Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion



By rschmitty ·
Why bother when there's Windows XP.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Because you want to use an OS that

by Deadly Ernest In reply to linux

1. will still be supported in 2010;
2. is worth more than what you pay for it;
3. will provide support for the Win 98 and Win 2K apps and games you have;
4. will support hardware bought for Win 98 and Win 2K as well as the modern stuff;
5. clears RAM when a program closes;
6. is able to be fully personalised;
7. doesn't require a full reboot everytime you load a new program or update;
8. has an out of the box installation faster than Win XP (Fedora Coe 4 & 5, Ubuntu 5.10, Free Mandriva 2006, Mepis all load in 60% of the time, or less, than Win XP - loaded all these on the same machine, one at a time, in the last month).

Collapse -

so that

by Jaqui In reply to linux

you can laugh at the braindead monkeys like you that use windows.

btw, XP is barely equal to Linux 0.0.1 which was out in 1995

Collapse -


by rickydoo In reply to linux

>I could reboot XP every few days, or just leave Linux running
>I could buy Server 2003 and run IIS, or I could run Apache like the rest of the world does, and buy food this month
>I could buy Simply Accounting, but GNUCash meets my simple needs
>I can't afford MS Office, but OpenOffice is a good price
>I can't afford Photoshop, but the Gimp does a good job
>I can't afford to pay for Bills new yacht until I pay off my own van

Collapse -

the Adventure of....

by dawgit In reply to linux

Living (& thinking) out of the box. (& not paying for the stupid box either)

Collapse -


by NZ_Justice In reply to linux

Your not a true geek unless you forsake all real life social engagements and contacts and spend every other minute of your life working on Linux and bitching about windows.

Windows XP just makers things to easy and you apparently can not optimize windows XP to get good performance and you are doomed to ever experience problems. Another apparently, is you can not customise or configure windows XP so that you have no problems and that there is little or no support from Microsoft.

The number one insane solution too a problem in XP seems to be wipe HDD and rebuild, and the reasons can be as bad as the ?load up time was 1 min 30 sec instead of 1: 20 seconds. And more people in the TR ***** about windows than Linux so another good reason to use Linux to get in with the in crowed in TR. Even the TR bring you there site using Linux.

Linsipre sucks ***, knopix is good if you don?t want to configure anything, and all the other distros have there own problems, like having to start from scratch if you go with Linux from scratch. So don?t go wth Linux from scratch if you don?t want to start from scratch. Then there is KDE vs GNOME. knopix uses KDE, Ubuntu and Red Hat use GNOME. Then running some distros of a live cd sucks *** if you don?t have lots of memory.

The only reason that people seem to give to use Linux is that it?s not a Microsoft product.

And that should be good enough for you.

Collapse -

Take your own advice . . .

by apotheon In reply to Because

. . . and "don't make stupid posts".

(note for posterity: I refer to what is, as of the twelfth of June, 2006, NZ_Justice's usericon/avatar.)

I can only gather, from what you've said, that you haven't ever really bothered to learn much about Linux aside from the usual FUD from the usual suspects.

I've optmized the **** out of Windows in the past. My experience: a fifteen percent gain in performance results in a barely usable machine. A thirty percent gain results in something that is acceptable performance-wise, but most Windows users wouldn't like it much.

Yes, you can certainly optimize Windows an awful lot. Too bad, on a scale of one to ten, that brings it from about a two up to about a four.

Part of the reason I use Linux instead of Windows is that I don't support Windows professionally any longer, and as such I don't have to keep it around -- and maintaining Windows eats up a surprising amount of time. Restarts, system scans, security software testing and updating, managing cantankerous and clumsy backup systems, fixing registry issues, and so on: it all adds up. With Linux, I set up the machine, configure it to my liking, and it Just Works.

I wonder why you think Linux users all sit around bitching about Windows, particularly here at TR. From what I've seen, Windows users ***** about Windows, and Linux users deflect and debunk FUD from other Windows users who wouldn't dare admit that Windows ever has problems.

I have a lot of reasons for using Linux, as do others here (as you'd know if you bothered to read some of the posts here rather than just inventing your own non-reason why people use it). Linux provides me with a GUI that suits how I work (WindowMaker), secure remote management tools that truly excel (SSH), an extremely stable server platform, standards-compliant software behavior, a wide range of hardware support, a toolset that enhances my productivity admirably, and a user environment that doesn't ever get in my way.

Windows doesn't do any of those things, though I can probably get 70% of most of them if I get elbow-deep in the registry while configuring it for my purposes. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for me.

Collapse -

I use Linux

by NZ_Justice In reply to Take your own advice . . ...

so WTF are you talking about. I would rather use Linux than Windows. But I fail to see the difference in the amount of work required to get both operational to a personal standard of performance.

In refrence to the avatar I had, see my profile and read my biography to find out why I removed it.

Collapse -

wow, reading comprehension

by apotheon In reply to I use Linux

If you think I was flaming you about the image, you missed the point.

Edit: Also . . .
I never said you don't use Linux, and I never said that customizing either took longer than the other. What I said is that you don't seem to know much about Linux, and that once I'm done customizing/optimizing Windows it's still not up to more than somewhat acceptable standards of performance, stability, security, and productivity enhancement for me.

Yeah, I guess I should have noticed the lack of reading comprehension before I even looked at your profile.

Collapse -

and the ...

by NZ_Justice In reply to wow, reading comprehensio ...

flames continue. Now apparently your writing is so intelligent and on a hire level that I can't comprehend what you are typing? How big is your head? (rhetorical) . You "seem" to much. Stop "seeming". Its annoying, a bit like Aaron Baker.

How the **** do you know what I know about Linux. Do you want to give me quiz? (please don't, you know I will answer all your questions). What? I write a few comments and ***** about it and suddenly I know nothing, compared to you oh wise linux guru. FY

Thanks for reading my profile. :) and it looks like, my blogs. :)

So you think I like windows so much and hate linux that I would create a thread called "The best OS ever with out a doubt" in the windows discussion area. you "seem" to be not comprehending my profile. I don't hate Linux, it's a very very good kernel. The front ends just suck *** unless you self-customise or go command only.

And then under the license you have to publish your mods for everyone to share. Since you have done all the work already could you please post a link to your linux mods\mod source. I would like to download. :)

Collapse -

"You win."

by apotheon In reply to and the ...

I concede the debate, whatever it is you're trying to prove. Your incoherence has defeated me. Your little challenges to prove you're so much better than me have cowed me. There's no reasonable response to the confusion that is your unrelenting battery of my more delicate sensibilities.


Related Discussions

Related Forums