Microsoft Bashing !?!

[leech]

Originally posted by agallag
I've seen way more weird crashes in linux than I've ever had in W2K or XP. Assuming you have decent hardware and drivers, W2K is the most stable graphical OS I've ever seen, with XP a very close second.

I've had W2K crash just as much as any OS, but then again I'm not the kind of person to just sit there in front of it and play FreeCell. I actually USE my computer ;-)

Leech

[The_King]

Linux Vs Windows....

[Gurm]

Leech,

As soon as you can pull Photoshop for Linux out of your butt, we can talk. Until the major software houses start making software for Linux (and sadly, CHARGING for it, which won't fly for Linux users) it won't be useful.

And for the record, my production NT4 boxes are at 3 years without a single non-scheduled reboot. 3 YEARS.

- Gurm

[leech]

But what are those NT4 machines used for? Actually I have read that Adobe was looking into a Linux port. Personally I love the look/feel of linux a lot more, it's more responsive than WindowsXP on the exact same hardware. Just my opinion. Besides Linux is constantly improving, if you run into a problem/bug then report it, or fix it yourself, all the source is there. With windows you have to wait 'til Microsoft fixes it.

Leech

[leech]

Originally posted by Gurm
Leech,

As soon as you can pull Photoshop for Linux out of your butt, we can talk.

- Gurm

Well, Microsoft software is more appropriate for pulling out my ass, since it runs like shit, looks like shit, well, it must be shit :-) Photoshop is a great application, and frankly if I ran it I would buy a Mac.

Leech

[Gurm]

Why would you buy a Mac? Photoshop on the Mac is retrograde, and has been for years. The myth that Macs are good for graphics is just that - a myth.

As for what the NT4 boxes are used for...

One is running as a server with the following services:

- Primary Domain Controller
- Backup Web Server
- Exchange Server
- Secondary DNS Server
- File Server
- Print Server
- SQL Server

The other is the Backup Domain Controller, and also runs:

IIS Primary Web Server
FTP Server
File Server
Print Server
SQL Server

AND I log into one as a workstation.

Even 2 years after I left, they're still running. And they were running for 3 years while I was there, but a lightning strike futzed them up and I had to boot/reboot a lot getting them sorted, so I don't claim 5 years like I ought to.

Your insistence that XP/2K/NT are buggy and crash-ridden is just foolish. Lots of people here (and elsewhere) will attest to the fact that these OS'es crash LESS than any other. INCLUDING *nix.

- Gurm

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Gurm
Your insistence that XP/2K/NT are buggy and crash-ridden is just foolish. Lots of people here (and elsewhere) will attest to the fact that these OS'es crash LESS than any other. INCLUDING *nix.

- Gurm

I totally agree.

My Win2K-SP2 boxes are VERY solid with one single exception: those used for betatesting....and any betatester will attest that this is a high-risk activity in terms of system stability regardless of the OS being used

As such my beta OS installations are in removable drive caddies.

Dr. Mordrid

[leech]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid


I totally agree.

My Win2K-SP2 boxes are VERY solid with one single exception: those used for betatesting....and any betatester will attest that this is a high-risk activity in terms of system stability regardless of the OS being used

As such my beta OS installations are in removable drive caddies.

Dr. Mordrid

That's my whole point, 90% of the software I use in Linux IS beta. It still crashes less than a lot of the FINAL release stuff for windows. There are a LOT of other reasons that windows has problems. Of course if you're running just straight Microsoft software then of course it's going to run pretty stable. On the other hand it's when you start installing third party stuff that it becomes less stable.

Leech

[Schorsch]

I agree that W2K is a decent desktop OS (in fact I am using it at this moment), but does it crash less than Linux? Certainly not. All our servers here at work (file server, firewall, web server) are running linux, and they are rock stable - W2K couldn't do the job any better. So why should anybody pay a few hundred bucks for Windows licenses when he can have Linux for next to nothing?

[Chris Blake]

I got 80 W2K clients and 4 W2K servers. Last crash in 6 months I had on any of these machines was down to a HDD failure.

W2k seems pretty stable to me.

[leech]

Originally posted by Gurm
Why would you buy a Mac? Photoshop on the Mac is retrograde, and has been for years. The myth that Macs are good for graphics is just that - a myth.

- Gurm

Odd, I think most mac users would disagree with that. Let me ask you something, Macs are known as good DTP, and graphics development. The Amiga's were known for Multimedia stuff, and Atari ST's were known for Midi. Tell me, what is windows known for except for being buggy/unstable?

Leech

P.S. In a lot of cases, reputations are created for a reason, especially when Operating Systems are involved.

[leech]

Originally posted by Schorsch
I agree that W2K is a decent desktop OS (in fact I am using it at this moment), but does it crash less than Linux? Certainly not. All our servers here at work (file server, firewall, web server) are running linux, and they are rock stable - W2K couldn't do the job any better. So why should anybody pay a few hundred bucks for Windows licenses when he can have Linux for next to nothing?

I completely agree. Think of how many licenses are required per machine, then figure out how many machines you're running. My linux box (by the way running Mandrake Cooker, so it's not exactly running the 'stable' branch) is working perfectly stable. The only time it reboots is during a power outage. Windows XP on the other hand..... It'll puke at a sneeze. Granted some of it might be due to the newness of the Parhelia driver, but I had many problems also with the Radeon card (but then again, quite possibly driver related). I recently did a re-install of it because it would 'hiccup' I'd just be browsing the net and EVERYTHING would just pause for about 20 seconds. I call that a major problem.

Call me crazy or whatever, but I swear that running the AmigaOS under WinUAE actually runs smoother and silker than WinXP does. Also, anyone else have the problem when you have some other windows already open and you click on the start button, and when it comes up the shadows flicker like they're insane? Talk about major flaw!

Leech

[rugger]

Originally posted by Byock
True, for TRUE bashing you have to have a legitimate complaint. This guy is smoking something. I used an NT4 machine with 64megs of ram, and it was barely usable. Who would even TRY to use Win2k on 32?? Now, if he was complaining about IE not having a checkbox to stop popups...



The Chicken

I used to run NT4 on 24 meg ram on a 486-133. You needed to tweak it, but it ran OK. (by tweaking, I mean disable all the non-essensial services and stuff)

[Gurm]

Hey Leech,

There are people like you who come into the #winbeta channel on DalNet. We mock them, and send them home crying to mommy. Now let me get my work done, ok? Since none of it can happen on my Linux box, I think I'll let that run the FTP server and the firewall.

- Gurm, stable on NT4/2K/XP since 1996.

[Dr Mordrid]

Same here. I have tons of video to edit and nothing even close to what I can use on my Windows boxes is available for Linux.

Dr. Mordrid