Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Vista is rediculous


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

#16
comanighttrain

comanighttrain

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 553 posts
i guess i have to openly admit, as a linux user, i think windows XP was the first windows i actually liked. However i do still feel that for work puposes, Linux is still more productive, and BSD is still a better web server.
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
in_texas_dallas

in_texas_dallas

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
I think, that because Linux doesn't have a lot of other jobs, that it should all well be able to do ONE task well and more stable...

And believe me, I am not trying to insult anything or anybody

Linux doesn't have one tenth of the tasks and responsibilities that Windows does... Every since W Indows 98, Windows has taken on a whole lot of responsibilities.. And with XP, they stepped up to a whole new level..
And being that it has so many functions to perform all at once, it is going to be less stable when compared to a system that has fairly elemental tasks to perform...

And that is what u r looking at when u have Linux... It is in know ways comparable to Windows as a complete operationg system..

Take this for example... Just because windows is the most used (by a long shot) operating system on the planet, u have hackers trying day and night to undermine everything they possibly can... This means windows has to be prepared for this...

Linux on the other hand has very few worries about this.. I am sure there are some virus concerns, but nothing comparable to Windows.. basically nothing to complain about

Plus, you have about 1% of programs that can run on lnux.. or in another words, it doesn't even have to be com patible with any of the programs written for Windows.... Which also means, that is a lot less for it to worry about as far as infrastructure goes..

Sorry to say as well, but I have used some of the software tailored for Linux Users, and it is shoddy and, quite honestly, poor... It is a good thing they are giving it away free, cuz I would be mad if I paid money for it...

For somebody who has found some functionality and convenience in it for certain applications, congratulations... But for the general public, Linux is a dead end.. Plus, even in application side (ie, business and networking) Windows is responding very welll (especially in regards to XP and SP2) to threats....



I will just say this, If I was going to make an alternate operating system, I would make a gui that at least ran applications from windows.... without any sort of emulation... I mean, it is the same machine... same opcodes (err, pseudocodes)... So, all you need to do is create the infrastructure of the calls and mcl and all that... Cut out all that extra stuff, that is, Windows being too big ... And you would have what most Windows complainers complain about... Windows being too big...

Which is of course ridiculous in it self to say about an operating system that is used by the whole world... It's too big.. It does too much...

Not only does Windows do a lot of stuff, but you can change and alter and swap just about any piece of the software to your liking... U can disable what u don't want and enable or install options u do want...Anything u could dream up of you could pretty much do to Windows...


That's pretty much as far as I can see into the situation

Feelings are pretty strong cuz of how determined people who are really into linux think it is going to take over Window's market... Knock knock...

The best thing that has happened for linux in the last couple of years is that it actually created a niche... from all the free press about how evil microsoft was and how it was a monomply.... It didn't take over.. It didn't dent Windows market... It created it's own little market, a small one, but a ncihe still
  • 0

#18
Michael

Michael

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 1,869 posts
I am not going to attack or defend Linux, I will leave that to other people.

Vesta needs a lot of RAM and processor power so did XP when it come out. I can make my computer boot to windows in 24 seconds and that is with AVG Anti Virus, Kerio Personal Firewall and most services running and Windows still looking "pretty" remove all that and I could get down to a lot lower say about 15 seconds boot and not time waiting once at the desktop. Ok so what it my hardware like 512mb ram and 3.0ghz processor I don't have a video card and just plug into my mother board. Windows XP is big and bulky, if you what to you can trim the windows folder down to about 400mb and still have every thing work.

The bottom line is I think that you will be able to do the same with Vesta.
  • 0

#19
comanighttrain

comanighttrain

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 553 posts
Well,

Linux is a commercially viable solution, do you know that *nix based solutions run a majority (a huge majority) of the internet?

Yahoo.com is run by bsd, and Microsoft even use BSD for a section of their own website. *nix developers have set many standards that have made computing what it is, windows alone could not do this.

You can rest assured they will continue to do this and that *nix based solutions will be making some form of larger desktop appearence in the future, that, and Linux provides a heck of alot of functionality out of the box that windows cannot even compare with.

Linux and other *nix solutions cannot be written off as a dead end by a long shot.
  • 0

#20
in_texas_dallas

in_texas_dallas

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
Comanighttrain> I did say i am not tryhing to insult or put down anything

Linux does have a good function. . What I was trying to say, it doesn't compare in any way to Windows, in that Windows has to be ready to run anything and everything...

But please do provide some kind of link that says that Linux runs the vast majroity of all internet servers...
  • 0

#21
comanighttrain

comanighttrain

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 553 posts
hrmm...i read it in my university notes. http://www.freebsdsy...ical-report.php is the closest i can find to what i read, but remember that report is biased, and alot of the reports you will read will be biased.

Linux can run anything :tazz: you either get the source, or you can Wine it.
  • 0

#22
brianmil0923

brianmil0923

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 191 posts
I don't think Vista will be all that bad, it will automatically degrade itself to an XP-like install. The higher end requirements are ONLY is you want to run the AERO Glass interface.

When it first comes out, the only reason i think it will be a little painful - just like any other operating system -when it is first released and most drivers are not included..vendors don't have them available yet....etc

One thing I find encouraging - drivers are already out for Intel's 945G express chipset and ATI's RS400 or RS480 family chipsets

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens!!
  • 0

#23
Dragon

Dragon

    All Around Computer Nut

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,682 posts

Comanighttrain> I did say i am not tryhing to insult or put down anything

Linux does have a good function. . What I was trying to say, it doesn't compare in any way to Windows, in that Windows has to be ready to run anything and everything...

But please do provide some kind of link that says that Linux runs the vast majroity of all internet servers...


This is not meant as an insult nor a boost towards microsoft or *nix based systems.
but research does show that *nix based platforms do control the most servers on the internet.

source: http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/servers/

The standard implementation of a DNS server is BIND on Unix, although BIND has also been ported to other platforms.


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server

Server operating systems

The rise of the microprocessor-based server was facilitated by the development of several versions of the Unix operating system to run on the Intel microprocessor architecture, including Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD. The Microsoft Windows series of operating systems also now includes server versions that support multitasking and other features beneficial for server software, beginning with Windows NT. The current Windows Server version is Windows Server 2003. There are many servers running Linux versions such a RedHat, Debian, etc which have generally proven to be more stable than Windows machines. There are an increasing number of servers running Mac OSX as organisations realise the potential and stability from having the hardware and software properly fitted and vetted. Most technical servers continue to run some flavour of UNIX so they tend to go for SUN, SGI, or HP workstations as proven and stable servers.


the most popular server according to Netcraft, an independent survey company, is Apache web server which is based on Open source software, the foundation of *nix platforms.

Apache software history from Wikipedia.com

Apache HTTP Server is an open source HTTP web server for Unix-like systems (BSD, Linux, and UNIX systems), Microsoft Windows, Novell Netware and other platforms


Hope this gives a more unbiased version of information to look at based on what comonighttrain pointed out. It is also pointed out that Windows servers are the second highest server platform, but it is just barely above Linux based servers. This is because as pointed out elswhere linux has a small niche, but it too is growing.
  • 0

#24
in_texas_dallas

in_texas_dallas

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
Thanks for the information btw...

OK, first off, UNIX and LINUX are NOT the same things... *NIX nothing

they may be similar, or even almost identical.. If they were identical, Linux would be #1, cuz Linux has had more development recently than UNIX... So, just common sense would prove that to SOME EXTENT..

I know Linux is developing a niche, which is good, cuz it has a good purpose, allbeit unnecessary with XP Pro (imo)

I was questioning the statement about Linux being ran on the majoiryt of the servers...


IMO, because Linux doesn't cover the territory in terms of application performance and being able to run a variety, literal glut, of applications, and the fact of cross-compatibility with like the ENTIRE world... Windows XP Pro is quite stable, I leave my computer on for days without so much as putting it on standby or hibernate... Running web apps, high-graphics games and other apps as well..
  • 0

#25
Dragon

Dragon

    All Around Computer Nut

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,682 posts
i too leave my windows up an running for weeks on end, I also leave Linux up and running for weeks on end. The only difference between the two is I have to use a tool to release memory in windows where Linux does that automatically.

Windows xp is great for office work, but unlike linux, it is suggested you power off windows at least once a week to release unused memory. and thats from MS's suggestion.

I use both OS's albeit I use Linux more than Windows now because I run my entire business with it. For graphics, web design, accounting the whole works, everything works perfectly for a business. plus I can have all of them open and running at the same time without hurting other apps I may need. for example. I recently had my 3d graphics program{blender 3d), Firefox, Accounting, IRC chat, NVU web design, text editor, php editor, and messenger service, and vnc going all at the same time, it only used 50% of my ram.

I'm not out to bash MS or Windows, but I have tried the same thing with Windows and used 93% of my ram. and at that point my Windows XP crashed all because I had someone try to IM me on my messenger program. Mind you unlike Linux, I also have my AV, AS, AT, and other protective measures running which use up more resources just to keep Windows from being hacked, hijacked, or whatever.

Just to give you example, right now I'm on my Windows Xp, 43 processes running and I'm using almost 50% of my ram. In linux I would have 117 processes running and only using 29% of my ram.
IMO, Linux is way better at handling multi-tasking then Windows, but thats just my opinion.

Edited by Efwis, 23 October 2005 - 02:26 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#26
Dragon

Dragon

    All Around Computer Nut

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,682 posts
I almost forgot, UNIX is the building block for Linux. whithout Unix there would be no Linux, hence the reason that most people refer to it as *NIX.
  • 0

#27
in_texas_dallas

in_texas_dallas

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
First off, I do all what u say there, as far as programs running, and I have a 1.3GHz AMD SEMPRON with 512MB of RAM and I have no hangups or slow downs... in WIndows XP Professional

Secondly, the reason I said I don't care for the whole "*nix" thing is because, if Linux was BETTER than UNIX, people would have just upgraded... Probably a big factor is that Linux is always trying to bash Windows.. dunno

I don't bash Linux, i play around with it from time to time... But having done that, I like Windows much better for incomparable and innumerable reasons!!
  • 0

#28
comanighttrain

comanighttrain

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 553 posts
its ok texas...you can change...noones perfect. JK:P. Seriously though.

I admit, i use Winslows for my games, basically because both my linux boxes run my websites and do a lot of work, like efwis said, *nix systems are very efficiant, infact, one of my boxes is FreeBSD and the other is slackware.

As for applications, i would say Windows has more, but for availability Linux is better. What i mean is, if i decide i need something 90% of the time i can go onto sourceforge or whatever, download it and compile it and have it working within the hour. Infact, i can set up a web server in about an hour, connecting it to a database would take as long as it takes me to make the two.

With windows i could set up IIS, then realise, i need to buy a version of office to get Access to make a database. After making the website, i would have to reboot the machine every so often, putting the website down. This means if i want a decent website i have to shell out somewhere in the region of £300 to get windows server edition for small business, and shell out more later for the microsoft apps.

The fact of the matter is, *Nix has a more cost effective solution for each scenario, and although msoft stuff may be easier to use, it will not grant the user as much power and will in the long run, cause more grief.
  • 0

#29
Dr. Gutstein

Dr. Gutstein

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts
Vista is Perfect!!!
but is taking too much :tazz:

That's the Future
  • 0

#30
in_texas_dallas

in_texas_dallas

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
Yes, if you think what computers are gong to be responsible for in the future you definitely have to see the operating systems and the programs to run on those OS' to be very broad programs.. To not just get the job done[multiple jobs], but to protect the system, and be able to add and delete other jobs and responsibilities [basically programs]

Right now, the operating system that is showing that it is the most resourceful and best able to suit this qualitifaction is Windows.

Maybe down the road there will be another contender, but right now there is NONE that equal Windows.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP