I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Bob Thomas wrote:

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

You have come to find what so many know, only you have it slightly
wrong,

He has done nothing of that sort. This was not Terry Porter, but a fake by
flatfish, one of the dumbest wintroll ever. He is incidentally also a thief

what makes XP a superior operating system than Linux is not the
operating system itself, it is your application needs.

Ah yes. So an OS is a better OS because of the apps? Idiot

< snip >

If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools,

Translation: Spend money for windows, spend more money for apps and then top
it off with even more money to keep the whole shebang going

follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users.

Especially for its virus "users"

I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean.

And you have the nerve to talk about "linux users spend more time..."

Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)

None of which would be needed in linux

Linux is great alternative to Solaris and in some cases, Win Servers,
but I doubt it will ever win over the desktop, unless MS gets lazy.

That is really convincing

Win servers are going to be a tough nut to crack also because of the
integration advantages Windows gives when you go all Win, in Total
Cost of Ownership (TOC) for the corporate world.

Ah yes. So you believe MS and its made up TOC values

Which is a "better" OS depends on the application(s), not the quality
of the OS code written, or the perception of it, if that was the case

You repeat yourself. Does not make it any more ture, though

Apple would still rule the PC market.

Apple has never ruled that market

By example, IBM OS/400 makes
Solaris, Linux, and Win-All look all look like buggy amateur garbage
that would not qualify for Alpha-Code status,

Sure. You put OS/400, Unix and linux all in one basket and claim they "all
look like..." Have you ever even bothered to take a look?

Tell us, does it hurt to be that dumb?

but that does not make
OS/400 a "better" OS, unless you happen to need a mainframe class OS
for your application.

The best OS is the one that serves your application and use needs the
best, this is why Win is the hands down winner of the desktop.

Repeating once again your bullshit?
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
  -- Tom Christiansen

 

[RosalieM]

"Bob Thomas" <bobtms@hotmailx.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:la9lc09r0ltkif01dtpu7pd5v34pigac6t@4ax.com...

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:

Sorry,
....
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter
....
more software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
....
The best OS is the one that serves your application and use needs the
best, this is why Win is the hands down winner of the desktop.

Best is not the point, do you use a Ferrari (it is the best car) to go to

work?

That is true that windows is a good os, probably better, but it has many
awful drawbacks :

- microsoft is almost a monopole
- microsoft was not fair with outsiders (internet explorer story and so many
others)
- microsoft is expensive but easy to copy (explain me this paradox)
- microsoft try to make you pay each month the use of your computer
- microsoft wont allow you to improve your os in other way than pay

I stop i am ill thinking all difficulties i had to learn programming with
microsoft stuff.

When i compare with linux and gnu staff : robust and simple. And your total
property.
I know that if i must loose time to learn how to use computer it is not
anymore with windows.

I know that what is valuable is not to have a ferrari, but to know how to go
to work.

BR.

 

[Chris Carlen]

Bob Thomas wrote:

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:


Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter


You have come to find what so many know, only you have it slightly
wrong, what makes XP a superior operating system than Linux is not the
operating system itself, it is your application needs.

There is no doubt that for the average Jane/Joe that Windows OS's are
likely to offer far more bang for the buck, far more flexibility, more
software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
The obvious reason is the market share, if you want to get rich are
you going to write to Linux or Windows? For most that will turn out to
be Windows.

With that market share, few vendors can afford to ignore it, and most
can afford to get the better programmers and spend more on the user
interface and innovative enhancements.

Finally, as entrapping as the high level of integration of Windows and
Windows applications is to keep windows people in windows, it is also
just exactly what we want. Who wants to go through all kinds crap
using different programs together, sharing their output and features.

As far as stability, as a desktop (not server), it's all what you are
willing to put in to it, Linux, Solaris/SunOS folks put in a hell of a
lot of time and use a lot of tools to keep things clean, they also
tend to be far more computer savvy than the average windows user.

If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools, follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users. I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)

Must be nice to be rich. And you haven't even started on the list of
expensive applications. I can only afford my really important apps,
like Eagle, Mathematica, and a few other non-commodity applications. If
I had to pay for Windows and all the 3rd party crap that's needed to
make it work, I wouldn't even be able to afford a computer.

Good day!


--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19

 

[Ralph]

Chris Carlen wrote:

Bob Thomas wrote:

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:


Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter



You have come to find what so many know, only you have it slightly
wrong, what makes XP a superior operating system than Linux is not the
operating system itself, it is your application needs.
There is no doubt that for the average Jane/Joe that Windows OS's are
likely to offer far more bang for the buck, far more flexibility, more
software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
The obvious reason is the market share, if you want to get rich are
you going to write to Linux or Windows? For most that will turn out to
be Windows.

With that market share, few vendors can afford to ignore it, and most
can afford to get the better programmers and spend more on the user
interface and innovative enhancements.

Finally, as entrapping as the high level of integration of Windows and
Windows applications is to keep windows people in windows, it is also
just exactly what we want. Who wants to go through all kinds crap
using different programs together, sharing their output and features.

As far as stability, as a desktop (not server), it's all what you are
willing to put in to it, Linux, Solaris/SunOS folks put in a hell of a
lot of time and use a lot of tools to keep things clean, they also
tend to be far more computer savvy than the average windows user.
If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools, follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users. I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)


Must be nice to be rich. And you haven't even started on the list of
expensive applications. I can only afford my really important apps,
like Eagle, Mathematica, and a few other non-commodity applications. If
I had to pay for Windows and all the 3rd party crap that's needed to
make it work, I wouldn't even be able to afford a computer.

Good day!


have fun with your viruses and spyware

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Chaos Master]

Ralph (res0r9lm@tampadsl.net) caused an illegal operation in module
<40cbbdff$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com>:

have fun with your viruses and spyware

No need for. A good configured Windows system is secure. I use a Windows 98
system with a firewall program and sometimes run SpyBot and AVG.


[]s
--
Š Chaos Master | "These wounds won't seem to heal
posting from BR! | This pain is just too real
ask for ICQ/MSN or| There's just too much that time can't erase"
e-mail address | -- Evanescence, "My Immortal"

 

[K Williams]

Ralph wrote:

Chris Carlen wrote:
Bob Thomas wrote:

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry
Porter) wrote:


Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's
advantages, I have tried some Windows circuit board design
software and quite honestly there is really no comparison
between the Windows software and the somewhat crude, though
functional, Linux software. Rather than waste the groups time,
I just thought I would say that Windows is actually a pretty
good system and I have none of the compatability problems with
clients that I had when I was using Linux. Linux is great, but
Windows is far superior. Terry Porter



You have come to find what so many know, only you have it
slightly wrong, what makes XP a superior operating system than
Linux is not the operating system itself, it is your application
needs. There is no doubt that for the average Jane/Joe that
Windows OS's are likely to offer far more bang for the buck, far
more flexibility, more software selection, and far superior and
more polished applications. The obvious reason is the market
share, if you want to get rich are you going to write to Linux
or Windows? For most that will turn out to be Windows.

With that market share, few vendors can afford to ignore it, and
most can afford to get the better programmers and spend more on
the user interface and innovative enhancements.

Finally, as entrapping as the high level of integration of
Windows and Windows applications is to keep windows people in
windows, it is also just exactly what we want. Who wants to go
through all kinds crap using different programs together,
sharing their output and features.

As far as stability, as a desktop (not server), it's all what
you are willing to put in to it, Linux, Solaris/SunOS folks put
in a hell of a lot of time and use a lot of tools to keep things
clean, they also tend to be far more computer savvy than the
average windows user. If you learn some basic Windows internals,
buy the right tools, follow sound protocols in loading and
removing software, Window is very stable for most users. I fall
in the middle, take routine backups, keep my windows, drivers,
and software current, use a 3rd party removal tool for ensuring
stuff I test and remove is fully removed, and tools to scan and
keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2 hours a month
maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which happens
while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)


Must be nice to be rich. And you haven't even started on the
list of
expensive applications. I can only afford my really important
apps,
like Eagle, Mathematica, and a few other non-commodity
applications. If I had to pay for Windows and all the 3rd party
crap that's needed to make it work, I wouldn't even be able to
afford a computer.

Good day!


have fun with your viruses and spyware

Not to mention pleading on knees to Billy's minions for permission
to use *HIS* OS (you don't own it, even after you paid for it),
after you've upgraded your computer. I refused to go past Win2K
SP2 for exactly this reason. *Forget* XP!

--
Keith

 

[K Williams]

Chaos Master wrote:

Ralph (res0r9lm@tampadsl.net) caused an illegal operation in
module <40cbbdff$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com>:

have fun with your viruses and spyware

No need for. A good configured Windows system is secure. I use a
Windows 98 system with a firewall program and sometimes run SpyBot
and AVG.

Oh, my!

--
Keith

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Chaos Master wrote:

No need for. A good configured Windows system is secure. I use a
Windows 98 system with a firewall program and sometimes run SpyBot
and AVG.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo SMP Linux kernel 2.6.6 <-- rolled my own

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:52:42 -0300) it happened Chaos Master
<triac@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in <MPG.1b35c3ca1bc53315989ada@130.133.1.4>:

Ralph (res0r9lm@tampadsl.net) caused an illegal operation in module
40cbbdff$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com>:

have fun with your viruses and spyware

No need for. A good configured Windows system is secure. I use a Windows 98
system with a firewall program and sometimes run SpyBot and AVG.
eh, but the reboots, reboots, reboots, reboots, reboots, re BOOTS

every time you install or change something you need to REBOOT REBOOT REBOOT,
win98 does not have 9 virtual screens like I use all the time in Linux (with
fvwm), you cannot nicely cat from devices, everything is function limited you
can get for free except virtualdub, but that is open source, not even
mediaplayer plays stuff correctly, no good thing like mplayer, it does not
play my old vrsslingshot 3d (with LCD glasses) game, DOS (in a window bah) does
not have a command line history (you have to type complex commands again and
again), there is no free compiler (C C+ or whatever), the source is not available
so that you cannot fix a bug or add some useful feature, MS support is zero,
Documentation sucks, so in short because of these and a zillion other
good reasons, one should really not use it.
AND USE LINX.
Viva The PENGUINS!


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

"Chris Carlen" <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cag4g30lsb@news3.newsguy.com

Must be nice to be rich. And you haven't even started on the list of
expensive applications. I can only afford my really important apps,
like Eagle, Mathematica, and a few other non-commodity applications.
If I had to pay for Windows and all the 3rd party crap that's needed
to make it work, I wouldn't even be able to afford a computer.

How does BSD compare?


--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-

 

[Julius Junghans]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:17:49 GMT
Bob Thomas <bobtms@hotmailx.com> wrote:

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

You have come to find what so many know, only you have it slightly
wrong, what makes XP a superior operating system than Linux is not the
operating system itself, it is your application needs.

There is no doubt that for the average Jane/Joe that Windows OS's are
likely to offer far more bang for the buck, far more flexibility, more
software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
The obvious reason is the market share, if you want to get rich are
you going to write to Linux or Windows? For most that will turn out to
be Windows.

With that market share, few vendors can afford to ignore it, and most
can afford to get the better programmers and spend more on the user
interface and innovative enhancements.

Finally, as entrapping as the high level of integration of Windows and
Windows applications is to keep windows people in windows, it is also
just exactly what we want. Who wants to go through all kinds crap
using different programs together, sharing their output and features.

As far as stability, as a desktop (not server), it's all what you are
willing to put in to it, Linux, Solaris/SunOS folks put in a hell of a
lot of time and use a lot of tools to keep things clean, they also
tend to be far more computer savvy than the average windows user.

If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools, follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users. I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)

Linux is great alternative to Solaris and in some cases, Win Servers,
but I doubt it will ever win over the desktop, unless MS gets lazy.
Win servers are going to be a tough nut to crack also because of the
integration advantages Windows gives when you go all Win, in Total
Cost of Ownership (TOC) for the corporate world.

Which is a "better" OS depends on the application(s), not the quality
of the OS code written, or the perception of it, if that was the case
Apple would still rule the PC market. By example, IBM OS/400 makes
Solaris, Linux, and Win-All look all look like buggy amateur garbage
that would not qualify for Alpha-Code status, but that does not make
OS/400 a "better" OS, unless you happen to need a mainframe class OS
for your application.

The best OS is the one that serves your application and use needs the
best, this is why Win is the hands down winner of the desktop.



windows users, i have a little question about what you think when you buy thinks like:

windows 98 SE = Some Errors
windows 98 ME = More Errors
windows XP = Extreme Problems
windows NT = Neandertale Technologie

i mean if its just me, but there are some other pplz out there who dont think that this is wise....

the question from the perspective of the user is: what can i do with that system?
and thats all he can judge about, for anything else he is already blended. theres nothing what we call an open mind.

most pplz dont know what torvalds started with gnu/linux, but as he said in his book "just for fun", its the greatest community project on the world. and its free, god damit ITS FREE. you dont know what free means until you loose it....and m$ does anything to reach this goal, to control your computer a 100%. dont know how far they got until now, but are you really sure that your windows doesnt chat with billy at the moment?
in the future when your illegal software gets you into jail, we will see what you think about your little windows
and how much you love it. dont support M$.

Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice. -- Anonymous.
Viva The PENGUINS! Viva The PENGUINS! Viva The PENGUINS!

 

[ryanm]

"Jim Backus" <jhb@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TpquPuPd0tCd-pn2-5NTjKYVbrMyH@localhost...

Where does one learn 'basic Windows internals'?

The old fashioned way, the way engineers have learned stuff since time

out of mind: hacking.

What are the 'right tools' and how much is one supposed to spend on
them? Some are listed but what about the 'few other 3rd party tools'?

Depends on your needs.

What are the 'sound protocols' for loading and removing software?
Presumably Windows own 'Add/Remove programmes' does not qualify?

Each application should be responsible for installing and removing

itself completely. Poorly written applications are not within MS's control.

The thing that everyone misses, even you with your fairly open-minded
perspective, is that 3rd party support is king. MS didn't "win" by use of
good marketing, they simply opened it up so that anyone could develop Win
apps at a time when everyone else kept their systems proprietary. This is
also why Macs were so stable: they only supported a limited set of hardware
and software, making it significantly easier on the OS to remain stable. A
Win PC not only has to support any and all possible hardware out there, with
drivers written by god knows who, as well as any and all possible software,
also written by god knows who, but it also must support the apps that were
poorly written for Win 3.1. It has to support the hardware designed to run
under DOS (Macs don't even have serial or parallel ports anymore, they have
gone completely USB and Firewire). It has to be 100% backward compatible
with all the antique technology you can think of, but also run efficiently
with the newest and coolest hardware and software. It also has to be
ironclad so that poorly written apps with memory leaks don't cause problems
for other apps. Frankly, that's an impossible task. All that support for old
software and hardware brings bloat, which causes inefficiencies, which leads
to other problems. Surely, as engineers, you understand that this works like
a bubble under plastic: you push down a problem in one area and it pops up
in another. And they can't simply lay down a new sheet of plastic, because
it would piss off all the people expecting the properties of the old sheet,
and would be called a conspiracy by MS to hurt the little guy who depended
on that support. And no, linux doesn't fulfill all of these requirements,
otherwise everyone would be using it.

Your average user doesn't care a whit about the flexibility or power of the
OS, all they care about are the apps they need to use. Do they work, are
they interoperable, and is it easy to use? That's the bottom line, and linux
fails on all 3 points. The apps people need don't run on linux for the most
part, those that do aren't interoperable with the other apps (because they
were written by people on different sides of the planet without standards in
place), and it's complicated to use (for the average user) no matter how
much you hear the linux-heads talk about similar-to-windows shells. So no
matter how good linux becomes, until it addresses those 3 points, it will
never gain any ground on the desktop, and Windows, no matter how bad it is,
will continue to reign there. If you can do your job with linux and you are
capable of maintaining it, more power to you, do it and be happy that you
are in a position to utilize a "superior" operating system. Otherwise, your
options are limited by the requirements of your job and your lack of
technical expertise, not by some conspiracy by MS to control the world. Just
look at Star Office. Here we have a replacement for MS Office that is
*free*, and no one wants it. Do you know why? Because it isn't (easily)
interoperable with MS Office. You can't *give away* a better replacement for
Office if it doesn't fulfill the requirements I mentioned above (runs, is
interoperable, and is easy to use). It's a reality of the market that linux
fans just can't seem to grasp. They keep coming back with "but this one is
*better*", to which the Win users say "not for what I need." And the linux
people sit flabbergasted that anyone would intentionally use an inferior OS,
while the Win people are busy getting their jobs done.

Personally, I use Windows because all of my clients and employers do,
and interoperability is an absolute necessity. I do have a linux server in
my house, but it goes largely unused except as a compatibility testing
platform. My job is to give my clients what they are paying me for, and that
involves using Windows, so at that point, there's no reason not to use
Windows throughout the house (the wife and kids have Win boxes, I have a Win
web server, etc.). It's not a matter of which is more powerful or flexible,
it's a matter of which one serves my purpose better, and in my case Win
wins.

ryanm

 

[Mike]

Jim Backus wrote:

Congratulations on a thoughtful piece on the benefits, not
superiotity, of Windows.

As I've added comparisons to OS/2, this is now cross-posted to
c.o.o.a.

From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
robustness that users should expect of an operating system. Based on
my own experience of a variety of operating systems, OS/2 is the most
robust, followed by Mac OS (version 5 was probably the one I used),
Windows NT, Windows 98 with Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 as the worst -
I have no experience of Win2000 or XP.

Having no experience with Windows 2000 or XP pretty much rules you out
for commenting on Windows. These are by far the most robust and stable
versions. Also, claiming MacOS 5(!) as being robust and stable leads
me to question your sanity.

Starting with OS/2 - two points that support its robustness. First:
OS/2 appears to repair its initialisation files at restart. Even when
badly broken, the operating system will generally return to a workable
state after a number of restarts. Windows does not do this - if
anything it is likely to become more broken.

Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing. Both

maintain snapshots of the system before each major change, so it's easy
to "rollback" to previous configurations.

Mac OS - this was the first graphical OS I used. Although I disliked
the way that the intenals were hidden and inaccessible, my experience
of 3 years constant use was that the operating system was very stable
- crashes were rare and I don't recall any occasion when the system
had to be reinstalled. Many 'power users' recommend that Windows
should be re-installed annually.

Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing again.

Re-installing Windows 98 was common. It's not needed for 2000 or XP.

I used Windows NT4 at work for a couple of years and found it to be
relatively reliable and robust - about half that of OS/2 in
qualitative tests. Crashes did occur and occasionally it would run out
of resources and need a restart. The non-Microsoft email client had a
noticeable memory leak and was usually the cause of the operating
system running out of resources. The 'repair' technique used by the IS
department was to re-install.

Sounds like you needed a different email client and some IS guys who

knew what they were doing.

My most recent employer provided Windows 98se. It generally allowed me
to get my work done but crashes and essential restarts were common.

I used to do development on 98se, before we moved to 2000. I can tell
you that 98se *can* be stable, and I never re-installed it in 4 years of
use (except when I got new machines). However, 95/98/98se were not
designed with stability in mind (obviously!), they were designed for
backwards compatibility with DOS/Win3.1 apps and games.

Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were so bad it constantly amazes me that
these appalling operating systems enabled Microsoft to become so
successful. The only explanation is that heavy advertising and keeping
the computer press on-side helped Microsoft to dupe a gullible
marketplace.

Nonsense. At the time, they were outstanding, and were the only game

in town. OS/2 - as good as it was - was never in the running. you
can thank IBM for that.

This comparison of operating systems does not address availability of
applications - without the necessary applications it becomes
irrelevant how good the OS is. Conversely users may have to tolerate
unmaintainable and unreliable operating systems that support their
essential applications.

True, and this probably explains why some companies are still using OS/2

- the apps have not been/will not ever be ported to Windows (or Linux or
whatever).

Regarding the quoted text:
Where does one learn 'basic Windows internals'? The Windows registry
is so arkane that it might as well be written in Mayan. The on-line
help in Windows is aimed squarely at the least knowledgeable user. For
example the advice to 'ask your system administrator' is no use to
someone trying to set up a network at home. It is also common to find
that Windows help assumes knowledge of the purpose and effect of a
setting so only explains the mechanics of entering a value - there is
no expert knowledge to back up the basics. Most computer books
regurgitate the on-line help - based on the OS/2 editions I had a high
opinion of Sams 'Unleashed' series but found Windows 95 Unleashed to
be almost useless.

Again, you're basing your opinion of Windows of Windows 95(!), an almost

10 year old product!

The registry is no more "arkane" than OS/2's config.sys file, or the ini
files. If you're smart and resourceful, you can figure out either.

What are the 'right tools' and how much is one supposed to spend on
them? Some are listed but what about the 'few other 3rd party tools'?

What are the 'sound protocols' for loading and removing software?

Presumably Windows own 'Add/Remove programmes' does not qualify?

Again, Windows 2000 and XP's Add/Remove programs is all you need.
Everything that was changed during install will be reversed during
un-install. The "System Clean" utilities were only needed on
95/98/98se.

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike

 

[Jim Backus]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:17:49 UTC, Bob Thomas <bobtms@hotmailx.com>
wrote:

If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools, follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users. I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)

Congratulations on a thoughtful piece on the benefits, not
superiotity, of Windows.

As I've added comparisons to OS/2, this is now cross-posted to
c.o.o.a.

From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
robustness that users should expect of an operating system. Based on
my own experience of a variety of operating systems, OS/2 is the most
robust, followed by Mac OS (version 5 was probably the one I used),
Windows NT, Windows 98 with Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 as the worst -
I have no experience of Win2000 or XP.

Starting with OS/2 - two points that support its robustness. First:
OS/2 appears to repair its initialisation files at restart. Even when
badly broken, the operating system will generally return to a workable
state after a number of restarts. Windows does not do this - if
anything it is likely to become more broken. Second: although most
people would not be aware of it, they have probably been OS/2 users
for many years. Until about 2003 most ATMs ran OS/2. Now ATMs are
running Windows and people are beginning to see Windows error dialogue
boxes on their ATMs. A question to ponder -- how often did you see an
older ATM with an error message?

Mac OS - this was the first graphical OS I used. Although I disliked
the way that the intenals were hidden and inaccessible, my experience
of 3 years constant use was that the operating system was very stable
- crashes were rare and I don't recall any occasion when the system
had to be reinstalled. Many 'power users' recommend that Windows
should be re-installed annually.

I used Windows NT4 at work for a couple of years and found it to be
relatively reliable and robust - about half that of OS/2 in
qualitative tests. Crashes did occur and occasionally it would run out
of resources and need a restart. The non-Microsoft email client had a
noticeable memory leak and was usually the cause of the operating
system running out of resources. The 'repair' technique used by the IS
department was to re-install.

My most recent employer provided Windows 98se. It generally allowed me
to get my work done but crashes and essential restarts were common.

Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were so bad it constantly amazes me that
these appalling operating systems enabled Microsoft to become so
successful. The only explanation is that heavy advertising and keeping
the computer press on-side helped Microsoft to dupe a gullible
marketplace.

This comparison of operating systems does not address availability of
applications - without the necessary applications it becomes
irrelevant how good the OS is. Conversely users may have to tolerate
unmaintainable and unreliable operating systems that support their
essential applications.

Regarding the quoted text:
Where does one learn 'basic Windows internals'? The Windows registry
is so arkane that it might as well be written in Mayan. The on-line
help in Windows is aimed squarely at the least knowledgeable user. For
example the advice to 'ask your system administrator' is no use to
someone trying to set up a network at home. It is also common to find
that Windows help assumes knowledge of the purpose and effect of a
setting so only explains the mechanics of entering a value - there is
no expert knowledge to back up the basics. Most computer books
regurgitate the on-line help - based on the OS/2 editions I had a high
opinion of Sams 'Unleashed' series but found Windows 95 Unleashed to
be almost useless.

What are the 'right tools' and how much is one supposed to spend on
them? Some are listed but what about the 'few other 3rd party tools'?

What are the 'sound protocols' for loading and removing software?
Presumably Windows own 'Add/Remove programmes' does not qualify?

I look forward to helpful answers

--
Jim Backus OS/2 user since 1994
bona fide replies to j <dot> backus <the circle thingy> jita <dot>
demon <dot> co <dot> uk

 

[David H. McCoy]

In article <40ccd87a$0$25487$45beb828@newscene.com>, abc@def.ghi says...

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike


That's pretty typical here. I believe that the problem is that OS/2

hasn't seen a significant change since OS/2 Warp 4, the last version I
used, so it appears to be difficult to understand that other operating
systems are on the move.

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable. Furthermore, I found 2000 and now XP have improved
uptime(fewer restarts because of software installations and network
configuration).

While not perfect, I do believe the OS is far stable than what I had
under OS/2(from 2.1 to 4).

--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------

 

[RosalieM]

"Bob Thomas" <bobtms@hotmailx.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:la9lc09r0ltkif01dtpu7pd5v34pigac6t@4ax.com...

On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:

Sorry,
....
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter
....
more software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
....
The best OS is the one that serves your application and use needs the
best, this is why Win is the hands down winner of the desktop.

Best is not the point, do you use a Ferrari (it is the best car) to go to

work?

That is true that windows is a good os, probably better, but it has many
awful drawbacks :

- microsoft is almost a monopole
- microsoft was not fair with outsiders (internet explorer story and so many
others)
- microsoft is expensive but easy to copy (explain me this paradox)
- microsoft try to make you pay each month the use of your computer
- microsoft wont allow you to improve your os in other way than pay

I stop i am ill thinking all difficulties i had to learn programming with
microsoft stuff.

When i compare with linux and gnu staff : robust and simple. And your total
property.
I know that if i must loose time to learn how to use computer it is not
anymore with windows.

I know that what is valuable is not to have a ferrari, but to know how to go
to work.

BR.

 

[Ken]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:03:25 -0400, David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com>
wrote:

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable.

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.

 

[Terry Given]

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:qhqqc0pt6k4hdh3mjifu6bmq1c6uf1biii@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:03:25 -0400, David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com
wrote:

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable.

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.

I would dearly love to move away from M$, but its too much like hard work
learning how to set up a linux system from scratch, especially for a luddite
like me, who is only interested in analogue circuit design, adaptive
nonlinear control systems and suchlike, rather than wanking around with an
OS. I also cant quite get the apps I need on linux (matlab/simulink,
mathcad, simetrix, protel) - if I cant have all of them, its no use to me. I
am competent enough that im OK with the likes of star office - word/excel
are not used much by me, compared with the aforementioned apps - but my
clients insist on sending me micro$haft docs.....I always send PDFs in
return.

My win2K system has been running unchanged since march 2000. Protel is the
single most unreliable program I have EVER used, it makes mathcad look
reliable. But no blue screens of death, and crashes can usually be fixed by
ending the app - rebooting is extremely rare. Protel probably crashes once a
week. If I am doing a big layout, it might crap out once a day but win2k
keeps on ticking. and some of my simulations take days to run, so I beat the
hell out of my pc

my pet peeve is the "computers for retards" philosophy underpinning shit
like talking paper clips and puppy dogs. fuck that, make the poxy thing boot
faster. I NEVER upgrade software unless I have a real good reason - if it
works for me, leave it alone. when I got an internet connection (used
sneakernet for 3 years) I got norton internet security, and have had no
problems to date

Cheers
Terry

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:37:44 +1200, "Terry Given"
<the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:qhqqc0pt6k4hdh3mjifu6bmq1c6uf1biii@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:03:25 -0400, David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com
wrote:

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable.

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.


I would dearly love to move away from M$, but its too much like hard work
learning how to set up a linux system from scratch, especially for a luddite
like me, who is only interested in analogue circuit design, adaptive
nonlinear control systems and suchlike, rather than wanking around with an
OS. I also cant quite get the apps I need on linux (matlab/simulink,
mathcad, simetrix, protel) - if I cant have all of them, its no use to me. I
am competent enough that im OK with the likes of star office - word/excel
are not used much by me, compared with the aforementioned apps - but my
clients insist on sending me micro$haft docs.....I always send PDFs in
return.

My win2K system has been running unchanged since march 2000. Protel is the
single most unreliable program I have EVER used, it makes mathcad look
reliable. But no blue screens of death, and crashes can usually be fixed by
ending the app - rebooting is extremely rare. Protel probably crashes once a
week. If I am doing a big layout, it might crap out once a day but win2k
keeps on ticking. and some of my simulations take days to run, so I beat the
hell out of my pc

my pet peeve is the "computers for retards" philosophy underpinning shit
like talking paper clips and puppy dogs. fuck that, make the poxy thing boot
faster. I NEVER upgrade software unless I have a real good reason - if it
works for me, leave it alone. when I got an internet connection (used
sneakernet for 3 years) I got norton internet security, and have had no
problems to date

Cheers
Terry

I've been using Win2K for about 2 years, NT4 before that. I can't
recall a crash. The only reboots I do are upon software installs. My
heavily-used PSpice machine is showing more than a month of "system
idle" time ;-)

I think this the Linux people are just like the toooobz people,
irrational fanaticism.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[William Ewart Gladstone]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I've been using Win2K for about 2 years, NT4 before that. I can't
recall a crash. The only reboots I do are upon software installs. My
heavily-used PSpice machine is showing more than a month of "system
idle" time ;-)

So why haven't you upgraded to 2003 server?

Oh, yeah, cost.

That's why the w2k migration path is Linux...

--
w:4