XP Performance

[Marvin Bellamy]

Trust me, I don't like M$.  I'm forced to use their products at work. 
 Actually, right now I'm not running *ANY* M$ products at home, but I am 
looking to reinstall Win98.  I'm not spouting M$ sales hype, I'm talking 
about my experiences with both OS's.  Why do we use Win2000 on our 
workstations?...because Linux it too difficult for non-techs who just 
want to powerup and download E-mail.  The premise for Linux is great, 
and I think it will eventually usurp Bill Gate's market share, but 
asking your Grandma or even your mom to "./configure; make; make 
install" is too much.

zscoundrel wrote:

> Actually, you are just repeating one of the more damaging M$ lines of 
> FUD.  I am using RH 7.1 just as it installed because I have more 
> important things to do right now than recompile the kernel.  I have 
> done it before, but with 7.1 I did not need to!
>
> I m able to do EVERYTHING I want to do!  I write letters, calculate 
> spreadsheets, decomprepress after a tough day with a game or two, surf 
> the web, exchange emails, modify pictures I take with my digital 
> camera, and every now and then I process files using CAT/GREP/LESS/, I 
> edit HTML files and then FTP them to my home page. 
> In fact, the ONLY thing I can't do is print on this super cheap Xerox 
> printer because the companby is to short sighted to provide a driver 
> for Linux - but this is not a Linux problem, because I just have not 
> had a chance to hook up the HP600 I usually use on this machine since 
> I moved.
> Actually, it is not Linux's usability that insures it will NEVER 
> replaces windoze, but it's stability!  I can do almost anything my 
> wife can do on her 'doze computer , plus a lot more, because software 
> for her machine costs a bloody fortune, and most of mine is very 
> dependable shareware.  The more I think about it, the more I doubt 
> that Linux ever could replace 'doze!!!!  I don't think Linux could 
> EVER become that sloppy and buggy and crash prone because I can always 
> FIX THE BUGS and then  RECOMPILE the SOURCE!!!  (Well, unless 
> Microsoft releases a distro!)
>
> The reason M$ continues to dominate is the lies coming from Redmond 
> and the business relationship they foist onto their third party 
> vendors via draconian contract clauses and the aggresive way they 
> persue anyone in a market niche they decide they want to dominate.
> Marvin Bellamy wrote:
>
>> Straying OT...
>>
>> The usability of Linux is what's killing it's chances of being a 
>> serious contender to Windows.  There are a lot of installation 
>> show-stoppers that aren't even documented.  I had a hell of a time 
>> with Redhat just getting AVIs to play, probably two weeks before I 
>> found a reference to the gcc2.96 issue.  How many people on this list 
>> run Linux exclusively? You almost always have to go back to Windoze 
>> to get some apps to run easily.  M$ is an evil corporate entity, but 
>> they got here by opening up the industry to non-techs.  Until there 
>> is a Linux distro that non-techs can easily use (I mean without 
>> relying on a techie friend to troubleshoot), M$ will continue to 
>> dominate.  I've been screwing around with Linux for about a year now 
>> (spending quite a bit of time per week tweaking my desktop), and I 
>> have just reached the point that I have all the functionality that I 
>> need (less running Win32 apps).  KDE is still much slower than 
>> Windoze :(
>>
>>
>> Patrick Thurmond wrote:
>>
>>> I know your completely abhorrent to XP, and I don't blame you. But 
>>> your biggest complaint I see so far is that it costs money. Now I am 
>>> pretty experienced with computers in general and I have a hell of a 
>>> time just installing things like netscape or staroffice in linux. I 
>>> follow the directions to the letter (most which require console 
>>> commands) and that doesn't do it. Nor do many variations. I have 
>>> read alot of info on linux and when something that should be simple 
>>> like a software install becames a huge pain, you know somethings 
>>> wrong. And I not just talkin one distro, I am talkin redhat, debian, 
>>> mandrake, and slackware.
>>>
>>> My arguments aren't mindless or experienceless ones but come on, 
>>> program installation shouldn't be so difficult. I don't mind using 
>>> the console, but I have to type in huge strings to execute the 
>>> commands, that includes triggers and switches and such. Your talkin 
>>> down on XP, yet I haven't seen it crash, it can format a brand new 
>>> hdd in under 1 minute, and it boots very swiftly, and its really 
>>> user friendly. I will always use linux for things like servers and 
>>> net admin, no prob, but I am having a heck of a time using it as an 
>>> everyday desktop.
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>>   Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at opus1.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>     From: Patrick Thurmond [mailto:p_thurmond at yahoo.com]
>>>
>>>     > I will try to come in December to one of
>>>     > the meetings and educate everyone on the
>>>     > features of XP.
>>>
>>>     I think that would be a pretty poor way to spend LUG time, and a
>>>     very good
>>>     way to get yourself pelted with rotten vegetables.
>>>
>>>     We all get plenty of exposure to Microsoft's "education" as it is.
>>>
>>>     XP's primary benefit is that license fees go to Redmond.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
>>> <http://rd.yahoo.com/O=1/I=brandr-mailfooter/*http://shopping.yahoo.com> 
>>> . 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>