Pros and Cons of Windows

Collapse -

well now this is an extremely

by Jaqui · 13 years ago In reply to Pros and Cons of Windows

good opportunity...

top 5 reasons to avoid windows:
( in no particular order )

1) cost, m$ wants to go distributed computing, making you pay monthly to use any m$ $oftware.

2) not secure, viruses, firewall breaches, adware, spyware all prove this one

3) not stable, a history of crashing.

4) proprietary, m$ o$ for m$ $oftware is a continuing expenditure of good money that could go into other areas without a m$ solution on your systems

5) not compatable, no 2 versions of any application from m$ have been compatable, m$word is prime example.

top reason to use it:

any moron can find a power button.
( even those that should not be allowed to touch a computer )

Collapse -

I always love

by jdclyde · 13 years ago In reply to well now this is an extre ...

the unbiased true, no matter how harsh some people will say it is! :^O

And one of the BEST examples of MS compatablity, ask any ACCESS programmer how they love upgrades.....

Or how it is the "other persons problem" if they can't open your file because they have the Corel Suite or the SmartSuite instead of MS Office.
(staying in a windows world for the sake of this, as Linux users KNOW HOW to use that obscure and often unknown "save as" option to change file formats)

Collapse -

~chuckle~

by Jaqui · 13 years ago In reply to I always love

microsucks orifice?

actually, best compatability I've found so far for office suites is open office.
( being an xml based file type it's far easier to keep compatability )

but, and I do have to point this one out for fairness,
compile newest kernel on a system running the 2.0 kernel.

"wrong bash version"

( 2.4 to 2.6 saw that even )

so kernel upgrades can often mean rebuilding the entire os. this isn't a compatability issue?
generally open source maintains compatability in data files, even if application itself needs to be rebuilt.

Collapse -

Pretty extreme

by jmgarvin · 13 years ago In reply to ~chuckle~

You are going down the road of "dependancy ****." While I agree with you to a point. Upgrading the 2.0 kernel to the 2.6 kernel is like upgrading Win 3.1 to Win XP.

There is a world of difference...

However the major difference is that you CAN rebuild that system with newer version of apps and libs so that you can compile and run the 2.6 kernel.

Collapse -

But when to you make the decision

by jdclyde · 13 years ago In reply to Pretty extreme

to just start from scratch with the new version?

Not everything that "can" be done, "should" be done. (unless we are talking about playing around with home systems, and then all bets are off)

Collapse -

No argument here

by jmgarvin · 13 years ago In reply to But when to you make the ...

I'm not saying it is the smartest move, but it could keep your server alive while you update to a newer kernel.

Plus with nifty tools, like yum, apt-get, and up2date, on modern distros it makes it easy to update your server to a newer kernel with 0 downtime (ok...the reboot time, but really...how long does that take ;-) )

Collapse -

well, if you follow

by Jaqui · 13 years ago In reply to But when to you make the ...

the recommended life span for a filesystem,
you completely rebuild your partitions at the 2 year mark at the latest. ( 6 months is the recommendation )

Collapse -

Unix Bigots

by f-4076287 · 13 years ago In reply to well, if you follow

Where irritating in the 70s, persisted into the 80s, became desperate and owned by IBM in the 90s, and now just seem pathetic in the face of Windows superiority and dominance.

Collapse -

Speaking of bigots . . .

by apotheon · 13 years ago In reply to well, if you follow

Who pulled your string, G BIG?

Collapse -

Re: Unix Bigots

by TomSal · 13 years ago In reply to well, if you follow

Yeah its a shame that all the *VERY* important stuff of our modern technology driven society is handled by Unix (or Unix variant) machines though huh?

Guess those "irritating" Unix guys were on to something...

Windows

General discussion