Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Canadian Lover on 23 August 2003, 01:14
-
I'm in luck that I found a Cyber cafee from a small city 3 hour drive from Montreal
check out this troll-post ofr mine a the WindowsBBS (http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=695d5fa718b1494f7c586a8c06755807&threadid=21583) It pretty funny how they take the word "sucks" as a swear
-
quote:
Originally posted by The all X11 hater:
I'm in luck that I found a Cyber cafee from a small city 3 hour drive from Montreal
check out this troll-post ofr mine a the WindowsBBS (http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=695d5fa718b1494f7c586a8c06755807&threadid=21583) It pretty funny how they take the word "sucks" as a swear
Well, aren't YOU a winner...
Idiot.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
Well, aren't YOU a winner...
Idiot.
lern some manner!
-
quote:
WINDOWS RULEZZZZ: lern some manner!
Learn to spell (http://tongue.gif) And stop being a jerk to TheQuirk.
-
trolling is lame, no matter what the opinion is. we should all write out a nice letter for why we like an operating system better than a microsoft one. a nice 5 page essay or something, and post it in their general discussion.
-
Are you saying you went to a cyber cafe to post that?
[ August 22, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
i couldnt stand to be at the windows bbs for more than a few seconds. Talk about brainwashed central.
Yeah that is a waste of time, microsoft hater.
-
Boy, that thread didn't last long.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
Boy, that thread didn't last long.
mine is
-
could someone put a transcript up or something... I'm not able to get to it!!
WINDOZE GAYWADS!!!!
-
heh...
try going http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21592 (http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21592)
intresting response, full of shit though.
-
"..oh, and please do not use microsoft facists here again."
What does he want them called... maybe the Borg?
-
yes, the windows BS lives up to its name, but why stoop to their level?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
yes, the windows BS lives up to its name, but why stoop to their level?
the few that haven't been completely brainwashed could have read that, and decided... or at least considered, not using windows.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
the few that haven't been completely brainwashed could have read that, and decided... or at least considered, not using windows.
Or... perhaps they prefer windows :eek: *gasp*
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
Or... perhaps they prefer windows :eek: *gasp*
how can you prefer one thing over another if you haven't use the other? or even know there was another?
most people see windows and apples and know nothing else. Everyone I've talked to that's used windows has always had nothing but complaints... that's before i mention -not- using windows.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
try going http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21592 (http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21592)
intresting response, full of shit though.
From a reply to your post there:
"On my 98SE machines OE is not even installed."
OE isn't the security risk, IE is - and I'd bet money he has IE6 installed. In fact he said he uses Eurdora, which uses the IE HTML engine to render html attachments, so therefore he is still at risk.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bigsleep:
From a reply to your post there:
"On my 98SE machines OE is not even installed."
OE isn't the security risk, IE is - and I'd bet money he has IE6 installed. In fact he said he uses Eurdora, which uses the IE HTML engine to render html attachments, so therefore he is still at risk.
I didn't say that.
-
and macman, dont be a dick. i was awake for about 20 hours in a row before i posted anything there.
-
i signed up to windowsbbs and tried to have an "real" discussion about linux. Well, i was banned for saying linux. at least, that is what i assume, since my post wasn't derogatory, or "flaming" in any manner. It was a simple question. Anyways. after that, i said fuck that site and havent been back since.
-
my god the guy that last replied was a moron... (i won't say that there though, that gets you banned) you look at that thread? other than the fact that i was asleep when i was posting (still need to go to bed), it seems to be going well. they are rather dumb though.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
I didn't say that.
I didn't say you did, are you dyslexic?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bigsleep:
I didn't say you did, are you dyslexic?
you said, "from a reply to your post there" i thought you meant you were replying to me posting that, but were replying here rather than there.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
my god the guy that last replied was a moron...
Yep, I could argue with every single statement he made, but people like that are completly dense.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
how can you prefer one thing over another if you haven't use the other? or even know there was another?.
So.... none of the users at the WBBS have ever used Linux? Goodness, you have quite the ESP. :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
So.... none of the users at the WBBS have ever used Linux? Goodness, you have quite the ESP. :D
some have, most haven't. and those who have, used an old version and given up. similar to how i've only used a mac classic and haven't used a mac since.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
you said, "from a reply to your post there" i thought you meant you were replying to me posting that, but were replying here rather than there.
Yes. I don't see any reason to give WindowsBBS an eMail address, I don't particually like Rose City Software.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bigsleep:
Yes. I don't see any reason to give WindowsBBS an eMail address, I don't particually like Rose City Software.
i gave them my spam address, but that wasn't my point. i thought you were replying to my post, implying that i said that. it was just a misunderstanding.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
some have, most haven't. and those who have, used an old version and given up. similar to how i've only used a mac classic and haven't used a mac since.
If you want to make credible argument with those people, you can't make broad assumptions like that.
Or rather than talk about the last MacOS I used, I would talk about how quickly I learned to use it.
-
i dont use macs though, i try to keep them out of my arguements.
-
lmao.
i had it together (reasonably) before i read this post. now im totally confused. but thats alright.
-
Oh dear,
they are all the same these idiots, Windows is marvelous, Linux is rubbish blah, blah, blah...
Ok so you go frag em Stryker... here is some suitable ammo.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=windowsbbs.com (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=windowsbbs.com)
If $MS Windows is so good perhaps they should host their site on NT and IIS NOT Linux and Apache, but then they would have to pay real money for that.
Oooh look they have Front Page extensions running, so bloody tempting for your average hacker :D ... Dorks!
Later
Sime
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
some have, most haven't. and those who have, used an old version and given up. similar to how i've only used a mac classic and haven't used a mac since.
I've used Linux. I've used it numerous times(including some of the most recent Mandrake, Redhat and SuSe distros). Linux is getting better, but I still come back to Windows. Why? Because every piece of software that I use on a daily basis doesn't run natively in Linux(alot of it won't even run emulated in bullshit like Wine/WineX).
I like the Windows interface better. My music sounds better in Windows due to the fact that the media players for Windows have better audio enhancements. Even the standard "Play Control" audio adjuster that comes with Windows gives me more options to make my audio sound better than anything I've seen in Linux. The Linux equivalent to "Play Control" doesn't even let me adjust my bass and treble. On crappy speakers something like that doesn't matter. On 6.1 surround sound speakers it makes a world of difference.
I'm not even going to get into 3D audio support(lack of) in Linux(like Advanced HD EAX, Aureal A3D emulation on the Audigy 2, etc.). Where is the soundfont support for Linux? Where is the Environmental Audio/Reverb support in Linux(for everything...including Audio CD's, MP3's, etc.)? Where is the voice changer in Linux? My opinion is Linux audio support is just basic(it sucks).
Why in hell do I have a DirectX 9 videocard(GeForce FX5900 Ultra) if Linux doesn't even support DirectX? Yes, DirectX is a better API than OpenGL. DirectX has more capabilites(Pixel shaders, Vertex Shaders, Advanced Pixel Shaders, Enviromental Bumpmapping, etc.) that in the end produces better graphics when utilized.
Why is it, when I try to install a driver in Linux it takes alot more effort to get it working than it does in Windows? Why is it such a pain in the ass to install software in Linux? I want to be able to run an installer and have the software ready to go after it is installed. In Linux you have to go to the Konsole and do extra configuring after running an RPM(to get the files unpacked to the proper location) to get the fucking software to work.
Example, it took me over an hour to get MPlayer working in Linux. In Windows, something like Winamp, Windows Media Player 9, Foobar, Real Player, Quicktime, etc. is installed and ready to use in a matter of seconds with a few simple mouse clicks.
I have a lot more quirks about Linux that I'd like to list but I'm tired and I'm ready to get some sleep so it will have to wait until later. ;P
To make a long story short. Hardware support in Linux is good enough to get you by....it is basic...you don't get the cool extra features out of your hardware(the features you paid for when you bought the hardware). The hardware driver installation method in Linux could use alot of refinement(needs to be made easier like it is in Windows). The software installation methods need to be re-thought up..and Linux could definatley use mainstream software support. Linux is good for the hobbyists, it isn't good for people who don't have alot of time to spend configuring thier computer anytime they want to get work done(or play when they are taking a break from thier work).
FYI - I don't need an OS that runs on a 200mhz 586, 32MB of Ram and 3 gig(PIO mode 4) hard drive because I have a 3ghz+ CPU (P4 2.4c ghz, HT enabled, 800mhz FSB o/ced to 3.12ghz)w/512MB of Ram(2x256MB DDR400 Dimms in a Dual Channel DDR configuration), 2x100GB ATA133 IDE hard drives(in RAID0), a 80GB ATA133 IDE drive and a 80GB Serial ATA hard drive(using an Asus P4P800 Deluxe motherboard..i865PE w/ICH5R chipset and PAT enabled) in this box. A 1.5gb Windows installation doesn't even make a dent in my drive space. The processes running in Windows doesn't even make my system flinch because I have plenty of Ram and it is fast, fast, fast(I'm getting about 6gbps of bandwidth out of my Ram). My system is not slow by any means and Windows doesn't run slow at all. Honestly, I need something that will tax my system more than what Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 can. I guess I'll have to wait until Longhorn. ;P
Nowadays people shouldn't even bitch about how big Windows is getting because storage is so cheap. It is less than a $1 per GB anymore. Ram is dirt cheap anymore. High speed CPU's aren't all that expensive anymore. This isn't the mid 90's anymore people.
(EDIT)Ain't it perty? ;P
(http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/cpuinfo.jpg)
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
"I've used Linux. I've used it numerous times(including some of the most recent Mandrake, Redhat and SuSe distros). Linux is getting better, but I still come back to Windows. Why? Because every piece of software that I use on a daily basis doesn't run natively in Linux(alot of it won't even run emulated in bullshit like Wine/WineX). "
Such as?
"I like the Windows interface better.My music sounds better in Windows....."
Another Windows user who misses the point. We are Linux users, we are part of a community. If you are not satisfied with what is available then do something about it. That would mean either editing the current code or writing your own and CONTRIBUTING your efforts to the community instead of winging about the lack of support for those things you conceder to be important.
As for the GUI interface. Don't even attempt to make a comparison between the Windows GUI and X
X is a protocol that runs on port(s) 6000 - 6063 aka an X Server http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/ip/ports06000.htm (http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/ip/ports06000.htm)
The windows GUI is a hard coded fact of life that you can't turn off regardless, more to the point you can't redirect the GUI to an alternative machine, and PC Anywhere / VNC are NOT the same thing . On Unix based systems I can manage multiple machines simply by exporting the display to the machine I am logged on to and then either running up an application or actually starting X itself.
If you don't like KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment or one of the other numerous GUI's then write a new one and show us mere mortals how it should be done.
As for you can't do graphics in Linux really are you sure about that, yeh positive? Perhaps you shoud go watch "Titanic" or "Star Wars - Attack Of The Clones" (And many others) Personally I thought the graphics were state of the art at the time and jaw droppingly good. Strange how they were all created on Linux systems.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6011 (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6011)
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4803 (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4803)
"Why in hell do I have a DirectX 9....."
Hum good question why do you?
Probably because you actually use your computer to PLAY GAMES ON rather than for something useful and constructive. The reason you can't get Direct X for Linux is the usual reason. DirectX is just another proprietary $MS standard and as such can change at Microsoft's whim. It is the monumental influence of Microsoft that makes DirectX an industry standard. Therefore the reason you can't get DirectX under Linux / Unix / BSD etc is because Microsoft don't wish to make it available (No surprise there). Personally I agree with you, I would love to use DirectX under Linux but $MS is NOT going to allow it ... welcome to the real world.
DirectX is a better API than OpenGL...
That's the spirit, you slag off OpenGL and say how wonderful DirectX is. Shame that Microsoft was a founding member of the Open GL architecture review board (ARB) and resigned so it could attempt to kill it off using DirectX. The point is DirectX ONLY works on Windows that's why is proprietary so to run it and you HAVE TO RUN WINDOWS NO CHOICE, so why don't you ask $MS to make the API's in DirectX open (fat chance that is not in the companies ethos) instead of winging about it to us.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/29555.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/29555.html)
"Why is it.." .... "Example, it took me over an hour..."
You really are Mr. point and click. I don't have these problems I run live DNS, web real time logging and all sorts for my self and for large companies. Linux, BSD, Unix require that you KNOW and more to the point UNDERSTAND what you are doing, if you don't then stick with Windows and $MS and keep clicking yes. Things will work but you won't know why or how. Perhaps you don't care how they work and just want the functionality fine you have found your perfect OS best of luck!
To make a long story short. Hardware support in Linux is good enough to get you by....
Oh dear ... Linux at this time excels @ and is a superb server OS. It is only just beginning to attack the desktop market. Once the various companies who wish to back this attack (IBM / HP and others) mount their assault I rather suspect it will be highly effective.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/12/2043223 (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/12/2043223)
FYI - ....
Well aren't you lucky. Most people don't have access to a system of that spec. I would hope that any OS would work well on such a box and what you have said is not a surprise. You then say you will have to wait for Longhorn ... So you expect Long horn to tax your system? Excuse me you OS should be transparent and use virtually no resources, the whole point is you run applications, not the OS, try running up Photoshop, Cinema 4D, 3D Studio Max and half a dozen other applications while running a couple of seitathome CLI sessions and start actually using the box.
"Nowadays people shouldn't even bitch about how big Windows......."
That statement is a load of absolute drivel that I would expect someone on a computing 101 course to come out with. The amount of space on a hard disk , the power of a CPU and the relative cost of said component parts be they cheap OR expensive is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for writing rubbish code that utilizes more space (be it hard disk or memory) than is actually necessary to achieve a given result.
All that happens when you allow that type thinking to become prevalent is the addition of a the odd flight simulator into your favorite application e.g. $MS Excel, on the grounds that nobody will notice, but hey you paid for the hardware and the software, if you have so much money that you don't care that 10% - X% more of it is being used than is actually necessary then fine it's your cash!
Sime
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: sime ]
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: sime ]
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: sime ]
-
It's wonderful how in these debates, sometimes the two sides are talking about two diffirent things. There's Zombie talking about using Linux to listen to music, and play games (BTW, God damn is music in linux painful to the ears. Oh yeah... I'll get started working on some better audio coding right away.), and then sime goes on about tracking web stats for large companies.
I remember Zombie agreeing that Linux is grand for those sorta applications, don't I?
quote:
The windows GUI is a hard coded fact of life that you can't turn off regardless
That's funny. I've tried a few Windows GUI replacements. Oddlly enough, some of them ran slower the windows.
-
Yeah. Linux is great for a server. You install it, configure everything and let it run down in a basement, in a closet, etc. where nobody has to see it or use it.
But then again, I wonder if Linux is as great as some people praise it to be for a server. Why? Example...Neowin.net runs on Redhat Linux w/Apache. The site is always plauged by speed issues, connection issues, database corruption, etc. The site is down for matainence as we speak(it has been down since yesterday). It was down for almost a week a couple of months ago. It will go down again soon after they get it back up. And you get my point.
I think a server that has over a million hits per day should be running the tried and true Unix or BSD. Unix/BSD is proven to be an excellent server environment that can withstand abuse(eg. lots of people connecting at 1 time, lots of bandwidth being used 24/7, etc). I think I would rather use MacOS X(a user-friendly Unix...as user friendly as Windows for that matter ;P) for a server than Linux.
Microsoft.com on IIS doesn't have nearly as many problems as Neowin does. The only time Microsoft.com or any(MS owned sites) go down is when some childish asshole decides to launch a DOS attack(not really a problem anymore because MS can defend against those now) or launch a devastating worm that attacks IIS only(and is designed to ultimatley attack Microsot).
No it isn't MS's fault nor is it thier softwares' fault that childish people like to wreak havoc on mission critical systems and or regular home user's systems. Why they do it, I don't know. This world would be a better place if people would grow up. What are you trying to prove when you damage peoples' shit? Shit that people paid good money for?
Writing a virus that wipes data off of a hard drive is just a childish and vandalisitic as going and keying somebodys' car, busting out thier windshield, putting dents on the car body intentionally, putting sugar in the gas tank, popping thier tires, etc.
(EDIT)It is obvious that some of your MS haters are really childish(not all of you though). Heck, this thread was made just to brag about how the thread maker trolled a help forum. How childish is that? It is one thing to state your opinion in search of legit answers and legit opinions from different communities. It is another thing to go to a forum and post utter garbage with the intention of annoying people(especially a forum where people aren't there to chat, they are there for help because they don't know what they are doing).
(EDIT 2)Just to poke some fun at my Neowin example. I just did a Googlism on Neowin.
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Neowin&type=1 (http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Neowin&type=1)
Look at how many times it says, Neowin is closed, Neowin is back up. It also says Neowin is going down. Neowin is famous for it's server issues. LoL
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
I do agree that OSes like FreeBSD or Solaris are more appropriate for servers than Linux. Also, Mac OS X and BeOS are much better desktop alternatives than Linux (in fact, they're better than Windows, for that matter).
And I say this after using several Linux distributions for three years. It's still a pain to install applications in Red Hat and Mandrake, even with Synaptic. Although Linux distributions have evolved, you have several hundred distributions barely compatible with each other. There are a at least a dozen of different package formats, like RPM, deb, tgz, slp, spk, elysium and many others. Often, you even have to find a package specific to a particular version of the distro. And once you installed it, you have to look for the package in the KDE or GNOME menu, if it's even there.
Also, there are dozens of different windows managers, which can themselves be configured differently from a distro to another. For example, KDE doesn't look quite the same in SuSE as in Red Hat or Mandrake, because one of them has Bluecurve and the other has something else.
I think it would be good if Linux takes the entreprise market. But I hope it never takes over the user desktop market. This should be left to Apple.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
I do agree that OSes like FreeBSD or Solaris are more appropriate for servers than Linux. Also, Mac OS X and BeOS are much better desktop alternatives than Linux (in fact, they're better than Windows, for that matter).
And I say this after using several Linux distributions for three years. It's still a pain to install applications in Red Hat and Mandrake, even with Synaptic. Although Linux distributions have evolved, you have several hundred distributions barely compatible with each other. There are a at least a dozen of different package formats, like RPM, deb, tgz, slp, spk, elysium and many others. Often, you even have to find a package specific to a particular version of the distro. And once you installed it, you have to look for the package in the KDE or GNOME menu, if it's even there.
Also, there are dozens of different windows managers, which can themselves be configured differently from a distro to another. For example, KDE doesn't look quite the same in SuSE as in Red Hat or Mandrake, because one of them has Bluecurve and the other has something else.
I think it would be good if Linux takes the entreprise market. But I hope it never takes over the user desktop market. This should be left to Apple.
Linux just isn't streamlined. Therefore it will never be a viable desktop alternative for most of the world.
I won't slam your opinion of BeOS and MacOSX being better than windows. Quite frankly, I like BeOS. It was ashame to see Be go under. ;( I like MacOS X too. The only thing I don't like about MacOS is you have to have a Mac(made by Apple, and Apple only) to run it. I like having an open computer architecture so I can build and custom configure my system. Speaking of BeOS....I noticed when I used it that it had no trouble with winmodems(I tried Lucent and Rockwell winmodems in it). So that proves that you don't have to have Windows for a winmodem to work. So what is Linux's excuse for winmodem compatibility?
Every OS has it's place.
Windows, MacOSX, BeOS - Able to do everything that a consumer could possibly want to do with thier computer with ease of use in mind. Each of the mentioned OSes can be used for more than just home consumer purpouses. Each also has the ability to be used as an easy to setup server for businesses, enterprises, the government, etc.
DOS - Perfect for removing/modifying protected stuff from a windows system that normally can't be deleted/modified. It is good for disk partationing, fixing the MBR of your drive, formatting a drive with a system on it is good for just deleting an installation of Windows so you can install a clean, fresh copy of it. It is not for the squeamish(your average consumer) because a command line interface is intimidating for most people.
Unix/BSD/Novel - Excellent choice for mission critical systems and servers. Not got good for the average consumer because they are far from easy to use and setup. The advantage is they only need to be setup once then they can be left on for years and years without a reboot.
Linux - A bastard child. It has no real purpose in the OS world. It wants to take on the desktop orientated market, it wants to take on the server market, it wants to take it's place on mission critical systems, etc. It isn't a viable solution for any of the markets though.
It isn't easy enough for the average desktop consumer. There are so many different versions of it that it is a task in itself just to find software and drivers for your certain distro with a certain kernel build for a certain architecture. It becomes a real chore when you find what you need and the time comes to install it and get it working. :eek: It isn't reliable enough to replace Unix, BSD, Novell, etc. What can you expect out of something that has it's source viewable to the entire world? Servers and mission critical systems can't afford the downtime needed to patch a linux system(recompile the kernel w/a new kernel w/bug fixes for the previous one) then you have to update your software and hardware drivers to a new version that works with the new kernel. At least when you patch even a MS system it only costs enough downtime to reboot your system(a minute or 2). You download a pre-compiled patch, install it and reboot....thats it. None of your old software and hardware drivers get broken by the update.
Linux's only real place is on hobbyist computers. It is for people who have all the time in the world to tinker with thier computer. Nobody else wants any part of it. Even software companies who make money from selling software don't care to make software for it(don't care to fuck with it).
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Do you still follow BeOS developments? Because there are some BeOS fans who are continuing the development of BeOS. Some programmers are making updated distributions of BeOS PE, like BeOS Max (http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=BeOS+Max/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=4/H=0/*-http://www.beosmax.org/main.php), and even new, BeOS-compatible open source OSes like OpenBeOS (http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=openbeos/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.openbeos.org/).
As for the Mac, it IS possible to build a Mac OS compatible PPC box, as long as your hardware is supported. If it's not supported, there are even some projects to port Linux drivers to OS X.
http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/ (http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/)
Just because we don't like Linux doesn't mean that open source in itself is bad. FreeBSD (which I prefer to Linux) is open source, and a very stable OS. The difference is that it's more centralised, more standardised and better organised than Linux.
For many companies, it doesn't make sense to make all their software open source (like Apple). But open source does have its advantages.
-
The last version of BeOS I've used was 5.1d (Dano). I've considered trying Open BeOS when it is released for download. The last time I checked there were no downloads for it.
To this day I still use BeOS 5 Professional and BeOS 5.1d Dano on my old PIII 933mhz 256MB, GeForce 2 Ultra, SBLive!, LT Winmodem box.
I would put BeOS on this box(P4 2.4c ghz O/Ced to 3.12ghz, 512MB Ram, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, SB Audigy 2) if I knew my new hardware would work with it. I like how easy it is to Dual Boot with BeOS. It doesn't take a boot loader in the MBR, it doesn't take a painful process of installing the OSes in a certain order, etc. It is so simple....it is all contained in a folder like a regular app and you boot to it with a boot disk. How conveniant is that?
It doesn't even mess with the partation at all. I love BeOS. ;P
-
I'd like to try building a Power Mac, but I'm gonna wait until the CHRP boards support G5s, rather than that sad sack of shit G4... or I'll get something with an IBM 750GX so I can have a 200MHz bus and all kinds of cool stuff for less doh than a G5.
If they put OpenBeOS or YellowTab out for PPC, I'd love to toss something together for that, although OpenBeOS will be better than YellowTab.
YellowTab seems to be going the way of Linux, with TOO MANY options, and not enough compatibility, and too much focus on how cool it is to have 50 compilers.
AmigaOS 4 might also be fun to futz with, as well.
As for something Fett said... it is rather sad, IMHO, the attitudes of some of the people here toward people that actually like Windows, and are able to justify it. Ya know, there are people who *don't like Linux*... and there's NOTHING WRONG with that. Some people actually like these other things. Zombie is able to say in intelligent terms why he prefers it. It does the things he wants, and in his case, does it well.
Case in point:
Recently, myself and two friends moved to Fayetteville and into an apt. We hooked up with cable internet, and I set up a gateway server. I first tried with Red Hat 8. I coudn't make it work. I tried using XP's internet connection sharing, and it worked... first time. I downloaded and installed the free trial of Windows Server 2003, and I've run the peecee headless now for over two months and there's been absolutely no problems. Every machine in the house gets a fast, reliable connection from it. It does, indeed work. I'm sure I could have made Linux work, too. But I really didn't want to sit there and fiddle with it for hours, especially when Windows did it right off the bat.
Now my Macs get their internet hookup from it, and I don't have to use it at all. It's just there.
Sure.. MS sux, but give em some credit. Their stuff does things for people, and those people have valid reasons for using it. You'll do better to try to simply show them how to live as MS free as possible, rather than insisting they completely give up something that does actually work for them, and insulting them for not doing it.
I've found that you get much farther than you bargain for. A friend of mine was having internet troubles, and I pointed him toward Mozilla Firebird, and two weeks later he'd ordered an eMac because during further investigation of alternative browsers, he found Safari, and fell in love with Mac OS X.
I used to insult Windows and MS all the time, and tell people they were morons for even having Windows. But I've learned that I can get much farther by simply offering small suggestions as to how to slowly get rid of MS.
JUST MY TAKE ON THINGS
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James is COOL ]
-
BeOS should work with a pentium 4, as it is a i686 like the pentium 3. Your audigy sound card might work with this (http://www.bebits.com/app/3144) driver.
As for your Geforce, they are developping drivers for the unsupported nvidia graphic cards, including the Geforce 5200 FX. You may want to check for updates, as this looks promising.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/be-hold/BeOS/NVdriver/index.html (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/be-hold/BeOS/NVdriver/index.html)
quote:
I used to insult Windows and MS all the time, and tell people they were morons for even having Windows. But I've learned that I can get much farther by simply offering small suggestions as to how to slowly get rid of MS.
True. But it's also about suggesting the right alternative, rather than blindly forcing Linux on people. I've tried to like Linux, but somehow, even though I knew how to use it, it just didn't click with me. I toyed with many OSes by emulation, including Mac OS, Amiga and Acorn Archimedes, and I find all of those much more intuitive than recent Linux distros, even though much older. BeOS was my first Windows alternative for PC (other than emulation), and it was love at first sight. Red Hat Linux 6.0, OTOH, was a different story, needless to say. But one thing has to be said, with Linux, I learnt a lot about computers.
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7: Defender of Canada ]
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7: Defender of Canada ]
-
when Be development is back in full swing, with the new open source versions goin' down, it'll be a very good, very easy and intuitive alternative to suggest to people. And we can always tell them to try BeOS 5 Personal using the cool virtual disk that it shipped with. If they like it, go get OpenBeOS
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
I've used Linux. I've used it numerous times(including some of the most recent Mandrake, Redhat and SuSe distros). Linux is getting better, but I still come back to Windows.
Part of it has to do with having years of Windows experience and having maybe a few weeks of Linux experience. One tends to stick with what's familiar.
quote:
Why? Because every piece of software that I use on a daily basis doesn't run natively in Linux(alot of it won't even run emulated in bullshit like Wine/WineX).
Such as?
quote:
I like the Windows interface better. My music sounds better in Windows due to the fact that the media players for Windows have better audio enhancements. Even the standard "Play Control" audio adjuster that comes with Windows gives me more options to make my audio sound better than anything I've seen in Linux. The Linux equivalent to "Play Control" doesn't even let me adjust my bass and treble. On crappy speakers something like that doesn't matter. On 6.1 surround sound speakers it makes a world of difference.
What sound card do you use? I have access to all of those functions in Linux with my Sound blaster Live, with no more configuring than I do in Windows.
quote:
I'm not even going to get into 3D audio support(lack of) in Linux(like Advanced HD EAX, Aureal A3D emulation on the Audigy 2, etc.).
See Above
quote:
Where is the soundfont support for Linux?
Try a program called Fluidsynth.
quote:
Where is the Environmental Audio/Reverb support in Linux(for everything...including Audio CD's, MP3's, etc.)?
I haven't messed with it much, but I believe XMMS has these kinds of plugins.
quote:
Where is the voice changer in Linux?
I don't know what this is, so I can't comment.
quote:
My opinion is Linux audio support is just basic(it sucks).
Speaking as somebody that does audio and MIDI recording regularly on my Linux machine, I respectfully disagree.
quote:
Why in hell do I have a DirectX 9 videocard(GeForce FX5900 Ultra) if Linux doesn't even support DirectX?
If DirectX was open source, more OS's besides Windows would support it.
quote:
Yes, DirectX is a better API than OpenGL. DirectX has more capabilites(Pixel shaders, Vertex Shaders, Advanced Pixel Shaders, Enviromental Bumpmapping, etc.) that in the end produces better graphics when utilized.
What difference will this make to the average user if the program works?
quote:
Why is it, when I try to install a driver in Linux it takes alot more effort to get it working than it does in Windows? Why is it such a pain in the ass to install software in Linux? I want to be able to run an installer and have the software ready to go after it is installed. In Linux you have to go to the Konsole and do extra configuring after running an RPM(to get the files unpacked to the proper location) to get the fucking software to work.
This is an area that needs some work. Although it's not that bad for most software. And even then, a standard installer for all Linux distros can work. (as can be seen for the installers for RealPlayer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Codeweavers's software, the Lexmark printer drivers, and probably some commercial Linux games, although I'm not a gamer, so I can't say this for certain). Not everything has to be installed via the distro's package format.
quote:
Example, it took me over an hour to get MPlayer working in Linux.
MPlayer is probably the most difficult program you could possibly install, that I'm aware of. Everything else is far easier.
quote:
In Windows, something like Winamp, Windows Media Player 9, Foobar, Real Player, Quicktime, etc. is installed and ready to use in a matter of seconds with a few simple mouse clicks.
And ready to crash with a few simple mouse clicks.... ;) Seriously, you do have a point.
quote:
I have a lot more quirks about Linux that I'd like to list but I'm tired and I'm ready to get some sleep so it will have to wait until later. ;P
quote:
To make a long story short. Hardware support in Linux is good enough to get you by....it is basic...you don't get the cool extra features out of your hardware(the features you paid for when you bought the hardware).
It varies with the hardware, but a lot of it is just as much supported as it is in Windows.
quote:
The hardware driver installation method in Linux could use alot of refinement(needs to be made easier like it is in Windows).
Good point.
quote:
The software installation methods need to be re-thought up..and Linux could definatley use mainstream software support.
As more mainstream software support comes, easier software installation will follow.
quote:
Linux is good for the hobbyists, it isn't good for people who don't have alot of time to spend configuring thier computer anytime they want to get work done(or play when they are taking a break from thier work).
I disagree. You spend time configuring Linux once, (and it's mostly just adding a few programs or changing some desktop settings), then the rest of the time, you're simply able to get work done without fear of the OS crashing or hardware randomly deciding not to work (my girlfriend has the latter problem with her WinXP computer constantly). Now, the options are there if you want to configure or tweak it to your liking, but it's never necessary to configure your computer every time you want to get work done.
quote:
FYI - I don't need an OS that runs on a 200mhz 586, 32MB of Ram and 3 gig(PIO mode 4) hard drive because I have a 3ghz+ CPU (P4 2.4c ghz, HT enabled, 800mhz FSB o/ced to 3.12ghz)w/512MB of Ram(2x256MB DDR400 Dimms in a Dual Channel DDR configuration), 2x100GB ATA133 IDE hard drives(in RAID0), a 80GB ATA133 IDE drive and a 80GB Serial ATA hard drive(using an Asus P4P800 Deluxe motherboard..i865PE w/ICH5R chipset and PAT enabled) in this box. A 1.5gb Windows installation doesn't even make a dent in my drive space. The processes running in Windows doesn't even make my system flinch because I have plenty of Ram and it is fast, fast, fast(I'm getting about 6gbps of bandwidth out of my Ram). My system is not slow by any means and Windows doesn't run slow at all. Honestly, I need something that will tax my system more than what Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 can. I guess I'll have to wait until Longhorn. ;P
My system isn't quite that powerful.
quote:
Nowadays people shouldn't even bitch about how big Windows is getting because storage is so cheap. It is less than a $1 per GB anymore. Ram is dirt cheap anymore. High speed CPU's aren't all that expensive anymore. This isn't the mid 90's anymore people.
Just because faster processors/bigger RAM/bigger hard drives are available and cheap, doesn't mean the host operating system should require exponentially more system resources than its previous version just to run itself. We need to work for efficiency of resources, not use more and more just because it's there.
There are more things I'd like to reply to in your other posts, but it's 11:00 and I have to get up at 5:30 a.m. for work, so it will have to wait until later.
-
quote:
Part of it has to do with having years of Windows experience and having maybe a few weeks of Linux experience. One tends to stick with what's familiar.
Not nessicarily. I enjoy using BeOS. I enjoyed it since the first time I used it...and it was new to me at the time when I first used it. ;P
quote:
Such as?
Adobe Photoshop 7.0, Premier 6.5 and After Effects 6.0, Microsoft Office 11 Beta, Macromedia Fireworks MX and Studio MX, my games, etc.
quote:
What sound card do you use? I have access to all of those functions in Linux with my Sound blaster Live, with no more configuring than I do in Windows.
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum EX. Oh yeah, I forgot that my Audigy Drive doesn't function correctly in Linux either.
quote:
Try a program called Fluidsynth.
Will this program allow me to load large soundfont sets(60MB+)? The reason I ask is because the soundfont that I normally use is 63MB. It is huge but damn do the instruments in the set sound good.
If so, I'll check it out the next time I install Linux.
quote:
I don't know what this is, so I can't comment.
It is just a silly little toy that changes your voice as you speak in the mic. It is useful for making funny sound files, pissing people off in chat rooms, disguising your voice for a laugh if you call someone using a PC2phone program and to wow your friends. It isn't really signifigant. It is just a play toy.
quote:
If DirectX was open source, more OS's besides Windows would support it.
Heh, good point. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops. ;P I prefer the graphics quality of DirectX. I haven't tried any DX9 games, I've only seen DX9 demos...but I have a few games that use DirectX 8.1's features(like Morrowind). Pixel shaders, Advanced Pixel shaders and EVB make a big difference in background and scene quality.
quote:
What difference will this make to the average user if the program works?
Gamers buy high end 3D cards that produce stunning graphics for a reason. They want thier games to look better and more realistic. If you use Linux for games you may as well stick with a GeForce 2, Radeon 7500 or GeForce 4 MX because they all render OpenGL the same as the newest cards(some are just faster at rendering it than others).
quote:
Just because faster processors/bigger RAM/bigger hard drives are available and cheap, doesn't mean the host operating system should require exponentially more system resources than its previous version just to run itself. We need to work for efficiency of resources, not use more and more just because it's there.
Not true. A mainstream OS that taxes hardware more and more every release is the reason why our hardware is so powerful and cheap nowadays. Back in the mid 90's a 2GB hard drive costed over $150. Nobody needed anything much larger than that because Windows 95 didn't take much space. Now, a 2gig hard drive wouldn't last past an OS install....hell, I have like 20GB of MP3's and another 40GB of movies and and music videos on my drive. All made possible by having such large storage solutions. If you told people back in the 90's that you could store thousands and thousands of songs on your computer they wouldn't have believed you. It is a reality now.
BAck in the early 90's an OEM 486DX 33 computer costed over 3 thousand $$$. That isn't the case now. You can have a 3ghz+ fully loaded computer for alot less than that nowadays. Intel didn't design the Pentium until it was close to time for MS to release Windows 98(it was created in the Beta stages of 98 so 98 would run decently). The Pentium II was released near the time when Windows 2000 was going to be released and Intel just kept rolling out more and more faster processors after that. Back then a 16MB stick of EDO Ram costed near $100. Nowadays you can have a 512MB stick of PC 3700 DDR-Ram for less than that($97 right now).
Back in the day, 16MB was high end though because Windows 95 ran good on 8MB. When Windows 98 was released 16MB became minimum and 32MB became high end. Win2K raised 32MB to be minimum and 64MB to be high end. After that Ram started getting cheaper and cheaper(than it was already getting) for larger amounts. It is good that MS drove and still drives hardware companies to make todays technology obsolete because of new technology that they keep releasing to replace the old. Quite frankly, if Linux was top dawg a P233MMX w/32MB of Ram would likely still be considered high end. I for one like having a 3ghz+ PC for less than what an old 486 used to cost.
[ August 25, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Quite frankly, if Linux was top dawg a P233MMX w/32MB of Ram would likely still be considered high end.
I don't agree with that, but, besides, what does it matter? If it does the job that's good enough.
If Linux were top dog, we would still have high-end programs that required fast processing, and you would still have companies like Intel wanting to sell hardware. So your scenario really doesn't work.
Maybe if you came up with a scenario where IBM used proprietary hardware in the PC...
-
quote:
God damn is music in linux painful to the ears.
No it isn't. The sound is fine on my system.
quote:
That's funny. I've tried a few Windows GUI replacements. Oddlly enough, some of them ran slower the windows.
No you haven't. You've presumably tried a few shell replacements, which just replace explorer and at best constitute a small cosmetic change. And the point he was making is that you can't turn the gui off, which you can't.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Will this program allow me to load large soundfont sets(60MB+)? The reason I ask is because the soundfont that I normally use is 63MB. It is huge but damn do the instruments in the set sound good.
If so, I'll check it out the next time I install Linux.
I don't see why not. What sound font is it? I'm interested in where you got it. I'm always looking for more instruments for my music studio.
There is a Windows version of Fluidsynth, so you can try it. In the meantime, tell me where you got it, because I'm interested in trying it out.
http://www.fluidsynth.org/ (http://www.fluidsynth.org/)
-
quote:
My opinion is Linux audio support is just basic (it sucks).
When I was in year 12 physics we were doing a project on sound (waves, reverb, harmonics blah blah blah.) So our teacher took us out to a sound studio in Melbourne. This guy had literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear in his little studio (just on the crown casino side of the yarra, next to swanston if anyone wants to get in and have a look. small building on top the melbourne theater.) Now this guy did tonnes of sound work for bands and for the melbourne theater. I remember him trashing the winamp equalizer because it only had 6 or so seperate equalizer controls and how a good soundie needed so much more. I remember how he hated the preset equalizer controls that came with stereos and soundblaster live cards because they "assumed" too much about the music. My friend got real upset bout that, having just paid a few hundred extra on a stereo for those little extras. I also remember that the only computers in his office not running Linux were the comps the school kids got to play on so that he could teach us how sound stuff worked. Ever heard of "final scratch?" It's a big DJ table you hook up to a laptop for DJs - because someone realised a PC could hold more music than a whole box of records and that it weighed less too. So a DJ table that played music out a comp and let you "emulate" record scratching too was made. And guess what? It only runs on Linux because the sound engineers figured that Linux had better support for music and that BeOS was too underground and incomplete. A lot of people now are seeing a big computer in the boot with a few 60gig drives full of high quality ogg files as the ultimate addition to a massive car sound system seeing as it can hold so much more music than even a few CD's shoved into an MP3 cd player in the front. Considering a friend of mine is looking into this and that said friend has a $800 dollar *faceplate* (ie not an actual CD player, just the front of it with a pretty little LCD screen) in his car I'd say that a lot of people seem to find Linux sound support just dandy.
Also the "I would prefer Mac OS X or Unix to Linux servers." Well thats interesting, because it seems a lot of large companies don't. In fact, it seems MS themselves have hired a large amount of Linux computers to hide behind. ;) Linux is making a significant impact on the server market, such as with Oracle which I get to use for my database administration course. Did you know that the Oracle company (who make a US$100,000+ database product) recommends Linux because they feel it's a better server? It's also amazing to compare the *average* Linux server to the *average* Windows server rather than just picking one crap little Linux server and comparing it to Windows.com. Considering the crap little server in question is "neowin.com" I take it these guys dont know what they're doing with Linux. ;)
And yes. Linux does need more work to make it easier to use by traditional Windows users such as yourself. I agree, sometimes it takes way too much effort to set something up in Linux, even for tech savvy people like yourself. But please, dont immediately discount it as "crap" just because it needs a lot more work on ease of use.