XP vs. 2000 with a hint of Linux

[Rogue Jedi X 0]

OK. It's pretty obvious that the OSs of today are Windows XP and 2000 (or are they? You tell me). Which one would/do you choose? Xtra Power or NT's successor? Or do you have your eyes on another OS?

 

And here's another question:

Do you think Linux has a gaming future (with M$ dominating the market and all)?

 

I'll be watching closely

[Admiral LSD 0]

Right now, XP gets my vote. It cleared up several long standing issues I had with 2k and for that, there isn’t a force on this planet that would make me step down to 2k again. As good an OS as Linux is, it isn’t ready for the mainstream desktop just yet and doesn’t look like it will be in the forseeable future.

[Alien 1]

Definitely XP for me. When I have all the spare parts to build a 2nd system, then I may have a fiddle with Linux. I'd like to have a proper play with it, just for the sake of having something to play around with & experiment with, but I can't see me using it as my main OS, or even allowing it space on my main system anytime in the forseeable future.

[Xelerated 0]

I have used linux for games, it works good basically, had a problem once with having to update opengl for Quake3.

I wouldnt even use windows if it wasnt for my wife wanting it.

I think linux is a great game OS personally.

as for ready for the main stream, no, its not ready,

and I only say that because there are so many people

out there that dont know how to use it, and so many that

couldnt figure it out if they tried.

I do use windows for games still, but thats just beacuse I have to

have windows anyway. I did get JK2 to install on linux using winex

and that did far better than i had expected.

Linux's advantage is its flaw, for mainstream. Its so customizable

and lets the user do ANYTHING they want (and sometimes dont want)

While you can do SO much with it, it also doesnt warn you if you are about to do something stupid (bad for the ID10T users)

[miker192 0]

WinXP desktop functions are sooo much slower than Win2k

Im all about Win2k

[CyberGenX 0]

Notes from a mad man:

 

Linux will never hit mainstream, simply because of MS's BOST. BOST, or Bull$h*t OS Technology, is a plan developed in 1994 to make the masses think that Windows is it and all the others are just hobbyist or mainframe OSes. Intel uses this similar technology called 4D, or Ding Ding Ding Dong (said fast). Your computer simply won't run without Windows x.x or the Intel x processor!!! and 80% of users believe this crap.

 

As for Windows XP, well that's an OS that has the world fooled. If you like XP, M$ wins. If you hate XP, M$ still wins because you probably will use 2000 or SE instead. XP is the most politically driven product I have ever seen. If I could figure out how to open this dam CD ROM I would put in my Mandrake 8.0 disk and be gone with Windows.

 

Sane Person:

I will probably stick with 2000 until .NET comes out, XP is way to reminisent of ME, even rhymes!

[{C}a5c4d3 0]

I believe that XP is the ideal OS at the moment. In comparsion to 2000, it has so many new features that 2000 dont have, it makes it ideal for a novice user with the home edition, or a power user with the proffessional edition. Linux cannot be compared at all with Windows. Even in security matters, where most people believe that Linux is much more secure then the Windows Platform. In that part i will just say that the results of a servey linux came up with more security bugs than windows 2000. Microsoft provided us with security patches, what happend with most Linux users? did they had to wait for the next version? And from the other hand, Linux dont have a character of there own; they tend to "clone" the windows UI or the Mac UI. And with Windows having so many technologies; DirectX, System Restore, the Windows API, Support for the most recent standards etc... And with those technologies under improvement for so many years, It makes it impossible for any new OS to just jump out and claim Windows's market.

[bobbinbrisco 0]

Quote:

I believe that XP is the ideal OS at the moment. In comparsion to 2000, it has so many new features that 2000 dont have, ... Linux cannot be compared at all with Windows. Even in security matters, where most people believe that Linux is much more secure then the Windows Platform. In that part i will just say that the results of a servey linux came up with more security bugs than windows 2000. Microsoft provided us with security patches, what happend with most Linux users? did they had to wait for the next version? And from the other hand, Linux dont have a character of there own; they tend to "clone" the windows UI or the Mac UI.

Firstly Win2k outperforms WinXP in every way (gaming, applications etc) and because of this it has a whole lot less undesirable features that ppl dont need.

Linux on the otherhand has A LOT LESS security issues than Windows: the problem with Linux though, is that the user needs to know HOW to use Linux effectively. once they do, Linux is a VERY POWERFUL tool, otherwise Windows is already preconfigured to deal with most security issues.

Lastly, Microsoft was the one to COPY the Mac's GUI. The MAC was the FIRST to use a Graphical User Interface, Microsoft was using a command line interface (DOS). so i think Windows copied Apple and Linux followed Windows.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Lastly, Microsoft was the one to COPY the Mac's GUI. The MAC was the FIRST to use a Graphical User Interface, Microsoft was using a command line interface (DOS). so i think Windows copied Apple and Linux followed Windows.

Slight correction: The GUI (and the mouse) was first invented by Xerox for use in their Alto computer. Xerox didn't see any future in it and so didn't pursue it commercially. Steve Jobs on the other hand saw an immense oppurtunity in it and used the technology to create the Apple Lisa. The Lisa sunk like a lead ballon but that didn't deter Apple and in 1984 (using one of the best commercials ever) launched the Macintosh. It was this fact that caused Apple to lose the suit they filed against Microsoft over that very issue. Apple couldn't prove that the idea was entirely theirs (because it wasn't) so M$ won and were able to keep selling Windows.

Linux can't really be said to have copied Windows since the X Windows system that forms the heart of its GUI has been around and in use by Unix variants since the 80s. Linux copied Unix (Minix in particular) and has never really tried to hide that fact.

[Xelerated 0]

I read the same report that other dude did about Linux having

more security flaws than windows, But i guess he missed the part

where MS paid for that test. can we say buying the judge?

or contest fixing?

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Firstly Win2k outperforms WinXP in every way (gaming, applications etc) and because of this it has a whole lot less undesirable features that ppl dont need.

I don't buy that, as myself and a friend of mine jumped from around 85fps to 110+ in Quake 3 when going from Win2K SP2 to WinXP, and I have seen better performance in parasolid-based modeling software (Solidworks 2001 and 2001+ in my case)

Quote:

Linux on the otherhand has A LOT LESS security issues than Windows: the problem with Linux though, is that the user needs to know HOW to use Linux effectively. once they do, Linux is a VERY POWERFUL tool, otherwise Windows is already preconfigured to deal with most security issues.

Probably because nobody cares to hack Linux boxes as much as they like Windows boxes. For a LONNNNGGGG time the only exploits you would see on security and hacking sites were ones for Unix and their varying flavors, and now with the onset of appliances using *nix cores because of their "security" people are starting to focus on them again (like Oracle's "unbreakable" appliance server that was, in fact, broken).

Quote:

Lastly, Microsoft was the one to COPY the Mac's GUI. The MAC was the FIRST to use a Graphical User Interface, Microsoft was using a command line interface (DOS). so i think Windows copied Apple and Linux followed Windows.

This one was already corrected by Admiral LSD.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

I read the same report that other dude did about Linux having
more security flaws than windows, But i guess he missed the part
where MS paid for that test. can we say buying the judge?
or contest fixing?

Sounds like the rantings of a Linux lunatic. Got anymore conspiracy theories?

[Xelerated 0]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Xelerated

I read the same report that other dude did about Linux having

more security flaws than windows, But i guess he missed the part

where MS paid for that test. can we say buying the judge?

or contest fixing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Sounds like the rantings of a Linux lunatic. Got anymore conspiracy theories?

 

 

 

Sad part is, MS admited to funding the test. Along with another test

for benchmarking Win2k vs Linux (forget which distro though)

it was atleast a year ago.

Are you sure since you are an MCP MCSE you aren't part of the brainwashed bunch? I didnt mean to insult your daddy gate's

[{C}a5c4d3 0]

Windows 2000 is as good as Windows XP on gaming. That is in case you are playing new games. What about games developed before Windows 2000? I am sure you ll find major incompatibilities there. The surprise is, that if you launch those games on XP. You wouldnt notice any diference from Windows 98 nor 95. And the other thing is when you give a win 2000 pc a big load of windows services and huge apps, It's gonna take ages to boot. Now about security, ok everyone supported that ms funded the servey and i knew it from the begining but the part that none of the linux supportes is, who took responsibility for those security bugs in the linux? Did you connected to Windows Update and started downloading patches?

I am developing windows applications for around 7 years, i know most Windows API calls because i use them pretty often. Even if a linux variant was so good, would i like to spend a month learning the actual OS and then spend time on learning to develop apps for that platform? I had windows since windows 3.1, i used microsoft word etc... then windows 95 98 nt 2k mil and now i am on XP and i used most versions of Microsoft Office in my business. Would i want to change platform and have all that trouble in formating and installing a new OS that i dont know, and mostly of all, it wouldnt run the software i use the most? What about my publications in Publisher? Can linux install the .Net Framework and run my Visual Studio .Net?

[Xelerated 0]

If i had a copy of Visual studio .net id install it with winex and

tell you how it went, but i dont...

I know that everything I have tried to make work with winex has worked

except for IE (which was supposed to work, and seems like tons of other people had no problem) oh and msn messenger. didnt crash, just didnt run.

Installed MS Mediaplayer, even put an icon on my linux desktop

[Xelerated 0]

now that I think about it, with linux being open code,

why dont the brainiacs at redmond, rewrite the code so they

dont have it GPL anymore, (rewrite meaning, how Linus rewrote minux into linux type of idea) and make a new windows that runs Win32 and *nix apps. they certainly have enough money to make it happen, sure it would be kind of bloated, but then again, thats just the nature of the game. (cygwin lets you run nix apps on win, winex lets you run win apps on linux)

so id imagine one way or another it could be done.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Are you sure since you are an MCP MCSE you aren't part of the brainwashed bunch? I didnt mean to insult your daddy gate's

Wow, you really are part of the hardcore Linux crowd aren't you. I am still trying to find out why funding a test immediately translates into buying the results. Can you prove that? I haven't seen the report, so I don't know either way. I do remember seeing reports comparing Oracle 8, IBM DB2, and MS SQL Server 2000 to one another, and SQL Server actually did quite well. However, in another one (this other one done by PC Week if I remember correctly) shows Oracle and DB2 doing well, but they were only using JDBC connections at the time (and MS had just released a beta of the driver). So, pretty much any survey/benchmark can show whatever results that you want to see, it's just a matter of putting the proper spin on it.

As for being brainwashed, umm, yeah, sure. That's it. Wait a minute, let's review:

1. My OS has many more options for the things I do than Linux
2. I don't need hacks (or entire applications) to get applications that were not meant to work in my OS going
3. My OS doesn't have 50 splinter groups running around pimping their own distros that have a million text editors but have just *now* started seeing a strong Office Suite
4. I don't need to dual-boot with my OS to play games or applications
5. My server OS has a much more stable (and free) directory services solution that is fully integrated

Hmmmm, maybe I wasn't so brainwashed afterall. It looks like my option isn't so bad. I can come up with more points than these, but there's no need. Now, as for being a fanatic, I would have to say that you missed your ride with the rest of the Heaven's Gate cult. So what happened, you turned to Linux?

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Can linux install the .Net Framework and run my Visual Studio .Net?

I am not sure about it hosting the .NET framework, and you would only get basic ASP support if you had something like ChiliSoft ASP running on the box anyway. But, I just got another box freed up today that I plan on formatting and trying out either Gentoo or RedHat on. This will be my third go with Linux, but my first time dedicating effort to getting a specific app to work on it (I tried some stuff a few years ago, and it was just a pain in the a$$) as the box wound up running like a backup domain controller on my test network for a bit.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

now that I think about it, with linux being open code,
why dont the brainiacs at redmond, rewrite the code so they
dont have it GPL anymore, (rewrite meaning, how Linus rewrote minux into linux type of idea) and make a new windows that runs Win32 and *nix apps. they certainly have enough money to make it happen, sure it would be kind of bloated, but then again, thats just the nature of the game. (cygwin lets you run nix apps on win, winex lets you run win apps on linux)
so id imagine one way or another it could be done.

That's impossible due to the way the GPL works. Any works derived from GPL'd code must also be placed under the GPL. When Richard Stallman devised the GPL he envisioned a community where everyone was free to share the ideas and to improve on the works of others. Not only that but if M$ were to actively rewrite GPL'd code that would make a mockery of the stance on open source software

[Xelerated 0]

I was joking about the gates fanatic comment.

I use windows at home, and linux on only one PC, i do love linux

however, more than windows, but i like windows to a degree.

But from experience in the working world, the *nix machines seem to be

much more reliable than the windows servers and desktops, not trying to dis windows, just a reality I have seen. (but thats what keeps us in jobs

What i do like thought is the chance to have a choice. I use linux beacuse i like it, it does really everything I want other than a few games (even tho i can make them work, its not native). But ill tell you, if i get a game that can run native under either OS, ill buy the linux version because the overhead of linux, i have more free system resources than when i run windows. something else i love about linux is ssh, so from work i can ssh in, do downloads, irc, text web browse,

with such low trafic (compared to vnc to windows, etc..) so i dont have high trafic to get noticed at work

[Xelerated 0]

That's impossible due to the way the GPL works. Any works derived from GPL'd code must also be placed under the GPL. When Richard Stallman devised the GPL he envisioned a community where everyone was free to share the ideas and to improve on the works of others. Not only that but if M$ were to actively rewrite GPL'd code that would make a mockery of the stance on open source software

 

 

 

ahhhh, sounded like a good idea anyways

best of both worlds.

[clutch 1]

I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches).

 

I am curious though, in what experience are you comparing the security and stability of the 2 OSs to each other? What versions were they, and what applications were running on them?

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches).

I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.

[Xelerated 0]

When i read that it was win2k server vs linux (redhat i think, 7?)

It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2)

But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did.

As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz.

For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test)

you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers.

Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.