Topic awaiting preservation: Switch? (Page 1 of 1)

I have been really frustrated with Windows XP in the past, very frustrated. It's constant lock-ups (after reformat), Mac-ish style buttons, Pop-ups that tell you how to do everything from click the start button to how to move your mouse.

So, I've decided that I should switch to a diffrent operating system.

But...I don't know which one, but I've narrowed it down and need your help to decide:

Mac is out of the question...Totally.
I have no experience with GUI-based Linux systems, like RedHat.
I have used Unix a bit on the networking computers at school, and can operate it "ok"
BeOS is horribly innefficient.

I'm thinking that I should install Win2000 and some form of Linux, but I'm not sure. W2k for games and such, and Linux for everything else.

What do you think?

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 03-05-2003).]

Actually, I'm in the same boat, so to speak...I'm really...unimpressed, by the options that one has at the moment. I really like Linux...and I have used it before (and loved it!). However, no PS...*sniff* - so, back to M$...damn OS. I've never really had a 'satisfying' experience with M$...and I've tried just about all those OSs...except XP. I wouldn't touch that OS with a ten-foot pole.

I've heard good things about Win2K...and I have been thinking about installing it...doen't know how 'easy' it is, to play games on though...

I would like to have a Mac...very nice machine, very nice OS...also very expensive (read : too expensive!)

Right now, I have WinME on my computer...and after all the 'fumbling about', it is very stable...and I finally threw that junk piece of crap IE in the garbage, and DL'd Mozilla...no more Internet crashes for me! Been working beautifully for months, now (can't say the same thing about IE)

All in all, I would like the simplicity and ease of WinME, combined with the speed and stability of Linux...I'd be a very happy camper...maybe I'll do a dual install...been thinking about it, lately...


WebShaman

First choice: WinXP - still the better option - all the annoyances you described can be avoided if you set up things accordingly. About lock-ups, I still have a few, but I can live with that.
Second choice: Win2k - as good as WinXP, maybe even better because it doesn't have all the fancy face (you pay a price for it), but I'm really tired of the default Windows look, so I stick to WinXP (also, I like fancy stuff :-).
Third option: dunno - never used another OS.

Well, if you are going the M$-road and are looking for stability plus the ability to do games you should definatley go the route of the newer NT-kernels.

They handle memory much better than the older W9x/ME and are a lot more stable.
Then you have basically two choices, W2K or XP.
For appearances you can set XP to look and work like W2K so that shouldn't be a problem.

If games are your thing, I'd say go with a clean install of XP (not an upgrade, those give a lot more trouble than clean installs) If development and control over your platform is your thing W2K will serve you well. The only thing is that you need to install a bunch of servicepacks in the correct order before it's "as new".

If you need the (shudder) IIS for ASP development on NT-kernel you must choose either W2K or XP-Pro, XP Home does not support IIS or PWS!

Also, you will in both cases have to keep a close watch for patches ESPECIALLY if you choose to run IIS...
/Dan

{cell 260}
-{ a vibration is a movement that doesn't know which way to go }-

I run WIN2K PRO , and with a minimum of direct x 8.1 on board, you should have no problems with games (direct x 8 and later, some direct x 7 games work but problematic), with direct x 9 installed i am getting great game performance, balanced against an extremely stable windows platform which i use for PS,Maya,Max,Lightwave. I have few if any problems. just make sure you have asll the patches and service packs availiable. Win2K Pro is on service pack 3.

Goto M$ site and it will give you a list of all availiable updates when you go to the downloads page. I have automatic update set on my pc, so it checks for any new updates, and applies them.

My vote also goes to Windows 2000. I've been running it for several years now and I honestly cannot think of the last time I locked up. Very, very stable -- and I'm running it on three computers. Yes, installing does take time with all the updates, but Windows Update makes it a hell of a lot easier.

I haven't found any software that won't work on it yet, it's easy to configure the way you want, and if you want a fancy interface, I'm sure there's some skinning software out there.

If you're lucky, you can find a disc at Half Price Books if there's one in your area. Don't let them screw you on the price; they often try to ask way too much for used software.

I read these posts about people having a hard with with XP and I just have to shake my head. I've had XP for over a year now and I've had one crash that I can remember. I leave my computer on all the time, for weeks on end, and never have a single problem.

Maybe it's PEBKAC?

:::krets.net:::

What version of XP are you running? XP Pro has never crashed on me in nearly a year of usage. I have several customers that run XP Home on the other hand that have almost as many problems with it as they did with 98. If you want to stay in the Microsoft family XP Pro and 2K are both good options.

PS If you want to give Linux a shot I'd suggest either Mandrake or Red Hat. We even have a Linux box at work running Photoshop 6 and Microsoft Office

"We even have a Linux box at work running Photoshop 6 and Microsoft Office...."


^ So how does that work? Those are just about the only apps I use.

I use WinXP Pro, SP1. It was very stable, for more than a year, until I installed again (actually, I installed it twice), from scratch. For some unkown reason, the second installation, in a different partition than the first one, started to lock up quite frequently (once in a week, average, I'd say). I haven't used the first installation since then, although it's here, working as usual. I have no idea why it locks up and I'm not that kind of dumb guy that makes stupid things with the computer.

Yes...how does that work, with PS 6.0??

I need to know this...spill your guts!

I prefer windows 2000. xp take me too much time to
configure as I want it for work with it. I mean in xp
I always change the style to the good old win2k look.
it is friendlier to me, a lot.


@viol: there are a lot of tools for changing your windows
look, how HoverDESK, WindowBlinds etc... I'm using
window blinds for more than a half year and its great.
you can add nice tools like the rainlader (calendar on
the desktop with transparent background, quicknotes etc)

I found this page recently:

http://www.frankscorner.org/wine/

which describes how to install and run quite a number of interesting programs (and games) via Wine. I didn't have a chance to try them yet, but he has got instructions for PS 5.5, Office 2000, Nero, some Macromedia apps etc. there - it's sounding very promising.

I'm surprised to hear about all the problems people are having with XP. I haven't had a problem yet. Knock on wook

Win2K is a good choise if you don't like XP (actually it is really your only other choice)
Mandrake Linux is great. Try it.

I have a partitioned HD with XP and Mandrake. Very cool stuff, IMHO.

Just curious, why is Mac totally out? Have you tried OSX? It is really cool and when you run that with Jaguar. . . man! Very cool.

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~

You want stable OS? (which can be fancy or not at will?) Look for Mandrake linux, Suse Linux or Redhat Linux.

If you want to play games get: Transgaming technology or Mandrake Gaming edition It plays Warcraft III and others

For Officce apps under linux you have more choices:
Open Office/Star Office Those can read (and write) MS-Office documents. They run on both windows and linux (among a dozen other os's). Or get one from the Codeweavers products and keep MS-Office. There are some more office options (the open linux market is realy flourishing ) but these are the best and the easiest.
Also want to check this Linux-Journal article about MS-Office.

And for help with linux do a Google Search.


<edit> i did forgot the relativly new Xandros distribution which claimes to have good MS-Office support. <edit -off>
Good luck

"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.



[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 03-03-2003).]

quote:

---

Right now, I have WinME on my computer...and after all the 'fumbling about', it is very stable...

---

EVERY windows is stable, given that you don't do mistakes in it. But in comparison, Win 2000 is much much much more stable, powerful, customizable.

And for Windows XP... Windows XP IS stable, there are NO problems of stability or incompatibility with it... Seriously, Windows XP is a really good solution. But there is something really annoying once you begin to be an "experienced" user (no glorification here). The constant pop-ups to help you "right-click", open the help, and so on... Just an example : open Word, then try to click on a button you didn't used before? Whats happen ? Yea, a s*** pop-up open to tell you what to do !

By the way, good joke about it

And there is another problem. In XP, Micrsoft wanted to implement his tools. But they do not replace a good program. So you have a firewall that stops nothing, a zip program that unzip but do not zip, and so on...

So my answer is : Windows XP if you don't want any trouble, Windows 2000 if you are an advanced user.


By the way, I would ask the penguins out there : Do one of you tried Debian for Linux ? What are his differencies/flaws/qualities with Red Hat for example ?

If you absolutely must have an MS product that isn't WinXP go to Win2K-Pro.

I haven't had any issues with WinXP ever and I've been running it since it's inception. No lock-ups, no crashes, and it runs everything I feed it. Be it WarCraft III, Diablo II, or Photoshop 6.

To each their own I suppose. Find what works for you and run with it.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

Debian uses an other file installing system than the most others (very hard to explain so you could do a search for it),
furthermore debian is a complete GPL which means:

All GPL software is free to copy and to modify, all the used source should be open and accesible to anyone who wants to.
All software which is based on GPL licensed sources automaticly becomes GPL licensed software too. Hence all the sources from this program should be open and accesible too for anyone.

This ofcourse is not liked by companies who wants to protect their intelectual property or who done a lot of R&D to get something good and who try to make money out off it. So there are a lot off other licenses yu can get for Linux software. The other distributions allow these other licences but debian does not. Ofcourse you can instal these programs but you can't get them in the distribution. Red-Hat for instance comes with open-office Debian doesn't.
In general debian gains more toward advanced linux users and developers. De debian distro can also updated at any time where at the others you have to wait until the new distro comes out.

<edit> typo's and missing link<edit-off>
"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 03-03-2003).]

Wow! Thanks you so very much for all the replies.

I'm currently thinking about 2k-Pro and Suse Linux. (PC Magazine had an article on Linux (GUI) distributions a while back, and I recently found it, Suse looks good.)

I'll have to research Mandrake though.

I've run 2000, though, up untill a year ago when I installed XP-Home (Got for free with a new mother board). Xp-Home is horrible, utter crap.

Cprompt: Mac is totally out of the question because they try to accomadate users that can 't take craps without being given directions (that my impression from using school ones). I used OSX, and decided that they tried to make it so much more user-friendly and "cute" that everything has a sleek, graphical-overload (or memory-wasting) desktop. Also, they are hard as hell to upgrade, in my opinion. The thing that I like about PC's (I'm a bit of a hardware nerd), is that I can basically do whatever I wan't to do with my computer.

Stilll searching/researching, but I'm closer. Thanks for all the help.

quote:

---

..I used OSX, and decided that they tried to make it so much more user-friendly and "cute" that everything has a sleek, graphical-overload (or memory-wasting) desktop..

---

So you want to get rude he?

that means boack to dos for you...heheh

"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 03-04-2003).]

Being a computer user since DOS 3.2, I kinda grew into windows. Recently I tried to love Linux but it just wouldn't love me back again. Last year I started using Mac's a lot more and in time I've learnt to appreciate certain things about them. Honestly, from a useability standpoint, my perfect OS would be an XP/OS-X Hybrid (with a few bits stolen from KDE) but heh, that ain't ever going to happen.

For now I use XP. Personally, I've never really had too many issues with windows PC's, if something goes wrong I can usually figure out how to fix it and very little goes wrong without me stuffing around with it anyhow. I think the biggest problem Windows users don't seem to realise is the need to maintain the OS. Check for updates bi-weekly. Defrag often. Don't install a million and one trial versions of various programs, keep the registry healthy and stay the hell away from game demos. IMHO, software trials and demos have been the number one downfall for Windows (next to dodgy hardware drivers, which is usually the fault of the hardware manufacture anyway), epically game demos. Often demos aren't finished or polished software, they don't go through the same quality processes as the full product and you almost never receive demo updates... their just likely to fuk things up good and proper on you.

I've been running win XP for over a year now with zero issues. Never had to re-install it and it's only crashed a couple of times when I was overclocking everything under the sun with not enough cooling in an un-air conditioned room(It gets up to 40C here at times). Since I've fixed that everything has been peachy.

RS2: Yup...Back to DOS it is. (Actually, I use the Command Prompt quite a bit ) The Macs that I have had experience using (OSv6 and OX9 and OSX) have been too graphical for there own good. And, I don't like the way that you can't do any of the little cool tweaks that you can do on a PC. Of course, I have no experience with a "real" Mac, although I guess that they can't be that bad. They give the impression, though (Hey Ellen ) that stupid people use them because they can't operate a PC. Now, I'm guessing that you own a Mac, right? And you definatly aren't stupid at all, far from it. So, my logic is probably slightly flawed. But, when I ask the comp. people at school why they don't but Dells or use Sun Workstations for Networking (Out school uses iMacs and a computer for Networking runnig ME (uck)) they say: Because you can't screw them up.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm probably wrong. They just haven't grown on me from my past experiences with them.

Question: IS Linux (A GUI over it), still very command based, and, if so, is it super-DEE-dooper complex, or is it more like using DOS?

You can get very complex in linux if you want to...
I you want you can write complete programs with the shell (on the command line).
Since linux is build by different people it is different programs desinged to work together. Heck you can build your own kernel if you want to. Personally i like the midnight commander which looks a bit (very close) to the good old Norton Commander. So i still have the power from the command line but i don't need to type that much.

Ofcourse you can choose to use a comfortable X-windows variant like the new gnome or kde desktop, easy indead. It's just the flavour you want. Or use shellscripts to do a lot of automization.
But i sugest you one thing if you want linux, you should make shure you have a comfortable connection to the internet, flat reated should be good. The reason ? there is so much info on the net you can't hardly without when using linux.

Nowadays the hardware recognition is so good linux should not cause any problems to install.

No i am not a mac user I wish i was. (i like the idea not to have thinking about the machine and just get some work done..) But ofcourse when i had a mac i would hook it up with in a linux machine in a network and let them both do the things they good at... BTW you know the OS/X from mac is an apple variant on FreeBSD(a unix/linux variant)?

<edit> you like dos do you? then checkout econsole the command prompt on the desktop.

Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 03-04-2003).]

Thanks Rinswind for your answer. I know a lot more about Debian...

Well cfb, since you said mouser and operation system I'm gonna suggest a mac.

just kidding

Windows 2000 has been really good for me, very stable and an interface very similar to 98 which I like. I've been wanting to play around with linux or something similar for a while now because I never have and it seems like it would increase my knowledge a lot, although I don't know how to go about setting up a dual boot, and getting all the drivers for my hardware and all that good stuff, so I haven't gotten around to it yet.

heh

I didn't even know that I did that, it just passed right past me as I reread the post

Of course, I wasn't totally thinking right when I posted this, it was somewhere around 4 oclock. ZZZZzzzzZZZZZZZ

Does Linux need any kind of special hardware to get it running/is it incompatible with a RAID-1 (how I currently have my drives set up).

I don't have "all new" components in my comp either, and I'm just wondering , knowing that Linux is fairly notorious for being very selective about the hardware it is compatible with.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 03-05-2003).]

And another problem/roadblock/aughsomwpeoplearestupid

I have a brother and a sister who are both so inept at computers that if I tell them to open explorer, they have to ask me how...etc etc etc

It's not actually that bad, but I think that you get the idea.

The Linux variants, so, my question is, can you switch in and out of the command prompt or is it all GUI or all command prompt?

Can you make "crippled" users that cannot easily fuck up the system, like setting restriction in Windows.

1)Hardware problems: unless you have very exotic or very new hardware linux can work with it, only some dumb printers, which let do windows or the printerdriver do the work will not go well with linux same story goes for some winmodems.
If you want to be shure look in the compatibility lists like this one from suse: http://hardwaredb.suse.de/index.php?LANG=en_UK Raid1 is not realy a problem most linux versions can even handle software raid (very usefull when you don't have a raid controller in your box) never saw windows do such.

2)Protection the simple user: Since linux is by desing a multiuser environment it can handle different users very well.
Flexibility is the key here. Users can get different rights to do things on your harddisk. You can allow them to read most folders except the ones used by a system. ALso you could allow them to writ in only their own folders. You can forbid them do install or uninstall programs. Hell you could give them their own desktop which they may mess up as much as they wants. And since they don't know much from computers you can let them work with the programs you want, you have to tell them anyhow what to do right? Linux van do better and more tricks than any windows i have ever seen.
An exeption maybe for the server versions but i never saw those.
A good gui is realy very comfortable for beginners

3)Switching from gui to command line is easy (if you are allowed to...)On linux you have different terminals who can be accesed with Ctrl-Fx.
-Most people have running the gui (gnome, kde or different X-windows system) in Ctrl-F1.
-Standard terminal goes in Ctrl-F2
-System messages (linux talks a lot hehe) goes to Ctrl-F6
Ofcourse you can get terminals open on the desktop.

Well this all sound pretty good he? So what is the catch?
That would be maintenance, linux can be hard to control due to all the different programs it uses, making user rights and stuff like that. But since you like the command prompt you should be able to learn these things. But you have to think different when using a linux box think of it as a server (or better as a group of servers). It serves you an gui, it serves you programs, it serves you terminals and it serves you the log files if you want them (and you do).
Now i suggest doing the following. Get some good read on linux, get yourself an second harddisk, install a modern linux version and play with it for a while. If you have specialized questions take a look at one off the links above ^^.
There is realy tons off info about whatever you wanna know from linux.

Finally some postive words to describe linux:
Flexibiltiy, Stability, Controlabilty, Free

If you or anyone else has any questions you can also contact me on icq or drop me a mail.
Mail and icq are in the profile.

"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

With Linux you can install and use the KDE desktop, or you could use the GNOME desktop, or you can run from the commandline, if you have a little unix savy.

BTW regarding " Mac is totally out of the question because they try to accomadate users that can 't take craps without being given directions " - With OS-X I have the ability to go to the commandline, open up the vi editor , and then write a shell script
that will actually wipe and flush for me. And just to make sure I stay regular, I can then run this script as a cron job.



/* Sure, go ahead and code in your fancy IDE. Just remember: it's all fun and games until someone puts an $i out */

Yes, OSX is pretty bipolar. The front-end is what you say -- "user-friendly" to the point of looking like a giant piece of gummi candy instead of a computer desktop. But the back-end is propellerhead city, giving you vast control via the command line.

Trouble is, there's no middle ground.

Wow, Rinswind.... That is one of the most in-depth (off-your-head) analysis(es?) of the Linux Operating System I have ever seen..

Mucho props..


Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342

counterfeitbacon: There's an even easier way to try Linux. It's called Knoppix (http://www.knoppix.org). It's a complete Debian-based distro that boots directly from a CD.

Just set your BIOS to boot from CD, then run it. It recognizes your hardware (well, it recognized mine flawlessly), creates a RAMdisk for file manipulation, and sets you hard drive to read-only. Two minutes after you boot, you have a complete state-of-the-art Linux KDE desktop to play with, and it doesn't modify your system a bit. And thanks to on-the-fly compression and package-management, the single Knoppix CD contains nearly 2 GB of software you can run right from the disc. It's awesome.

It's also a great way to shut up your friends who say that Linux is hard to install. :?) (And if you do want to actually install it, there's a hard-drive-install feature that's nearly as easy as running it from CD.)

If you don't have a high-speed connection to download, you can get a Knoppix CD for $5 from Cheapbytes (http://cart.cheapbytes.com/cgi-bin/cart/0070010920.html).

And remember: If you can't break your MS addiction, you can always dual-boot Linux and Windows. Most Linux distros these days have a setup option that lets you easily create a boot menu for multiple OSs. (Just remember to install Linux _after_ Windows. Bill Gates can't imagine you'd want any other OS, so Windows wipes the boot record when you install it.)

Cheers, Ander

(P.S.: I'm in the other Vancouver, across the border. Whee!)

quote:

---

There's an even easier way to try Linux. It's called Knoppix (http://www.knoppix.org). It's a complete Debian-based distro that boots directly from a CD.

---

SuSE also has a distro that is booted directly from the CD. That is acctually the only .iso that they make available for the public. If you want to download the whole SuSE you've got to download the files and then make a bootable CD from it...

And I agree with what Rinswind(I think) said above. Install Linux on a different partition or HD and play with it. If you like it switch to it...

I'm using Linux now for, except the times I play War3 when I need Windows, and I love it



_________________________
"There are 10 kinds of people; those who know binary, those who don't and those who start counting at zero"

No mention of Windows NT and I'm wondering why? Something buggy about it?

No matter which OS you choose, I cannot stress enough the importance of drivers.

Apps talk to the OS, the OS talks to the drivers and the drivers work the hardware.

People make mistakes. People write drivers. New drivers fix past mistakes.

This is why some people have more trouble than other people with the same OS. Whenever I'm called to stabilize a system, the second thing I do (after removing all the useless crap running in the background) is flash the BIOS and update all the drivers. That works almost every time. When it doesn't, a clean install using the updated drivers does it.

I've found this to be the the solution on every OS I've used, and I go back to CP/M. (Historical note: M$ ported and modified CP/M to make MS-DOS 1.)

Whatever you choose to install, download the current drivers for every bit of hardware you have, including BIOS updates and chipset drivers (like the VIA 4-in-1 drivers). Do a clean install, just say no to useless crap that wants run in the background. After that, everything should be okay.

NJ: NT4 was my OS of choice from the release of Beta 2 in Spring of '96 until I bought this box about 18 months ago and put XP on it. I didn't see a need for NT5 (Win 2K) since I had no problems and didn't need any of the new features.

I still run NT4 on two of my boxes, (why buy new licenses?). One of them, a three-year-old HP Vectra, I bought just a couple of weeks ago. Running on a P-III 600, NT4 feels lighter and faster than XP on my Athlon XP 1800+.

I've never had issues with any NT variant, well maybe NT 3.5 back in the day, since NT4, never a hitch.

Interestingly, NT gets its reputation for stability because of the stringent constraints it puts on drivers. Drivers aren't allowed to play fast and loose. They *must* follow the rules or NT shuts 'em down (or crashes.)

It's not so good for gamers. Games tend to bypass the OS and drivers to manipulate the hardware directly. NT doesn't like that and refuses to run the game, although most people see it as, "my game won't run on NT". No, NT won't let your game run.

The only thing I miss on my NT4 boxes is OS support for USB, (NT5 supports USB). It's not a big issue since all I need USB for on them is to plug in my USB keychain drive for backing up. I can move the files across the LAN to my XP box just as easily.

quote:

---

People write drivers. New drivers fix past mistakes.

---

I've never really understood this. eg. hook up a new printer install the drivers and everything works just fine and then there's a new driver..install it and everything *still* works fine. So what was the point?

quote:

---

The only thing I miss on my NT4 boxes is OS support for USB

---

Well so much for that idea. I can get a still in the box NT4...for next to nothing but I need USB. Ah well...
Thanx bw.

veneficuz> SuSE also has a distro that is booted directly from the CD. That is acctually the only .iso that they make available for the public. If you want to download the whole SuSE you've got to download the files and then make a bootable CD from it...

SuSE's "live CD" version requires you to make a Linux partition on your hard drive. Knoppix doesn't change your hard drive at all. That's why it's so easy to run it on different computers.

quote:

---

I've never really understood this. eg. hook up a new printer install the drivers and everything works just fine and then there's a new driver..install it and everything *still* works fine. So what was the point?

---

It may not fix a problem you're having or have noticed, but it may fix a problem someone else is having or has noticed, like maybe a conflict with some hardware you don't have.

In that regard, there is the "if it's not broke don't fix it" school of thought, which is good advice for most non-technical users who aren't having trouble.