.
But if i get my 'net running under linux i'll show you some.
But now you've got me confused - is the general term 'neighbour' or 'neighbor' ? :confused:
And i'm sure you saw that my 'bug free' code was a
joke ?
[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: -=f00bar=- ]
-
I just love Windows XP User #xxxxx's sig.
It makes me laugh every time.
I have a new one that's pretty much the same.
Freedom now?
Freedom NEVER! Go POLICE STATE!
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
But now you've got me confused - is the general term 'neighbour' or 'neighbor' ? :confused:
And i'm sure you saw that my 'bug free' code was a
joke ?
In the U.S. it is spelled "neighbor" but I presume everywhere else (Europe) it is spelled "neighbour". Same with "color" and "colour", "center" and "centre", and I also believe with "theater" and "theatre".
Here is an example of what I mean:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbor (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbor)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbour (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbour)
Since the U.S. is much younger than the English language and much younger than Great Britain I can not argue with Calum's statement that "neighbour" is the correct spelling. However, that spelling will get you an "F" on your report card in U.S. schools.
And yes, I presumed your code sample was a joke. I just took it and ran with it.
[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
In the U.S. it is spelled "neighbor" but I presume everywhere else (Europe) it is spelled "neighbour". Same with "color" and "colour", "center" and "centre", and I also believe with "theater" and "theatre".
Ah - now i see. The one with the most letters is usually British English.
quote:
Here is an example of what I mean:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbor (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbor)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbour&db=* (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neighbour&db=*)
Since the U.S. is much younger than the English language and much younger than Great Britain I can not argue with Calum's statement that "neighbour" is the correct spelling. However, that spelling will get you an "F" on your report card in U.S. schools.
Hm. I wonder what i'd get on my school, here in Holland. I think both would be correct, don't you think ? We sure got it easier :D
quote:
And yes, I presumed your code sample was a joke. I just took it and ran with it.
Phew :cool:
And i laughed my arse off when i saw it ;)
-
quote:
Hm. I wonder what i'd get on my school, here in Holland. I think both would be correct, don't you think ? We sure got it easier
usually we get taught cockney english (middelbare school, don't know how to translate that in english (high school?)), however in college (high technical english course) we got to choose what we wanted to speak/write, as long as you didn't mix the two...
-
'Middelbare school' in dutch is indeed 'high school' in english, karma.
I think not switching the two englishes is going to be tough for me. I always tend to use more cockney english for common words (colour, neighbour, arse :D )
But my accent is either american, or a very, very strange kinda scottish-like accent i learned from my sister ...
-
you'd probably sound (pause for effect) DUTCH to me! :D
Try learning Scots, by the way! it is derived from similar roots to other forms of Old English, however it has fallen into disuse due to it's unfashionability for a long time, due to the fact that our English oppressors made it ILLEGAL to speak it in Scotland!
Consequently i don't think that Scots will be on any of your curricula!
-
I speak ummm Canadian. To me, Canadian/American is basically standard english with one HUGE difference, IT'S VOCALLY CLEAR! :D
Ok so what can you foreign d00dz tell me about my Canada vocal skillz that I can't notice?
-
none of you can say 'house' or 'about' properly! :D
-
I don't mind Canadian but i find american too nasal to really decipher. After about a week in the US i start to understand them better though. And if you want an english accent choose a down to earth scottish or northern english one rather than a prissy southern one.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
none of you can say 'house' or 'about' properly! :D
uhhh...how do you say house? Hasnt anyone seen that Molson Canadian Commercial? I know someone that went to some foreign country (i think it was italy... or spain) on a tour bus she said the whole 'I am Canadian' speech from the commercial over the intercom.
-
The problem with windows XP is that it is Utterly bloated out of all proportion with no obvious improvements to account for its massive increase in size. Windows XP also assumes you are stupid in the way it does things, it will not let you configure your system in the way you want, but instead configures the system in the way IT wants, usually at an inconvenience to the operator. It is chock full of backward-compatability issues. And , after careful scrutiny WindowsXP really does seem to be just a huge bloated lump of spyware thinly disguised as an OS. I would think very carefully about installing it on any PC unless you have another one handy to use while your trying to get XP to work efficiently. Many drivers you download for an XP upgrade simply will not work. As usual, our dear mr gates has released in incomplete package full of bugs and bloat as "the big new thing", Plus, he has deliberately made it totally incompatable with his previous releases so everyone who "upgrades" will have to spend money in other areas (that he no doubt has interests in). I imagine the next "big new thing" from microsoft will be presented to us before very long in the form of say..... XP second edition?
So what is all this shit he puts us through? I mean, lets face it folks, win98 was an improvement over win95, but all releases since then have basically been bug fixes for the previous release because none of them have ever worked properly. And now XP is basically NT version 6ish.
Did you know that the US Navy controls its submarines with Windows NT? A program that has been plagued with bugs (including security holes) since its release. Did you know that in 1997 a missile cruiser was rendered DEAD IN THE WATER because of a calculating glitch in NT. The program was marketed as being secure but haS so many holes that hackers say NT stands for Nice Try.
I would also like to point out that if you or I bought a car or a house or stereo, blender, chainsaw, toothpick... you name it, ... whatever.... if we bought it and it didnt work, we could take it back to the place of purchase for replacement, repair or refund. Yet if we buy an item of software and it dosent work and we lose all our work of years, our business or our life because of it, the company is not liable??? How does that work? Can I have one of those arrangements for my company too? It seems like a licence to print money to me...I could do with one of those
-
yeah, i was reading about that, amusing, since they just "upgraded" from unix
-
I LOATHE windows xp. its on some of the computers at uni and its so bloody slow..and this is one a Pentium 3 or 4 800 MhZ with 256 meg ram... hmm...
I wont even consider putting it on my little pentium 266/128mb ram/4gig HDD.. and it probably wont have enough HDD space either.
Sigh.. i wish i can run Mac OS instead.
:eek:
-
quote:
Did you know that the US Navy controls its submarines with Windows NT? A program that has been plagued with bugs (including security holes) since its release. Did you know that in 1997 a missile cruiser was rendered DEAD IN THE WATER because of a calculating glitch in NT. The program was marketed as being secure but haS so many holes that hackers say NT stands for Nice Try.
NO WAY! I thought the American army was smart enough to have realized they don't need windows back in the 3.11 days. I mean goddamn, WTF is wrong with them.
Have they reformed in their dumb ways? Can you imagine the day they incorporate windows into assault rifles? Well there is the OICW, I am unsure of how computer heavy it is though. I sure hope their planning on something else besides Xpee.
XP USER #666-"I would trust an OICW running XP technology with my life, on the battlefields of tommorow. Enjoy your commandline console complexity problems the next time you Linux deviants have to fix a software glitch in a futuristic firearm in a hostile enviroment". :D
-
Wow, what a nice thread (:
quote:
Posted by Windows XP User #5225982375
Yeah right, maybe you can run a text shell of Debian under those specs... get real, KDE won't work properly on anything under 600 mhz.
That's odd... I suppose there's something wrong with my monitor, because periodically Heretic 3 appears to run just fine on my 360 mhz (WINE, of course).
quote:
The average Linux distribution takes up over 2 gigs of space as well.
Ok, I'm kinda annoyed that Redhat takes up 3 non-source cds now, but I've got 7.2 running great on a 1.5 Gig drive. I'm actually only using 1.2 gigs of that, and my computer could act as a industrial webserver if I wanted it to (because it NEVER crashes except under special circumstances (my little brother throws one of his toys into the open case)). Last time Redhat crashed without having a toy or lamp inside the case was the time I put in bad memory.
quote:
Windows XP "looks" like it takes up a lot, but if you disable system restore and decrease the swap space it really doesn't take up that much.
*sigh* I haven't actually checked this because I've never used an XP machine. The 2K machine I'm using at work right now 978K of data in the WINNT directory. This doesn't count Internet Explorer files, which might push the amount of unusable disk-space above the size of my entire Redhat partition, complete with Redhat's source, gcc, Netscape, KDE (which runs great), Heretic 3, Rune (from Loki games), etc...
quote:
--------------------
Open source now?
Open source NEVER! Go Microsoft!
Why could any user be against open source? I may be missing something, but I don't see why you're so avidly attempting to deny yourself and others the ability to see the code you're depending on.
Edit: fixed a typo
[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: tratan ]