hehe... can't believe there's still people comparing 9x to linux.
Posted on 2003-05-06 01:49:32 by f0dder
I can't belive there are still people using Windows... :rolleyes: :grin: :grin: :tongue:
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:09:15 by scientica
I thought if anybody would have more to say about these posts
it would be You f0dder

Boy dose windoze ever loose on that one !!
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:13:04 by rob.rice
rob, much of that stuff is either too silly or related to win9x.

Come back when your OS has proper (forced, non-voluntary) file-locking, applications resize their windows without lag, and I can play MP3 files under high load (with a non-experimental kernel).

Linux has a far way to go... one day it will be usable enough for me. Hopefully, that day is before MS totally fuckz up NT.
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:24:06 by f0dder

Hopefully, that day is before MS totally fuckz up NT.

IMO they r4ped NT4/NT5 (2k) pretty bad, before they gave what still lived the name XP...
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:28:40 by scientica

Microsoft's ad slogan for Windows 95 was "Where do you want to go today?"

Here are alternative slogans for the bloated OS:


Win95 ? Bloated ???
It can install in less than 150 mb if I remember correctly : for an operating system, it is not that bad : it is easily less the size of a programming suite (without help files !).
WinMe was bloated indeed, WinXP for sure, Win98, maybe... but not Win95...
Of course it was very bugged, but bloated, no (most linux distro often installs useless packages (do you think everybody need a FORTRAN compiler installed by default ?) and take easily more than 300 MB, heh...)
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:30:48 by JCP
I got my win95 install down to ~50meg fully working by handtweaking it... ~26meg with a few things not working.

95 sucks anyway... I dunno whether I'd rather be stuck with linux or 95 though. Hard decision.
Posted on 2003-05-06 10:34:31 by f0dder
I like Win2K, granted it's not as small as 95 but it can actually run for more than 4 hours at a time. It's not as stable as XP but it doesn't require 4 gig of memory to open notepad either. As for linux, I've never tried it, never even seen it on a system, but I plan to get a version and try it someday soon.

As for the OS wars, can't really say I care, as long as my PC is running I'm happy. Bloat - I got 512MB/40 gigs, I don't care. Speed - seems fine on 2k hated it on XP, Stabilty - 2K is stable with the exception of my mouse freezing occasionally- No big deal. I have no real problems associated with Win2K, I could blow some little thing that has absolutely no effect on my computer time out of proportion and say it's a conspiracy by MS but I don't, except in fun. If Linux ever wants to truly compete it has to do what Mac did, stop pushing their package by trashing the competition. Better to say what's good about Linux than what's bad about MS, all I ever hear from Linux people is how MS screwed this up or how MS did this badly, never how Linux did this right.
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:08:44 by donkey

rob, much of that stuff is either too silly or related to win9x.

Come back when your OS has proper (forced, non-voluntary) file-locking, applications resize their windows without lag, and I can play MP3 files under high load (with a non-experimental kernel).

Linux has a far way to go... one day it will be usable enough for me. Hopefully, that day is before MS totally fuckz up NT.


I have Never seen this lag you are talking about XF86 resizes wondows just as fast as windows dose ON THE SAME COMPUTER
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:16:10 by rob.rice
Strange but I experienced exactly the same things as f0dder with various distros (red hat, mandrake, knoppix)...
And without doing anything else...
To give you an idea, it was as slow as moving a highly-"regionized" window on Win32...
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:24:59 by JCP
Btw, "Waaa, you don't understand, I am better just cause I am just better, ok, waaaa, nothing u say is true cause I say so waaaaa".

http://www.geocities.com/linsux2003/sux2.gif
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:32:23 by JCP
Just as an example of what I was talking about I was just browsing for information on setting up linux on my laptop (IBM tinkpad) and this was the table of contents of the first page I hit :

1. Installation & How Much Windows XP and NTFS Suck
2. XFree86 & OpenGL
3. Ethernet
4. Sound
5. APM
6. DVD/CD-RW
7. FireWire
8. PCMCIA
9. Internet/IBM keys
10. UltraPort Camera II
11. S-VID-Out
12. IR

These Linux guys should just get a life instead of spending all there time trashing MS, then telling me that they don't support half the things in my laptop (S-Video In/Hibernation/Modem).
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:44:28 by donkey

Btw, "Waaa, you don't understand, I am better just cause I am just better, ok, waaaa, nothing u say is true cause I say so waaaaa".

http://www.geocities.com/linsux2003/sux2.gif


What are you talking about ?
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:49:01 by rob.rice
It reminds me you... :tongue:
Posted on 2003-05-06 11:51:06 by JCP

I like Win2K, granted it's not as small as 95 but it can actually run for more than 4 hours at a time. It's not as stable as XP but it doesn't require 4 gig of memory to open notepad either. As for linux, I've never tried it, never even seen it on a system, but I plan to get a version and try it someday soon.

As for the OS wars, can't really say I care, as long as my PC is running I'm happy. Bloat - I got 512MB/40 gigs, I don't care. Speed - seems fine on 2k hated it on XP, Stabilty - 2K is stable with the exception of my mouse freezing occasionally- No big deal. I have no real problems associated with Win2K, I could blow some little thing that has absolutely no effect on my computer time out of proportion and say it's a conspiracy by MS but I don't, except in fun. If Linux ever wants to truly compete it has to do what Mac did, stop pushing their package by trashing the competition. Better to say what's good about Linux than what's bad about MS, all I ever hear from Linux people is how MS screwed this up or how MS did this badly, never how Linux did this right.


I think what fanned the flamers was M$ slamming linux in the press and on theer web page I haven't seen any slamming from M$ lately BUT I don't pay much atention to what M$ has to say
Posted on 2003-05-06 12:00:53 by rob.rice

It reminds me you... :tongue:


How ?

Are you saying I'm a crying baby because I Disagre with somebody ?

Or you saying I'm a crying baby because I posted some jokes about
Windoze & MicroShaft ?
Posted on 2003-05-06 12:10:23 by rob.rice
Because of the caps. :)
Posted on 2003-05-06 12:47:00 by JCP

Because of the caps. :)


I was makeing a point the point being the same computer
well what ever

there is some truth to what f0dder sed But Olny
when running KDE.
KDE is an oversized slow pig BUT NO ONE is stuck
with KDE or FORTRAN for that matter.

And I have run wondoze and linux ON THE SAME COMPUTER
so it's not like I'm compaering windoze and linux on defrent computers

as size goes slackware 4.0 with XFree86 is 30 megs with every thing
installed working I just upgraded my 486 25mhz 12 meg ram 250 meg HDD
to slack 4

20 megs gets the computer on the internet (so I can download the rest)

If you realy dislike linux go get your money back:grin: :grin:
Posted on 2003-05-06 14:01:24 by rob.rice
rob, the lagging resize is either because of the way XF86 does message handling, or because of the client UI libs used - I don't think change of desktop environment nor window manager will change it.

There's been other performance problems with XF86 though... dunno if they fixed it in recent releases, but with some 4.x version I tried, it was still faster running an X server on my windows box, and have the linux apps connect to that (voodoo3 on the linux box, I think there was some "optimized driver" for it).

And that's just _some_ of the problems.
I'm still running linux on my server though, it does a fine job at routing, firewalling, and filestorage. Ie, all those non-interactive things.
Posted on 2003-05-06 14:06:56 by f0dder

I think what fanned the flamers was M$ slamming linux in the press and on theer web page I haven't seen any slamming from M$ lately BUT I don't pay much atention to what M$ has to say

That's pretty much the kind of thing that only Linux users would notice. My point is that the best way to advance your cause is by demonstrating it's advantages, not your competitors faults. A good example is FASM, I am currently learning FASM, I was impressed that Thomasz didn't spend all his time trashing MASM users like another assembler writer we all know (B***v). He just pushes the features of his assembler and through occasional visits to that forum I began to get interested. I've visited the other assemblers site and frankly, I use MASM, I have a Microsoft OS and I don't appreciate being made to feel like a criminal for it, so I've never got more than about half way down his web site.That's the kind of difference I'm talking about.
Posted on 2003-05-06 14:12:17 by donkey