KCLUG --> KCMUG?

[Tony Hammitt]

Hey Jonathan, some windoze advocate hijacked your account!

If not, I might point out that being able to choose between using GUI
tools where appropriate and high-level modern command shells, also
where appropriate, is certainly much much faster than being stuck
with just a GUI or a shell.  And is especially faster than being
stuck with the crappy, out-of-date windoze GUI or the ancient archaic
DOS "shell".

Also, being able to actually _use_ multiple processors in a box with
a desktop OS speeds things up as well.  That's more of a past problem
but windoze was never designed to let more than one processor be of
any benefit to the desktop user.  Whereas with a real OS, it's
implicit in the design.

Being able to collect a bunch of files together and send it in an
email in one easy command line is a really nice feature.  How many
menus, dialogs, and programs would you have to use to do the same in
windoze?  Just curious...  That's an example of what I mean by
'painfully slow' when I talk about windoze.

It's nice to be able to run a program (like this program right now)
from another box, completely seamlessly.  Don't disrespect X11 too
much, it's more for power users and people who appreciate only
needing one display to run a roomful of computers.  Hell, there's
computers I've used X from where I don't even really know the
physical location of the box.  And I didn't spend a dime for the
software nor wait 15 years for the jackasses in Redmond to deign to
add the feature, as badly as they did.  I can even copy and paste
text from one computer to another with a single mouse click.  Try
that in windoze.

And speaking of speed; try listening to an MP3 on windoze.  Notice
the skipping every time the network card gets used or you save a
file?  Some 'speedy' OS you have there...  Oh, and try programming
your mouse wheel to adjust the volume of your player when you use it
on the desktop. Wait, M$ didn't add any capability of running any
arbitrary thing based on a user's input?  Too damn bad.  Maybe in 15
years.

Anyway, windoze users just think they have a decent system because
they've never taken the time to learn anything else.  They get used
to working around bugs and badly designed software and get pissy when
the other systems they might try to use actually do things in a
logical way.

So, I'll disregard anything further about windoze being "faster to
use" because it's complete nonsense.  To me.  And the rest of the
people on this list.

Good night,

	Tony

BTW, an untuned Linux/X11 system recently beat a highly tuned windoze
system at a video game benchmark test on the same hardware.

X11 isn't slow.

Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Densmore [mailto:DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com]
> 
> > ... everything I did in M$ was so
> > -=painfully slow=-. I have gotten spoiled by how much faster
> > everything is in Linux.
> 
> Oh bull$hit.
> 
> > Then we also did a defrag on the disk, we let that run overnight.
> 
> So you're talking old, slow hardware.
> 
> > True it takes KDE a while to come up after logging in, but each app
> > isn't really slow. Some are, but not many. At least the ones I use.
> 
> As long as you don't try to browse the net, use a GUI file manager, or mail
> client, or do most of the normal GUI tasks, yeah, sure, it's "faster".  So's
> DOS.
> 
> GUI speed is NOT one of Linux' bragging rights - as long as we use the X11
> model, it can't be, more integrated systems will outperform it on equivalent
> hardware.
> 
> Yes, I've seen a Linux box that appeared faster than a Windows box - but it
> was Linux on new hardware vs. four or five year old hardware running Windows
> 98.
>