More news later, GW declares war on silicon valley saying, "We must eradicate terrorism wherever it is found and we've located a concentration of linux zealots and geeks in the silicon valley, carpet bombing them back to the stone age will commence immediately."
Ive spoken to a few Linux users, they said they use Linux cos they hate Microsoft, if thats the only reason then they really need to get a life, what would the pc world be like without Microsoft, If there was no Microsoft then someone else would have come along I guess
The new fad is hating the RIAA, making MS a much lesser evil. In fact if MS removes DRM, to make RIAA look even worse, MS can stand to become the friendliest ally in the PC world!
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>
> what would the pc world be like without Microsoft
stable? fast?
EDIT: and cheaper!
EDIT2: I'm a unix admin professionally (and also occasionally work as a programmer), I'm used to systems that work, run stable, and give me full control. Windows barely functions, is unstable unless you are willing to put it on $20k+ hardware, and gives you 60% of the administration controls you actually need and no *good* way to automate many of the repetative tasks. It's a poor excuse for an os. If it weren't for games, I wouldn't use windows period.
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 10/22/03 09:47 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Yeah, maybe it would have been more stable or cheaper, but I for one doubt it. I am not trying to suck on Bill's willy or anything, but I support 250 or so computers here, along with all of the software and hardware and network, etc... I don't think that any other OS out there could provide the "user-friendlyness" for all of the idiot users out there, while at the same time supporting so many different programs. We still have a few (shudder) OS/2 boxes running here, and they are rock solid, but they are used exclusively for production programs. The users don't use them for anything except for the programs they were put in place to use (we have 4 OS/2 boxes in the building here that run all of our scanners, and at UPS, you can imagine that that is extremely important). I don’t believe that there is another OS out there that supports as many different hardware and software configurations as MS Windows. Apple has stability because they have controlled the HW & software that you can put into the box. Linux is cheap because it is written and re-written by people like ourselves. I have not used Linux, and I am not well versed in its ways, but while a Windows box does what I need it to, I will continue using it. I don’t feel the need to switch to a Linux box to then run an emulator to run 95% of my Windows programs just to say “F you MS!” Anyway, sorry that turned into a rant-type post!! Whoa…
Don’t you hate those posts where you start with a sentence or two you want to type, then you read it and want to add something, then you read it and need to clarify something, then you read it and have to change something, and pretty soon it goes from
Quote :
this
this
to
Quote :
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
Which programs do you run in windows, that makes windows so indispensable? I'll suggest the alternatives available natively in linux. You shouldn't have to emulate 95% of your programs.
Some of the out of the box linux distributions available nowadays are damn easy to install and use.
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
I don't think this author is totally open and impartial, though he claims he's not against linux like that. He's probably one of the guys that use windows and dont mind using it. They like it cos its the norm for them and don't want anyone telling them otherwise.
Cos the things he says about so called "linux priests" are just stupid. That would put a huge number of the population as windows priests, including himself.
But I could be wrong, since I don't know the guy. And it only sounds like he was having a bad day and needed to vent some anger. I have days like that.
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
Most nonquake type games are still unavailable on linux. You can't even get those with emulation. Old dos games should be fine in emulation.
Browse the web? come on! The best browser in the world is available in linux: Mozilla Firebird!
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
The sole reason I have a PC at home that I keep fairly current hardware-wise is for gaming. If I can't play games, not much point in having a PC at home. I could browse the web and check e-mail on a Mac, a PC, or a Linux box. So come back and talk to me when more games are available...
Didn't the guy just say there were jast as many non-quake type games? I mean c'mon...whenever I go down to EB games they are always well stocked with Linux titles...[invisible]yeah right[/invisible] They're usually next to the Amiga titles and Mac titles. I mean they're advertised everywhere...
I don’t believe that there is another OS out there that supports as many different hardware and software configurations as MS Windows.
Quote :
while a Windows box does what I need it to, I will continue using it. I don’t feel the need to switch to a Linux box to then run an emulator to run 95% of my Windows programs
If you just play games, get an XBox or a PS2. The games always come out on those first.
You were ranting on about there not being "another OS" (i.e. linux) that "supports as many different hardware and software configurations as MS Windows." That is just plain untrue. Then you were saying you do not want to emulate 95% of your windows programs. That is why I asked that question.
Seeing your next posts I would ask, what windows programs? you just run games. Reading your big rant post, one would gather that you wish to run a number of different software applications that run on windows, with no alternatives on other operating systems.
Make your thought clear before you post. Don't just muddle.
Quote :
So come back and talk to me when more games are available...
I think you'll just have another gripe about something else. You'll probably need support for a killer app like Internet Explorer or something. Besides, nobody ever claimed linux is super rich in games. Theres even a linux games thread going on in the linux section.
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
If you just play games, get an XBox or a PS2. The games always come out on those first.
LIES!
Most games I own for PC are NOT available... nor will they EVER be available on consoles. EverQuest, DAoC, WoW (when it is released), Tribes 1 & 2, Warcraft series, Starcraft series, Diablo series... I could go on. Granted, EA releases most of their sports games on console now as well as PC... but online multiplayer isn't always an option.
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Granted, at home I don't use a lot of different programs, but I game. I don't want a console because I prefer to game on a PC. I guess you could call it comfort in that I like to use Windows. While I have not used Linux, and I don't know about it, I am going to guess that it isn't the best OS for the stupid end user. That is who I support at work. Not that I have any choice in the computers that go in, but it is a Windows environment. It is comfortable. I guess it comes down to the fact that I haven't found a compelling reason to switch to Linux. Do you have one?
See nowm, that was more honest. Don't you feel better.
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
This is also my opinion. I just don't find any reason to switch and personally, I have learned to be comfortable with WinXP, and accomodated to it since Win 3.1.
I just like Windows, and even if it ain't perfect and stable all the time, it still is great to me.
WinXP was the first ever purchased legal copy of Windows, as an OEM Home version.
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>
ive tried a few other operating systems, BEos for one, that really sucked, also tried linux a year or so ago, didnt like it, just tried a system called lindows, claims to speed up your internet broadband, supposedly written specifically for broadband, not sure if thats hype or not, but it didnt run the internet any faster than my win98se, in fact it seemed a tad slower. i never got used to winxp pro, went back to win98se, always been rock solid stable for me and the 30 or so puters i have built and sold here in town, i think it boils down to what a person is comfortable with, and i am comfortable with win98se, with that said, to each his own
Fat, Drunk, and Stupid is no way to go through life Son.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.