Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: dmcfarland on 20 November 2005, 21:40
-
We all know microsoft is a pile of crap. I have finnally made the move to Liunux and my pc is ms free. This website is dedicated to trashing microsoft rightly so.
I am curious to know if Microsoft has contributed anything good and worthwhile in the computer industry. I am in no way advocating for Microsoft, but It would be a good thing to take a balanced look at micosoft and how its spurned other alternatives if anything.
-
Something M$ has done that is truly good ... hmmmm, I'll have to ponder a while on that one, I mean what are the chances a company that is motivated by greed and lust for power doing something "good" ... declaring DRM as anti-consumer was not bad, but their motives are flawed ... that's what makes them bad. In the Kantian sense of good, absolutely nothing M$ does can be good as long as it is motivated by greed and lust for power.
-
They basically invented the modern office suite AFIAK.*
That's all I can think off.
*Hopes to be told he's wrong about this one.
-
Has microsoft done anything good for the computer industry?
Yes.
Before Microsoft, software was a "vertical" industry - you got all your software from the same place you got your hardware. Period. Either that, or you developed it yourself. There weren't any really "software companies."
But MS changed that with their first release, Altair BASIC. Its popularity encouraged programmers to start software companies, and sell directly. There was real competition.
Of course, MS has since been trying to make themselves that single source of software of yesteryear, but that's not the point.
There's also Minesweeper. :D
-
They basically invented the modern office suite AFIAK.*
I'm not too sure about this one - having to buy a whole Office suite when all you require is a spreadsheet isn't a good thing.
-
I'm not too sure about this one - having to buy a whole Office suite when all you require is a spreadsheet isn't a good thing.
Yes but OOo, etc. would've taken ideas from Microsoft Office.
-
OpenOffice is an MS Office rip-off which is a Wordperfect, Lotus and (I don't know what else) rip-off.
WMD is right, MS did do one good thing and that's break the link between the software vendor and the machine. Who knows what things would be like if MS never existed? We'd be probably be all using Macs now and we'd probably a lot worse off for it too so we should thank MS for saving us from Apple. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm deadly serious because Apple ruling would be a lot worse than Microsoft.
-
So did Microsoft ever actually try to do anything good for the computer industry that wasn't really only for the benefit of themselves?
I guess that's to be expected from any major corporation.
So guess who's gonna have to do the really good stuff?
-
Open Office seems like its based on Star Office than it does MS Orifice. I learned on WP 5.1 and lotus 123. Its a shame that MS pushed Lotus off of the map.
OpenOffice is an MS Office rip-off which is a Wordperfect, Lotus and (I don't know what else) rip-off.
-
Microsoft spurred others to creat OS's like Beos and others that will someday be competing with Microsoft. I dont think Macs are bad Pc'S. It wouldnt be as bad if MS didnt practice gestope like tactics to become the turd that floats to the top of the bowl. MS products would be better if they has to compete with other OS's for business.
Microsofts crapiness has been a great motivator for others to come up with alternatives. Microsoft in a perverse way has been a good thing in the regard for the computer industry.
-
They make millions of people upgrade their hardware every so often!
-
Doesnt linux require ppl to upgrade in order to make it functional for regular use?
They make millions of people upgrade their hardware every so often!
-
Open Office seems like its based on Star Office than it does MS Orifice.
Yes, Star Office = OpenOffice (all one word) but Sun have copied many things from MS Office - like the user interface for example.
I dont think Macs are bad Pc'S.
No doubt Macs would've taken off since they were the due to having the most user friendly OS of the time. Apple leading things would be worse than Microsoft because they wouldn't just own the OS but the hardware too, secret instructions would make it damn near impossible for a competitor to create a clone or write a competing OS for it, and as piratePeguin said they could charge what they like for the hardware and make people upgrade often. Yes Apple ruling would be very bad indeed but they're not thank Microsoft.
-
Doesnt linux require ppl to upgrade in order to make it functional for regular use?
But you can upgrade it for free and if it's a payware distro you can tell them to fuck off and go elsewhere which you can't do with Windows.
-
Doesnt linux require ppl to upgrade in order to make it functional for regular use?
If I was using Windows, I would want XP so I can get IE7 when it's released. I've used Windows on this system and it wasn't increadibly pretty (i.e. fast/snappy) (not as pretty as GNOME on GNU/Linux is), I would really want another 256MB RAM (so I'd have 512MB altogether).
On GNU/Linux, I can use the latest Firefox on Slackware 8 (probably). If Firefox sucks on my 32MB RAM system, I can use dillo.
EDIT: http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml#upgrade
-
Apple leading things would be worse than Microsoft because they wouldn't just own the OS but the hardware too, secret instructions would make it damn near impossible for a competitor to create a clone or write a competing OS for it, and as piratePeguin said they could charge what they like for the hardware and make people upgrade often.
Who says it would stay that way? It didn't work this way even in reality, as Apple DID allow licensed clones for a couple years in the mid-90s. This didn't exactly take off as expected (Apple would be much like MS with the operating system), so Jobs stopped it and went back to the old way. If Apple had the marketshare, the clones could've stayed. Not just existed, but stayed, because they were real for a while.
-
Thats a good point. Is it possible though to run a linux distro w/kde an OpenOffice and still have a reasonably fast stable machine.
If I was using Windows, I would want XP so I can get IE7 when it's released. I've used Windows on this system and it wasn't increadibly pretty (i.e. fast/snappy) (not as pretty as GNOME on GNU/Linux is), I would really want another 256MB RAM (so I'd have 512MB altogether).
On GNU/Linux, I can use the latest Firefox on Slackware 8 (probably). If Firefox sucks on my 32MB RAM system, I can use dillo.
EDIT: http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml#upgrade (http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml#upgrade)
-
Is it possible though to run a linux distro w/kde an OpenOffice and still have a reasonably fast stable machine.
Depends on the hardware of course.
-
For example a 233 mhz pc, maybe a 20gb hardrive, 64 megs or ram, vid card no memory on it, ps 2 mouse, keyboard.
-
For example a 233 mhz pc, maybe a 20gb hardrive, 64 megs or ram, vid card no memory on it, ps 2 mouse, keyboard.
Running KDE on that is kinda silly. Fluxbox and XFCE work better with that kinda hardware.
As for OpenOffice... Well.. Probably not TBH.
-
All I know is that my piece of shit P3 550MHZ w/384megs ram, 64 mb vid card and craps ass hardware runs pretty damn well on fedora core 4.
I read the whole writup on the microsuck homepage.
-
KDE and OOo love ram. Give a system plenty of that, and it won't care about you CPU (unless you have KDE special effects turned on).
-
My computer has 384 mb's of ram and kde runs fine
:thumbup:
-
Microsoft has done some good. No its not that it makes good products or has fair business practices, or is an ethical company. No Microsoft hasn't done any of that.
Microsoft has spawned others to create viable alternatives such as linux. There always needs to be a arch villian, an evil mastermind. Bill Gates and MS fills that role perfectly.If it wasnt MS, it would be someone else.
I hate microsoft. At least it gives us something to shoot for in the non MS community and is a good motivator for those who want to topple to giant.
-
Doesnt linux require ppl to upgrade in order to make it functional for regular use?
You can run linux on a fucking P-200 with 32 mb's of ram.
-
But can it run gnome and openoffice?
-
No, but it might be able to run Fluxbox and XFCE as piratePenguin mentioned
and no you can't run Window$ on it
-
Dos?
-
Who says it would stay that way? It didn't work this way even in reality, as Apple DID allow licensed clones for a couple years in the mid-90s. This didn't exactly take off as expected (Apple would be much like MS with the operating system), so Jobs stopped it and went back to the old way. If Apple had the marketshare, the clones could've stayed. Not just existed, but stayed, because they were real for a while.
Yes, but Apple would still be in charge of the clones as they own the patents so they could with-draw the licenses if they wanted to (just like they did).
But can it run gnome and openoffice?
You can run OpenOffice 1.1.5 on 64MB of RAM though it's a bit slow, if it's just the word processor you require could use AbiWord and don't use Gnome use Xfce.
-
][/font]if Microsoft has contributed anything good and worthwhile in the computer industry
um.. how about no, ok? :D
-
Dos?
Probably ... but who still supports dos ?
-
http://www.freedos.org
-
great ... I prefer Linux tho
-
One might also go so far as to say that Microsoft's open license with IBM allowed cloners to get into the market, forcing IBM to compete, and lowering the prices on hardware. And once the prices were lowered enough to get new users into the market, prices dropped even further. All personal computing hardware is ridiculously cheap now, much cheaper than it should be. In fact, the majority of companies barely even take a profit on consumer hardware - they make their money back on servers and workstations. For that, I guess we have Microsoft to thank.
-
They only did it for their own profit though ... I don't think it should count ... after all ... all hardware is "designed for Microsoft Window$ XP", at least that's what it says on the fucking box ... same goes for computers (with a few exceptions)
-
Yeah, that sucks. Thing is nowdays that hardware and OS are made by different companies so it shouldn't matter to the hardware companies. So then why are computers made for Windows? Hmm, I smell anti-trust in the wind. Interestingly XP runs fine... if, like me you have a top of the line box. An OS's stability shouldn't be reliant on the hardware it's running, speed yes, but not hardware, that's just stupid. How would you even manage it?
-
An OS's stability shouldn't be reliant on the hardware it's running
That's just the way it is, if you run any OS on crappy cheap and nasty hardware you shouldn't expect it to be reliable, an OS is only as good as the hardware and vice versa.
-
I should have clarified more. What I meant was (with Windows) you have to have the very best hardware or close for it to work properly. Such as with my comps, I got one that's all right (2.3 GHz 256MB RAM) and Windows earns it's bad reputation on that but on my new box, which is pretty good (3GHz 512MB RAM), it runs like a dream. I understand that hardware relates to the OS but it should not relate to the extent that it does with Windows.
-
I totally agree, of course .. it is like winamp: version 2 would load blazing fast, then they added 'eyecandy' and version 5 even without everything has trouble loading in the new skin mode, not classic mode: and even without version 2, just looking at version 5 in classic and other mode the difference can be seen; same thing with windows: just an example of bad programming (on a global scale); now this MUST be obvious to all but the blind ;) .. sry off topic.
-
I should have clarified more. What I meant was (with Windows) you have to have the very best hardware or close for it to work properly. Such as with my comps, I got one that's all right (2.3 GHz 256MB RAM) and Windows earns it's bad reputation on that but on my new box, which is pretty good (3GHz 512MB RAM), it runs like a dream. I understand that hardware relates to the OS but it should not relate to the extent that it does with Windows.
I disagree, I run win2k on a 4 year old machine (AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53ghz, 512mb pc2100 ram) and it runs like a dream, no speed problems at all.
But when I tried it on xp, it was sooo slow and unbearable that I had to uninstall xp in the end, couldn't put up with it any longer. :rolleyes:
-
I disagree, I run win2k on a 4 year old machine (AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53ghz, 512mb pc2100 ram) and it runs like a dream, no speed problems at all.
But when I tried it on xp, it was sooo slow and unbearable that I had to uninstall xp in the end, couldn't put up with it any longer. :rolleyes:
Err, that machine is newer than Windows 2000, so I'd expect it to run it pretty-damn-well.
You kinda shot yourself in the foot by bringing a slightly-newer version of Windows into it.
Windows needs fast and otherwise-good, recent, hardware. Enough said.
-
Err, that machine is newer than Windows 2000, so I'd expect it to run it pretty-damn-well.
You kinda shot yourself in the foot by bringing a slightly-newer version of Windows into it.
Windows needs fast and otherwise-good, recent, hardware. Enough said.
So, basically, you're saying that Windows perpetuates itself through unrealistic expectations of existing hardware, driving the market for "better" hardware whilst simultaneously obsoleting a vast sea of otherwise usable systems?
-
So, basically, you're saying that Windows perpetuates itself through unrealistic expectations of existing hardware, driving the market for "better" hardware whilst simultaneously obsoleting a vast sea of otherwise usable systems?
Well yes.
Try running XP on a computer three years older than XP. Try doing the same with Windows ME, 98, 95 (I wouldn't be so sure about 2000)...
I can run, and run-well, a modern GNU/Linux distro with GNOME and all the bits on this box (2600+, 256MB RAM, on-board sound/graphics (nForce 2)).
-
unrealistic expectations of existing hardware
Unrealistic expectations of not-so-modern hardware.
-
I disagree, I run Windows XP on an 1800MHz 248MB (32MB for on board graphics) machine and it's not too bad. Right now I'm running Opera with a couple of tabs open and it's using 104MB of RAM up, and just 80MB with nothing running. Wow XP is using up just 32.25% of my physical memory!
Why should I need 512MB when 256MB can give acceptable performance?
-
248MB (32MB for on board graphics)
I have 256MB RAM on my system (supposadly), and an on-board 32MB graphics card. Does the graphics card use memory from the 256MB? That would partly-explain why 'free -m' tells me I have 219MB RAM.
I also disagree, I run Windows XP on an 1800MHz 248MB (32MB for on board graphics) machine and it's not too bad. Right now I'm running Opera with a couple of tabs open and it's using 104MB of RAM up, and just 80MB with nothing running. Wow XP is using up just 32.25% of my physical memory!
Try removing 128MB RAM and see how it copes with a deficieny of RAM :P. A wise-man once said "It's all about memory management", or something like that.
Here, I'm running GNOME 2.12, with two KDE apps: Konqueror (which isn't even that bad) (four tabs ATM) (I fucked up Firefox recompiling it. Recompiling it ATM with different (i.e. working) configure options) and amaroK, GAIM, irssi (in an xterm), and a GNOME terminal (I don't use/need alot of GNOME terminal's functionality, not even tabs alot of the time, but I still use it. And I still don't have problems with slowness/anything.) open, and I'm using 215 out of 219MB RAM, and 22MB swap. Even when I'm compiling stuff (RAM and CPU anyhow goes into basically 100% usage/fullness) and running much the same applications as now, I can browse away and nearly forget that the system's compiling-away.
BTW, I've used Windows XP on this machine (so same amount of RAM), and it sucked alot (not all. Most likely not when I'm only browsing the web (in IE).) of the time. I had put it down to my "mingy" 256MB RAM. Maybe Windows XP only sucks on a small amount of RAM when you actually use some RAM?
EDIT: Whoa, I just started the GIMP, Glade, inkscape, KWord (BTW, my dislikeness for KDE is over, ever since I installed it again.), nautilus, and Emacs. And not a hitch on editing this! Here's the output of 'free -m' (I know it surprised me):
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 219 216 3 0 4 75
-/+ buffers/cache: 136 83
Swap: 1913 45 1868
I can still mess about in each of these apps without any hitches.
I dunno how they do it.
-
I have 256MB RAM on my system (supposadly), and an on-board 32MB graphics card. Does the graphics card use memory from the 256MB? That would partly-explain why 'free -m' tells me I have 219MB RAM.
My mistake I did have 32MB for graphics but I cut it down to just 8MB with the BIOS set up program, I don't run any game so it was being wasted.
As Windows is concerned (like anything else) it depends on the configuration, the origional OEM install used 166MB of RAM while idle! We were considering a RAM upgrade when the hard disk fucked up so I bought a new one and installed XP myself and I managed to more than halve the memory usage. I often get really annoyed because I see so many insecure and bloated Windows installations (one install of Windows 2000 uses >200MB when ideling!) but there's nothing I can do about them.
My point: I know Windows uses more resources than Linux (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwize) but if you know what you're doing Windows isn't as bad as many people say.
-
My mistake I did have 32MB for graphics but I cut it down to just 8MB with the BIOS set up program, I don't run any game so it was being wasted.
As Windows is concerned (like anything else) it depends on the configuration, the origional OEM install used 166MB of RAM while idle! We were considering a RAM upgrade when the hard disk fucked up so I bought a new one and installed XP myself and I managed to more than halve the memory usage. I often get really annoyed because I see so many insecure and bloated Windows installations (one install of Windows 2000 uses >200MB when ideling!) but there's nothing I can do about them.
My point: I know Windows uses more resources than Linux (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwize) but if you know what you're doing Windows isn't as bad as many people say.
What do you do to make it use less RAM? Stop services (I heard that that's mostly a myth. I haven't used Windows since (well, in school I have). Is it mostly a myth?)? Remove crappy-MSN-messenger (talk about bloat)? What else?
-
What do you do to make it use less RAM? Stop services (I heard that that's mostly a myth. I haven't used Windows since (well, in school I have). Is it mostly a myth?)? Remove crappy-MSN-messenger (talk about bloat)? What else?
The more services you disable the less stable Window$ gets ... at least for me ... maybe I disabled too many ? or the wrong ones ?
What I know about this: Most of the running services are marked 'SYSTEM' ... meaning that you are playing russian roulette when you disable one of these ... you can disable any services except SYSTEM ones and it shouldnt crash ... I think you may see the problem, there are only so many services you can disable before Window$ becomes too unstable to function properly :(
-
The more services you disable the less stable Window$ gets ... at least for me ... maybe I disabled too many ? or the wrong ones ?
What I know about this: Most of the running services are marked 'SYSTEM' ... meaning that you are playing russian roulette when you disable one of these ... you can disable any services except SYSTEM ones and it shouldnt crash ... I think you may see the problem, there are only so many services you can disable before Window$ becomes too unstable to function properly :(
Yep. There was only a few really-useless (to me) ones that I'd always disable.
-
What do you do to make it use less RAM? Stop services (I heard that that's mostly a myth. I haven't used Windows since (well, in school I have). Is it mostly a myth?)? Remove crappy-MSN-messenger (talk about bloat)? What else?
It's quite easy and I could tell you but that would be breaking the forum rules wouldn't it piratePenguin? ;)
-
It's quite easy and I could tell you but that would be breaking the forum rules wouldn't it piratePenguin? ;)
No it wouldn't.
I suggest you take a closer look at them.
-
request to fix a specific Microsoft product (example: "Someone deleted my Internet Explorer, and now I can't Internet. How do I fix it?")
Forum Rules (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/faq.php?faq=mes_rules#faq_mes_forum_rules)
You're asking me how you can reduce the amount of memory Windows uses, is it just me or is this requesting help|support for a Microsoft product?
-
Forum Rules (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/faq.php?faq=mes_rules#faq_mes_forum_rules)
You're asking me how you can reduce the amount of memory Windows uses, is it just me or is this requesting help|support for a Microsoft product?
I asked you how do YOU reduce your Windows installation's RAM usage. It's a personal question. I didn't ask "how do I fix MY Windows?"...
Someone MIGHT want to modify the rules.
-
That rule is there to prevent this forum from turning into a Microsoft helpdesk, loosen up :)
-
Personally, I have found that Windows has a somewhat magical ability to expand into whatever resources it has available. I don't know how it does this. I have XPpro at work, and a 2.4GHz P4 with 1.5GB RAM. And somehow, it manages to be really unable to deal with PostScript files above 200MB.
My co-worker's laptop is an Athlon XP-11 Mobile with 512MB RAM. We timed how long it would take Adobe Illustrator 10 to open a 150MB PostScript file. 1.4 minutes on the laptop, 1.3 minutes on the desktop. Considering that every single hardware aspect of the desktop is superior, and the computers both run the same OS and same programs, you have to kind of wonder what the fuck Windows is doing.
This same desktop computer, with Linux booted, can crunch numbers, recode video, play a movie, and run gaim, firefox, and gimp all at the same time, with no significant slowdown.
Need I say more?
-
I asked you how do YOU reduce your Windows installation's RAM usage
You are not alone here, I also wondered how is it that you (he) can have XP not use up so much ram, but I think it not possible, at least not without crippling it ..
.. worker201 that's one funny ass post you just made; I got the same thing a while back, doing graphics with a medium system and with a 3.06 DDR, etc. system and there were no visible inprovements to the better system, fucked up :/
-
I have a P3 550MHZ 384 MEG, 64 MEG vid card. Im running fc 4 w/kde. My computer works just fine on Linux. I can compile a number of programs in separated terminal sessions, etc.
BTW this post is supposed to be disscussing if microsoft did anything good for the it industry.:thumbup:
-
That rule is there to prevent this forum from turning into a Microsoft helpdesk, loosen up :)
Very well then, I suppose this post isn't too bad anyway because I'm recommending some alternatives to Microsoft products. ;)
Firstly, the crappy OEM install came with MS Works, AGV anti-virus and possible some other crap bundled with it I made sure that things were going to be a lot differant when I set thing it up. I partitioned and formatted my hard disk using Knoppix so I could create and one big NTFS and some Linux and large FAT32 partitions.
I did a default Windows XP install, then I disabled: the silly luna theme, Windows secutity alert, automatic updates, the crash reporting, auto reboot on crash, MSN messenger and insecure remote access services (if any were running I can't remember now). I set up all of the user accounts with restricted privileges and to show all file extentions to help gaurd against any infection by fire wall breaches or suspicious downloads.
To keep things fast and light I didn't install any 3rd party security products. Alright I did install AVG awhile ago after Google told me I might have a virus. I shouldn't have panicked (no viruses were found) it was just an ad so I promptly uninstalled AVG and searched for any traces in the registry and services.msc, fortunately there wern't any (I've had bad experiances with software leaving stuff behind after you uninstall it).
I chose the software very carefully; I ditched IE for Opera and Firefox and disabled Active X in IE (just incase I need it for IE only sites), I removed Outlook Express and replaced it with Thunderbird. All the other software installed is either open source or is produced by a reputable company - no crappy spy/add/shareware here. I do use p2p but again I stear clear of Kazaa, Imesh and all the other shit, I use Gnutella and BitTorrant and I don't download any .exes.
My system still runs very smoothly, it's been over 6 months and I haven't noticed any significant increase in resource useage, nothing I wouldn't expect anyway (I have installed an ext file system driver and set up a USB network for my brother's laptop) so some increase in memory useage is to expected. I hate using the PCs at work and college they're so slow and unresponsive, they make me realize why Windows has such a bad reputation where memory usage and security are concerned.
-
I have a P3 550MHZ 384 MEG, 64 MEG vid card. Im running fc 4 w/kde. My computer works just fine on Linux. I can compile a number of programs in separated terminal sessions, etc.
BTW this post is supposed to be disscussing if microsoft did anything good for the it industry.:thumbup:
True ... but do we ever stick to the what the thread is about ? It gets boring after a while ... so we gotta change the subject some.
-
Sounds good to me. Im almost tempted to learn programming so I can help some of these "not for primetime" OS's become prime time.
True ... but do we ever stick to the what the thread is about ? It gets boring after a while ... so we gotta change the subject some.
-
Sounds good to me. Im almost tempted to learn programming so I can help some of these "not for primetime" OS's become prime time.
Actually, all though they don't require you to sign anything, to make Linux better is your responsibility as a user. If you don't know any programming, get on it. Give back to the community what they have given to you.
-
Right, time for some screenshots.
Here's the task manger when nothing's running.
(http://www.illhostit.com/files/4348372183332887/Taskman1.PNG)
Memory usage: 80996KB (79.1MB)
And here it is under my favourate minimalistic configuration without explorer (the Windows desktop) running.
(http://www.illhostit.com/files/4544405547038391/Taskman2.PNG)
Memory usage: 70156KB (68.51MB)
-
(http://illhostit.com/files/4121402782637479/taskmgr2.png)
That's mine when I've just started up.
I run Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 and nothing is 'tweaked'.
(http://illhostit.com/files/1750345437297920/taskmgr.png)
And that's my system when it's idle.
-
Has Microsoft done anything good for the computer industry? Why, yes, it has: you have companies like Symantec and McAfee which employ lots of folks whose only reason for existing is to create products that overcome all the many shortcomings of the Windows OS. :D
"You can run linux on a fucking P-200 with 32 mb's of ram. [...] But can it run gnome and openoffice?"
I have an old Dell Dimension from 1996: 113MHz P-I, 64MB RAM, 2.0GB HD, 1.5GB HD, 2.0MB RAM Vid card. This is running Slackware 9.0 with KDE 3.0. Runs just fine, and the only time that the lack of memory and the slowness of that P-I become apparant is during compiles of apps. This system originally came with Win 95 as an OEM install. With Linux, it's still quite useful. :cool:
Could you run XP on that? :rolleyes:
-
MarathoN,
That's quite normal for a well run Windows 2000 system, I notice that you're not running a memory resident anti-virus either - the biggest memory waster on most Windows systems. My tweaks are nothing major, they just disable the crap Microsoft added when they went from Windows 2000 to XP.
How much memory does your XP box use?
jtpenrod,
I have never implied that Windows's performance is anywhere near Linux's, anyway if I wanted to run Windows on that crappy old 64MB machine I'd use NT 4 and MS Office 97. What non-MS software could you run on it that'd give you a full Office suit? You might be able to get away with OO 1.1.5 but it'd be horribly slow and I know there's AbiWord but that's just a word processor not a full Office suit.
-
MarathoN,
That's quite normal for a well run Windows 2000 system, I notice that you're not running a memory resident anti-virus either - the biggest memory waster on most Windows systems. My tweaks are nothing major, they just disable the crap Microsoft added when they went from Windows 2000 to XP.
How much memory does your XP box use?
Ah I see, yeah well I don't know if mine is well-run or not, I don't tweak anything at all... :eek:
Erm, I used to have XP installed on this machine as a triple boot (with Slackware 10.2) but now I just run Win2k, I wasn't using Slackware so I didn't see the need for it to be installed, if my windows install ever fucks up I still have the Slackware CD to help ;)
XP was way too slow, I would never run it again on this machine (or ever :D), I don't see ANY benefit WHATSOEVER of running XP over 2000, I didn't even use XP (once for the Battlefield 2 Demo, but that's IT)
So apart from that, I'm happy enough with Win2k to say :fu: to XP :D
-
The only benefit I can see is security you can set up restricted accounts and SP 2 comes with a firewall and execution protection feature that makes it harder for viruses inc=stalling themselves and causeing damage. If you don't access the Internet or you have a good suit of 3rd party protection products or an external hardware firewall there's no point in running XP. Oh I forgot one more thing, XP will be supported by MS for longer than Windows 2000.
-
my computer with 512MB has about an average of 250-314MB free ram under XP, the same comp with 256MB ram only uses about 120MB ram
-
the more "services" you leave on
the more unstable the system gets!
i have maby 3-5 proceses runing at my win98
and a #$@#$!-ilion more on XP i mean wtf ?
-
on my XP, i got about 7 instances of svchost and when o try to stop one, XP freaks out saying the NT Athourity systen has quit un-expectadly
-
XP will be supported by MS for longer than Windows 2000.
Why would I give a fuck about XP being supported longer if I'm happy with Windows 2000? :p