Slashdot Mirror


Windows XP: Prices, And One Reaction

Jim42688 writes: "Looks like the prices Amazon was reporting for Windows XP a while back were right. On the back of today's ad for CompUSA, it lists the prices to preorder. Home Full, 199.99, Home Upgrade, 99.99. Professional full, 299.99, Professional upgrade, 199.99." Perfect timing -- Fwis writes: "Use your power as a consumer to Boycott XP. The site is now functioning smoothly, and we invite you to log in and participate in discussions, polls, and news stories related to Microsoft's release of the XP line of products." There are some interesting links on this page if you (or someone with purchasing power at your company) is considering XP.

598 comments

  1. bah, for windows users... by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    i'm a windows user... i'm sorry...

    but anyway, check out these benchmarks of win2k vs winXP ... please read the WHOLE THING before flaming, becuase it says it's winxp rc2, but it's so much slower it shouldn't matter.
    http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1501& p= 3

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    1. Re:bah, for windows users... by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      its ironic: as i open that window I get a report from my 1000mhz Tbird w/ 256meg of RAM: Low System Resources.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    2. Re:bah, for windows users... by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 1
      --
      Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    3. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benchmarks are for Beta 2 NOT RC2

      Beta 2 is considerably older, and unrefined. Not to mention all the icky debug code. Please check your facts before posting, else you look like a fool.

      XP is fast, it rocks

    4. Re:bah, for windows users... by ToasterTester · · Score: 1

      Wake up rookie!

      Until the Golden masters are made for ANY project/product there is still debug information in the executables. That bloats the size and slows performance. So performance tests don't mean squat. In fact because whoever does the tests can control the results, by the tests and hardware used, the only valid tests are the one you perform yourself.

    5. Re:bah, for windows users... by Chmarr · · Score: 3, Informative
      It wasn't release candidate 2 that was being tested, it was BETA 2. This makes a big difference, release candidates usually have all the debug information stripped out. The idea of a release candidate is to have a version of the code that could very well ship if nothing appears wrong with it.

      Beta versions, on the other hand, often have a lot of debugging information built in that could cause bloat and lag.

      Personally, I hate windows, and I'll be keeping XP at a very long distance. However, if we're going to rag a product, let's do it for the right reasons :)

    6. Re:bah, for windows users... by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      Funny, Last I checked debug information only effected load times.

    7. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      effect - noun: the result, effect of some action
      affect - verb: to cause an effect

      thank you.

    8. Re:bah, for windows users... by Lally+Singh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, because you end up with code that looks like:
      (normal asm code)
      jmp 245
      (line number info, symbolics, etc)
      245: (normal asm code)

      Which really thrashes the cache and disrupts the pipeline pretty harshly.

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    9. Re:bah, for windows users... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      After having had WinME on a hapless test system for several months, I've concluded that WinME as released *IS* a debug build.

      If it's not, please explain why an Explorer (the file manager not the shell) crash generated an attempt to phone home with a bunch of traceback dump type info.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks. Now I know that anytime I feel like talking to someone who knows anything about programming, I can cross you off the list ahead of time.

    11. Re:bah, for windows users... by Chmarr · · Score: 1
      If it's not, please explain why an Explorer (the file manager not the shell) crash generated an attempt to phone home with a bunch of traceback dump type info.


      Well, I never claimed that Release versions were bug-free ;) Oh no, I'd be a fool to do so.


      The 'phone home' thing you're referring to is a 'new feature' of XP. My feelings on it are mixed, but irrelevant; I'm not going to touch XP.

    12. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep..

    13. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up rookie!

      It would be nice if you could correct his mistake without being an asshole about it.

    14. Re:bah, for windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because the "Internet Explorer Error Reporting" module has been installed on your system. Go to windowsupdate and "Show Installed Updates" to find out.

    15. Re:bah, for windows users... by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      I don't know how windows works (I don't program for it), but in linux, the debugging information is in the symbol table. If debugging symbols changed the way the code worked it would be a big problem, because you could have code that broke when you compiled it normally and then work differently when you were debugging it. I've never heard of a compiler (Again I don't program for windows so my experience is limited in that aspect) that generated different code when you compile with debugging mode. There is no reason to anyway. There is no need to mingle the hints for your debugger among the code when it could be in a seperate place. The only thing that I could think of that would slow down a program if it was in "debug" mode is if you had #defines or the like at compile time that enabled code for debugging like assertions that compile out; but if your assertion code causes that big of a performance hit then you have other issues. I always thought that assertions that compiled out were dumb anyway. There is no reason that you can't use your debugging tools to put dynamic triggers in if you control the calling code and you know they're safe to remove later, and if you don't trust the calling code then you should be leaving the assertions in when you ship anyway.

    16. Re:bah, for windows users... by sciencewhiz · · Score: 1

      They ran the tests again with RC1 and there was a 5 to 10% improvement in speed. Not great, but a little better.

    17. Re:bah, for windows users... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There are NO updates installed. This machine has NEVER had an internet connexion (in part because ME refused to recognise perfectly standard modems -- I tried several).

      To the other respondant -- this is ME, not XP.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just pirate. Anyone know where I can get an .iso for Office XP and Windows XP?

    1. Re:I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So very sorry, but I got my Office XP 15 days before it came out, with a Intellimouse and a shirt for 59 bucks. Ahh, to work for a large M$ vendor....

    2. Re:I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I downloaded the Win XP iso 2 months before it came out for free, ahh the joy of, i donno, downloading stuff i guess, heh.

    3. Re:I won't boycott by Virtex · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that MS's power is derived from the number of people using their products, so even if you don't buy a copy, you are still strengthening MS's monopoly by using it.

      --
      For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
    4. Re:I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, but that was Beta. Doesn't count. And you still didn't get an XP Polo shirt.

    5. Re:I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry kid, I choose to use the best. Have fun with your little political games, though, they sound amusing.

    6. Re:I won't boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll beat the shit out of anyone wearing a microlimp shirt.

    7. Re:I won't boycott by fdisk3hs · · Score: 1

      This "Boycott MS" stuff is just baiting. And I bit...
      Pirating MS doesn't help MS. Come on. Not using an alternate OS and contributing /belonging to it's community in some way doesn't hurt MS either.
      Too many double negatives...
      I'm part of MS OEM System Builder program. I have XP and it's the best Home OS they've made. For networking? Win2000 is a great professional OS and XP is 2000 dressed up like Mac OS. They work fine. Do I trust MS for Security? Hell no.
      (Your favorite alternative OS here) and MS will have to coexist, boycotting is pissing in the wind.
      The only way to grow alternative OS is to participate in its community, and, yes, not buy MS software or hardware.
      MS is big enough to sell $300 desktop operating systems and stomp the crap out of free OS that are more secure and hardy. How is a boycott website going to touch that kind of power? Shoo fly, don't bother me...
      I don't hate MS, but their lack of concern to fight off viruses from their email software and lock down their networks is harmful to everyone, and the prices on their software keep going up. And they are selling them fast. If someone is dumb enough to get screwed six ways from Sunday and say "Thank you, may I have another?", then they get what they get. But MS irresponsibility is basically putting their users in harms way from friendly fire.
      Ouch.
      rutledge_almostaranch@yahoo.com
      Slackware on $200 laptop - what can't it do?

  3. Is the boycottxp server down? by jonestor · · Score: 1, Troll

    C:\>ping www.boycottxp.com

    Pinging boycottxp.com [209.75.39.140] with 32 bytes of data:

    Request timed out.
    Request timed out.
    Request timed out.
    Request timed out.

    1. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      yeah, shes toasted.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    2. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously he was so busy boycotting XP that he forgot to install a decent webserver. It's an easy mistake to make, probably.

      It's a shame, in a way, I was looking forward to seeing his reasoning. Indeed, it will be a pleasant surprise if there is any reasoning.

      invalid form key, please wait 20 seconds after hitting reply, this comment has already been submitted

    3. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Derci · · Score: 1

      Well, Netscape 6 tells me "connection refused". I don't think he has been slashdotted - it's too soon for that, no?

      --

      -- The ballad of arrivederci
    4. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's refusing connections now. Previously it was shafted.

    5. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damnit...that should be:

      #debianorwhatever> ping www.boycottxp.com

      And I can surf it...

    6. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      silly windows user.

      "C:\" bwahahahha.

    7. Re:Is the boycottxp server down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he should have used Windows2000 server.

  4. WindowsRG by jeffehobbs · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:WindowsRG by a.tomaka · · Score: 1

      I know! I hear it is pretty good ;)

      --
      -------------
      Andy Tomaka :: www.whoisandy.com atomaka@cybernox.com
    2. Re:WindowsRG by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      i love how the clock changes a few hours every few seconds. Maybe the BIOS battery is dead...yeah, thats it, thats the ticket.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    3. Re:WindowsRG by Spruitje · · Score: 1

      http://www.idleworm.com/spoofs/Microsoftflash4.htm

      Also funny

    4. Re:WindowsRG by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      We played a cruel joke in my office. We found someone who was not the most technically savvy. Then we maximized and made the flash full screen (For WinRG). So it really looked like we had replaced his windows with Windows really good. It was hillarious when we showed him it was really just a spoof.

      Jeremy

    5. Re:WindowsRG by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1
      Gee... WindowsRG looks almost exactly like the Windows that I already have. The only difference is it boots faster.


      Cryptnotic

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  5. Boycott ? by pdiaz · · Score: 1
    We'd better expend our time improving free software rather than Boycotting others (if the product is overpriced, it would not make a good sell anyway)


    For the record:
    I don't care paying for quality software (I've just spend 100 pounds ~ 130$ I guess, for Mathematica For Students, Linux edition) because I know there are some niches were free software isn't good enough yet.

    --
    Make It Secret . Free JavaScript implementation of AES for your browser
    1. Re: Boycott ? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      We'd better expend our time improving free software rather than Boycotting others (if the product is overpriced, it would not make a good sell anyway)

      The product is not overpriced -- at least not if you only look at the cost of purchasing it. However, the intangible costs are a little high. Let's see....

      • You have to register through the internet (or phone M$) to get the product working....
      • If your hard drive dies or Windows XP manages to corrupt itself (like all the previous flavors), you can't just re-install. Instead you get to call M$ and try to convince them that you really are trying to install on the same (albeit repaired) system.
      • Don't add memory, a new CD-ROM drive and a new hard drive to your computer -- your XP license will stop working and you'll have to again call M$ to try to convince them that yes, this is the same computer, just upgraded.

      No, this kind of crap gives the vendor way too much control over how I use the product. Big brother can just go away. This is just one more reason why I never upgraded the only Windows machine I use at home from the Win 95 installation that was shipped with it.

      Please, somebody correct me if these statements no longer correctly reflect how licensing works with Windows XP.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  6. boycott XP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf for? If you don't like it, don't use it. But really, rabble rousing and grass-root pogroming support for a 'boycott' of an OS is just plain idiotic. Whoever thought this 'boycott' was a good idea had better step away from their computer for a while and consider it long and hard. Because it really does look like a case of little man syndrome- vicious hatred of winners and success for no other reason than to spite it...

    Someone please explain why their is a freakin boycott?

    1. Re:boycott XP? by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      for the rest of you who dont have a dictionary, a boycott would be a group of people refusing to buy a product. Except rather than just _not buying it_ they will also band together into a group and give reasons why they aren't buying it. MS has decent products, just not for the price, thats one thing that might get me to buy it, another biggy would be that licensing garbage. You know, its not likely theyll change, but if were strong about it maybe they will. At the very least we can hope that gates gets a visit from the ghost of steve ballmer and three other ghosts at christmas in order that he "mend his evil ways."

      --

      ________________________________________________

    2. Re:boycott XP? by error0x100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps you missed it in the news, but Microsoft was recently tried in court for illegally abusing their monopoly position to retain dominance and unfairly squash competition. It was generally called the "Microsoft antitrust trial", and not only was Microsoft found guilty, but the appeals court upheld the guilty verdict. So Microsoft's success was ill-gained - this is not just arbitrary opinions of some people, its a fact that has been not only found in court but upheld by the appeals court (or do you think all the judges are also just jealous of Microsoft's success?).

      The reason for the boycott is basically that all the illegal tactics that Microsoft used to gain dominance are still being used, they continue to break the law, and the lack of competition that results from this is harming customers.

      Did you really not notice this trial that was going on? It was very well publicised. Or did you just neglect to listen when the facts of the case were discussed in the media?

    3. Re:boycott XP? by charon.de · · Score: 1



      Thx, for your post, I was afraid there would have been something happened to /.. First, I only read about some new M$ "OS" and always thought this would be /. and none here would use this crap.

      Ok, not everyone is able to handle the power a real OS (Ie. Linux) may deliver...:-)

    4. Re:boycott XP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is at it again...

  7. Only 5 minutes to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. boycottxp.com. Is that a record, or did the site go down right after posting by coincidence?

  8. The site must be on XP by amsmith · · Score: 1

    Show by example, good idea!
    Slashdotted on Sunday.

  9. Windows Xp May Be Ok by ShishCoBob · · Score: 1

    Yes I know Windows XP will have may things that many people don't like. I for one though think it's more good than bad. Since it puts NT and 9x together I'm kind of glad that a lot of home users will now have an actual stable OS. I think that's a bigger thing than a bunch of features that many of I will most likely never use.

    One thing I do think about sometimes. A lot of linux distibutions come with various programs already on them that do things like cd burning and such. Now Windows comes along with new things built in. Before you would have to go get the program seperately. With linux it was already in there depending on what distribution you have. Now with XP these come with the OS. It's not exactly the same thing but still it kinda makes me think sometimes.

    I will add though that I do think those prices are a little too high.

    --
    http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.
    1. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by anshil · · Score: 2

      What I got impression from is 'putting NT and 9x together' is only a marketing farce. It's the old NT core kernel after all, they want to let the 9x series dye, and only call the change in flowerly name :o)

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    2. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uuuh... Call me a troll, but NT stable? hmm...

      I don't know why but I kinda feel MS' presence here. I mean boycottxp IS down.
      The comments are weird considering they are truly coming from regular /. readers.

      Am i being paranoid? Or MS just trying to sell its "brand-new-never-seen-before" program?

    3. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Dimensio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since it puts NT and 9x together I'm kind of glad that a lot of home users will now have an actual stable OS.

      When I, as a home user, wanted an actual stable Windows OS, I went to Windows 2000, as did quite a few people I know. We did lose some legacy and DOS-based support but AFAIK Windows XP loses most if it as well (I understand that there is some kind of DOS compatability mode, but I don't know all of the details) and after getting used to Windows 2K, I don't see a need to switch just to get the little extra that XP offers. Also, XP Home Edition doesn't even have all of the features supported in Windoes 2000 (off the top of my head: advanced security features and SMP support) -- to get a 'true' replacement we would need to upgrade to Windows XP Professional. Again, why go to the expense and performance hit of an XP upgrade when we already have most, if not all, of what we want anyway.
      .
      One thing I do think about sometimes. A lot of linux distibutions come with various programs already on them that do things like cd burning and such. Now Windows comes along with new things built in.

      Well...yes, but my understanding is that a number of third-party apps that people used to use for these purposes are crippled or non-functional. Apparently it's a 'bug' with the upgrades that XP has (and not an attempt for MS to force you to use their apps exclusively). Most of my friends with CD-R drives already have the software they need and they know how to use it -- it's pretty standard to get software with the drive. Maybe it's convenient for MS to offer seamless CD burning options integrated in the OS, but I could do without the overhead (and the crippling of my other choices).

    4. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

      XP is built on the NT4/W2k core with a huge amount of support for 9x programs. A large amount of the development effort was spent on making XP run all of the 9x applications that were incompatible with W2k.

    5. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One problem with things being built-in... is that MS destroys any competition, and eventually controls the feature-set.

      If people no longer need to get third-party software to burn cds, for example.... there is no longer a market for cd-software. Eventually, MS dictates the hardware interface to the manufacturers, seeing as how they are the only ones producing software, and pretty soon... you get the picture.

    6. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I've never had any problem keeping NT stable. Likewise, I've never had any problem keeping Linux installs stable.

      You feel the presence of MS because your mind cannot comprehend other people being better at server administration than you. As a result, you seek conspiracy theories - any excuse will do. Obviously, Slashdot - home to many of the most vociferous and poorly-educated Linux 'supporters' on the web - is full of MS schills. There's no other possible explanation.

    7. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by toast0 · · Score: 1

      also, IIRC win2k can not be upgraded to home edition.... only professional (unless they changed that at the last minute)

    8. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fer Chrissakes, system stability has very little to do with someone's administration capabilities. You're thinking security, which is completely different.

      99% of all stability problems are driver related. If you had hardware where the manufacturer's drivers were well written and stable, then you'd likely have no problems. If on the other hand, the drivers were buggy, you're screwed and either must wait for new drivers or buy some new hardware.

      QUIT BLAMING THE USER FOR SYSTEM INSTABILITY!

    9. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by joneshenry · · Score: 2
      As Microsoft for XP is licensing the CD burning technology from Roxio itself, I doubt that it is going to destroy the market for CD-burning software. This is a win-win partnership similar to what Microsoft has had with Symantec for many years. Just because MS Windows consumer operating systems have defragmentation and system monitor programs already bundled doesn't damage Symantec's sale of much more comprehensive product bundles such as Norton SystemWorks. Actually from these press releases I get the impression that Roxio is trying to use their product to leverage themselves into a CD-burning/backup troika. Also I believe that new releases of MS operating systems give Roxio further opportunties to make money off of people who purchase new products.

      What exactly would be the point of Microsoft's eliminating CD-burning competition? The current strategy of simply licensing technology from someone with expertise such as Roxio makes much more sense.

      When I hear complaints about Microsoft's bundling with Win9x and beyond, how come I never hear anyone complaining about the biggest victim of bundling: Trumpet Software's Trumpet Winsock. So had Trumpet been located in the US instead of Australia, would it have had a legitimate antitrust complaint versus Microsoft? Before Windows 95, Trumpet was quite often bundled with ISPs' installation software packages, and it was not considered a big deal that the customer would have to eventually purchase the product. How come no one complains on how "bundling" cost Trumpet Software untold billions in revenues?

    10. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example:
      The known stable drivers you are currently using are slow and do not support some features you need or want.
      The new drivers support the features you need and benchmarks show that they are faster. OTOH, they are largely untested.

      The drivers may cause instability, but the admin makes the decison to install them. Hence, the actions of the admin can affect the stability of the system. A poor admin might even install the wrong driver.

      Just because drivers cause almost all stability problems does not change the fact that the admin has to install those drivers.


      system stability has very little to do with someone's administration capabilities
      Very little is still enough, and will remain enough until we have a perfect world, with perfect admins and perfect software.

      QUIT BLAMING THE USER FOR SYSTEM INSTABILITY!
      Indeed, blame the admin. Sometimes that is the same person, though.

    11. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by _ganja_ · · Score: 2
      Your comment is totally uninformed; MS licenced Trumpet Winsock for Win95. These are the kind of uninformed comments generally get modded up though, at least I should be thankful that your's (so far hasn't been).


      BTW, did you know that XP Pro has native .zip file support... Dunno where it came from although it looks a lot like zip folders. There goes Winzip's business model.

      --

      A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

    12. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by cvd6262 · · Score: 2
      Apple just built a CD burner into their OS. Steve Jobs even took some shots at Roxio when they announced it at Mac World.


      Of course, Apple doesn't hold a monopoly, so they can live by different rules than MS.


      The funny thing is that some Mac users have told me the reason that it's okay for Apple to do this (when it's not for MS) is that the CD burner is an integrated part of the OS.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    13. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by ShishCoBob · · Score: 1

      hrm.. looks like I still have to get nero though. I can't burn a vcd or svcd. There still is a market since they just put the basic stuff in.

      --
      http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.
    14. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by manly · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When I, as a home user, wanted an actual stable Windows OS, I went to Windows 2000, as did quite a few people I know. We did lose some legacy and DOS-based support but AFAIK Windows XP loses most if it as well
      Two big problems with this switch:
      • Admin'ing Windows2000 is not for the average user.
      • Software compatibility.
      While Windows2000 (and likely XP) does retain important M$ legacy compatibility, the security model gets in the way. There are still a ton of apps out there (i.e. Turbotax) that require you to run as the Administrator user, or are not even coded to support multiple users (aka profiles).

      So in reality, Windows app compatibility remains a problem. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of custom and small 3rd-party apps out there designed for the Win3.x/9x (non)security model. These apps are a pain to integrate properly into WinNT/2000/XP. For a lot of them, you either have to run as Administrator, or loosen up filesystem permissions one by one. Pick your poison.

    15. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, are you old enough to be on the computer by yourself?

    16. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumpet was an afterthought. WINSOCK 2 is much more better :-) than Trumpet did.

    17. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, where's my account to login?

      There is only one correction I wish to make . I am a present WinXP Pro user, RC1. Now, I dont know about hwat XP home lacks, but I can tell you one thing...

      On exactly the same hardware, a PIII 500 Dell, XP is not slower that W2K. It's a shitload quicker.

      No, I dont believe it either. But the fact is, it boots 30 seconds faster, is more stable and is generally faster noticably

      Only downside is the prduct activation. Nothing else. The new interface is well worth the upgrade alone, let alone the speed hike.

    18. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally like to pirate my software. Is XP for me or should I avoid it and move back to using Linux?

    19. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Ok. As I'm writing this, I'm using IE 6 on Win XP box (beta 2). I've gotta say it. It Blows bigtime. Now considering that this is a pre RC1 version, my criticisms may be a little off kilter, but unless some of these probs are fixed pronto , I really must stress do *NOT* use this product on any mission , or sanity, critical system.

      The bundled CD burner feature has NEVER worked on this machine, it messes up every CD it touches, but disturbingly the OS seems to cause brain snaps for most other CD burning software. I've only just managed to get NERO back into action, fortunately giving me a backup-bailout solution to this XP mess

      Search is busted. The cute puppy seems to crash the computer.

      Performance has plummeted , on a cel 433(or something) machine with 128meg , the clean installed system choked every step of the way.

      My winmodem (which sucks anyway!) won't work now and isn't suported (Microsoft's driver support for XP appears to be "under construction" AFAIKT), so I'm relying on my old external 14K

      And the Linux partition seems to of been majikally nuked.(grrrr)

      But hey..... I can click on the pretty butterfly to invoke OS-level hotmail suport... I bet that'll get the big iron guys excited about Datacentre
      Oh, I can go on, and I'm really just whinging now, but I must stress, I'm not really into the ms-bashing thing. Imho 2000 was great, but I'm dead serious when I say Microsoft has lost the plot.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      BTW, did you know that XP Pro has native .zip file support... Dunno where it came from although it looks a lot like zip folders. There goes Winzip's business model.

      What is Winzip? Is that like PKUNZIP.EXE or /usr/bin/unzip? Or is that the program that some of my friends use that they keep on hitting instead of at this prompt telling them that they are on day 678 of 30. And that they have opened 56345 zip files?

      Yes, the above was slightly sarcastic and satirical. I was pointing out that there were free (beer) alternatives to WinZip, and that most people dont atcually pay for winzip, and ergo they dont have a decent business model. Add to the fact that there are a cartload + 2 of programs that support uniziping .ZIP files.

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
    21. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      Apple just built a CD burner into their OS. Steve Jobs even took some shots at Roxio when they announced it at Mac World.

      Of course, Apple doesn't hold a monopoly, so they can live by different rules than MS.

      The funny thing is that some Mac users have told me the reason that it's okay for Apple to do this (when it's not for MS) is that the CD burner is an integrated part of the OS.


      I dont know about other users, but this is why I think it is OK for apple to do this (for the moment).

      Apple are a hardware company. They are not an OS company, therefore people expect that their products, that they purchase will work. Also very few companies give a Rats Backside about supporting alternative platforms (Mac, Solaris,Linux,BSD). I mean try finding a flash memory USB device that will work on the SunRay platform. Mac has USB support because they were really the first to support USB in the hardware and the OS.

      How would you as a consumer feel if with your brand new QuickSilver Dual 800 G4 with DVD SuperDrive and 22" ACD, sorry you cant actually burn any software under MacOS9 because no company has written one, Dodgy Bros S/W house have been in development and there should be a beta relase in 2003.?

      This is why apple need to bundle S/W for burning DVDs with their OS. I know personally that i would not pay money for software just to make my burner burn only the most basic of CDs. I would pay extra for something like clone-cd though.

      Please note: I use a PC/Win2K&Linux at home. An iBook OSX/OS9. I love iTunes because it is the best MP3 player to use. It is based on some s/w that apple licensed of the creators. S/W that i would never have purchased, this is why i use winamp on my PC, price.

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
    22. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      hrm.. looks like I still have to get nero though. I can't burn a vcd or svcd.
      VCDImager works pretty well for producing BIN/CUE images of (S)VCDs. It's even free (as in speech). You can then use FireBurner, CDRWin, or any other program that handles BIN/CUE images to burn your CDs. I've used VCDImager and FireBurner to make a couple dozen SVCDs...things are really kicking in to high gear now that I can rip video from my TiVo.
      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    23. Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesnt bring 9x and NT together, they just renamed the source trees to be the same, the personal edition is just as different from the server edition as NT is to 9x.

  10. office xp and windows xp have been out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    warez

  11. um.... no reply by matchboy · · Score: 1

    did we overload it?

    --

    Robby Russell
    PLANET ARGON
    Robby on Rails
    1. Re:um.... no reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internal Server Error

      The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

      Please contact the server administrator, root@gangstabitches.net and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

      More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

      Apache/1.3.19 Server at www.boycottxp.com Port 80

      On another note, if I were to show my bosses this site to gain insight into xp, the gangstabitches would probably not go over to well in the corporate world in which I am enslaved.

  12. Great Timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less than a day after my post about how the "Boycott X" sentiment is a complete waste of time! Of course it was moderated down as a troll because I hurt some idiot's feelings.

    Of course the Slashdot crowd will say they're boycotting XP. Anybody on this board who has every actually purchased a Microsoft product, raise your hand. Warez and computers that have windows pre-installed do not count. Come on, let's see those hands...

    Oh, look, nobody!

    Hypocrites.

    1. Re:Great Timing! by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

      yeah.
      AOE.
      Dam good game if you ask me.

      mike

    2. Re:Great Timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why wouldn't computers with windows pre-installed count? You are paying for it. Look at your bill, there's a nice big dollar figure next to MS Win. XX. I don't know where you got your definition of 'Purchase' from, but I'd find a new source for your dictionary needs.

      How does it feel to be so stupid?

    3. Re:Great Timing! by gdchinacat · · Score: 1

      I purchased WindowsME about 4 months ago.....

    4. Re:Great Timing! by Darby · · Score: 1

      AOE. Dam good game if you ask me.

      How strange that MS had nothing to do with writing this game. It was written by a 3rd party who had MS publish it.

    5. Re:Great Timing! by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

      still a dam good game.

      The question was not ms-written progs, but MS progs, and I have bought one ms prog... AOE.

      (Win & Office came with the box, and my LEA bought the box)

  13. price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Home Full, 199.99, Home Upgrade, 99.99. Professional full, 299.99, Professional upgrade, 199.99."


    Linux... Priceless

    1. Re:price by krogoth · · Score: 0, Redundant

      mod this up!!

      10 seconds to read, 6 seconds to reply, a pricelss joke... priceless :)

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    2. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Linux cost is so high, it could be called priceless. See the piece below for more information.

      Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.

      Linux' cost consists not only of the frequent updates, which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.

      Another factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.

      Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

      The upcoming 'solution' to this, EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.

      Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".

      The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

      I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.

    3. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez get a life and a sense of humnour, what a loser

    4. Re:price by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but when you go to Best Buy all you see is the Mandrake Power Edition for $64.99.

      Oh, and the Redhat Deluxe Workstation for $79.99.

      So, ok another $20 or so and I can get WinXP. I'd rather have WinXP anyway since it runs my software.

      Linux was a far more compelling upgrade when it sold for $20 at Best Buy. That was over two years ago, however.

    5. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can download the .iso legally, straight from the distro's website, for FREE!!

    6. Re:price by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Sure... If you got 5 days to kill with your 56K modem.

      It still took 8 hours to download with my 1Mbps DSL line.

      Again, the CD's need to be cheap at the local Best Buy or you can forget about it.

    7. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Usually an hour or so on my Cable modem (it really helps to shop around for a few minutes for a fast mirror).

      "Third world" modem users have options too, like borrowing/copying the CD from a friend (again legally. XP apparently has preventative measures against this stuff, I imaging it is to "protect the consumer" of course). Or buying it from a cheaper place online (those 5$ CD burning sites).


      Again, the CD's need to be cheap at the local Best Buy or you can forget about it.


      We'll I've never even heard of this "Best Buy" place, so I guess I'll have to forget about XP.

    8. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In one line you make several mistakes (interpunction, spelling, etc.). In his whole story I haven't seen one.

      They might be there but not obvious and at least some one has taken the time to put together a well thought out article with many good points. Rather than trying to put it down in one sentence, and making an asshole of yourself in the process, try to get of your lazy ass and give some real arguments.

    9. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU software doesn't require royalties. When you buy a
      Linux CD you pay for the service, not for the system,
      and you're also allowed to make as many copies you need,
      to use them or give them around.
      You also forgot that one can't do anything serious with
      Windows without buying some other products to install
      (Office, compilers, databases etc.).

      If your company needs 10 new PCs to do networking,
      document writing, software development, etc. You spend
      less than $100 for one SuSE | RedHat box, and you're
      done.
      The windows choice would cost you from $4000 to
      $6000 for 10 clients, much more for 10 servers (keep
      in mind that Unix is a server), plus Office licenses, plus
      Visual Studio licenses, plus database and web server
      licenses, plus no knowledge of what is doing the system
      you paid with your money and installed into your machine,
      plus no freedom to look at it's internals and source
      code to learn how it works or to fix a bug.

      I honestly cannot see how the Microsoft solution could
      compare to the free one in terms of price and reliability.

      > Linux was a far more compelling upgrade when it sold for
      > $20 at Best Buy. That was over two years ago, however.

      Cheap Linux CDs are still available at Cheapbytes.

    10. Re:price by odaiwai · · Score: 1

      Instead of downloading, try http://www.linuxcentral.com for buying cheap CDs.

      Also, with Linux, you only need one copy for all your installations, while with MX stuff, you need to get one copy per installation to be legal.

      dave

    11. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      legal-M$ is in court for monopolistic practices
      I'm not taking them seriously-have you run office 2000 and gone through the shit registration process so they can make sure that the software you buy is one machinable?
      Screw M$.

    12. Re:price by ananke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd spend more time on bashing a troll, but I do not like to waste my precious evening with guiness on a person like you.
      Few quick facts/replies to your comment:

      Linux' cost consists not only of the frequent updates, which require
      new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet
      connection.


      what's your definition of 'frequent'? just because there is a newer minor/major number of your distro, it does not mean you must upgrade to it. i do not count security patching, which is a normal required thing for any os, including your beloved freebsd. besides, it's easy to update a lot of distros via slow link.

      linux administrators pricing? you're nuts? linux admins are the CHEAPEST on the market now, because of their abundance. try finding an admin for what you call 'mature' unix, such as solaris, aix, bsdi, blah, blah for the same price you could get a linux admin. no way.
      breaking down? i guess you do not use linux often, if it breaks for you. i've been running linux on my personal box, as a os of choice [i do not count the linux servers at work, etc], and i never had such problems. hardware problems with hard drives will cause most os'es to respond weird.

      ext2? ext2 is not the only choice. you got reiserfs, jfs, xfs, etc, etc.

      i think i will go finish my book, because i know it's pointless. ohh, you mentioned 'silly messages' that linux kernel spits out? can you give me some examples? i'd like to say two things here: first, linux is a kernel only. rest are gnu tools and other things. second and most important, have you looked at the history of UNIX at all?
      unix has a history of pranks, word puns, silly messages, and such. i hope i don't have to point them out here, you should know some of them already.

      --
      --- d'oh
    13. Re:price by oops · · Score: 1

      Only if your time is worth nothing...

    14. Re:price by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Am I the only sane person here? ;)

      First, the price of RedHat Deluxe or whatever being $79 is mostly because what they've included in the box is a support contract and a printed manual (I hope I'm right).

      The sad fact is that many of the more expensive Linux distros include proprietary software as key components of the distro. Look at how long Netscape was considered essential (and for some users it still may be considered as such). There are also a lot of other "open source" programs in a lot of distros that have confusing, difficult, or essentially non-free licenses.

      However, generally, one CD is all a home or business needs to buy. As soon as you have two computers on which you want to run your OS, Win XP doubles in price. Not so Linux, you've just halved the cost. This ratio continues to grow for each machine you add to your network.

      But really, who cares? Either you care about user freedom or you don't. If you do, the stable build of Debian GNU/Linux is available for less than $20 from a huge number of resellers-- just an example, many BSDs are also good options. If you don't, you shouldn't just go out and buy your OS at Best Buy or Circuit City based on the price! You should consider what applications you want to run, then choose your OS based on that. Have we dumbed-down computing so much that we are no longer interested in even bothering to do basic grunt work, like making sure we have any clue what we are doing before we go making OS purchase decisions?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    15. Re:price by drsoran · · Score: 1

      OK so add the cost of your labor rate to $0 and then add it to $199, $99, $299, and $199 respectively. Linux is still cheaper! In an hour (75% of which is spent watching the installation bar go across the screen as packages are installed) you'll have a machine more ready to do work than 5-10 hours of installing patches and software packages on a Windows box. When I reinstall my Windows machine at home I know to schedule an entire day on the weekend because it is far more involved than installing the OS. After that comes the service packs and patches, reinstalling all my software, etc. With Linux all the software I use came with the distribution and was installed automatically.

    16. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Worthless

    17. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the clueless, 'priceless'!=$0, it means something of such high quality that it has value beyond any price.

    18. Re:price by krogoth · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems of windows, run-time stability, seems to be on the way to elimination, but Windows will probably still have a lot of problems. The system is completely volatile and unpredictable - things change for no reason and no one has any idea how to fix them. With linux, there is lots of documentation and source code, and every problem usually has a logical reason, so a knowledgable person can fix it rapidly. For windows, there are few people who can fix a lot of the problems reliably, but with linux there are a lot of expert who can fix many problems and figure out what's going on when they encounter a new problem.

      As far as I can tell, there are two ways that Microsoft could make windows as reliable as linux: do a complete code review, fix all problems, and eliminate code bloat/problematic hacks/bad design (on 30 million lines of code; their VCS servers need 50GB to store the development code), or start from scratch. I figure they're screwed wether they decide to fix the problem or leave it as it is.

      Linux takes longer than windows to configure, for sure, but the difference is that when you do something and you know what you're doing, it will generally work; the system won't suddenly fall apart for no reason; and someone who understands the system (which is not hard to learn) can fix nearly any problem. Windows may install faster, but then again you have to spend a lot more time fixing problems after. In linux, once you have it configured to your liking, all you need to do (and only if you want to have a very secure box) is upgrade the occasional program.

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    19. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you talk about freedom as if you were Dr. King himself, but in fact you're a fucking lyer.

      You say: when you that when you have two computers, you're cost doubles with Windows (which is true), but your cost with Linux halves. You really don't know how to count, do you? Talk about double standards.

      Please, go back to kindergarten and check your arithmetics. Or get the fuck out of this forum if you're spouting these filthy lies on purpose.

    20. Re:price by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      Maybe he can't count (OTOH, you can't spell "liar" either), but the point is still the same: [GNU/]Linux is NOT only $20 less than XP.

    21. Re:price by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      The only way MS is going to have a decent OS is when they finally put the following features in the OS:

      * Symbolic links
      * Named pipes
      * A real shell
      * NO REGISTRY
      * Better locking semantics (i.e. eliminate "sharing violations")
      * POSIX processes (basically, fork() and signal())
      The most important thing is the POSIX processes. Not being able to fork and send signals back and forth has been my biggest problem with Windows programming.

      I guess in other words, Windows will continue to suck as long as it doesn't have the backend power of a Unix.

    22. Re:price by krogoth · · Score: 1

      Those are all improvements, and they certainly are important, but as long as Microsoft can't keep a computer's configuration and functionality stable they are going nowhere. In fact, all those features would just make it mess up worse when it decides to randomly re-organize your system configuration (although the registry is probably a significant factor in that). MS can add all the features they want, but I will avoid windows as long as it keeps screwing up like that and being so hard to fix (re-installing the OS is completely unacceptable).

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    23. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't spell liar because English is not my native language. Every one should be able to count correctly, though. Either you calculate the price per computer, or per all computers. Not a mix of that so that the picture looks much sunnier for Linux than it is.

      About cost: Linux has a lot of hidden maintenance cost. It's only free if your time is of no value for you. Since about every reader of Slashdot has tweaking computers as a job or hobby, it's not hard for them to spend some time in learning Linux. For some one who doesn't have computing as his main area of interest, spending lots of hours of figuring out how to get things to work, and how to do things, is a waste of valuable time.

    24. Re:price by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      I can count. :)

      The problem is that the total cost of Linux doesn't actually go down from $79 to $39.50 if you have two machines. The total cost of Win XP does go from $99 to $198, though. But on a per machine basis, the price of XP is fixed. Whereas with each additional Linux machine the cost to purchase Linux decreases.

      I admit to being somewhat duplicitous since the comparison wasn't really fair. However, the AC is a twerp, that much I do know. The basic fact is this: (assuming equal base prices for Linux and XP) the difference in total software purchase cost is Linux = XP/Number of Machines.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    25. Re:price by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the total cost of Linux doesn't actually go down from $79 to $39.50 if you have two machines. The total cost of Win XP does go from $99 to $198, though. But on a per machine basis, the price of XP is fixed. Whereas with each additional Linux machine the cost to purchase Linux decreases.

      Ay, there's the rub, the One Thing that makes XP different from previous Windows.

      In the old days, Home and Small Office Pirates got the price of Windows divided down by the number of machines by installing the same software on multiple machines. Now, with XP, that won't be so easy.


      It's no surprise that I heard quite a bit of grumbling and murmuring in the software aisle a few months ago when the Helpful Knowledgeable Store Clerk was talking with a User. A lot of the more knowledgeable PC users are very much aware that XP is a significantly "less useful" product from the licensing perspective in the everyday real world.

      My prediction: all the XP success and fanfare of units shipped will be as a result of shoving it down the throats of the OEMs, who don't have a choice. However, the consumers have little reason to bite, even if Windows Me was a downgrade from 98SE in terms of stability and usefulness.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    26. Re:price by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Best Buy's website lists a $29.99 Mandrake Standard Edition as well as the Power Edition.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    27. Re:price by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      About cost: Linux has a lot of hidden maintenance cost. It's only free if your time is of no value for you.

      Bullshit. I was hired to introduce GNU/Linux in a WinNT shop, and all Linux machines in the shop were almost completely maintenance-free. The firewall has been running flawlessly since it was set up (the only "maintenance" has been changing iptables as needs dictated). Ditto for the mailserver. Yet, for some reason, the WinNT webservers fsck up nearly every day (we haven't moved to W2K yet, and though the W2K machine shows some improvement, it's still miles behind the 'nix machines.)

  14. XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a copy of XP Pro (2600/final) last week from the usual suspects.. Installed it, played around with it for a day or two, formatted it away. XP is far too sugar coated for me and I think most slashdotter's that give it a try will say the same. You can turn some of it off but not enough. I like Win2k better and that is where I'll stay for awhile. XP isn't for me.

    1. Re:XP isn't for me. by a.tomaka · · Score: 1

      Exactly. WinXP seems a little bit too geared at the group that is entering the computer world, or who are just very casual users.

      It follows the MS trend of being far too feature bloated once again!

      --
      -------------
      Andy Tomaka :: www.whoisandy.com atomaka@cybernox.com
    2. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya Windows XP 64 Advanced Server is really geared towards the casual user.

      Stop trying to sound elite you morons "Windows XP is to much geared towards the casual user, I'm gonna stick with Win2k cuase I'm hardcore! ya!" Sorry, to people who use real OSes seeing windows users talking about how one version of Windows is more lame than another is just silly. It's all the same shit you peckerheads.

      Windows XP is NT 5.1 you fools.

    3. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you're gonna stick with Windows 2000? Damn you must be one hardcore hax0r d00d! That's l33t! I'm such a panzy i upgraded to XP right away becuase Windows 2000 was just so hard for me to handle. Dude your so good with PCs i bet you could get a job a CompUSA, or shit since your too hardcore for XP i bet you might even be able to get an MCSE.

    4. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ya see sonny boy, the money that pays for the cool cars and rent is in the Windows world.

      The first job I ever had was maintaining xenix on a 286 running about 25 serial terminals (in the late 80s). So, fuck off you're just a trolling child who needs a life.

    5. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not all the same shit this time. Get your hands on WinXP and compare it to anything else thus far. Granted its the same engine, but its buttugly gui makes you really dislike using it.

    6. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya that's why unix admins make 125,000$ a year.

      If those unix losers knew what was good for em they'd quit and get a MCSE and go do tech support for 50,000$ a year, now that's elite. But not if you use windows XP, only wimps use that. You have to be a hardcore windows 2000 user. Most of those unix guys aren't smart enough to use windows 2000 so they'll have to use XP like some bitches.

    7. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you turn of the fluffy gui (duh) then it's the same thing as a win2k box basically.

    8. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days, I'm a consultant, I don't get a "salary", I don't have a "boss", nor do I wake up before 9am. I apparantly make "more than most unix admins" too. I'm not specialized, unix or wintel, I'll deal with it.

      I don't just run win2k, I run everything. Currently I've got a Win95, 98, 98SE, Win2kPro, Win2kSvr each on seperate boxes. A NextStation slab running NextStep 3.2. An imac running OS X 10.0.4. I've also got an apple newton, a wyse60 serial terminal, a windowsCE web tablet and a trs80 model 100 too.

      You're just a punk who has a lot to learn.

    9. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't turn it all off. A lot of the gui features are fixed to the new fancy cartoon looking versions. Perhaps in the future, but currently you can't turn it all off. Thus, its not for me.

    10. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow d00d your l33t. Can i get a job being a lame windows consultant? I wanna set up stupid little LANs for offices and crap all day, oh ya that rocks. Wow 95, 98, 98 SE, Win2k, Win2kSvr wow those are all so different they definatly warrant a seperate box each. You're just an old faggot who has no clue. Being crusty an old fart doens't mean you know what you're doing. Setting up a couple exchange servers doesn't make you a l33t d00d sorry.

    11. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya people who have a cartoon gui aren't manly. The real mean use a drab grey windows 2000 gui.

    12. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not about being manly, its about speed. I'd like to use a faster GUI, loading less color bits means a faster screen paint.

    13. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, you're confusing a consultant with an engineer or technician. I help medium size companies decide on technology and implementation. Grunt kids (technicians/engineers/you) actually implement my decisions. So we've come full circle, I continue to recommend Win2k over XP as a desktop OS. I also recommend Apache over IIS as a web server and PHP over ASP as a scripting language. In the 80s I was a punk kid like you too! You'll grow up some day.

    14. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're just some PHB wanker with no technical skill for rent. Well whoopty do for you old man. Any company retarded enough to hire you deserves the incompetence it will recieve.

    15. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, that is the best you can do? you'll never make it out there kid.

    16. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you could like turn down the color depth heh.

    17. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah but then when I load Natalie_Portman_Nude.jpg, her nips will be all pasty like.

    18. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do fine. Actually when the company i work needs to expand it's network from time to time they usually hire a dorky loser such as yourself to come in and take care of everything, then afterwordsthey toss him a check and tell him to get the fuck out. That could be you someday, although washed up old farts tend to be pretty useless.

    19. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up nigger.

    20. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist old coot.

    21. Re:XP isn't for me. by arbitrary+nickname · · Score: 1


      That slows it down even more... as it has to dither everything down to the lower depth :(

      Ever tried Win9x/2K in 256 colour mode? looks foul, and still runs slower than 16/32bpp modes...

    22. Re:XP isn't for me. by a.tomaka · · Score: 1

      "to people who use real OSes"

      Sorry. I guess we all can't be a 1337 H4x0r like yourself...

      --
      -------------
      Andy Tomaka :: www.whoisandy.com atomaka@cybernox.com
    23. Re:XP isn't for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will tell you what IS for me though, MacOS X. If only the current range of Macs were available for half the price they are now I'd snap one up and give it a go. Alas, I can't afford to go spending twice as much on a Mac that is comparable to a PC at half that price.

      PS: 2 minutes seems like quite a long time between posts. How about 30 seconds?

  15. Where is the the injuntive relief? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1, Troll

    MS is a monopoly... proven
    MS has done "bad things"... proven
    MS is still doing those "bad things"... proven
    MS has added more "bad things"... shown

    Why give them right to entrench these practics again, and fill the war chests...
    Buy votes
    Hire more lawyers

    Well?

    1. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS is a monopoly... not proven, not true
      MS has done "bad things"... not proven, not true
      MS is still doing those "bad things"... not proven, not true
      MS has added more "bad things"... not proven, not true

    2. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS is a monopoly... not proven, not true

      Microsoft is (legally) a monopoly. You can disagree with the court (as MS does) but the fact remains that at this time they are, as a matter of fact and law, a monopoly. Now the onus is upon them to prove otherwise if they wish to.

      MS has done "bad things"... not proven, not true

      Well, they've been found guilty of violating several laws, if thats what "bad things" means. They are currently debating what remedies will be enforced, but they have been found to have violated the law.

    3. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude .. go read the court findings .. go read the trial transcripts .. go read up on the tactics MS used to get where they are today. If you still don't think they've done "bad things", then you seriously have to be on crack. There is no question what they've done. God, do you suck up all corporate propaganda so easily?

    4. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Webz · · Score: 1

      I think I'd sum it up as Microsoft is *not* bad, but Microsoft is *evil*. There's a big difference. Windows has to be *the* desktop operating system of, umm, "choice" and Office totally whips any other office suite... That means they have good software. It isn't bad. Yet their tactics are underhanded. That's evil. See?

    5. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok what companys have been destroyed by MS...

    6. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is quite unusual for a finding of fact to be overturned by an appellate court. As they are not interacting directly with the evidentary process, they're usually quite reluctant to get into that unless there's exceptionally gross errors.

      In 99.44% cases, they have to determine that the lower court applied the law to facts incorrectly. MS's monopoly status is not likely to go away any time soon.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "MS is a monopoly.. proven"

      This should be "MS is a monopoly.. the district court so found and the appeals court upheld it". It's a major mistake to equate a court decision with truth. I imagine you have arguments of your own to prove that MS is a monopoly. If the Supreme Court eventually overturns the MS case, would you then conclude your arguments are invalid? The point is that court decisons have the force of law, but not necessarily of truth.

    8. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually going to assert that Microsoft *isn't* a monopoly? Pray tell, just how far *do* you have your head stuck up your ass?

      Max

    9. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost, 50% of Americans voted for Bush
      need I say more, XP will sell very reasonably

      Greeting, Al Gore.

    10. Re:Where is the the injuntive relief? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      In other words you have no logical arguments to make today. That's OK, Anonymous Coward was designed for that.

  16. WindowsXP in the year 2401 by afinlay · · Score: 1

    The page for Home Full states that WindowsXP won't be ready until "Thursday, November 01, 2401".

    Oh well, at least M$ isn't pushing the envelope...

    1. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by drwhite · · Score: 1

      lol...thats funny as $hit....2401?! i wonder if compusa servers r running windows? yup they r..i guess IIS/4.0 has a date flaw or bug..lol

    2. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by jkmiecik · · Score: 1

      Maybe Apache has a bug? Or Linux might have a problem not letting their users type in English.

      TRANSLATION...

      LOL (T)hat(')s funny as $hit....2401?! (I) wonder if (C)omp(USA) servers (are) running (W)indows? (Yes) they (are). (I) guess IIS/4.0 has a date flaw or bug. LOL

    3. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by drwhite · · Score: 1

      i dought apache has a bug...and compusa is not using apache...and y would linux not let users not type in english?

    4. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's not fair. Don't taunt the 'special' kids.

    5. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by chronos2266 · · Score: 1

      I guess that gives a new meaning to the saying 'when it's done'

    6. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by blang · · Score: 2
      Thursday, November 01, 2401".

      I predict that in 2401, retro CD-ROM coasters will be en vogue again.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    7. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Well, whatever you're typing in, it's obviously not English. Otherwise, you'd be familiar with concepts such as capitalization, puncuation, English grammar and sentance structure, and the fact that there are only two English words that are a single character long.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      The page for Home Full [compusa.com] states that WindowsXP won't be ready until "Thursday, November 01, 2401".

      That's just the release date M$ is predicting if they had to remove all the bugs and bloat, which they don't.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    9. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by stew-a-cide · · Score: 0

      It's done now (has been for over a week). They're just testing and releasing to OEM's to 'customize'. And there are no obvious bugs from what I can tell, it's run ever piece of software I've thrown at it (except ICQ, which isn't suprising considering what a sloppy POS it is).

    10. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by drwhite · · Score: 1

      What is your point? you cannot take my joke? damn, you have no sense of humor.

    11. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by Datafage · · Score: 2

      If you're going to flame someone for grammar, make damn sure your post is flawless...

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    12. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the fact that there are only two English words that are a single character long.

      There are 26 English words that are a single letter long, as any reasonable dictionary should be able to confirm. More if you count words with the same spelling but different meaning as separate words.

    13. Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 by bwian · · Score: 1

      Great. That means they should be able to do a parallel launch with Mozilla 1.0, which looks it it should be ready around the same time.

  17. I for one will not upgrade again. by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    I think what pushed me off the fence was this:

    I have been a Microsoft desktop OS user since after Windows 95 came out. Before that I used OS/2 1.3, 2.0, 2.1 and 3. Unfortunately they lost.

    Here's what pushed me over the edge:

    I need a hotmail account to get features to work. After updating to IE 5.5 SP2 quicktime 'broke'. Java VM is being removed and the users are left up to select their own. Windows Media Player is ingrained in the OS as bad as IE now, and I never have liked it.

    I'm working hard on designing a desktop platform that my wife can use, and once that happens over the next few weeks, There will not be a Windows machine in my house on any of my 8 computers.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:I for one will not upgrade again. by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that MS did a large portion of the OS/2 development. The people that wrote the OS/2 kernel then went on to develop the NT kernel.

      I defected from MS four years ago, but after using W2k, I am now running MS products on half of my x86 machines again.

    2. Re:I for one will not upgrade again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just installed a Linux QuickTime 5.02 player from Crossover and it works great in Netscape 4.75. Doesn't work in Konqueror though.

      The 60 sec promo for "Enterprise" is awesome!

    3. Re:I for one will not upgrade again. by O · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you kids, but I went to quicktime.apple.com today and it installed the QuickTime ActiveX control.

      --

      1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  18. Re:Why Boycott? by Jim42688 · · Score: 1

    Ummm... sucko, the reason everyone is complaining is because the home version is really crippled compared to even windows 98 or ME. and who wants to pay for a brain-dead upgrade with a pretty face?

  19. Re:Why Boycott? by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

    its not linux, heance evil...

  20. Boycott... but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I would boycott but considering that I'm not even interested in upgrading ever to any future version of windows it would be a lie to say that I'm boycotting it. I dual boot linux and windows. Right now linux seems to satisfy all my needs so I do not need a new windows.

  21. This is perfect.. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    Wow it's amazing how well this ties in with all the anti-ms bullshit that has been floating around slashdot lately.

    Boycott XP? What the fuck. You're either going to buy it, or you're not. I seriously doubt they are going to change the price over a few measly boycotters.

    They're pretty much assured all their clients will be running XP. Like when 95 came out, everyone switched. If you didn't you missed out on a lot of software because 3.1 couldn't run it.

    So how about ya'll clam up. If you don't like it don't buy it.

    Gracias.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
    1. Re:This is perfect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP is really sucky man, I'm not sure if people can get used to it like they did with 95/98. Have you used it yourself yet?

    2. Re:This is perfect.. by jkmiecik · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've used it. You can turn the happy colors and look off, it looks just like Win2k does. It runs nicely. A few things could use improvements but all in all, it's a decent product.

      You guys forget, about 95% of the world doesn't care what a bunch of geeks posting on a geek site say. Nothing is going to change.

    3. Re:This is perfect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are exactly right! I am going to buy windows products, since they work great for me. and continue to fight adoption of linux in my company
      since it is a step backwards, and nothing but a
      distraction to work.

      down with linux
      down with slashdot

    4. Re:This is perfect.. by Airwall · · Score: 1
      It definitely won't change with *that* attitude.

      Remember: Us geeks are technical staff who get to make decisions. In a few months, I'm going to be making the decision "Do I fork out the better part of $20,000 to upgrade all our workstations or do I buy another bunch of servers to go in the cluster?"

      I'm only one geek, but I know I'm not alone.

    5. Re:This is perfect.. by FenixDTX · · Score: 1

      You're the "decision maker" who will be laid off in 6 months because the company you work for has made too many poor business decisions. Decisions like spending too much on Linux admins that have a sticks up their asses and make decisions based purely on their own preferences rather than on what's actually good for the company. Admins that choose to disregard the affect those decisions will have on the end users.

      It's all about productivity stupid.

      A company can have the coolest cluster and the best [insert your favorite distro] workstations in town, but if it's at the cost of productivity, it really doesn't matter does it?

    6. Re:This is perfect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does u make say that windoze is best for productivity that other oss ?

    7. Re:This is perfect.. by Airwall · · Score: 1
      Hell, that's taken into account. I'd be the happiest man alive if Windows XP was a good OS, for either workstations or servers. It'd save me a lot of Unix-related hassle. And I'm not saying it for-sure isn't. It's just that there is a real cost decision to be made, and leaving our workstations on Win 98 while expanding the cluster (on Free OSes) will be worth more to us than giving everyone the new desktop.

      And there ain't no sticks up *my* ass, prettyboy.

      Learn to recognise an honest argument when you see one.

    8. Re:This is perfect.. by fymidos · · Score: 0

      How am i going to like it, if i don't buy it ?

      huh ?

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    9. Re:This is perfect.. by quartz · · Score: 2
      It's all about productivity stupid.


      I'm SO sick of all this "Windows improves productivity" crap. How the fsck does "rebooting and/or reinstalling every time there's a problem" mean productivity? Let's see, at my company sales/accounting work on a custom application running under Linux, client/server with the clients being diskless computers booting off the network. Time required for adding an extra workstation to the network / replacing a faulty one: 30 seconds. Probability of random isolated errors due to software: 0, because everyone uses the exact same copy of the master filesystem which resides on the server. Everyone else uses Linux stand-alone workstations running StarOffice for office work, and they are quite productive because they have been trained to use StarOffice. Developers' workstations run Linux as well, and being Linux programmers, they're quite productive too. There's only ONE admin who takes care of everything and he's also very productive, since he has an army of shell and Perl scripts helping him. True, he may make more than your average MCSE, but then again, he's way more competent and efficient then an MCSE. Software costs are WAY down, so we can afford more and better quality hardware, any licensing or BSA-induced hassle is totally out of the question, and the average uptime on *workstations* is 3 months. So what exactly are you talking about, when you mention negative effects on end users?
    10. Re:This is perfect.. by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Telling people to shut up when they say things you don't like is the tactic of a three-year-old. Why don't you go whine to Mommy and Daddy, little loser?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  22. Boycottxp back up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok folks, we've got the site back up, we'd love to hear what you have to say!

    1. Re:Boycottxp back up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't :-)

  23. WinXP to the consumer is just another release... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lets see...Modified UI to make it look slightly different than the last version of windows? Yup. Lots of monopoly leveraging technologies designed to crush smaller companies ekeing out a living? Oh yeah. Requires an upgrade to the latest hardware? Bingo. Slower than the last release by a good factor? You bet. All I see, despite all the hype(that many slashdotters are buying into), is just another useless windows release. One that to the regular consumer, means more money down the tubes for hardware they don't really need to check their E-mail, and write letters in Wordpad. Of course, Microsoft will be kept afloat by the 'oh but this ones based on NT! It's stable!' fanboys out there, but anybody who has seen NT in action knows it's inadequacy on older hardware, and people are finally getting used to the idea that they don't really need the latest version of windows or the latest processor for what they do.

    Personally, if support for windows 9x dropped to a certain level, I'd just stop using windows altogether. To be perfectly honest, as soon as I can play the majority of my windows games using linux and my savage4 accellerator on another, non MS OS, I'll drop windows altogether. I'm just sick and tired of seeing microsoft pushing it's competitors out the window by including it's own version of an existing utility.

    I own original copies of OS/2, Beos, Caldera Opendos, and Linux Redhat. I also downloaded Xgui, Gimi, and a host of other shells. My opinion? I don't have enough choice still. I could run Xdos on my 8088 and still run dos apps. Why is it so hard for the US DOJ to crack this obviously abused (on a regular baisis) monopoly?

    Oh yes, and look at every windows release -- you'll see a huge group trying to fool themselves that 'THIS one will be good!'. They existed in winME, why not this one?

    --
    It's been a long time.
  24. Re:Why Boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really crippled compared to 9x? how so?

  25. Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work by bill.sheehan · · Score: 2
    Why boycott Windows XP? I'm not going to buy it for many reasons, not least of which is the price, but why boycott? The pricing clearly shows that their target market is business. I figure that any business that expends its capital on locking itself into monopolistic Microsoft products will simply spend itself into non-competitiveness. A prudent business will look long and hard at all of its options before writing a check to Redmond.


    These are hard times. Everyone has to learn to do more with less. The IT department is not exempt from this economic reality. The CIO who blows the budget on the fastest new computers and the latest bloated commercial software had best keep his resume up to date.


    "I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!" -- "Bill Gates" on The Simpsons

    1. Re:Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work by erroneus · · Score: 2

      The invisible hand is tied.

    2. Re:Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      BillG locked the invisible hand in a closet in his basement. It's been knocking *really* loudly of late, though, so we may yet see it let out to do its work.

    3. Re:Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Boycotts are part of the normal process. Ultimately, it's little different than people who won't buy it for any other reason (e.g. price too high) and yields the same sorts of results.

      Unless of course, you're in a monopolistic situation, in which simply not offering alternatives such as W2K, WME or W98, or colluding with or pressuring hardware and software developers will ultimately force capitulation by an otherwise defiant market.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work by jibun · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's tied to billg's bedpost with a handcuff.

  26. Well according to Betanet... by linzeal · · Score: 1
    Windows XP RCx has been cracked and the corporate edition is out of the bag along with two OEM isos.

    How in the hell is this preventing piracy when all the real pirates have circumvented it? Does MS really think the pirates are so ghettoized that these no need to activate versions will not proliferate in the face of privacy concerns to every reasonable citizen out there (all 20000 of them)?

    Link to Betanet

    1. Re:Well according to Betanet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Windows XP RCx has been cracked and the corporate edition is out of the bag along with two OEM isos.

      Yes. Wonderful. However, there are these little things called Hotfixes with friends called Service Packs. You know, those little things on Windows Update? Ya. So all Microsoft has to do is run out and have each update overwrite your "crack". That gives you two options. Either you never get any bugfixes and watch your system get pounded by the likes of Code Red and Winnuke attacks, or you wait for every update to get a new crack, install each and hope that nothing breaks. MS can have every pice of software they put out do the same. Office replaces lots of DLLs in Windows. So you run out and upgrade Office...and sure enough, your cracked copy stops working. Trying to bypass copy protection on the provider of much of your software is an uphill battle. It works nicely if you don't have to keep re-obtaining software from them, yes... If you are going to use XP long term, you *will* be paying money to MS or doing a hell of a lot of work to avoid it. I'm happy with my Red Hat install.

    2. Re:Well according to Betanet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Crackng of MS products? The day they ban a corporate key is the day the World collapses. No kidding.

    3. Re:Well according to Betanet... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Now that sounds like the basis for a real mean virus/worm/whatever. Don't format the hard drive, just mess with the product activation.

  27. Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by redelm · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I just don't see any compelling reason. I have plenty of MS Win95 licences, and really see no need to upgrade those boxen. Just like my Linux & FreeBSD boxen who almost always are a few versions behind.


    MS-Win95b is acceptably stable given enough RAM, HD and maintenance. The only thing that has caused me to upgrade a few to Win98 is USB cameras not installing on 95.


    MS-WinNT may be more stable, but some hardware and software still refuses to run under it. I believe XP is an NT descendant, so I'd worry about this.


    Upgrading is fine for journalists who have stories to write, and for other software reviewers. I just don't know why the rest of us should upgrade. To get a bunch of bugfixes & security patches? Feh! If I need'em, I'll get them separately.

    1. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Webz · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're really emersed in the whole Microsoft software world, you know that upgrading is a lot of marketing talk... It happens often and is not necessary most of the time, yet here, I would make a definate exception. You're using Windows 95 still, and to upgrade that to any version of Windows today is not only getting a somewhat better operating system, but staying current with the technical support that Microsoft provides. They've dropped support for Windows 95 a while back and Office XP won't even install on 95. Again, all of this isn't necessary. Nothing is. GUI browsers are unnecessary. We could all use Lynx. But I digress... It's a matter of staying current. Microsoft likes making their consumers upgrade because its for fun and profit. After doing a little research, you'll realize that Windows XP really is an upgrade every Windows user should consider because it was built on a better kernel, is definately more user friendly than 9x, has a few automagical system maintenance features, and was designed to be task oriented. All of that jazz, as stupid as it sounds, really does make for a compelling upgrade. Why don't you try it some time... Windows 95 is old. Very old. Well, in Microsoft time, that is.

    2. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by sheldon · · Score: 2

      It's difficult for me to explain because I've been using NT exclusively since '97 except for one brief month in '98 when I ran Win98 to try it.

      But let me first state:

      Win9x is *NOT* stable.

      As far as incompatibilies, this was true in the early days of NT. But since around 1998 or so it's been difficult to find hardware that does not work on NT. Similarly nearly all software with the exception of games has worked fine.

      Win2k improved the situation greatly by implementing DirectX fully so now every modern game runs very well.

      There are also numerous usability features in Win2k especially that make it a compelling upgrade over Win95. Far less annoying, it doesn't steal focus away from your mouse at inopertune times. The quicklaunch bar is good, as is the more consistent ability to manage icons in the start menu.

      Another feature of NT/Win2k over Win9x is that they are faster. Part of this is because the shell is multi-threaded. On Win9x when you start a program up, as it's loading and doing it's thing, you are locked out of doing anything else. For someone going from WinNT/2k back to Win95 it is readily apparent and frustrating.

      As far as Windows XP, the most compelling feature of this will be the final elimination of Win9x from the support channel. You spoke of incompatibilities, and now you will see none. A vendor can write one set of drivers which will work on either Home or Professional editions.

      There are usability changes in WinXP as well. I haven't decided if I like them all yet, but I certainly find many of them to be solid improvements.

      Yes, it's true that WinXP is a evolutionary upgrade from Win2k. But if you are coming from Win95, I shudder to think why you wouldn't at least upgrade to Win2k.

    3. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2
      If it means I can lock my folks out of installing all those "501 shareware games", hork with drivers, and otherwise lock the machine down so they can NOT fiddle with it, I'm in.

      I like the idea of not giving my Mom or Dad Admin rights to a box, which was real hard to do with the Win9x versions. Win2K, much easier, but they balked at purchasing a "business OS" for home. This time, it has the right amount of sugar coating.... fluffy "home" version, still runs Office, and I'll never have to remove icons from the control pannel after my dad blasted an app rather than uninstalling it. The days of keeping a backup of my folk's registery settings is almost over!

    4. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn straight

    5. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by redelm · · Score: 1
      Well, I'll agree that MS-Win95 isn't stable the way Linux or *BSD are stable. MS-WinNT I really don't have enough experience on, but I assume it's somewhere inbetween.


      But given correct (heavy) maintenance, my experience is that MS-Win95b _can_ be sufficiently stable. MS-Win95b on my work machine only crashes about once a year. My home machine is about the same. My wife's home machine is much worse, but she doesn't let me near her box until she's desparate. It starts crashing daily after about one month without mtce. I have never needed to reinstall MS-Win95b in 20+ machine-years of running (excepting HD failure).

    6. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Klaruz · · Score: 1

      You're probobly going to have to buy the Pro edition. The home edition will lack things home users don't need.. Like permisions.. Get out the extra $100 if you want feature ms says you don't need.

    7. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20+ years?

      Win95 has only been around about 6-7 years.

    8. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by redelm · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the confusion. I don't mean boxes, I meant Personal Computers. "Box" is a term-of-art
      [jargon] meaning a computer. I used the germanic plural -en to try to reduce confusion with real boxes of something like MS-WinXP software.

    9. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by malfunct · · Score: 1

      Probably the most compelling reason to upgrade to windows XP is remote desktop connections. It is somewhat like x-windows for unix users (though honestly not near as good in many ways). It comes in very useful for a whole host of tasks, not the least of which is fixing software configuration problems for that parent or friend who is not as computer savy without having to leave your comfortable spot in front of your own perfectly tuned computer.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    10. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by redelm · · Score: 1

      No reinstall for 20+ machine-years is actually in my case 3 machines for 5 years plus 2 machines for 3 years.

    11. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by archen · · Score: 1

      Well I'll agree that windows 95 CAN be stable, but crashing only once a year? That I find hard to believe. I have an older computer (Pentium 133Mhz) with 95b and it crashes probably once every 2 boots although generally I don't use it that much - and I mean I watch that machine very carefully with a minimum of software installed. If I do anything semi serious (like heavy graphic editing) then it doesn't take long at all to go down for the count. If you have a computer that's above 250Mhz, then I think its probably best to use Windows 98 Lite, using the windows 98SE core with the windows 95 shell grafted in.

    12. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      malfunct wrote:

      Probably the most compelling reason to upgrade to windows XP is remote desktop connections.

      This has existed in Windows for a while now and it's free. NetMeeting 3 allows you to share your desktop remotely. We use it at work to control some NT 4 machines that are in another building and it does an admirable job. Don't upgrade to XP for this feature, just go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting and download it for free.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    13. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by praedor · · Score: 1

      There's really no choice. CURRENT users may or may not upgrade, but as soon as they buy a new computer, they will buy XP. It isn't like the store will offer you a choice: Win98, Win2000, or WinXP? Of course, this isn't REAL choice, a REAL choice would be: Windoze? Linux? OpenBSD? BeOS? AtheOS? All of the above?

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    14. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. HAND.

    15. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by inferis · · Score: 1
      Err... Netmeeting is *NOT* Terminal Services (which is what Remote Desktop Connections is). Netmeeting takes control over the current session on the remote pc, TS starts a new session, without disturbing any ongoing session.


      Basically, the "do" the same thing, but TS does it *SO* much better (read: faster and far less buggy).

    16. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1
      Your kidding?!? I thought all they neutered was the second CPU. Argh! Time to sort through the marketing material again...

      do you have a link?

    17. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      have you tried 98lite on some of those boxes?

      I've got an old p200 apitva that cranks fairly well once it is "lited". 98se's usb is good but I wanted the speed 95 had...this is the way to get the best of both worlds.

      One word of warning tho:
      Stability seems to be quite good, if not better than either 95/98 combined, but seeing as neither is going to be supported soon, I wonder if it will void support on 2000/xp?
      2 wrongs don't make a right, then try 3 way of thinking.
      And, I suppose you could be charged under the DMCA for doing this, seeing as it bypasses window's built in crash routines.
      J/K :\

      Moose

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    18. Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      Probably the most compelling reason to upgrade to windows XP is remote desktop connections.
      VNC over SSH does this already...I use it all the time to connect to Win98 & Win2K machines sitting behind Linux firewalls. All the stuff you need (VNC & Cygwin) is free (speech), too.
      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  28. a boycott makes us no better than M$ by roxytheman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this software is good, then buy it, use it and enjoy it! Then again, if it is just a piece of crap, don't buy it, use it -or enjoy it! It is up to you! Boycotting a great piece of software just because it is made by M$ is wrong I think. I have never tried XP, and propably never going to buy it, but if it is good, people should have the right to use it, and maybe we can learn from it and improve out favourite penguin or devil-OSes ...

    --

    Find nice cocktail recipes @ www.spitzy.net
    1. Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd agree, except I guess the only problem is the people who aren't really aware of what they're getting into until after they buy a copy of XP and install it.

      Despite all the marketing information and even a few screen shots I looked at online, I had no idea what the XP overall "feel" would be until I installed a release-candidate 30-day trial for myself. The average user doesn't wipe their hard drive and install 30-day trials of operating systems, just to decide if they should buy it or not.

      (For the record, I wiped XP off my drive after giving it about 5 days. My wife refused to use it, saying it looked too "cartoon-like" and was noticeably slower launching several programs she commonly uses. I could deal with the new appearance of things, but I really disliked all the attempts to coerce me into using MS products for everything. It installed MSN messenger by default, and each "mouse-over" to the shortcut in the system tray reminded me to click to sign up and activate it. Then, they kept bugging me to go to their web site and sign up for a Passport account, to use their .net functionality. Uh, no thanks.)

    2. Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Boycotting a great piece of software just because it is made by M$ is wrong I think."

      How so (and I'm not asking about the question of "great", though that too could be debated), and how does a *boycott* make us the same as a monopolist?..

    3. Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ by malfunct · · Score: 1

      It takes 30 seconds to change the 3 or so settings to make the winXP interface look like win2k. Believe me I think it looks too cartoonish as well but after flipping 3 switches I am very happy with the extra features, stability and compatability that it offers.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    4. Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1
      Of course, that's assuming that you think that XP is "good" software. I don't think it is, and I would recommend to everyone I know to avoid it like the plague. But even if it was "good" software. I have my own reasons for minimizing the use of ms products on my computer, and that's to protest the ms's absolutely despicable business practices. To say that I'm wrong for doing so is ludricous. So, by that logic, I would be wrong in boycotting prodcuts by Phillip Morris, whose ciagrrettes kill tons of people each year, because their products are "good", I'm an evil person? Give me a fucking break.

      Anyway, you seem to be confusing boycotting with government intervention(which i do not support). People who boycott choose to do so, and do not interfere with the rights of others. Boycotting merely means that they are encouraging others to do so, but do not force them to.

    5. Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what ? Asshole.

  29. Boycott boycottxp.com by Caspuh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How humiliating. The site is still down.

  30. Stupid Shits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a break.. a bunch of linux users don't like microsoft. How fucking often do we need to visit this? Oh wow!! linux users aren't going to buy microsoft products!! WOW that's a suprise!! I never expected that. But not buying them isn't enough, you need to form a support group to complain and rationalize it?!?! Give me a break and get a life.

    1. Re:Stupid Shits by jkmiecik · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Like I said in another comment, no one cares what a bunch of geeks say.

    2. Re:Stupid Shits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, geek.

    3. Re:Stupid Shits by halik · · Score: 0

      i have to agree. Gee lets buycott xp, theres 1000 of us, and were gona me difference compared to the 100G r oem users...

  31. For that price... by john@iastate.edu · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...they ought to bundle a free computer!

    Seriously, are we approaching the day that windows will cost more than the computer it runs on for most people?

    --
    Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
    1. Re:For that price... by manly · · Score: 1
      Seriously, are we approaching the day that windows will cost more than the computer it runs on for most people?
      Unlikely. OEMs pay about $30-$40 for consumer Windows licenses for preinstallations on new machines (more of course for Windows 2000, or the upcoming WinXP Pro). And I don't see any scenario in the next decade where the costs for a standard PC's hardware to drop below $100.
    2. Re:For that price... by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      they ought to bundle a free computer

      Well you can already install WIN95 on a computer that costs practically nothing to get. Like a P133 for 10 bucks at an auction. The only real thing that pushes the envelope and demands better hardware is the OS and its bloat. As long as they keep doing that they can make sure the hardware costs more.

      --
      badness 10000
  32. "Boycott" is defined as... by dstone · · Score: 2

    "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an
    expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion."[dictionary.com]

    "An expression of disfavor"? Okay, it might be a stress release, but unlikely to accomplish much.

    Or fighting coercion with coercion? Lame and hypocritcal. (The ability to coerce is one of qualities people dislike in a monopoly.)

  33. When you install MS, you're installing Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The besty reason not to use Microsoft products : They're a Scientolgust conspiracy!

    There's plenty of evidence :

    All those two-letter product code NT, XP, ME are all scientologist jargon. OT "Office Two-thousand" is too.! See www.xenu.net

    The disk defrag software is scientologist controlled! This was sufficient concern for the German government to ban it!

    The "Satan" figure of Scientology is called Xinu (or Xemu, or Xenu). Clearly, this is a play on "unix". Scientology, and MS, is anti-unix!

  34. That's more than Windows 2000 by Animats · · Score: 2

    Windows 2000 Professional, boxed product, is $249 at Amazon.com. As a pre-install, Windows 2000 Pro adds $99 to a Dell computer over Windows 98. XP at $299 is not a winner. The OEM deal has to be a lot better than this, or nobody will buy.

    1. Re:That's more than Windows 2000 by lsdino · · Score: 1

      Of course, the List price at Amazon.com is 319.99, so you're saving $70. My guess is that when XP is released you'll see a price below the list price too. They may choose to sell it at full price at first, but eventually they'll lower the price on it (just as they have with W2k).

  35. merging of the version?!? by Papa+Legba · · Score: 1

    I thought XP was supposed to be when all the version merged together no more win9x/NT break. It still appears that we have seperate version, now they are just on the same release cycle. It used to be that it took 2 to 4 years for a new release to come out on each side of the calender, home and office alternating. Now it seems that microsoft has merged these cycles and I am betting that we will see OS release every year to 2 years.

    A further note why are they releasing a home and an office (professional) version? How much difference can their possibly be? Were is the server vesion I have seen announced.

    I think microsoft is going to be in real trouble over this release because of these factors. Installations of windows 2000 were slow due to the random releasing of server version and confussion over what to apply were. This is just going to compound the issue. I know they are trying to bolster OS sales (windows 2000 has never taken off) but this is not going to help at all.

    --
    Papa Legba come and open the gate
    1. Re:merging of the version?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the same OS, just with differnet things added in between the home and pro version, not even the same thing as 9x and NT.

      Also there is quite a difference in the office XP's, the basic only includes Excel and Word and I think Publisher, while the full versions contain things like Power Point, Access, Frong Page.

    2. Re:merging of the version?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a least one of the differences. Home edition doesn't have remote desktop.

    3. Re:merging of the version?!? by adamwood · · Score: 1


      XP is both a home and professional OS based on a single core. This is new.

      The two different versions are (in byte terms) very similar (remember in NT4 you could hack workstation to be server very easily before SP2?), but Microsoft is using market segmentation to maximise profits (read "XP Home can't join domains, so is of little use to the enterprise")

      The server version (now called Windows .NET Server) is some way behind -- expect it next year.

    4. Re:merging of the version?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      domains are not necessary in most server cases. if you need to share anything, use the IP address for the UNC instead of the machine name.

    5. Re:merging of the version?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP failings.
      Wont work with most 2 year old hardware, and the three finger salute don't work ALL the time.
      2000 never did this to me.

      if they did merge versions, it should be happy to install 98 or 2000 drivers - but no.
      Won't work with my Yamaha soundcard
      Identified my PC web camera (totally unsupported), but failed to use 2000 or 98 drivers, in fact el cheapo peripheral support is next to sweet fa. My mouse froze during software installs (2505 beta). Cant put up with os'sm that tries to connect behind my back.

      if they figure out how to accept legacy drivers, then it will be a winner. As firm did most hardware upgrades in 2000 after y2k, MS will have to wait another 1.5 years before we replace.

      The firewall lacked the ability to blacklist a site, so that solution is no good .

      The price - well that don't matter if my old, and perfectly working peripherals don't work. I am fed up with this upgrade circus. If ms really wants money - come up with another 98 release.

  36. Back up now by Publicus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, I'm an editor at boycottxp.com, we got hit hard there but we're back up now and we should stay that way. It might be a little slow at first but keep checking back as the traffic levels off. We're excited to hear what you have to say.

    --

    My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

    1. Re:Back up now by jkmiecik · · Score: 1

      You *were* up.

  37. Re:Why Boycott? by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

    Because unlike Win98 or WinME which are built on the unstable Win9x codebase, WinXP is built on the same codebase as NT4 and W2k. If WinXP even allows half of the Win9x apps that didn't run on W2k to run, it is well worth paying for the increased stability and application support.

    W2k has not had any unexplained crashes on my system for a year. I have rebooted less than a dozen times this YEAR with w2k. There are application software problems, but they are predictable.

    My only complaint with W2k is that many win9x applications are not compatible with it. WinXP (in the beta) appears to do a good job of solving that problem.

  38. You dont have a choice by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    People just don't have the choice of not buying XP. As with most MS produce it will come pre-installed on most hardware. You'd have to go out of your way to buy a new system without windows - most people don't even know there are alternative OS's let alone be prepared to switch. People running ME/98 will most likely be tired of constant crashing etc. and will upgrade to XP. Microsoft will still have the big monopoly.. cough, market share.

    People are paying for their own prison-cells. The things we saw in the development of XP (Secure music, weaning people off mp3s, raw sockets (the raw socket conspiracy theory)) are just the start, showing us what they really think.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:You dont have a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe somebody should offer systems with linux pre-installed. Oh wait, Dell tried that, it failed. VA Linux tried that, it failed. Get it yet?

  39. I'd love to see by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A version of Windows XP (because the only reason I still use Windows is for my ATI-TV card, and to review computer games) that only has these features:

    1. Basic OS/Gui.
    2. Directx 8

    That's it. I don't want a media player, a browser, or all of the other stuff. If they had this out, I'd pay $30 for it, and be perfectly happy. If I wanted the other pieces (browser, chat module, blah, blah, blah), I could choose whether to buy them from MS, or go and use something else (so an extra $15 for MS Explorer, or I could put Mozilla on the box).

    Now everybody wins. MS is happy because it gets $30 from me (and the potential of more money if I choose to pay $99/$199 if I want all the bells an whistles), the DOJ is happy (because it makes a truly level playing frield, since other companies can compete with the other add-ons (at least in theory)), and I'm happy because I can review my games.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    1. Re:I'd love to see by NonSequor · · Score: 2

      Depending on what TV card you have you should be able to get it working with the BTTV driver or GATOS. I absolutely despise the drivers and program that come with ATI's TV cards. Often, for no apparent reason, the program would refuse to acknowledge the existence of the TV in. The composite video in would work and I would get a nice blue screen from that, but no actual TV until I rebooted and tried again.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    2. Re:I'd love to see by evilquaker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Now everybody wins. MS is happy because it gets $30 from me

      No, Microsoft is not happy, which is why you haven't and you never will see such a version of Windows. They aren't happy for (at least) two reasons:

      1. You're going to buy Windows anyway... why should they sell you what you want for $30 when they can sell you that + a bunch of crap you don't want for $200?
      2. Why should they give away a chance to get their software on your PC? Every PC that ships with media player is another PC they can claim is part of their "installed base". This they can then use to get companies to stream in their format, as opposed to Real Audio/Video.
      So keep dreaming... such a thing will never happen.

      --
      To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
    3. Re:I'd love to see by pantherace · · Score: 1

      Yes, If you have a video card, use GATOS (seach freshmeat for both), or if like me, you have a ATT-TV Wonder(VE) use bttv (std one in most distros works fine for me.) The picture is actually clearer on a computer monitor.

      modprobe tuner type=2
      insmod bttv card=2
      works fine for me.

    4. Re:I'd love to see by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

      Well but Microsoft could count you in their userbase once for each component you buy. Imagine the marketing spin they could get then:

      "We have over 1 billion users of Microsoft products in the USA alone!"

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:I'd love to see by Saib0t · · Score: 1
      You're going to buy Windows anyway... why should they sell you what you want for $30 when they can sell you that + a bunch of crap you don't want for $200?

      Because I won't shell out $200 for windows, I'll just 'borrow it', I might shell out $30 though...

      Just my (scarce) $.02

      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    6. Re:I'd love to see by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct... but I'd love for the DOJ to have ideas like that.

    7. Re:I'd love to see by darkwhite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This they can then use to get companies to stream in their format, as opposed to Real Audio/Video.

      Even though you are right, I have to say that even though WMP8 is an ugly piece of shit, RealPlayer is much, much uglier, more unstable, and it installs spyware and other crap to boot. I would prefer Quicktime to WMP and WMP to Real, however what I would really like to see is a single player for all formats that's small and fast, like Winamp... of course that will never happen since all those video formats are proprietary.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    8. Re:I'd love to see by malfunct · · Score: 1

      No you won't, product activation will keep you from doing that :)

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    9. Re:I'd love to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't already running the corp version with no product activation. :)

    10. Re:I'd love to see by Chris+Hind · · Score: 1

      Winamp is rubbish. I hate programs that think they're too important to use the proper look and feel. Hopefully Winamp will get steamrollered into oblivion by the release of XP, as it's a nasty POS.

      --
      nal 11
    11. Re:I'd love to see by Tepic++ · · Score: 1

      Theres already a work around for product activation, so unless MS changes it between RC2 and the final, its already been 'cracked'.

      I've seen a friend use XP. It's slick, stability has been good (the only problems were linked to a Via chipset and USB), and on his Duron 750, fast (although this should be expected). All those extras that they bundle are also very nice and convenient for the user - of course, that could be taking a short term view.

      One thing I have noticed with NT 5.x is that initial memory usage is quite high (in Win2K it seems to be about 60MB on boot), but after that memory usage is *extremely* good (apps and OS) and RAM isn't easily consumed (compared to win9x).

    12. Re:I'd love to see by malfunct · · Score: 1

      I think that the OS allocates some ram that is availible to apps so the initial usage numbers is actually showing more allocated ram than is being used and its given up to apps as apps are started. Memory management on NT is not terrible straight forward (at least to me) so the numbers reported by task manager need to be taken with a grain of salt.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    13. Re:I'd love to see by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      Belated reply...

      I'd love to see a pleasant-to-use player that also conforms to look and feel standards of its OS... however pretty much none of today's players do. Maybe it's not possible to make a pretty media player that will conform to UI standards (and many people do want their player to look cute). Personally, I think it's much more important for players to have freeform skinnability, which would allow anyone to make their own UI-compliant skin, and which both Winamp and Sonique (and WMP, but only MS can make skins afaik) are implementing for their next version.

      Oh, and Winamp works just fine in XP, thank you. BTW, afaik they are planning to port the 3.0 code to unix platforms once it's complete.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  40. Upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So can I upgrade from Windows 98 directly to XP or do I have to buy Windows ME and upgrade to that first?

    1. Re:Upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can upgrade straight from 98 to XP, I picked up the corporate ISO of XP from irc... been using it for a few days. I like it.

  41. Transparent Encryption? by dragons_flight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know about the "transparent encryption" that they talk about in the professional edition?

    I realize it's not likely to be really strong, but if it's decent (and not critically flawed in implementation), it might be an incentive for me to upgrade eventually. I've never seen a good encryption scheme for Win that wasn't a major hassle. If you know of one I'd like to hear of that too.

    I can't escape Windows because I write software for it occasionally, and need the ability to work with Word/Excel/Access file types.

    I heard somewhere (but have no idea if its true) that the encryption requires a different file system be implemented (NTFS vs FAT32, IIRC). How would this affect an upgrade?

    1. Re:Transparent Encryption? by citizenc · · Score: 2

      From what I understand, what transparent encryption does is when you save documents to the "My Documents" folder, Windows XP will encrypt the files so that other user accounts cannot access those files.

    2. Re:Transparent Encryption? by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      You don't need XP for encryption, it's a basic feature of windows NTFS implementations out of the box. They may have made it more transparent or something in XP, but you can encrypt files/folders/drives in 2k without the additional overhead of XP.

      I've got one box I've been running XP on for the past few weeks and can only say I'm pretty unimpressed. Win2k blew me away the first time I used it, and it's a great desktop system, but XP is trying to be WAAAY too many things to WAAAY too many people. If you want a wizard to tell you how to wipe your butt, buy XP, otherwise Win2k is the perfect level of maturity, driver availability, stability, etc...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    3. Re:Transparent Encryption? by Meorah · · Score: 3, Informative

      128-bit hashed local file and directory encryption. "transparent" because its based on the user's access token that they receive when logging onto their PC. In other words, if you log on as a certain user, and encrypt a file, then you will be able to access that file at any time as long as you are logged on as that user. Log on as a different user, and try to access the encrypted file, and you'll be denied access.

      The mechanism for encrypting files is simply a checkbox in an "advanced" menu. Only 2 button clicks deep, but far enough out of the way that most people won't accidentally enable encryption. Also, you can't encrypt files that have been compressed natively... Of course, the work around is that you use winzip or pkzip or winrar to compress your files, then encrypt them with the built-in encryption.

      This is only local encryption! If you want encryption over a network, you've still got to use IPSec, Kerberos, VPN, etc.

      All of these features are available in Windows 2000 and XP. In fact, just about every worth-while feature in XP is also found in 2000. Oh yah, you get to use WPA in XP! Another reason to upgrade to 2000 instead of XP if you're going to use Windows.

      --
      Protector of Capitalist views,
      Meorah
    4. Re:Transparent Encryption? by helloRockview · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Good to point out that the XP encryption, of course, is only local to the box and doesn't provide any type of network-based encryption without using some other suitable protocol.

      However, I'm curious how XP's encryption works in a file server environment, where multiple users or applications are shuffling bits on and off the disk using SMB or NFS, for example. It might be very useful.

      There have been far too many cases of data hijacking these days and I suppose it would be advantageous to have a central file or database server encrypt data on disk, regardless of whether the client is a user or an application. There is an overall lack of regard for storing data in an encrypted format today, even though this is the place where the bits will live the longest (as opposed to the network, per say).

    5. Re:Transparent Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win2k is the perfect blend of what?

      "unhandled kmode exception at (nonsense)-mo-nonsense-mo-nonsense.."

      trans:Please uninstall that HW you just installed-contrary to what the manufacturer said and what you were led to believe win2k shits on you.

      Besides that, and the wonderful, groovy new wordpad, IIS ,etc..win2k is gods gift.

    6. Re:Transparent Encryption? by tcc · · Score: 2

      It's called "transparent" because even if encrypted, microsoft can "clearly" see thru it with their passport and backdoor key :)

      --
      --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    7. Re:Transparent Encryption? by K7001 · · Score: 1

      interestingly if the encryption is on a network drive which allows offline caching it's not encryted in the offline cache. Also for the encrytion to work there must be DRA 's enabled who interestingly enough are the local and domain administrators

      --
      perl -MIO::Socket -e 'IO::Socket::INET-new(PeerAddr="some.windoze.box:1
  42. viva xp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be very interesting denying Linux distributions include stuff other than the kernel. I would then like to see the sucess of such strategy. You blame Microsoft for including the IE in its OS, whereas the same time linux kernel extends itself (see khttpd) and linux distros like suse include plenty of CDs of free software (6+ I think)

    1. Re:viva xp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your pretending to know what the fuck you're talking about bit isn't working, bugger off ok wanker.

    2. Re:viva xp by coats · · Score: 2
      Linux distributions include choices! I can pick what I want from those choices -- which editor, which word-processor, which web-browser, which audio software, which image and drawing tools, and lots more.


      I know my own job, my own needs, my own cognittive style. I am not forced into having to use stuff from some a** named Bill who thinks he knows my job better than I do.

      --
      "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
  43. Trying out XP vs actually using it by LordSnow · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that even if everyone decides not to 'use' XP, at least most everyone will try it out. Slashdotters are a curious bunch and I doubt many will be able to keep their hands off of a warez copy of the OS. Like me, dling it now. =)

    1. Re:Trying out XP vs actually using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urm...nope. I wont even try it out. No way. It is too intrusive, too big brother. Every thing you do on it is subject o M$ snooping and approval.


      I have access to a free copy of any version of Doze that I could ask for, including XP. I NEVER pay for windoze anymore.I pirate it if I want it. I REFUSE to pay M$ for their crap and the ONLY reason I do this at all is there are a couple games I like that wont run in Wine (yet).


      XP spys on your hardware and if you make one wrong alteration to your hardware, you have to get Gates' permission to reactivate XP. It is spyware, plain and simple. I'll stick with one of the following: my free/pirate copy of 98, ME, or 2000 Professional. But then, I really cannot even remember the last time I rebooted over to doze anyway...

    2. Re:Trying out XP vs actually using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I downloaded the corp, no activation version a few days ago and I absolutely love it. It's like win2k on steroids. The interface is very asteticly pleasing, the system is blazingly fast and as stable, or more stable than any linux system out there.

      It runs all the media, dvd's and games I could want. Office apps rock. I don't see why people even waste their time with linux. This is everything I could ever want in a PC, and it was FREE.

    3. Re:Trying out XP vs actually using it by malfunct · · Score: 1

      Not really spyware because its all done in the local installation. MS Never sees the hardware configuration of your computer nor do they know when you change it. They just know when you request reactivation over the phone. As far as what info that MS does get to see, its just a number calculated from your hardware that cannot be reversed to say what your hardware is. This key is paired with your product serial number (the cd key) in a database. The two numbers are matched when you need to check the activation for a NEW installation. For an existing installation the match is done locally.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    4. Re:Trying out XP vs actually using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Then I will wait for the crack so that I never have to call to reactivate my pirate copy. And rest assured, the crack will be forthcoming. It always is.

  44. In other news by generic-man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I would like to formally announce that I am boycotting the Audi A8 sedan. I feel that its list price of over $62,000 is entirely too high, and that it would be advantageous for consumers to buy a more practical sedan.

    I would also like to announce the establishment of an Internet petition to urge Audi to stop selling cars. We as consumers cannot tolerate this excessively high pricing scheme!

    Don't make me bring Ralph Nader into this. You saw what he did to Al Gore. Just wait until he starts fighting against corporations.

    --
    For more information, click here.
    1. Re:In other news by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Your analogy would hold if you changed "Audi A8 sedan" to "broken-down Yugo with no wheels."

      -Legion

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what would that make linux a home made go kart, that you have to put together yourself, but not after making 30 trips to the local parts store to buy the parts that you need to get a car that actually runs in the manner people are accustomed to?

    3. Re:In other news by generic-man · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. A broken-down Yugo with no wheels does not allow a driver to go anywhere. Windows XP, like the Audi A8, is an industry leader in innovation. Unlike such competing operating systems as Linux and Mac OS X, Windows XP allows users to play DVDs (Digital Versatile Discs) containing movie data. This eliminates the need for an external DVD player, an additional expense.

      Microsoft also includes Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, the latest version of the world's favorite Internet browser. The latest version of Internet Explorer outperforms even its predecessor in many tasks, and easily outperforms the "Open Source" version of "Mozilla," also called "Netscape 6." Microsoft Internet Explorer complies with such Internet standards as CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), XHTML (eXtensible HyperText Markup Language), XML (eXtensible Markup Language), and P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences). No "Open Source" or traditional web browser for any other platform allows this level of standards conformance.

      Is Microsoft Windows XP worth $200? Yes. Will Linux users steal it so that they can play games and DVDs? Yes. That is why Product Activation will help Microsoft recoup all of its piracy losses.

      Thank you.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? I didn't see the word "linux" in there anywhere.

    5. Re:In other news by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 1
      "Unlike such competing operating systems as Linux and Mac OS X, Windows XP allows users to play DVDs (Digital Versatile Discs) containing movie data. This eliminates the need for an external DVD player, an additional expense."Uhh, excuse me? with linux they can ofcorce be played with DeCSS, however due to certan stupid laws in the US...big companys stomped on that, It's still around tho, if you look. 2nd, MacOS X will beable to play DVDs before Windows XP is out (version 10.1 has DVD player support) or, you can always use an older version of the MacOS (anywhere from system 8 to system 9.2.1) Most people using OS X will dual boot like this, due to the lack of compatibility between the two OSes
      Oh, and while I have a DVD drive and player in almost all of my computers, I still have an external DVD player. Why you ask? there are some things that you cant do from a computer, such as: Remote control, DTS/Dolby Digital 5.1 surround [over a fiber optic cable], component video out [to a bigscreen TV]...the list goes on and on, but...you get the point

      "Microsoft also includes Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, the latest version of the world's favorite Internet browser. "
      Didnt I hear something about a small redmond based company crushing netscape and other browser alternitives with anti-competitive monopolistic practices? Oh yeah, that was Microsoft with Internet Explorer.

      "Microsoft Internet Explorer complies with such Internet standards as CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), XHTML (eXtensible HyperText Markup Language), XML (eXtensible Markup Language), and P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences). " Huh? MS is widely known for changeing standerds so they don't work in other browsers. I like konqueror, as it has no problems with any sites that dont use extensive flash/java or other nasty bandwidth intensive stuff. Only works for KDE tho, you might not like it.

      "Is Microsoft Windows XP worth $200? "No. Every review I saw of it said it sucked. I've used other versions of windows. They sucked too. What am i really paying for with that $200? a few years more hassle with Worms, Viruses, bugs, bsod's and the like? or am I paying for an intigrated MP3 player with optional cup holder? what if i like my old one? can i still use that?

      "Will Linux users steal it so that they can play games and DVDs? "
      Don't know. I know I wont. I'm just fine with my stolen copy of 98 for that.

      "That is why Product Activation will help Microsoft recoup all of its piracy losses. "
      ooh, MS lost money to the evil p1r4t3s! ooh! I'm shaking in my little pants! MS makes BILLIONS a year. That's for an overpriced, buggy, insecure joke of an OS. That's pretty damned good if you ask me. Oh, and Product Activation is easily hacked too, or so I've read.

      --
      The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
    6. Re:In other news by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Uhh, excuse me? with linux they can ofcorce be played with DeCSS, however due to certan stupid laws in the US...

      Those laws are intended to help publishers maintain control over their intellectual property. If Slashdot did a story every now and then about IP laws, then maybe we could discuss such matters there.

      2nd, MacOS X will beable to play DVDs before Windows XP is out (version 10.1 has DVD player support) or, you can always use an older version of the MacOS (anywhere from system 8 to system 9.2.1) Most people using OS X will dual boot like this, due to the lack of compatibility between the two OSes

      Dual-booting isn't necessary in Windows XP. I find it much more useful to have one operating system that handles all of its tasks properly.

      Didnt I hear something about a small redmond based company crushing netscape and other browser alternitives with anti-competitive monopolistic practices? Oh yeah, that was Microsoft with Internet Explorer.

      The problem is that "other browser alternitives," as you put it, are nowhere near as standards-compliant as Microsoft Internet Explorer. I want you to take a long, hard look at Netscape 4 (the second-most-used browser today) and tell me that it's every bit as good as Microsoft Internet Explorer. Now, let's assume that Windows starts by asking you which 12 MB package you want to download: IE (Internet Explorer) or Netscape. IE is faster, more standards-compliant, and more stable. Even the "Netscape 6" "releases" aren't stable.

      Huh? MS is widely known for changeing standerds so they don't work in other browsers. I like konqueror, as it has no problems with any sites that dont use extensive flash/java or other nasty bandwidth intensive stuff. Only works for KDE tho, you might not like it.

      "changeing standerds," eh? Well, I'm no fan of the MARQUEE tag, but standard HTML (HyperText Markup Language) renders just fine in IE. I'm sorry if the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), which formulates standards with help from representatives of Microsoft, Netscape, and many other companies, doesn't make standards that are exactly to your specifications.

      Flash and Java can actually be useful.

      No. Every review I saw of it said it sucked. I've used other versions of windows. They sucked too. What am i really paying for with that $200? a few years more hassle with Worms, Viruses, bugs, bsod's and the like? or am I paying for an intigrated MP3 player with optional cup holder? what if i like my old one? can i still use that?

      I really doubt that a skilled computer professional such as yourself would pay $200 for such an operating system, as you seem to be fully aware of the "wares" (that's short for "soft wares") sites that distribute it for free. You might also want to know that Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition starts at just $99 for an upgrade. What version of Microsoft Windows are you using right now?

      I would also like to point out that there are many reviews of Microsoft Windows that do not say that "it sucked." If someone, perhaps an unintelligent buffoon like yourself, wrote a review like that, it would be ignored. I know that you might use the "LINUX" (Low Investment Nerd-Using eXtensions) operating system on your computers, but this is piracy as far as I'm concerned. Using so-called "free" "operating" "systems" is just taking money out of the hands of our corporate friends.

      Don't know. I know I wont. I'm just fine with my stolen copy of 98 for that.

      Tsk tsk. Your IP address has been logged.

      ooh, MS lost money to the evil p1r4t3s! ooh! I'm shaking in my little pants! MS makes BILLIONS a year. That's for an overpriced, buggy, insecure joke of an OS. That's pretty damned good if you ask me. Oh, and Product Activation is easily hacked too, or so I've read.

      Isn't that impressive? Microsoft makes billions of dollars a year for selling its acclaimed operating systems and office software, and you have nothing better to do than spout rhetoric about how jealous you are. Because Windows offers you so many features, such as game and DVD support, it is obviously worth the investment.

      Oh, and about that little "It's Microsoft, so it'll be hacked" "comment": Don't believe everything you read.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    7. Re:In other news by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Then what would that make linux a home made go kart, that you have to put together yourself, but not after making 30 trips to the local parts store to buy the parts that you need to get a car that actually runs in the manner people are accustomed to?

      Sure, if we were talking about linux. We weren't.

      -Legion

    8. Re:In other news by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Yes, Microsoft *does* have pretty looking press releases, don't they? On the other hand, there's something to be said for using your own words to express yourself.

      -Legion

  45. Grass roots movement by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    People need to also talk this up on Talk shows:

    Well, mr. talk show host, I was talking to a friend who was testing this new version of Windows, and boy is it a dog"

    [insert reasons that the talk show host can agree with]

    just enough to poison the well. simple reasons for regular folks, like the whole Passport fiasco.

    heck telling them the plain truth about the copy protection stuff and registration stuff will do the job.

    now mind you, I would never do something like this, but you can't even make a copy for your kids machine, or for your wife. You got to buy a whole nother copy! I paid my money. I should be able to do what I want with it!

    That should be good enough to do the job.

    - - -
    Radio Free Nation
    an alternate news site based on Slash Code
    "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Grass roots movement by Homewrecker · · Score: 0
      So, you've "poisoned the well", then what? Is that the best you can do as an alternative OS zealot? Instead of using the same obvious FUD tactics that you claim to abhor, show me a better alternative and I'll use it. To date, you have not done so and these "clever tactics" will provoke little more than laughter from the rest of us.

      Until you are able to back up your FUD-drenched words with a real alternative in the desktop wars, you are not only no better than those you allegedly loathe, but also more hypocritical than they.

      Sadly, this comment is now doomed to the land of the -1 for my obvious disagreement with the company line.

      --

      --- Linux R00lz!

    2. Re:Grass roots movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It will be modded to -1 because it is stupid.

      There are no alternatives because MS has a monopoly and has been found illegally using that monopoly to restrict competition.

      If you want real alternatives, pray that MS will get a real punishment for their illegal actions.

    3. Re:Grass roots movement by Homewrecker · · Score: 0
      There are no alternatives because MS has a monopoly and has been found illegally using that monopoly to restrict competition

      Whatever gets you through the night, big guy. Perhaps if open source wasn't such a ridiculous business model, you wouldn't need to find scapegoats.

      --

      --- Linux R00lz!

    4. Re:Grass roots movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So you are saying that Open Source is the only viable option for producing alternatives now?

      Which means MS controls the market. There is no viable way for any other business to enter the market to produce the alternatives you asked for. The only option is to give the product away for free. Which is not a very good business model.

      So I guess we agree then. Microsoft is a monopoly that needs to be broken.

    5. Re:Grass roots movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an ass. If you're going to troll, learn how to do it properly. First tip is to get a login name that doesn't scream "I'm an adolescent troll-wannabe with adequacy issues".

      Open source is a software development model, not a business model.

    6. Re:Grass roots movement by Homewrecker · · Score: 0
      Open source is a software development model, not a business model.

      Oh? Then why does everyone around here seem to think that it can support the IT industry when proprientary software (snicker) bites the dust?

      Makes me wonder who's actually trolling in this thread, anyway. And, while I'm at it, I really don't "wanabe" anything, but someone needs to interrupt the circlejerk now and then. Consider me a realist instead of a troll.

      --

      --- Linux R00lz!

  46. OT But by rosewood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    DId anyone else see the DMCA story repost about Time Warner cable? Now its gone? Wtf?

  47. And your point is? by bradleyjay · · Score: 0

    So WindowsXP is going to sell for $199.

    SO WHAT!

    SQL Server is $1500. Who gives a shit? Why should I boycott XP just 'cause it's $199?

    Why don't you people get a fucking life and quit bashing MS for no reason?

    --
    Karma...what's that? I just speak my mind.
    1. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats exactly how I feel. I cant see why people just dont understand that.

  48. Typographical error by AnandTech? by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 1


    AnandTech's review came out July 10, 2001. It looks like a typographical error by AnandTech. I doubt they installed an old version of XP to do the test.

    Microsoft released RC2 on August 1. RC1 was released July 3.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:Typographical error by AnandTech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So they don't know the difference between RC2 and beta 2 and I'm supposed to think they were able to get their benchmarking correct? Yokay....

  49. Already! by BlowCat · · Score: 2
    I guess I'm already boycotting Windows XP, all other versions of Windows, as well as OS/2, GNU/Hurd, NetBSD, Solaris, AtheOS and whatever else is not installed on my computer.

    Boycott makes sense if I would buy something but I don't in order to "punish" the manufacturer. How many slashdotters would buy Windows XP if not this boycott?

    1. Re:Already! by Flavius+Stilicho · · Score: 5, Informative

      "How many slashdotters would buy Windows XP if not this boycott?"

      I would. I decide what our corporate technology standards are, what products are purchased and what OS is installed on our 150+ PCs. Currently, that standard is Windows 2000 Professional and Server so I am in a prime position to upgrade to XP. However....

      About a month or so ago, a rep from Microsoft called me to give me the pitch for XP and how it would make 'everything so much better.' I actually had a great deal of fun with that call. Essentially, I told him that I had absolutely no intention of going to any XP product anytime soon. He courteously informed me that if I didn't it would cost us way more when we finally upgraded. I responded by saying that 'anytime soon' was just my nice way of saying that I'd never goto XP. He balked at that one and asked why. I told him that, frankly, I didn't care one bit for MS's licensing practices, the quality (or lack thereof) of their products, the inherent insecurity of their products and a few others that I can't remember. When he asked what our intentions were, I told him that we would stay with the 2000 line for a couple years. After that we would begin evaluating alternative operating systems and applications -- primarily Linux. I then told him that our core application was a client server model that already had a web based front end and could easily be ported to Apache & Oracle or MySQL. As for Office and messaging applications, I told him that there were many solid alternatives to Exchange already on the market and StarOffice would work just fine for our Office Suite needs. At that point he said "Oh. Thank you for your time." and hung up.

      I decided to start boycotting Microsoft products a while ago -- when the details about the new licensing scheme were released. I know that 150 PC and 20 servers isn't much to MS, but it's aleast a half million dollars when it's all said and done. Had it not been for the licensing changes, I probably would have upgraded.

    2. Re:Already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling you'll be hearing from the BSA very soon demanding an audit of your Win2K licenses.

    3. Re:Already! by PrimeNumber · · Score: 1

      You rule!

  50. Bloated code? by mantis78 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft did it again? Or at least they are
    trying.

    They tarnished the generally positive word of
    windows to mean chances of getting your machined
    hanged.

    Now, they are trying to do the same to the practice
    of eXtreme Programming (XP). Programs written
    with strict adherence to XP should be compact
    and powerful, not bloated and slow.

    They must have taken the concept of paired
    programming to the extreme. With all the
    young boys and girls at Redmond fighting for
    the keyboard, what a shame to paired programming.
    Double the time waster, double the bloat!

    1. Re:Bloated code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.. Win XP, 1 CD. Typical Linux distro, 3-6 CD's. Where's the bloat again?

    2. Re:Bloated code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you have read about both XPs.

      > The XP process has little relevance on the size and performance of the final product. Rather XP focuses on delivering the product sooner and with a higher quality.

      > There is little evidence that strict adherance to XP (the process) can scale above 10's of programmers. XP (the OS) took 1000's.

      > MS was doing pseudo-pair-programming long before it was fashionable by assigning one tester to one programmer.

    3. Re:Bloated code? by Vspirit · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is just another bubble.
      Imagine what will happen when it blows.
      All people and economy that is dependent on M$.
      Lots of people pushing and pulling to keep the ship afloat.. just wait to see the crash.
      and all their illusions will overcome them.

      ..William Gibson
      Neuromancer and the lots.
      --
      What goes up must come down.. - Tom Petty

    4. Re:Bloated code? by malfunct · · Score: 1

      You have failed to point out that linux comes with probably 30 times as many programs on those cd's as well as source for most if not all of them. A perfectly resonable linux distro would easily fit on 1 cd.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    5. Re:Bloated code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP has killed zip compression software like WINZIP, firewall software, and data cd burning software, there are probably more in there but i just got my copy up and running. I have had nothing but problems with my ISO burning software, FIreburner Clone CD and CDRWIN, all these things are playing up worse than a bunch of ADD kids, when all of them worked perfectly under win2k, something strange is going on with this release of XP.

  51. Windows XP for free? by joestar · · Score: 2

    WindowsXP Vs. Linux Mandrake: Some Aesthetic Observations is the title of this excellent article that I recommand to read.

    1. Re:Windows XP for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BOO-HOO! the setup is the same! so does that mean you dont have to show your grandma how to compile programs rather than doubleclicking on them or what it means when you have dependency problems. or maby how you connect to the internet.. everyone is saying to stop using windows. I am a linux user I have 3 computers and 2 run redhat 7 but I also dont feel like trying to explain to people who know nothing more than to double click on a file and have a program install how to compile there own software and what the hell that terminal is and why it looks so black and scarry.

  52. Boycott? by dj28 · · Score: 1

    The people that are going to boycott windows XP are going to be the ones that weren't going to buy it in the first place. Not that effective, eh?

  53. Boycott? by PineGreen · · Score: 1

    Why boycotxp.com? Any bussiness is and should be free to set the prices however they like! The only exception are public services (water, electricity, health service) and Microsoft, thank god, hasn't reached that status, yet. So, if you don't like XP's price, don't use it!

  54. LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That site sure is running great. It stays up for 2-3 minutes every hour. Linux sucks. Maybe he should consider an XP upgrade.

  55. ya ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll boycott XP the same way Taco bocotts the RIAA and MPAA.

  56. WTF? by Bluesee · · Score: 1

    Off Topic.

    What the hell happened to the story about the woman who got her ISP account yanked because the MPAA complained to Time-Warner, her provider? It had a link to salon and everything.

    Did the lawyers yank the ./ story, too? Can anyone answer this? Has this ever happened before? Prettttty Ominous....

    Ok, mod me down now, but please answer the question first.

    --
    SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd also like to know what happened to it. I read the story at Salon, and then went to look at the comments on /. and got a message saying "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along". I then refreshed my browser and the story vanished! Very strange, I've never seen this before on /.! I hope someone will explain...

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explanation turns out to be easy. The story was a dupe, according to Timothy.

      I lost all that sleep for nothing...

  57. Linux does this too by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I find it curious that people complain that microsoft bundles products when most major linux distros do the same. I'm sure getting free office software or free network software makes people not want to buy the commercial alternatives. In this regard perhaps we should boycott all linux distros as they hurt commercial software makers (am I starting to sound like microsoft?) :)

    1. Re:Linux does this too by jonestor · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the difference is this. Microsoft bundles 1 cdrecorder. The one they have a partner with or the 1 the made.

      The linux distros that I have used bundle 3 or 4.

      You have choice with Linux out of the box.

    2. Re:Linux does this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well dicknut, in case you havn't been reading, the problem isn't so much that M$ is including such software, it's that third party software to compete with it doesn't work. You still have that option on Linux. The other difference is most of the software in Linux distros is third party software, not "RedHat CD Burn" and "RedHat Internet Explorer" etc. And the Linux distros don't do things to break such third party software. So yes, there is a big difference.

    3. Re:Linux does this too by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      I find it curious that people complain that microsoft bundles products when most major linux distros do the same. I'm sure getting free office software or free network software makes people not want to buy the commercial alternatives. In this regard perhaps we should boycott all linux distros as they hurt commercial software makers (am I starting to sound like microsoft?) :)

      You seem to have forgotten what "monopoly" means. If every Linux distro had agreements to bundle a certain product (say, Apache) and leave out the competition (other web servers), and the former massively increased its market share because of it, that would still be legal. Since no Linux distro has a monopoly, they're not abusing their monopoly power to promote a particular piece of software.

      MicroSoft has been found, in court, to have a monopoly. And guess what? They bundle lots of products with their OS. Server versions of their OS even come with the MS webserver (a personal version of BackOffice, if I recall), not to mention the MS web browser, the MS streaming media player, and so on. That is an abuse of monopoly power.

      Of course, MS claims that web browsers, media viewers, and the like are "part of the OS". Linux users know better. "Linux" is the kernel and a few basic utilities. "Linux" is so little software that it can fit on a floppy. "Linux" along with a bunch of software is a "distribution", or "distro" for short. RedHat, Caldera, TurboLinux and others are selling "distros". Not that the additional software in a distro can hook deeply into the OS. Think about the "aurora" program for example - it changes the text-based boot process to a graphical one. You could even say that the set of kernel patches which are applied by various vendors are part of the "included software". Certainly they differ among Linux distros!

      MS is also selling a distro. There's the Windows OS, and there are lots of bundled applications. The fact that there are "Home" and "Professional" versions of their OS proves that they're selling a distro. The fact that you can remove several things which they consider to be "part of the OS" (as shown in court!) also proves that they're selling a distro. They just don't realize it. Hell, I doubt they even know what a distro is! They just know their own project, if their sloppy attempts at FUD are any indication. This is why they think that just by bundling software, even software which affects the OS part in complex ways, they're just "extending the OS". Bull. They're creating a distro, and by bundling only their own software they are using their monopoly power to promote their own products (MSN, the BackOffice suite, their own proprietary file formats for all kinds of things).

    4. Re:Linux does this too by epsalon · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is only one CD-Recording software for linux - cdrecord. Well, and there's also CDRDAO for specail purposes. But - you don't need any more than that. It's not artifically crippled, and any features that one wants to add are added to cdrecord instead of making a competing product.

      However, what the user does have choice over is the GUI. As in the Linux world, the GUI is not glued to the backend, you have in a typical distro several frontends for a single backend. So, you gain from both worlds. You have all features in the backend, and you can choose which frontend you want to use.

      Don't you just love Linux? ;)

    5. Re:Linux does this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, guess what? I recently bought a Toyota that came bundled with a Philips radio. I didn't ask for it but it came with it. Now I'm gonna sue Toyota because I want to buy my car without anything in it. No radio, no ashtray, no leather, no seats.. heck, give me an unpainted chassis. WHERE THE HELL DO I DRAW THE LINE???

      Let's sue MS because they include Notepad. After all, my company makes a text-editor just like it and now there's no more market for it.

    6. Re:Linux does this too by ShishCoBob · · Score: 1

      But also MS has the compatability thing I'm sure you've heared of. I just noticed that it seems it was added to w2k with an update I got. It does work. I had an old game called outpost that you have to use 256 color in to play. That's how old it is (not very old but old enough). It didn't work at first. I turned on the compatability thing to 95 and it worked.

      --
      http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.
  58. Boycott?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not boycotting if you weren't going to get Windows XP anyway.Well I guess their site has not fan base.

  59. To bad for MS... by KewLinux · · Score: 1

    ...when they find out that most people will say "there's no way I'm gonna pay $100 for winXP when win98SE fullfills all my needs".
    This will ultimately hurt Microsoft. They exists on a basis build by the fact that so many people know MS' OS because thay pirated it. When people can't pirate it (because of new "smart" anti-piracy stuff in it) and are not willing to buy it, I guess they will somewhat modify the price for winXP.
    I also think that many companies at some point will switch away from XP after their workstations for the 17'th time have become the tool of some 12-year old script kiddie doing all the fun stuff with raw sockets.
    As a free OS (as it in reality is for many people) Windows is an excellent OS with outstanding support for hardware and tons of software, although it has some design flaws. As a non-free OS XP will never get into all the old win98 workstations.
    I think it will only have a small effect in the way of moving people from MS' OS over to free OSes though. Most people (and the free OSes!) are not ready for that yet.

    --
    fear my zig!
    1. Re:To bad for MS... by Blue+Neon+Head · · Score: 2

      Oh, MS will still sell XP aplenty. After all, anyone who buys a new system will get it, whether they like it or not.

    2. Re:To bad for MS... by MarkLR · · Score: 1

      To do anything with raw sockets they need to hack the box first. Its not like RAW SOCKETS = NO SECURITY. It's just that Gibson is ranting about raw sockets because he needs the attention.

    3. Re:To bad for MS... by mvdwege · · Score: 1
      ...anyone who buys a new system will get it, whether they like it or not.

      Which of course makes complete bollocks of the 'anti-piracy' argument....

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    4. Re:To bad for MS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIS was made for cracking. Gibson still needs attention.

  60. Well.. I have to say. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    Aside from the urge to boycott microsoft completely...
    I'm quite happy with win2k as my MS platform. It's the best thing they've produced so far, and after hearing about some of the sugar-coating in XP, sounds like it still is.

    Like I'm gonna switch (of course, they'll make their licensing prohibitively harsher... but we'll move to sunrays next)

  61. And if... by Shin+Elendale · · Score: 2, Informative
    If it was the only car on the market, or perhaps: the car you HAD to buy when you bought a home.

    -Elendale

    --

    IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)

  62. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by pmc · · Score: 2

    Most of what you said I agree with but not "Of course, Microsoft will be kept afloat by the 'oh but this ones based on NT! It's stable!' fanboys out there, but anybody who has seen NT in action knows it's inadequacy on older hardware, and people are finally getting used to the idea that they don't really need the latest version of windows or the latest processor for what they do.

    Firstly Joe Public probably only has the vaguest idea of what NT is, so there is limited mileage on the "based on NT" bandwagon.

    Secondly NT is stable on older hardware - it's the more modern stuff that tends to trip it up (it really doesn't understand IR ports and USB very well). NT server on fairly standard hardware can easily have uptimes of more than a year (provided you don't and try and log on to the box - there is (or was - it may be fixed now) a memory leak in the GDI routines which breaks the explorer shell fairly terminally after about 6 months. All the services still work, but the box is a bit of a basket case if you need to do something interactive.

    I'm not sure about people and new machines/OS. The machine I'm using now is triple boot box (Mandrake, Win98, W2K Advanced Server) with dual 350P2s and 256MB of ram. So fairly long in the tooth now. I've not seen anything that I want to do computer wise that I can't do on this box. So no reason to upgrade here. But I see lots of computers with a much higher spec being sold as the owner has upgraded to a more recent machine. What are these people doing with their machines?

    So I think people may realise they don't need the new machine, but they still seem to want one. Then there is the monopoly leveraging that superwhizzy app only works on XP, to "encourage" people to upgrade to it.

    and look at every windows release -- you'll see a huge group trying to fool themselves that 'THIS one will be good!'.

    W2K was actually a good release. Probably too good. Having looked at XP from the server end (and particuarly the directory services bit of it, which is what I do at the moment) there is almost nothing that has changed that makes even a marginally compelling case for moving to XP. Of the top of my head the only change that is of note is how XP handles changes to group memberships (The gory details are that in the multimaster environment if person A is added to a group at DC1 and person B is removed from the same group later at DC2, but before the change had propogated from DC1 to DC2, this causes a conflict that is resolved by using the most recent change, which means neither A nor B are in the group after all the changes have replicated). This is a design flaw in how groups are stored and replicated in W2k (basically the group including all the members is replicated when changed in W2k, as opposed to deltas of the membership list which is how I think XP does it), but it isn't that hard to work around.

  63. Why Boycott? I get it for $5 by mcoker · · Score: 1

    Through my university computer store I can buy MS products for $5 per CD. Is it worth it for $5?

    --
    --mcoker
  64. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by pmc · · Score: 2

    In XP you can roll back schema changes too, I've just remembered. This is nice, and may save a little bit of time during testing (rollback as opposed to rebuild), but won't impact a production environment.

  65. Ridiculous upgrade restrictions�.rape you 4 $$$ by helloRockview · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't know much about XP and think that you'd be nuts to head to the store on October 25th and install this thing on your PC (as with any other MS OS in the past).

    I finally installed Windows 2000 on my work PC and was - for the first time in the history of Windows - actually impressed with its performance and stability. For the first time ever, I wasn't rebooting my PC five times a day (which is a frustrating contrast to some of my Linux boxes that are approaching 1 year of uptime). I was so impressed with 2000's stability, that I installed it on my home PC and my girlfriend's laptop, which was experiencing the good old Win98 10-a-day reboot exercise.

    So this article got me wondering if there was anything that XP would offer me in the future that just might coerce me to upgrade in the next year or so. So I found a link on MS's site that let me "Check my upgrade options" . I was shocked to see that the only upgrade path from Win 2000 is to the XP Professional Edition, which costs $100 more than the Home Edition.

    Why is this the case? Isn't XP Professional is nothing more than the XP Home Edition with a few more add-ons? Anyone have any insight as to why MS restricts you from upgrading 2000 to XP Home Edition?

    My money is on the fact that they figure only business and power users are using Windows 2000, so they just want to rape people for the extra $100. Upgrading my three Windows 2000 PCs to XP would cost me $600.

    It'll be a cold day in hell before I shell out another $600 to MS.

    1. Re:Ridiculous upgrade restrictions�.rape you 4 $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the first time ever, I wasn't rebooting my PC five times a day
      [snip]
      which was experiencing the good old Win98 10-a-day reboot exercise


      I find it strange that I have had a completely different experience from other slashdotter's in regards to the "Windows" experience.

      The beta versions of Windows 95 didn't lock up on my machine (which had flaky memory) more than once every few days. I've used Windows 95, 95 OSR2 and 98 extensively in the home and office and I haven't ever experienced instability on the order of requiring multiple reboots per day.

      I also used NT 4.0 and 2000 extensively as development boxes and I never see any instability unless it was a hardware related issue.

      What gives? Is there a tendenancy of the typical slashdotter to exaggerate about the instability of Microsoft products or is my experience just not typical of Microsoft OS's in general?

    2. Re:Ridiculous upgrade restrictions�.rape you 4 $$$ by arbitrary+nickname · · Score: 1


      It seems to usually be bad drivers, or often lower-level software like virus scanners that f*cks things up... Defective RAM is another common problem that gets blamed on Windows (DOS runs fine... but only uses 640Kb of it...)

      At work, I was rebooting 98 at least 3 times a day - but had a dual-monitor system, lots of resource-hungry apps open (Outlook2K, Photoshop, Vis Studio, and some in-house tools)

      Since installing Win2K about a week ago, I've not had a lock-up or BSOD yet...

      But I've not got the particlarly crippling virus scanner used by the company on all machines installed yet... Then I'm fairly sure my P3-667/256Kb/Geforce256 will behave more like a 16Mb 486 with an overheating problem...

    3. Re:Ridiculous upgrade restrictions�.rape you 4 $$$ by whaley · · Score: 1

      Well, right now the 98SE machine at home doesn't crash when it runs Linux (although I do get Konquerer to segfault but the system seems to run happily after KDE kills it) but it crashes a lot in Win98. It also crashes everytime I shutdown, this problem has gone away for two weeks but now it's back. Time to reinstall Win98 I guess, onless someone knows a magical fix for Win98?

  66. Sure, boycott a product we haven't seen yet!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical slashbots. All that vitriol, and MS is still doing great putting out quality products.

    Hell, I'm going to boycott Gnome 2.x and KDE 3.x, so nyah!!!!

  67. Home Market Irrelevant: MS Secret Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    IMHO, I think MS has a plan to basically force all
    businesses using Windows NT (possibly 9X) to XP, by using a similar tactic they used with Office XP. Businesses will either have to upgrade (by my best guess June 2002) or loose the upgrade pricing. MS will also announce that they are dropping support for WIN NT. This will box businesses into a corner, but it will make Win XP a financial success.

    I don't know of any business (and I work with some of the biggest) who want to upgrade. Most of the Fortune 100 has not upgraded to Win 2K, and are quite happen remaining with NT since it has become fairly stable for a Desktop OS. Microsoft has already stopped releasing Service Packs for NT and its only a matter of time before support for NT is dropped. For instance SP 7 for NT was to be release in May. It never happened. Now you have apply individual hotfixes to patch NT.

    Boycotting is irrelevant because it won't affect MS's bottom line. Your probably not going to have a choice with in a year anyway, because you won't see any driver updates or patches released for the older OS's. It won't surprise me if Windows ME/2000 contains timebomb bugs in them so that in 2003 all kinds of bugs start appearing in system. Since no one except for MS has access to the source code, how can you proof it?

    At this time, the MS OS have matured to a point where it has just about ever feature imaginable. The only way MS can continue its revenue stream is either by FORCING customers to upgrade or by a subscription service.

    Our best option is through support for Open Source Projects to provide an alternate to MS. Support can come in many, many ways. For instance, donations of cash or even equipment to Open Source projects can help. Don't tell me you can't afford to send in $25 or $30 a year for a donation. You don't have to be a programmer to help out either. Can you do art, create audio effects, or write documentation? Don't waste your time boycotting, when you can support your favorate Open Source Project!

    Thanks for reading this!

    1. Re:Home Market Irrelevant: MS Secret Plan by alfredo · · Score: 1

      You're welcomed.

      Look at the great Satan, the NSA, they have released a version of Linux. I have a friend who worked for them until a few months ago. He says Linux is king. Of course the NSA is mostly geeks. I wouldn't expect them to be using windows 95. directing businesses to the NSA site and to SELinux, could give credibility to Linux and open source software. We need more high profile groups who use Open source to step forward. NASA, aren't they using BSD?

      BTW, the US Postal Service is still using W95 and has not intention to upgrade.

      I do believe that once they have a large enough user base for XP, they will switch to a subscription plan.

      You keep plowing and sowing the same field year after year, the soil will wear out, and your crops will fail.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
  68. Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't be long before the OS costs more than the hardware.

  69. What's the alternative? by themaddone · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The problem, as it always has been, is that people can't use Linux.

    Hell, ask anyone... Using Linux probably has never been easier. I, for the first time, installed Red Hat 7.1 a few weeks ago... Until then, I had been a diehard Windows user... Not because I wanted to be, mind you, but because I didn't think I could use Linux, or that it could replace my desktop.

    So I yanked out my Windows HD, put in a clean one, and installed Red Hat. Hell, it astonishingly simple. The biggest problem I had was KDE or Gnome? But then I started using it...

    I'm not a completely naive Windows user... I mean, I read Slashdot, right? But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal, and... Well, it's frustrating. Too frustrating.WindowsXP makes things easier for the average, not so bright computer user. People won't have to upgrade, they'll buy new PCs with XP already on it. And they won't even bother to ask "Can I get Red Hat, or Mandrake, or Slackware on that?" And the reason is simple. Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith, along with groupls like the MPAA and the RIAA and others who eat away at people's freedoms (to choose, to speak, whatever), they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice. And until someone designs a new operating system, one that can run Windows programs, and offers the ease of use that Windows does, you'll never have a real alternative to Windows.

    I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.

    I'm going to keep using Red Hat. Not full time, not even half time. But I'm going to try to learn to be proficient on something that isn't Windows, so I don't have to use Windows. But in the end, it's just a hobby, and I'll keep coming back to /dev/hda1, where I keep Windows.

    -Josh

    1. Re:What's the alternative? by helloRockview · · Score: 1
      You're right. (and brave...posting something like this on in such a pro-Linux environment ;)

      I'm the opposite of you. I have years of UNIX and Linux experience. I understand Linux and use it about half as much as I do my Windows boxes.

      To your point, there are many times that Linux is just not a viable alternative, so you're forced to do Windows (not to mention the use of proprietary Windows-based business apps).

      Even if there is suitable equivalent application in Linux, the real problems seem to pop up in the collaborative business environment, where I have to share and modify Word documents, PowerPoint presentations and Excel spreadsheets with colleagues.

      If worked in a box by myself, Linux would be my only choice. But I don't, so I have a Windows box on my desktop at home and in the office.

    2. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I fully agree - I have a dual boot windows/linux system ( 40 gb HD each ) , but being fairly new to linux (though keen to get more into it ) I still use mainly windows whether it is for games ( a market windows dominates ) for which i have yet to find a good linux one. or java development for which i used linux a fair bit but still use windows mainly (actually i only got linux because he j2ee reference was not available on windows 98).


      I think that until linux contributors get their act together and really target producing an easy to install/use desktop version then windows will continue to be THE o/s , if i can't quite get into it then the average joe public is not going to go for it - and lets face it it is average joe public pulling the strings in most companies re: IT.

    3. Re:What's the alternative? by bero-rh · · Score: 2

      I'd be interested in knowing where you're still having problems - we're all so used to using Linux that we can't see it through the eyes of a beginner (and so don't know which parts need to be changed to make it possible for everyone to convert).

      --
      This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
    4. Re:What's the alternative? by hound3000 · · Score: 1
      The last viable alternative I saw was IBM's OS/2. Where you could run Windows 3.1 programs, and there was a nice base of native OS/2 apps. Then, IBM dropped the ball, did not include support to run Windows 95 apps in OS/2 Warp 4, and then continued to shoot themselves in the foot until they just gave up. But for a couple years there before Windows 95 apps took off, and people stopped making OS/2 apps, it was my OS of choice.

      But again, the main thing here is, if you want the public mass to use Linux or whatever over Windows, you will have to be able to use 99.9% of Windows apps in that operating system.

    5. Re:What's the alternative? by quietlysubversive · · Score: 1

      try /dev/hda1 for starters. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? damn. (i know its like the second hard drive or something, but still)

      for crying out loud. There is one thing that could be significantly improved, is the naming scheme for drives in linux. It makes absolutely zero sense and it is completely unintuitive. By that, I mean, hda1 was arbitrarily picked. It could have been picked as hrdrvA1 or hdda1 or anything like that. its just badd form. bad bad bad.

      --
      ----(o)----
    6. Re:What's the alternative? by dr_db · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What should have been done, in the heady days of overpriced stocks, is usability testing. RedHat, Corel, one of them should have started taking schwoobs off the street, and getting them to use linux and comment on the interface, as well as video taping *how* they use it.

      The only way it will get on the desktop is a better interface - just as good is not enough for people to go through the hassle of learning.

      I use Win2K. I haver played with Linux, but all my clients use win32, so that's what I develop to. I wish I could move enough to Linux to move to an alternative (and the authorization thing in winXP makes me run it down every chance I get). However, they won't, and if I don't supply win32 apps to them, I don't eat.

      Some of you developers out there that are better than me (and there are lots, and many, many more worse than me), build the desktop that will bring them in. Not just a pretty desktop, but you need *compelling* money saving (making?) features that will make businesses move. Instant messaging - awesome business tool. Some kind of video conferencing - awesome tool. Icons that pop out (a la osX) - eye candy but useless. Bunches of rabid supporters that cannot conceive of somebody using an alternative without launching a personal attack - worse than useless. All the linux users out there have to remember that *they* are the alternative users.

      Last bit is a rant - I have been flamed mightly for using Windows. But it is my fucking job, and I hate when people think I should give up work, let my family starve, etc, so I can go to the One True Operating System. (Hey, let's rename Linux OT/OS - heh)

      DB

    7. Re:What's the alternative? by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      I'm not a completely naive Windows user... I mean, I read Slashdot, right? But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal.

      Don't you just love those generic "It's too hard complaints"? Long on complains, low on details. This guy claims to know about Linux "because he reads SlashDot". Trust me, that's not enough. Do you have any idea how many people don't learn anything about Windows by reading ZDNet? Besides, I've read lots of books on playing chess, and I still suck, so trust me, reading isn't always enough.

      Anyway, I always laugh a bit when a supposedly experienced computer user says "Most people can't use Linux because they can't do X and Y and Z..." then claims to be speaking for the average person. I laugh because I've seen lots of computer users who can't do anything other than point-and-click their way through the two or three applications they're familiar with. Sample complaint: "The average person can't secure their Linux box properly." Ha! Spoken as though the average person (or even the average tech at MicroSoft?!) can secure their Windows boxes properly! Trust me, some people can't even figure out hyperlinks ("Where did my homepage go which I pushed the button?).

      Of course, this begs the question of how those people are going to install and start using Linux. But that's a marketing question. Some people might think that they're the same thing (you can't use Linux until you learn it from the get-go), but they're not. Getting the OS on people's computers is separate from how easy it is to use because most people use computers to such a limited degree, and Linux and Windows are so similar in so many ways (the WIMP interface, the programs available, etc) that transition between them for the average person would be relatively minor. Once the OS is installed, most people can do everything they're capable of with it. If the rest is hard to learn, so be it. How many average users can edit registry entries? Trust me, every OS has its obscure corners. They're obscure, i.e. most people need never look in them.

      As a side note, there are lots of people who aren't as competent as they think they are who end up trying to do something unnecessary because they think they have to. I wouldn't assume that this person is one of them, since they were able to install an OS, but who knows, maybe RedHat's install program is just really good? So I have to ask, what were you trying to do exactly? What were you doing in the terminal which (supposedly) most people need to know how to do? We'll never know if what you're doing really was so hard and really does need improving unless you give us the details.

    8. Re:What's the alternative? by Pengo · · Score: 2


      Don't you just love those generic "It's too hard complaints"? Long on complains, low on details. This guy claims to know about Linux "because he reads SlashDot". Trust me, that's not enough. Do you have any idea how many people don't learn anything about Windows by reading ZDNet? Besides, I've read lots of books on playing chess, and I still suck, so trust me, reading isn't always enough.


      Man, don't be such a jerk. The guy has a very valid point. If you want some examples, let me give you some.

      1. Recompiling the kernel to get a sound card or network card working that didn't come w/the distro.

      2. Getting 3D-accell video working so you can play quake 3.

      3. Setting up internet sharing on anything but Linux Mandrake.

      .. etc. etc. etc.

      The windows world is one of 0 documentation, but the difference in Windows is you don't need it.

      At work, home and office I have a Linux/Windows dual box combo for various tasks. For one box I have a STACK of books, the other.. not a single one. ;-) You can guess which one is for which? You got it.. Linux/UNIX. Obviously one was designed to do complicated things, the other wasn't. I wouldn't expect the Windows machine to do what my Linux box can do if I had a stack of Windows manuals. But for the average user, this mentality isn't going to take them far. They want to use the box for accomplishing simple tasks, etc. Unfortunately linux can prohibit at times this from happening. (ie. playing quake 3, etc). Windows makes this DEAD simple. (as does Apple OSX mind you).

      I can't imagine setting up a production webserver on windows any more than I can imagine playing quake 3 on my Linux box. One is for work and one is for play ;-)

    9. Re:What's the alternative? by fymidos · · Score: 0

      Well, i really believe that people can use linux.. and many actually do it ..
      Don't you wonder why ?
      Maybe they think that it's a better choice, right ?
      My point is that even if you don't know how to use it , it's there .. if you decide to learn.
      Maybe someday it will be easier for the average - no so bright user. In my opinion it's very easy as it is ..

      and i am not a power user .. i'm a unix user.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    10. Re:What's the alternative? by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this wasn't in the manual. Did you buy a full version with a manual?

      May I ask, what exactly are you doing that would require you to need this? You don't get to complain about needing to know until you tell us whay the average joe would need to know this! Why aren't you using the KDE or GNOME file managers, or any other file manager, to suit your needs?

      Do you know how hard it is to explain to a new computer user why they have both a C: and D: drive? I've done it. Trust me, if you don't understand partitions, it's hard to learn. Do you know why most Windows machines have no B: drive? Did it ever matter? Did you ever try to explain it to someone?

      Anyway, the solution:

      /dev is just the "device" directory, where all your hard drives, floppy drives, etc are located. Better than putting them in C:\windows\desktop, right?

      hd -- means a "standard" IDE hard drive

      a -- the "first" one (master on first IDE cable)

      1 -- partition number one

      So no, it's not even the tiniest bit arbitrary. Your ide drives are "hd", scsi drives are "sd". They're given letters, like a, b, c, d, in order. Their partitions are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Depending on where your drives are placed on the cables connecting them to your motherboard, and how your drives are partitioned, you may or may not have various of these. Also, something like "hda" refers to the whole drive, while "hda1" refers to partition 1. The partition name is optional.

      The /dev filesystem no doubt contains tons of these for drives which don't exist (e.g. /dev/hdf2). That's intentional, and perhaps somewhat annoying, and exactly like the B: drive situation in Windows. They're placeholders.

      I'd recommend using something like diskdrake to take a look at your partitions so you'll understand them, but that's a Linux-Mandrake tool. I assume RedHat has something similar. Check the manual. You might try linking the primary partitions to more familiar names, like this. Go to the root directory, and as root...

      At the prompt:

      ln -s /dev/hda1 C

      ln -s /dev/hda2 D

      ... and so on. Note that your OS may be installed on a partition other than the first.

      Hmmm... perhaps the Linux distros should do this? You may have discovered a good idea after all, sir!

    11. Re:What's the alternative? by themaddone · · Score: 1

      You know, I'd say that the areas I've having problems with have nothing to do with the complexity, or unworkability of Linux systems, but rather, my inexperience with the OS. I mean, I've been working with MS-DOS since I was 13 or so, before Windows 3.1, so the idea that my "first" hard drive is C:\, and so on, is pretty ingrained into my head. Of course, this means that the idea of /dev/hda1 or anything like that is completely alien. But again, I'll chalk that up to inexperience... If I (or anyone with computer knowledge) use Linux for a significant amount of time, it'll be second nature.

      So if we discount that, and say that no problem I have now can't be overcome by spending time on the system, we're still left with the main problem, or at least what I think is the main problem -- You can't use the GUI for everything. Case in point: When I loaded up RH7.1 for the first time, I had to figure out how to read my other HD... I had no idea what 'mount' was, how to use it, or that I needed to use it. Same with my CD drive. And in order to get it to come up every time, I had to go find something called fstab and figure out how to open it.

      In Windows, these things are automatic. And even when they aren't, Device Manager does a pretty good job of helping to troubleshoot. The IRQ, DMA, I/O information is all right there. It's not foolproof, but all you need it a little idea of what to look for, and almost anyone can do it.

      I think Linux is lacking the 'anyone can do it' part. Anyone can install it (even my roommate, who messed up his MBR and almost got into worlds of trouble), but not anyone can use it. I don't think Windows 3.1 had the same appeal at Windows 95, for the sole reason that you frequently needed to go back to an MS-DOS prompt to get things done. Personally, I think that's where Linux is now. Until you make the terminal obsolete, it will never be a replacement for Windows.

      Everything in Windows is simple, automated, and getting more and more effective. In doing so, it sacrifices personal choice/freedom for ease and usability. Seemingly, Linux does the opposite -- superior choice and freedom, but it isn't easy, and usability is up for debate.

      I don't mean to bash Linux, or claim that Windows is better, or should be used more. I have Red Hat installed on my system so that maybe, just maybe, I can stop myself from getting screwed by MS. The activation idea, Passport, the built in features, I don't want that crap. I want the choice of using Nero, or Roxio to burn CDs... I don't want to be bombarded all over the place by MSN ads. So I do what I can, which isn't much.

      The issue is not people like me, who use Windows because we don't really want to take the time, day in day out, to configure a Linux system to supplant MS as our desktop. The issue is that everyday, someone out there buys a brand new computer for the first time. And it comes complete with Microsoft Windows. And the only reason for that is because if a company like Dell, or IBM, or CompUSA puts Mandrake on a system, it won't sell. And as it is now, it will never sell -- It's incompatable with things at work or school or I can't run games, or whatever. Or better still "Well, everyone else has Windows, so there must be something good about it, right?" It isn't just marketing. Linux isn't even in the game.

      It's like the cliche goes... 'If it was easy, everyone would do it.' Linux may not be rocket science, but it's nowhere near as easy as Windows.

      -Josh

    12. Re:What's the alternative? by 2ms · · Score: 1
      Don't forget that you are learning a new operating system. Of course you are going to have to spend some time in the beginning to learn how to use it. You weren't born knowing how to use Windows either, but that didn't mean you couldn't after a bit of learning.

      The best alternative to Windows would not be an operating system which operated in exactly the same way so you wouldn't have to learn anything to use it.

      To me, saying that Windows users can't use Linux is like saying that Paint users can't use Photoshop, calculator users can't use scientific calculators, etc.

    13. Re:What's the alternative? by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      Man, don't be such a jerk. The guy has a very valid point. If you want some examples, let me give you some.

      Yes, he does have a valid point, but he didn't back it up with any specific evidence. That's all I asked for. The reason being, of course, that many examples of things that are "too hard on Linux" are also too hard for the average user.

      1. Recompiling the kernel to get a sound card or network card working that didn't come w/the distro.

      2. Getting 3D-accell video working so you can play quake 3.

      3. Setting up internet sharing on anything but Linux Mandrake.


      Sure, I'll agree that those are all hard. Do you know what my Mom does when she wants to install a sound card or set up network sharing? Either a) she never, ever does; or b) she calls me. These are all perfect examples of things that the average user doesn't do. (I'm not convinced that 3d acceleration is so hard, but I've been using nVidia cards for a while now, and the instructions for those are pretty thorough, so perhaps I don't know about this one).

      Now, if you want to say that Linux is too hard for moderately experienced users, then make that point. But I am sick of people saying that it's too hard to recompile the kernel when the average user can't even install that new sound card in the first place. You guys are talking about moderately experienced users, not the ladies I used to work with who thought that the mouse moving the cursor is cool, or my Mom who's never used a computer. You're talking about my brother, who plays some video games, has seen a computer opened up, and who might try installing new video card drivers to get a few more FPS. That or higher experience (he wouldn't even try IP Masquerading).

      Of course, maybe you disagree with my assessment of the average user. But I really think the SlashDot crowd massively overestimates the demands that the average user makes on their computer, and doesn't realize that they do so :) That's why I asked for more details.

      As a side note, both the ZDNet bit and the chess bit were jokes. Whay are you calling me a jerk when I'm not only poking fun at myself, but also replying to his article by making a point which is perfectly valid (even if certain people seem to disagree with it)? This is a discussion forum, and that was not a particularly harsh crack, nor an inappropriate comment.

    14. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Best Linux game ever.

      *sigh*

      Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

      Thanks Taco!

    15. Re:What's the alternative? by themaddone · · Score: 1

      Hey, you make valid points yourself. I'm not really making an argument that Linux is too hard (see my other post in the thread). In fact, I don't believe that at all, and I am absolutely willing to chalk it up to my inexpereince, and I'm striving to be more knowledgable.

      But my point is that is isn't 1-2-3. And I don't really think there needs to be more evidence on that, because it's practically taken for granted. And from that, it isn't a competitor for Windows, and espically not a more user friendly WindowsXP.

      I think the goal needs to be to design an operating system that isn't Windows, but is as simple as Windows, and 100% compatable with Windows, so the average user can use it. My 'can't tell a toaster from a computer Mom', can make do with Linux as is, because she wouldn't use anything but the most basic functions... Internet and e-mail. Hell, Linux is better for her, since she can't run those damn .exe e-mail attachments... But the moment Mom tries to install a program... (And my Mom's smart, she'll get bored with just e-mail and internet...)

      That's all I'm trying to say here, I think.

      -Josh

    16. Re:What's the alternative? by Pengo · · Score: 2

      Ok, sorry for calling you a jerk.. point taken. ;-) Was pretty trollish of me to say such a thing.

      Anyway, yeah... Installing a new sound card on a PC or upgrading a video card on your mac would be something an above-average person would try.. but I would be surprised if someone w/out 6-month to 1 year experience using linux and getting used to the in's and out's of the system could do such a thing.

      Lets take moms and stupid co-workers out of the view for a few minutes. I have a younger brother who is a programmer. He has years and year of Windows experience. He knows how to use Linux, and even does all his text editing in VI. (I know, VI doesn't make the man..

      He tried to install RedHat on his machine as he is learning C++ and wanted to use kdevelop. By the time I helped him get XWindows working correctly as his monitor he installed was different than the one he was really using, changing his network settings (Tried RedHat 7.1 lately?) get his strange network card working, (again this was after install he put it in..) and then readjust the frequency on the monitor from 75 hz which it seemed to be stuck at until I pointed him on how to edit the xconfig file. .. anyway, it was like this .. blah blah blah for about 2 days when he finaly talked me into going over and helping him work through some of these issues as he was pretty frustrated.

      Now me as a linux hobiest thrive on such challenges, but his mentality is not so tinkerish. This is not good, it's not bad.. it's just him. I would say that there are quite a few people out there like him too.

      Anyway, the point is.. until these almost-trivial to technofile linux guru's are trivial to people that just don't have time to muck with it (ie. my brother) ... Linux is going to be a voodoo magick-stick only used by witch-doctor techno-skum like us. :) Might I add, this same person bought a G4 about 4 1/2 weeks ago and has sinced turned off that linux machine as he can do everything he needs (development/colaboration with coworkers) on a single machine. OSX seems to be doing what linux hasn't been able to. Take Unix to Mom.

    17. Re:What's the alternative? by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      try /dev/hda1 for starters. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? damn. (i know its like the second hard drive or something, but still)

      In Linix, the /dev/hd* files represent the hard drives. /dev/hda is the first drive, /dev/hdb is the second drive, and so on. The number at the end is the partition, for example /dev/hda1 is the first partition of the first hard drive and /dev/hdb3 is the 3rd partition of the 2nd hard drive.

      I agree that the way Linux accesses devices is outdated and unintuitive. This is something devfs is working on.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    18. Re:What's the alternative? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because there is a logical order to it does not mean that it is easy to use or worth keeping around.

      I've got to agree with the previous poster - Unix is in no shape to be used by mere mortals. However, I don't really think that it can be saved.

      This isn't to say that I'm a big fan of anything else currently on the market - everything sucks. But it is far far better to develop a system where usability is a core concern from day one than to keep trying to add a facade onto Unix, or worse yet, just giving to people as is. The former option, if solidly built, if designed to have a compatability layer through which it can still run Unix software, strikes me as being a far far better option.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    19. Re:What's the alternative? by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right, Linux is very "tinkerish". I figure the point of most distros is to hide the tinkerishness with lots of GUIs and so on. It's a really interesting marketing question, though, whether a given distro has gone far enough for the "average user". If this thread tells us anything, it's that most of us are above-average users, and we really need some average and below-average users to get involved before we learn anything :)

      I wonder if the major distros, even the distros which focus on "ease of use", do any testing on normal folks? I know that some of them let us download their betas, but then it ends up being only the very most experienced users who get to try them out. And anyway, that's mostly for bugfixing purposes. Who does the useability testing?

    20. Re:What's the alternative? by mattdm · · Score: 2

      (So, um, biting down on the troll, here: )

      The 'h' in "/dev/hda1" is a bit weird, but beyond that it makes totally sense and isn't arbitrary at all: All devices are in "/dev/". "hd" means IDE hard drive -- SCSI hard drives are "sd". It's "a" because it's the first device of this type -- "hd0" would have been reasonable too. And "1" because it's the first partition on that drive. So it's actually a fairly reasonable hierarchical naming scheme. It may not be "intuitive", but few things in computers really are: it's just a matter of what you're used to.

      The situation on Unix seems better than the one on DOS/Windows, where hard drives and partitions are given letters in basically random order, with CDROM and other devices thrown into the mix -- and since the second floppy drive (what power user would buy a system with only one floppy drive, right?) is "B", hard drives always start at C. Now *that's* arbitrary and unintuitive.

    21. Re:What's the alternative? by seann · · Score: 0

      I don't think I've ever had IRQ problems in linux, I know in windows they are a dime a dozen.
      (Actually, I Can't run windows98 on this machine, it locks up randomly every N minutes (Where N is a predictable number, I can actually say "No. I can't send you that file my computers about to lock u..Connection Reset by Peer")
      WinMe locks up less, 2k was stable, but thats a joke. Atleast I can use my ATi Allinwonder without crashing (News on this? ATi AIW 16meg AGP Win2k drivers stable at all?)

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    22. Re:What's the alternative? by seann · · Score: 0

      from what I knew last year, OS/2 was still being maintained.
      Mind you, at it's original pace. (No win9* support)

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    23. Re:What's the alternative? by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 2

      try /dev/hda1 for starters. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? damn. (i know its like the second hard drive or something, but still)


      What are you doing that you need to use the /dev/hda1 device name? In my experience, the install sets up your /etc/fstab for you and you don't need to worry about the "/dev/hda1" thing (or even the "/etc/fstab" thing).

    24. Re:What's the alternative? by hound3000 · · Score: 1
      No, not really.

      OS/2 gets minor lip service from IBM, thats it. A few years ago, around the release of OS/2 Warp 4, a few of us tried starting up a OS/2 User Group here in town. After the first couple months, even the IBM guy didn't show up. But besides that, there hasn't been a REAL new version of OS/2 since then (1996), and they've shown no gusto to develop a new one. If you want a alternative OS for end users from IBM, you've got nothing.

      Those service pack updates they released last year do not amount to support.

    25. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one who until very recently worked for IBM supporting the OS/2 base code (kernel, shell, file-system, etc), I can attest that OS/2 is very much alive and kicking, and plans are in place to keep it so until at least 2006 (when the last of the support contracts expire).

      IBM might have 'dropped the ball', as someone I saw here put it, but there were a number of mitigating factors that led to this, not the least of which were a total lack of OEM support, atrocious developer support (at the time), and skyrocketing support costs from Joe Blows who continually made it through the support cracks and managed to eek out defect support without any kind of support contract. I know, this may not be a very popular statement to make on such a pro-open source forum, but the economic realities of having to actually _PAY_ upwards of 500 support staff techs and developers is a little demanding. This, more than anything, led to how OS/2 is marketed today - to the businesses who are willing to put big $$$ on the line for those support contracts. Management basically came to the (correct) assumption that we were never going to out-market or beat MS in the consumer space, and there wasn't much point in fighting a losing battle.

      I won't even get into the ammount of co-developed code that I know for a _FACT_ M$ took from the OS/2 co-development and put into NT (secretly, mind you) before the big bomb dropped and they announced the 'divorce' form IBM to develop NT on their own. Bahh.

      Anyway, this is truning into a rant. All I wanted to say was that OS/2 is not now marketed as a consumer OS, and it will not be so ever again (obviously). We took too many lumps from that fight, and there's still a lot of money to be made from clients who still need to run a lot of those legacy apps in a stable and secure environment, but (wisely) don't want to have to sell their soul to Redmond to do it.

    26. Re:What's the alternative? by t1m0r4n · · Score: 1
      For one box I have a STACK of books, the other.. not a single one. ;-) You can guess which one is for which? You got it.. Linux/UNIX.

      You have not a single book for Linux? Me neither! And like you, I have piles of three ring binders from the Microsoft Official Curriculum which cost me $15,000! Not to mention a half dozen other $75 books and a few magazine subscriptions too as I'm trying to complete the MCSE. Man, you are SO right. Linux is way easier than Windows. Like 7 or 8 years ago I read the first edition of Running Linux, and since then, well, computer life had been a joy. Until I had to learn Windows. Before linux I used a Mac, so the command line stuff was kind of strange at first, but easy enough to learn. But Windows, man, there are so many exceptions, so many inconsistencies, so many things that are just wrong. I thought I was the only one who found Windows a royal pain in the behind to try to learn after years of linux. Glad I'm not the only one, brother.

    27. Re:What's the alternative? by anotherbadassmf · · Score: 1
      The alternative of course is to not buy XP and stay with 98/NT/2000/ME/Mandrake/Red Hat etc.

      Why do people feel so compelled to upgrade?

      No one is forcing you.

    28. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "I should give up work, let my family starve,"

      If the only means you have to keep your family from starving is to write windows apps then by all means go ahead. I guess I am one of those lucky people who can do more then one thing. I know many languages, know many operating systems, and know quite a bit about networking (a bit about project mangement too). I can pick and choose what I want to do. Thanks for remind me that there are a lot of people in this world who are basically one trick ponies. I will try to make that fact a competitive advantage in the future.

      You better hope MS survives the next round of legal wrangling intact and also survives the sates and the european union inquiry too. It seems like you have put all your eggs in this basket. Good luck to you.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    29. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " You're right. (and brave...posting something like this on in such a pro-Linux environment ;)"

      What are nuts? The man is marked +5 insighful (although I really looked for some insight in his post could not find any). The days of slashdot being a pro-linux environment are long gone. The MS astro turfers make sure any pro windows post immediately gets modded up to +5. This is prime proof of that.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    30. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Have you ever heard of a thing call MacOSX? You should look into it because you just described it.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    31. Re:What's the alternative? by Debiant · · Score: 1

      I don't know who does usability testing, but I know I'm below average or average user of Linux.

      What little I've used more newbie friendly Linuxes(like Red Hat) suggest me that their
      problems is that they have nice GUI that people come dependant quickly, but which hides
      the things they shoud learn. The GUI also isn't often one GUI, it is zig zagging combination
      of small applications that all have diffrent GUIs, and who functions sometimes overlapp while on the otherhand they also miss some fundamental functions.

      Also for newbie, linux is confusing as some things are automated
      and others aren't. Just think installing a package. Installing can be automatic, but unlike MS
      products you don't get the package to some menu unless one has right windows manager with right settings. Small newbie problem, but simple and annoying.
      Basically linux is easy to install(if distro and hardware agree they suit each other that is ) but after
      that comes steep drop as users are left disoriented for reasons I say above and below.

      And the hardware....achilles heel of Linux. Not that lot of would not work when it has drivers, but there are lot of things that don't work. Or when they work getting them to work right can sometimes be pure pain. I think network cards, audio and videocards are propably things that cause most problems. I for example didn't get my one computers network card to function with Linux at all, luckily I could switch them between computers. And audio card really seems to hate me with linux.And x-windows works but in my case gmc won't start under gnome. This all can be partly distro related, but there are lot of distros with diffrent problems between diffrent evolutions of them . How newbie is to know about them all beforehand to know which suits best for his hardware?

      Admitted, same areas(multimedia and network hardware) are quite problematic under Windows too. Diffrence is that newbie may not know with linux where the problem is or how to look for it. Some newbies may just be unaware that something isn't supported under his distro because he either doesn't get any input of problems and doesn't know from where to look. And just gets frustrated
      as he doesn't know at all is the problem with computer, user or linux. After all, he can't many cases go to hardware purchasers web page or person who sold linux distro(if he even bought it that is)to him to get some answers. With Windows, he atleast could get good answers why something doesn't
      work or why it should work(but still doesn't).

      Not that this all would matter as I use my Linux as a server which works excellently. Infact I just right now sit on front of Windows 2000 and use linux Mozilla over local network. Works beautifully. If I just would get sound to this end from Linux and scandianvian keybmap supported in VNC it all would be perfect.

      To make clear, I like Linux. I for example couldn't think switching my Debian server to MS product.
      Infact I wouldn't mind moving totally to linux otherwise too, but like some people have noted,
      learning linux isn't awfully cost effiecient business for not-so-gifted computer users and there are GOOD reasons why lot of people are kept on Windows side what comes rest of society. For example I've done some DTP myself and in my opionion home printing/photographing has done big leaps lately what comes to computers. I'd be left out of both if I would use Linux only. Or atleast limit myself in both respect.

      I use both gladly, and won't migrate to XP from Windows 2000 until I'm assured that XP::

      a) offers something that I absolutely need and reasons isn't Microsoft.
      b) it's new multimedia features won't crash the whole machine
      c) is as stable as Windows 2000
      d) doesn't restrict me to do less than with Windows 2000

      --
      Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
    32. Re:What's the alternative? by hound3000 · · Score: 1
      As one who until very recently worked for IBM supporting the OS/2 base code (kernel, shell, file-system, etc), I can attest that OS/2 is very much alive and kicking, and plans are in place to keep it so until at least 2006 (when the last of the support contracts expire).

      First of all, if you worked on around the days of 2.1, and 3.0 Warp. Thank You. I loved that product, and ran it as my daily OS for some time, and only then and again dual booted to PC DOS 7. (Another nice and quality product.)

      IBM might have 'dropped the ball', as someone I saw here put it, but there were a number of mitigating factors that led to this, not the least of which were a total lack of OEM support skip a few Management basically came to the (correct) assumption that we were never going to out-market or beat MS in the consumer space, and there wasn't much point in fighting a losing battle.

      I think they had a fighting chance at it. Now, I cannot verify this at all, but I heard a nasty rumor that one of the Ziff Davis Mags had a top 10 software in one of its magazines back then. OS/2 Warp 3 went to #2 or #3, and then the #(*%@ cancelled the column. It was picked back up several months later when OS/2 was back down to #9 or so, and quickly fell off the chart. When you only had 3.1 Windows Apps to content with, and OS/2 was running them infinately more stable than 3.1 could, it sold.

      I won't even get into the ammount of co-developed code that I know for a _FACT_ M$ took from the OS/2 co-development and put into NT (secretly, mind you) before the big bomb dropped and they announced the 'divorce' form IBM to develop NT on their own. Bahh.

      Unfortunately, the hasn't been the last time any company, even as big as IBM has gotten the short end of the stick. Hopefully, it will be one the ending factors into MS.

      Anyway, this is truning into a rant.

      I haven't had this much fun on a OS/2 talk in years.

      All I wanted to say was that OS/2 is not now marketed as a consumer OS, and it will not be so ever again (obviously). We took too many lumps from that fight, and there's still a lot of money to be made from clients who still need to run a lot of those legacy apps in a stable and secure environment, but (wisely) don't want to have to sell their soul to Redmond to do it.

      Sadly though, I don't see OS/2 being marketed as anything these days, and asides from the corporate accounts it was sold to years ago, I don't see it being maintained. At least not for anything other than legacy, we (IBM) made a deal with company X, and we (IBM) are going to stick by it.

      Once again, I loved OS/2 but I think it is dead. And I would love to see another OS come back around whether it be Linux or something else to run Windows apps to get the end user in the door. Also, I read once that 'the command line should always be useful, but never nessiacary.' (sic) (somewhere in a Mac OS X comment I believe.)

    33. Re:What's the alternative? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      New hardware won't have the option of having the older versions of the OS installed. And it's illegal to install the CD you purchased for another computer.

      So older versions of Windows won't remain acceptable in the office environment. It's happening. My boss man thinks it's a good idea (really!). I think he's crazy, but I doubt he's the only one.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:What's the alternative? by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Or something. It's the normal DOS/Windows C: drive. It's not the "second" anything. The first or only drive. The first or only partition on that drive. It is useful to remember what that drive/partition is called on a system that is capable of handling many partitions on many drives.

      There is very little arbitrary about hda1. "a" as in "abcdefg...". Kindergarten stuff. "1" as in "123456...". Again, kindergarten stuff. "hd" as in "hard drive". "sd" for SCSI drive. How is "drdrv" or "hdd" any better than "hd"? Or do you prefer "scsi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)"?

      Is C: any better or more intuitive?
      First partition of the master drive of the primary IDE controller?
      Now just try to maintain sanity with a SCSI controller or two.
      For more fun, add a Promise ATA controller to the mix.

    35. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware support, for one. Windows comes with support for thousands of devices. With Linux, you have to either hunt down the drivers, or write your own. Three of my hardware devices didn't have drivers, so I had to write my own. 99% of people aren't going to do that.

    36. Re:What's the alternative? by archen · · Score: 1

      tinkering is one thing, but dealing with things you shouldn't even have to tinker with is another. At work I was experimenting with converting a few older computers over to Linux terminals. So I installed Redhat 7.1 - everything goes smoothly and it's all set up until I log in and type "startx". X crashes, because there's a mouse problem. It's an MS intellimouse so it's not an uncommon mouse. Mouseconfig doesn't work so I download some patches and it still doesn't work. I select the "no mouse" option and X still doesn't work. Not to bitch about my problems (er... guess I just did), but all this just to get the MOUSE to work? I like to tinker with stuff too, but I don't want to screw with a computer for an hour just trying to get the freaking mouse to work - I mean that to me is something fundamental that should work right out of the box. And people ask me what I'm doing (as I use Vim to go though the xconfig file), and I tell them I'm trying to get the mouse to work - and they look at me like I'm completely insane.

      I guess I'll also add that I've never had this problem installing Linux with any other computer.

    37. Re:What's the alternative? by HeUnique · · Score: 2

      Okay,

      Now compile the kernel with DEVFS - and explain it to him ;))

      --
      Hetz (Heunique)
    38. Re:What's the alternative? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Heh. You ought to read some of the Mac boards. On MacNN particularly, I've got a reputation for attacking OS X. Believe me, I'm not trying to praise it now.

      There's a lot of different reasons why, but among others, they _didn't_ tear things down, look at the successes and failures of the past, and build something that was a great leap ahead of everything else. It's fundementally still Unix, and while I'm all for having an OS as reliable as Unix, one that's as flexible as Unix, one that can run Unix software, I'd much rather prefer that it _wasn't_ Unix.

      It's useful to look towards the past for examples; but we need to keep moving ahead, not reheating what was once cutting edge. That Unix is over thirty years old means no one's done much good in the past several decades - not that Unix is the paragon of operating systems.

      Again, everything pretty much sucks. At least Be had the right idea in starting from a clean slate, even if their lack of funding did them in in the end. Imagine if someone with resources like Microsoft did that. (which to a certain extent, they did do with NT) Or Apple. (which tried with Pink, but that died for mostly political reasons - Copland was more of a reworking of the old MacOS, and not a good example)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    39. Re:What's the alternative? by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but then again why don't you stay with Kernel 2.0 for a couple of years or so?

    40. Re:What's the alternative? by pjrc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem ... is that people can't use Linux.

      I see this same statement all the time, and while I generally agree with it, just yesterday it finally occured to me why I find it so bothersome. That reason is simply:

      They can't really use Microsoft Windows either.

      These masses of "average joe" users who will never be able to use linux really don't know how to use windows either. Almost everything about the computer is "too hard" for them... except playing a couple simple games, reading email and surfing the web, and sometimes struggling through a word processor.

      In all of these cases where the "can" use windows, they are blissfully unaware of 95% of the features that the software offers them. They save their files whereever the "save as" dialog defaults, and later if someone asks them to copy the file onto a floppy, they have no idea how to do it or even where they put the file on their drive. These are the masses that constantly need someone to "fix the computer". I could go on and on (but not today).

      The point is that saying "linux is too hard" is usually meant to imply that "but windows is easy". The sad truth is that the vast majority of the population can't really use ANY operating system, linux, windows, macos, Be, whatever. Of course, the vast majority of the driving population can't change their car's oil or probably even a tire, and they can't program their on-screen controls VCR, etc, etc.

      Sure, windows is probably overall a bit easier, largely because of automated install programs and more commercial software (that has a lot of work put into reducing costly tech support queried).

      For these mainstream novice users, the system they've invested hundreds of hours not really using in any signifcant way, but stumbling and strugging through to get the minimal "productivity" they manage is going to be easier than anything that is a change, not matter how much a change for the better it may happen to be.

      Well, that's enough ranting for now. There's already hundreds of messages, so it's highly unlikely many people will read this... but I feel a bit better finally coming to terms why "people can't use linux" bothers me, when I generally agree with the statement.

    41. Re:What's the alternative? by anotherbadassmf · · Score: 1
      Come on, what are the real advantages of XP that the average user would notice ?

      Surely going one step closer to a subscription-based model where Microsoft restricts what you can read, listen to etc. and generally fucks you over is not an advantage?

    42. Re:What's the alternative? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1
      The problem, as it always has been, is that people can't use Linux.

      Actually, since using Linux is now easier to use than Windows XP, I would agree with everyone else that's replied with "Well, that's because Joe User can't use Windows either." (besides the fact that I've worked in tech support... I know people don't know dick about using windows)

      Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith, ... they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice.

      There's LOTS of better choices. And cheaper choices. All the free unix-like operating sysetms are better for desktop use than Windows is for Joe User who never does anything with a computer besides e-mail, using the web, word processing, their budget and maybe even watching DVD's if they can manage that much. However, even I, a UNIX systems administrator use Windows at home. Why? There are exactly two applications that I use that I can't (or won't) do without. And they're games. (nuff said)

      I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.

      Okay, that's great. What do your economics classes tell you about the economics of monopolies? Consider Microsoft's case.

      To compete with Microsoft on the desktop, you need four things: The shiny new operating system, support from computer manufacturers, (the only way you're going to get most people to use your new OS is by selling it with their computer - they'll likely never change it) support from developers (which you'll need, because without applications, your OS is useless) and mega advertising bucks. The first and last things are easy - they just require money. The two in the middle are far from it however.

      Manufacturers don't want to annoy Microsoft by offering a second choice to consumers because if they do, Microsoft will either increase the price of their OEM license or they'll revoke it completely. And to them, Windows is the proven choice as opposed to your upstart and uncertain OS (after all, they have *all* the applications right now).

      Getting the help of Developers is even harder. They're going to develop their applications for Windows anyway - It's what runs on 95% of the desktops, and it's where the profit is. Writing a different copy for your new operating system is an added expense, and again, one with uncertain returns. The vast majority of developers won't even bother porting to your OS until you have a suitably large portion of the desktop market, and without their support you probably won't get it, so it's a perfect catch 22. You could always do what Microsoft does though, and build your own killer apps that get bundled with the new computers you're hopefully selling.

      Add to these difficulties the fact that Microsoft will gladly put pressure on the hardware manufactuers and the software developers in the form of incentives to use theirs over yours, or in the form of disincentives for using yours. (an excellent example is how they got ISP's to use IE over Netscape... in some cases not only giving IE away, but giving ISP's special deals that made IE "better than free," or what happens to computer resellers that suddenly start paying more for Windows because they do things Microsoft Does Not Like). What does all this add up to? To me, it sounds like an enormous gamble of a business venture which has about a 90%+ chance in ending in bankruptcy and about a hundred million dollars (likely more than that) in hard cash down the drain. Most businessmen that have had experience dealing with Microsoft - especially in competition like Netscape has - will laugh themselves to tears at such an endeavour before telling you that your money is better spent at the craps tables in Reno than in competition with Microsoft.

      It's not about whether better technology exists to compete with Microsoft (it does) because it isn't a technology issue, it's a business issue. Microsoft is in a perfect business position to maintain a monopoly indefinitely. Not even big businesses like IBM can stop them. (see: OS/2)

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    43. Re:What's the alternative? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1
      Go to school, buy some books and learn how to program so you can make your own OS and put up so you can shut up.


      :)

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    44. Re:What's the alternative? by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      the multiple logins feature, integrated CD burning, Hibernation, multilingual support, mediaplayer 8, IE6, system restore, remote assistance, etc. All good reasons for the average user to upgrade.

    45. Re:What's the alternative? by mj6798 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal, and... Well, it's frustrating. Too frustrating.WindowsXP makes things easier for the average, not so bright computer user.

      You spent years getting familiar with Windows. You can't expect to pick up Linux in a day. This says nothing about the relative quality or utility of the different OSes.

      In fact, learning Linux probably is initially harder than learning Windows. On the other hand, learning Linux is probably a more valuable skill: you learn to use software that doesn't change every year. And once you understand the command line tools and scripting, you can do really amazing things very quickly.

      The biggest problem I had was KDE or Gnome? But then I started using it...

      I think the answer is: it doesn't matter. Learn to use LaTeX, Emacs, xterm, and the standard POSIX tools. Learn Python or Perl. And if you are an "economist in training", learn R (for data analysis).

    46. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      It's easier to bitch I guess.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    47. Re:What's the alternative? by whaley · · Score: 1

      > 1. Recompiling the kernel to get a sound card
      > or network card working that didn't come w/the
      > distro.

      What network and sound drivers don't come with the distribution (Debian, in my case) these days? I got my cheap PCI NE-2000 clone and my SoundBlaster PCI64 working by just using modconf.

      If you're a lucky Windows user you got the cd with the card, and have it handy the first time Windows sees you have a new piece of hardware, otherwise you're bound to get into just as much (or more) trouble than with Linux.

      > 2. Getting 3D-accell video working so you can
      > play quake 3.

      I don't play Quake, but I wished that I could run Motorhead on Linux.

      > 3. Setting up internet sharing on anything but
      > Linux Mandrake.

      Never got it to work in Windows (98SE). I believe you need a commercial program called WinGate for that? I tried Internet Connection Sharing but couldn't get it to work. It was quite easy to set up using the isdnutils package where I needed to add (actually, uncomment did most of the job) a few lines to the configuration.

      Right now, I think setting up and using a new Windows version is relatively easy when you have prior Windows experience, but in my experience when you get stuck in Windows you truely get stuck and even though sometimes the online Windows Knowledge Base helps, most of the times you either forget about what you wanted to do or reinstall Windows and try again. When I first used Linux (a very old Slackware version) this was the same, I had to completely reinstall a few times in order to get it working like I wanted. But I've seen colleagues installing RedHat 7 in one simple attempt when they didn't have any experience with Linux at all. I think it's getting easier. Still, having to edit a file in /etc or changing XF86Config isn't truly user-friendly. But Windows isn't either.

    48. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still have 2.0 kernel boxes that work fine. There's no point upgrading them. They're not on an insecure network connected to the internet, and they're not doing anything that needs a new kernel.

      Unlike with MS software, the 2.0 boxes still interoperate fine with newer linux versions, rather than the "windows way" of Win2k buggering up the SMB network for earlier windows releases.

      Microsoft really suck.

    49. Re:What's the alternative? by clare-ents · · Score: 2

      "
      1. Recompiling the kernel to get a sound card or network card working that didn't come w/the distro.

      2. Getting 3D-accell video working so you can play quake 3.

      3. Setting up internet sharing on anything but Linux Mandrake.
      "

      However, these moderately difficult tasks don't get easier on Windows either.

      I spent 2 weeks tracking down instructions for installing my scanner under Windows 2000. The driver disk supplied with the scanner a: didn't work and b: fucked the registry so that the real drivers wouldn't install. Registry hacking to make it go. I still haven't managed to make the modem go from Win2k, admittedly I can't make my linux box auto failover from DSL to modem either but both platforms have a whole range of difficult tasks.

      I can't get my linux laptop to print to a HP network connected printer easily like I can under Windows, I can't have my windows partition automatically reconfigure it's network from work / home / friends automatically like it does under linux. I don't have enough memory / disk space to install IIS / SQL-Server on my laptop but apache / mysql / postgresql are fine. I can't run applications on my home windows machine from work but I can use linux apps on the linux machine from everywhere. That said, sometimes it's a real bitch to get the CD out of my Linux machine.

      As far as I can see. The easy tasks are just as simple on both, the middle tasks are easier on Windows, the hard tasks easier on Linux.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    50. Re:What's the alternative? by r_newman · · Score: 1
      But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal, and... Well, it's frustrating.


      My uncle, technophobe extraordinaire uses RedHat 7.1 happily, ever since I removed the various icons for terminals from his KDE panel and menus. When I installed it for him (he had previously tried RH7.0) I told him to forget the terminal, that in this "new & improved" version, there's no need for him to access the console at all. Well, in the 4 short weeks since, he's come along in leaps & bounds and is now more proficent with configuring KDE than I am. (I run X for the X-terms not a pretty GUI).

      I have been criticised by a number of people for "hiding the true power of Linux" from him, but the fact is these people grew up on Windows and what they're really looking for is Windows without the instability, high price and copyright restrictions.

      --
      Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
    51. Re:What's the alternative? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I'm at school, I've bought books, but for an entirely different subject that'll have me working in a field that allows no time for such pursuits.

      Of course, I worked in design, including user interface design, for some years already, so it's not unusual for me to give directions to programmers. Most people find a division of effort to be quite useful. Although it must be remembered, there are _no_ qualifications needed to justly complain about something. Hell, imagine complaining b/c your doctor cut off your leg, and being told to shut up until you've gotten a medical degree. No, while in UI it's often best not to take a user's advice as to how to fix things, it is always worth listening to their complaints, and trying to deal with them as best as possible. They're the ones that are supposed to be happy; I don't care if the developers are, that's just a bonus factor.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    52. Re:What's the alternative? by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

      The Alternative: DON'T UPGRADE TO XP. Keep 2k/98 if you want.

    53. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to throw my two cents in..I don't mind reading through masses of documentation to set things up, because that's the sort of thing I like to do I guess. My biggest problem right now, the -only- one that's keeping me from running and developing under any one of the distributions out there, is the problem of consistency between window managers..I mean, having to install two different, whole window managers just to get the programs written under both to work properly is ridiculous; especially since I only want to run one of them (KDE..I happen to like it :>). That along with the lack of a few programs that I'd like to have, and somewhat low hardware support. After saying that, however, I do definitely realize how far Linux has come along in the past few years. I mean nVidia, arguably the top video card/chipset designer in the world today, makes a Linux driver for their cards! They don't have to do it, none of the companies do. But they do, because they know that their Linux audience deserves attention as well; they can see something big happening, it just hasn't quite gotten out of the box yet. Hopefully someday very soon, it will :>

    54. Re:What's the alternative? by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      Trust me, if you don't understand partitions, it's hard to learn.

      Heh. Then try to explain the difference between a filesystem and a partition...

    55. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Let me see if I get you right.

      You want an operating system as reiable as unix, as flexable as unix, and that can run unix but you don't want to use unix because it's old. Is that right?

      Maintaining backwards compatibility will doom you to hell forever. If you want a new OS there are a bunch being worked on right now. From inferno to atheos to hurd to symbian people are trying out new ideas all the time. Unfortunately no commercial effort can succeed due to the chokehold on innovation that MS maintains with it's monopoly. Starting an OS company when MS is around is just suicide (look at the string of technically superior operating systems windows has left in it's wake). Actually that's an opportunity for people like you. You can jump in and make a difference in any of these projects. Go get involved it's more fun then standing at the sidewalk and pointing.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    56. Re:What's the alternative? by danox · · Score: 1

      This is so true, I remember the first time I switched from OS/2 to wind95. . . I sat there staring at the green desktop and strange grey bar. I was all like . . . so . .. where are all the programs? what the hell am I supposed to do. Start? what the hell does that mean.

      I must admit though that jumping from win2k to openBSD took me longer . . . in fact I am still in the transition period, but I still remember the zen state that win95 got me into that first time I sat contemplating its strangeness

      The same goes for people around me, my flatemates had never used win95 when they first tried to open a word processor on my machine one day when I was out (grrr), and after an hour of trying to work it out they gave up and gave me shit about why I can't have a normal computer (I assume they meant a win3.1 box, but who the hell knows really)

      Windows is hard as hell when you don't know it

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
    57. Re:What's the alternative? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, actually it being compatable with Unix is just a bonus; it's not strictly necessary. (I'd just hope that POSIX could be implemented decently on non-Unix systems) Further, I don't _just_ want to supplant Unix because it's old.

      Unix is fundementally extremely difficult to use. So much so that I don't think that it's possible to remedy. What many people don't realize is that you simply cannot tack on UI at the last second - it must be designed at the beginning of the project, it is one of the most significant concerns, and it must dictate a lot of the technical requirements of the system.

      I'm not arguing that MS has a chokehold on the market, or that it's pretty much impossible to develop other UIs on its turf. But just because Unix has held out against it this long doesn't make it particularly good at anything except being resilent against MS; that's not all that stunning on technical or usability grounds.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    58. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know for a _FACT_ M$ took from the OS/2 co-development and put into NT (secretly, mind you)

      Let's see: NT supported HPFS and OS/2 1.x applications and Microsoft sold it as an upgrade to OS/2 users.

      The NT Resource Kit informed customers that the SMB networking was ported directly from (OS/2) LAN Manager, the service was even called "Lanman Server" in NT 3.5

      Not to mention the many press publications about "OS/2 NT 3.0", and the fact that one of the main points of the divorce agreement was the cross-licencing of all co-developed operating system products.

      So, no, NT's roots in OS/2 was never a big secret.

    59. Re:What's the alternative? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "Unix is fundementally extremely difficult to use. So much so that I don't think that it's possible to remedy."

      I think I disagree with you vehemntly on this point. I think that you (like most people) confuse easy to use and easy to learn. Unix is harder to learn but once learned it's easy to use. It's like vi, sed, awk or even the find command. These tools are very hard to learn and proficient at but once learned and combined they can make your computer sing and dance like windows never even imagined. They let you get your job done in one tenth the time. I'll give you a DOS example. Let's say that I want to get rid of all the jpeg files on my C drive. I can either type "del *.jpg /s" or I can do this.
      start->find
      Type in *.jpg
      Hit search button.
      Wait
      select first file
      scroll down a very long list
      hold shift key and click your mouse selecting the entire list
      hit the delete key (or do the whole right mouse button dance).
      Click OK on the "are you sure" button.

      Which one is easier to USE? Which one is easier to LEARN.

      "But just because Unix has held out against it this long doesn't make it particularly good at anything except being resilent against MS; that's not all that stunning on technical or usability grounds."

      Well considering that no other operating system has been able to stand the onslaught of MS I'd say it was very stong proof that it's a good OS. Despite the fact that MS can throw billions into making NT better and attacking unix the fact that Unix is still standing is very strong evidence that it's technically more desirable. If it wasn't significantly better it would be long dead.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  70. XP Home is CRIPPLED. by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The biggest problem with XP Home is how they neutered networking support.

    For instance, with my W98SE box, I can login to my Windows 2000 Server box and join the domain I set up there. It's not the same support as my W2K Pro box, but the differences are technical minutiae.

    You won't be able to do that with XP Home. The only networking XP Home will be able to do is peer-to-peer, NetBEUI over TCP/IP. XP Home will NOT be able to join a domain, period. They're doing this to force companies with 2K domains to buy Pro rather than Home.

    One good thing: W2K Pro CDs will drop down in price at the computer fairs when XP arrives. It's faster and better than XP and it makes 9x feel like the toy OS it is. So far, no BSODs here at Catseye Labs with W2K.

    One day, we will be able to stand back and see that 2K was the high-water mark for M$ operating systems. With all the unnecessary crap that M$ is loading into XP, the ugly interface, Product Activation, phoning home, etc. etc. etc, M$ is basically doing to itself what the DOJ couldn't do. Now is the time for Linux to get its act together and make a desktop experience that is easier, better and faster than XP. Shouldn't take much. Mandrake with KDE is almost there, IMHO.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:XP Home is CRIPPLED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Windows, I find, is even harder to "go out of the norm".

      To do stuff that's just a simple edit of a text file on Linux, or an XML-formatted text file on OS X, I have to dive into the wierd and opaque "registry" database.

      Even X on Linux, which has the "X resource database", which is startlingly similar to the registry in some ways, uses plaintext files.

      Using Windows is more like using a TV than a computer. My main worry is that, unlike the "old" days of AmigaOS and the 8-bits, people are not even given the opportunity to program windows to any degree of power without paying for the priviledge or downloading third-party tools.

      People who "learn windows" DON'T LEARN HOW TO USE A COMPUTER, they learn how to be spoon fed drivel.

      They miss the massive, mind-augmenting power of writing your own programs. In the 80s, people got "hooked" on that power as teenagers (and younger) - they're the professional programmers of today.

      Linux gives that power back to the interested user. The programmers of tomorrow train on Linux, not windows (source: survey of 200 3rd level compsci courses in europe and america).

      You may think windows is "easy". Believe me, an 8-year old child who has been taught linux first thinks linux is easy, and windows is pathetically uner-powered and mis-designed.

    2. Re:XP Home is CRIPPLED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'People who "learn windows" DON'T LEARN HOW TO USE A COMPUTER, they learn how to be spoon fed drivel'

      And people who run Linux love to make things needlessly complex in a pathetic attempt to keep their jobs so the boss doesn't find out how easy it really can be to run a computer.

      One day your boss is going to buy a Mac, then you will BEG for a Windows network.

      But it will be too late, your pinkslip is on it's way. The age of needlessly complex computers is coming to an end.

  71. Also, sex is not really neceessary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, also, sex is not really neceessary.

  72. Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cozmo's Top 10 Reasons why Windows XP is the best desktop OS ever

    10) Remote assistance lets support people connect to people's
    machines and fix problems over the internet.

    9) Locking toolbars: No more accidently fucking up your IE toolbars
    or your taskbar. They stay where you want them.

    8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies
    to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write
    cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.

    7) New visual themes in explorer. New "skins" that let windows different.. finally.

    6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you
    no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon
    on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.

    5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in
    win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally
    work, will.

    4) The new task oriented shell. It is nice once you get used to it. If you open a
    directory of pictures it will let you view a slideshow of them, print
    them, etc. If you open a folder of mp3s it has tasks on the left
    that will let you burn them to audio cd, play them, etc.

    3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the
    time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now ;)

    2) Built in cd burning. Burn data cds in the shell or audio cds in media player. Very convenient especially for users that would normally not be able to figure out how to burn a cd.

    1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.

    1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me

    1. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by MsGeek · · Score: 1
      1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me

      Well, certainly if you are replacing DOS-based Windows with it it's a step up. But 2K is just so much more elegant than XP. 2K Pro is like a Jaguar XKE. It's very high-maintenance and picky about what you put into it, but it rewards you with swift performance and an elegant look and feel. XP is like that car Homer designed in "The Simpsons." It's got every gew-gaw and contraption and it weighs a fsckn ton and it's so damn ugly nobody but a moron would love it.

      However...both are better than DOS-based Windows anyday. Less crashy. Nobody can deny that.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    2. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me remind you that none of these are new features. I enjoyed most of them on Linux 7 years ago.

    3. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies
      to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write
      cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.


      Install IE6, problem solved


      6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you
      no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon
      on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.


      I put the entire shortcut to my desktop on my taskbar. Click, My Computer is always at the top.

      1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me
      I game just fine on 2000 professional
      1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.

      What is wrong with VNC, it is not like remote computing is feasible for much other than administration. No way your gonna game over a remote link. So that was a reason because...?

      5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in
      win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally
      work, will.


      Could you be any more vague? Ive run programs that were compiled 10 years ago for a very old dos, yeah.. I think the backwards compatability is already there and win2k does a good job of making it all work.

      3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the
      time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now ;)


      Got me there, I wouldnt know of any other commerical OS that would let you hotswap processors or anything... But since these are reasons to upgrade that is one of the only valid ones, not that it should ever have been one to begin with.

      The rest of the reasons are just basically minor points not worth 200 dollars when I can already do everything but skin windows..

      So.. whatever.

      Jeremy

    4. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 2, Funny
      10) Remote assistance lets support people connect to people's machines and fix problems over the internet.

      You mean we don't have to even try to get BO onto Windows boxes anymore? MS is going to integrate it into XP for us? Sweet!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize you can turn off all the pretty animations and such so it looks like Win2K, right?

    6. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by swright · · Score: 1

      lets do a little (UNIX|Linux)/WinXP comparison here...

      10) Remote assistance lets support people connect to people's machines and fix problems over the internet.

      Remote X windows, ssh, Linux has had this for years...

      9) Locking toolbars: No more accidently fucking up your IE toolbars or your taskbar. They stay where you want them.

      Ah now that I like the sound of...

      8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.

      Konqueror anyone? It's had that for a while now...

      7) New visual themes in explorer. New "skins" that let windows different.. finally.

      KDE has had this for ages... (GNOME as well probably)

      6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.

      Just not relevant; not only are the totally customisable toolbars and desktop menus great for that, the need just isnt there...

      5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally work, will.

      Linux + WINE = lots of OS choice for your apps. And in UNIXland programs are built to be cross-platform anyway so its not a problem...

      4) The new task oriented shell. It is nice once you get used to it. If you open a directory of pictures it will let you view a slideshow of them, print them, etc. If you open a folder of mp3s it has tasks on the left that will let you burn them to audio cd, play them, etc.

      I'm dubious of the merits of this. I feel better filetype/MIMEtype/associations/etc do the job just fine (ok I'm stretching this one...)

      3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now ;)

      About time... Linux has been 'one reboot at the end of the install process and thats it' for ever

      2) Built in cd burning. Burn data cds in the shell or audio cds in media player. Very convenient especially for users that would normally not be able to figure out how to burn a cd.

      For people who are too dumb to click 'Install' on the software that comes with their burner I guess that might be useful.

      1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.

      See my response to #10. And if you have to administer Windows remotely try Remote Administrator. Its not free but its shedloads faster than VNC.

      1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me

      About time....

    7. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However...both are better than DOS-based Windows anyday. Less crashy. Nobody can deny that."

      How bout ME? It isn't built on DOS, it loves to crashy.

    8. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who can resist ... A couple of others have already mentioned how Linux does these things and more -- I'll go as far as saying Win2K already does these these things:

      10) Remote assistance lets support people connect to people's
      machines and fix problems over the internet.


      You could have used netmeeting in Win2K if you were sick and twisted. The good thing about not having that built in to the OS is the script monkeys had to install additional software to do useful things with your system. Not anymore. We'll start seeing this in the news shortly after the release. You could also use Terminal Server, but you need Win2K server or better to serve it. When you think about it, theis feature probably benefits Microsoft more than anyone else. If an analyst can get in to the remot machine and fix it real quick, they can handle more calls at the support center and hire fewer analysts. At $40,000 per analyst / year, they'll save a bundle.

      9) Locking toolbars: No more accidently fucking up your IE toolbars
      or your taskbar. They stay where you want them.


      Intelligent people don't have this problem.


      8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies
      to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write
      cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.


      This sounds like a good feature of IE, not XP. I may have to download IE6 on my Win2K box and check it out. I have a feeling it won't replace Ad-Aware, though.


      7) New visual themes in explorer. New "skins" that let windows different.. finally.


      Themes have been available since Plus! 95. They were a bust then and they will be a bust now.


      6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you
      no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon
      on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.


      It can be anyway. The trick is to Right-Click / Create shortcut, then drag the shortcut to the task bar. You can click on the desktop icon on the task bar to minimize all windows at once and get to the desktop as well.


      5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in
      win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally
      work, will.


      Even 98 had a utility to do this (mkcompat?) either in the OS or the Resource Kit. This type of program has always worked better in theory than practice, but even under 2K I rarely had problems. Also -- I've been hearing about CD software, IM clients, etc. not working properly in WinXP. I'd be interested to see if these compatability modes will do anything for these programs.

      4) The new task oriented shell. It is nice once you get used to it. If you open a
      directory of pictures it will let you view a slideshow of them, print
      them, etc. If you open a folder of mp3s it has tasks on the left
      that will let you burn them to audio cd, play them, etc.


      Interesting, but trivial. The left pane of the explorer bar already gives a picture preview. The My Pictures folder gives a preview of all pictures in it. Burning mp3's is usually done once in a while, and is usually as easy as dragging them onto the CD-Rom drive (my player came with software that does this, but I like a little more control and have disabled it).

      3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the
      time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now ;)


      There's two major problems that I hope Microsoft has overcome. One is that when a file is in use it makes you reboot. If they found a way to replace a file while in use, my hat's off to them. The second is Windows file protection: Currently under Win2K you risk corrupting your system32 Dlls if you don't reboot when a program asks (so file protection kicks in and gets the versions straight). I'm not even sure that MS is aware of this one because I haven't seen it in their KB. If WinXP is smart enough to intercept this just after the installation, then a reboot wouldn't be necessary. Both of these would take substantial effort, and I would need to see it to believe it. Win2k substantially reduced the amount of reboots needed over NT and 9x on things like playing with the network stack so it's at least tolerable.

      For the driver side, this does look like an improvement. Let's face it though, how often do I install new hardware that would require a reboot? About anually for me. Nice feature but not $300 nice (over $100 more than 2K professional's release price).

      2) Built in cd burning. Burn data cds in the shell or audio cds in media player. Very convenient especially for users that would normally not be able to figure out how to burn a cd.

      So I can deal with this digital content security crap when I decide to drop my CD into my laptop or bring it to work? No thanks. On the other hand, I do expect my OS to be able to handle the operations of ALL my devices at a driver level rather than with third party software.

      1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.

      You can do this with Win2K server anyway. I regularly manage a number of datacenter servers in this way and have never physically seen 80% of them. If you do it right, you can automate most of your admin stuff in an MMC console and do them all at once without even bringing up a TS session. Terminal Services is just like being logged into the machine at a local terminal with the desktop, icons, services, etc. I can view it in true color and resize the screen. As far as sound, I've never really tried so I'm not sure. I'm not even sure those machine HAVE sound cards in them.

      1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me

      If it is anywhere as near as 2K on stablity, then I'm sure the End User will be happy. Hopefully they have enough RAM and HD to support it. Maybe OEMs will even (gasp) start shipping with more than 64K RAM and 8G HD's on average.

      XP just isn't worth the price of an upgrade as it doesn't substantially improve on the previous version in the same way that 98 wasn't a substantial improvement to 95. The reason that so many people have 98 now is because a lot of compters were sold in 1998 - 2000 that had it bundled.

    9. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP does one thing that I haven't seen Linux [distros that I have tried] do well: it integrates all the feature very well and provides an easy interface to it all. That is just as big a feature as any of the others.

      WINE

      After trying WINE, I'm not too sure it is ready for people to start advocating it as a current viable alternative to windows.

      For people who are too dumb to click 'Install' on the software that comes with their burner I guess that might be useful.

      Clever people don't try to waste their time needless... (e.g. yearn to install software when an installation is not needed.)

    10. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by Shimbo · · Score: 2
      Got me there, I wouldnt know of any other commerical OS that would let you hotswap processors or anything...

      I believe you can on high-end Sun boxes now, and high-end Alphas soonish. Powering off and replacing failed redundant units, without halting operation, has been around for years on fault tolerant systems.

    11. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by swright · · Score: 1

      XP does one thing that I haven't seen Linux [distros that I have tried] do well: it integrates all the feature very well and provides an easy interface to it all. That is just as big a feature as any of the others.

      This is true. I guess my main argument is their 'innovation' - in that they don't so much innovate as plaster pretty interfaces all over everything (not necessarily a bad thing mind).

      After trying WINE, I'm not too sure it is ready for people to start advocating it as a current viable alternative to windows.

      I totally agree. My point was just that Linux has had the ability to run programs written for multiple OSes for ages.

      Clever people don't try to waste their time needless... (e.g. yearn to install software when an installation is not needed.)

      Again, agreed. However, I think its unfair to say "integrating burning software into the OS is good because otherwise people wouldnt know how" - when people get their CD burner, they put the driver CD in, it autoplays and says things like 'install easy CD creator' - should be obvious enough...

    12. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by jallen02 · · Score: 2

      Hehe, It was sarcasm. I know it has been around. I was just saying. Gee, like that hasn't been doen before. My whole post was a "move along, nothing to see here tone" :)

    13. Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass by matty · · Score: 1

      Is that true? I thought ME was also based on DOS.

  73. Re:Why Boycott? by SlashGeek · · Score: 1
    What apps have you not had success with? The only things I've had problems with is MechWarrior3 and Bleem, wich is crap anyway. I can't seem to get StarOffice to install either, although it is supposed to work with 9x/NT/2k so I'm assuming there is something else wrong there.

    --

    --I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.

  74. must agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a diehard daily user of one of the BSD's, but I am no fool, I keep an install of win2k around, as it's the only ms opsys that I can tolerate, and one would have to be a pretty myopic computer user to think that unix is the ONLY solution (I do think it's the best, but I'm not pretentious enough to think I'll never need to use it or won't at least need windows experience)...but anyway..2k isn't all that bad, I just wish ms wouldn't use their Operating Systems to push their ideology down user's throats and keep competition down at the same time

  75. The private buyer pays a far, far higher price. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    The private buyer pays a far, far higher price for Microsoft products than do large manufacturers.

    Microsoft's major buyers are large manufacturers. Microsoft does what they want, which is make slower systems that require more powerful hardware.

    Note that Microsoft no longer gives a full CD with every computer. You get only a recovery CD. If you use it, you must re-install all your applications.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  76. Compelling reason.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MS will/is dropping support for 9x, NT and eventually, Win2k.


    Businesses will move because they want the perception of support/patches/upgrades. Try downloading IE4 so you can put the desktop upgrade onto Win95/NT sometime..

  77. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Lets see...Modified UI to make it look slightly different than the last version of windows? Yup. Lots of monopoly leveraging technologies designed to crush smaller companies ekeing out a living? "

    Two things. One I read today that Wells Fargo is deploying Windows, and that they will not be using Luma, the new FUI. And for one of the reasons that Windows zealots use against Linux. "The interface is different, users will not be able to handle it." Also note what is now intergrated that was formally third-party. Microsoft keeps that up and soon the applications market for windows will be very thin indeed.

  78. Funny... by dnaumov · · Score: 1

    ...as I am running the final very fine on my p3/450 @ 517, 128 mb ram.

    1. Re:Funny... by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      well, i imagine that if you're new to 'puters you may not be familiar with the concept of "multi-tasking" look into it.

      ...asshole.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    2. Re:Funny... by reverius · · Score: 2

      Obviously you're not that familiar with multi-tasking yourself... otherwise you'd realize that you have to close a program before you open another one.

      RAM isn't infinite, you know.

    3. Re:Funny... by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      and I qoute, "64k should be enough memory for anyone."

      --

      ________________________________________________

    4. Re:Funny... by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      No, multi-tasking is actually running many tasks at once, not closing one and starting another one sequentially. Of course ram is infinite, that's why windoze uses a swap file. The low system resource message he got is probably due because windoze did a lousy job of managing the resources it had at hand.

    5. Re:Funny... by reverius · · Score: 2

      What I meant wasn't "closing one and starting another"... it was "closing one once in a while".

      My experience with Windows' multitasking varies widely depending on Windows version, but one thing holds true regardless. The number of programs that can be open simultaneously is not infinite. You must close one once in a while, or you tend to get "low on resources" or "out of memory" type errors.

      Also, ram is not infinite. Swap file is also not infinite, being defined by free hard drive space, and also by the limits that Windows puts on swap file size when it's done automatically - usually a few hundred megs, depending on the size of your hard drive.

      That amount of space can easily be used up if you've got Word, Excel, Outlook, two Internet Explorer windows, a Network Neighborhood browser, Norton AntiVirus, Winamp, RealPlayer, WindowsMediaPlayer (all in the system tray, mind you...) running simultaneously.

      I never implied that you should only run one program at once (although that is the safest way in Windows :)) but that you should keep in mind the amount of RAM you have when opening more and more programs recklessly.

    6. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, If you're using a commodore 64. At least get your quotes right.

      If I remember the quote it was, "With a 1 megabyte system 640K should be enough memory for anyone"

    7. Re:Funny... by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      so i paraphrase. The point is Windows can't handle a few multi tasking chores. Life was sweeter with Win98. I actually enjoyed W2k quite a bit until it was murdered my WINME, now I cant get it to boot up anymore...

      --

      ________________________________________________

    8. Re:Funny... by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      thanks for not being an asshole, and also for understanding more than the power button -- unlike the other people who have posted here.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    9. Re:Funny... by psychalgia · · Score: 1
      but that you should keep in mind the amount of RAM you have when opening more and more programs recklessly.

      OH GOD, hes got a mouse, no, just put the m-mouse down. NO, GOD NO, don't click, NO, OH MY GOD, HE OPENED WINDOWS INTERNET, oh, god oh god, whats he doing now, NO NO, DONT OPEN WORD, AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw......

      Is that what you meant by recklesssly opening winders?

      --

      ________________________________________________

  79. Mental Illness Patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mental Illness Patrol -- Acting out hostile feelings.

    1. Re:Mental Illness Patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, scumbag.

  80. The voice of reason... MOD UP! by Meorah · · Score: 1

    person tried Win2k... liked it. Bought 2 copies for home use. Was happy with purchase. Sees no reason to upgrade to XP. Cost is a major factor when "NEED" is not a big deal. Cost is not so much a factor when you "NEED" something more reliable (he didn't mind the price of win2k cuz he thought it was worth it).

    Although, I'd have to say that instead of "XP pro being nothing more than XP home with a few more add-ons" would better be described as follows: "XP Home nothing more than XP Pro with all the good stuff ripped out."

    Also, if they're banking on businesses as the cash cow for XP, they're going to be in for a rather expensive wake-up call. Hell, I could be considered a MS ass-kisser by most people who post to /. and I absolutely LOATHE the idea of upgrading any of my clients to XP, and will actually recommend AGAINST it. (fyi, it has nothing to do with some lameass "boycott" website that looks strangely similar to /.)

    --
    Protector of Capitalist views,
    Meorah
  81. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by ywwg · · Score: 1

    much of this is flat out not true.

    1) the UI is totally themeable. Of course linux has had this for a long time, but this is a definite improvment.

    2) Of course it requires an upgrade. New versions of windows are not meant to run on legacy hardware. a new 1300$ computer gets you a 1GHz machine with all the fixins. When was the last time a major system upgrade came out that _didn't_ slightly newer hardware? You can say "linux 2.2 -> 2.4" all you want, but that's not comparable. I tried to look up redhat 6 and redhat 7 specs, but they don't list them. My guess is, they went up.

    3) you forget to mention that XP is based on the NT kernel, but with the hardware / game support of the 98 base. Every anecdote I've read online says that for the average 98 user, XP is a godsend. It doesn't crash nearly as much. MS has finally ditched DOS, and this is a good thing. Is it as stable as linux? probably not. But an improvement over 98 is an improvement.

    4)Windows ME has been panned by lots and lots of people. Everyone knew it was a stupid service pak with a price tag. It sucks.

    With that said, I won't be buying XP. I use linux fulltime, with a rare trip to NT 4 for video editing (old card / old drivers). I have 98 sitting around for the rare quicktime file and games, but otherwise... I can't justify the upgrade price. A bunch of overmodded uninformed trolling isn't going to do any good, however.

  82. I know it's a pipe dream by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd like to try. The problem is now that XP is coming 2000 won't be available anymore and amazingly enough all the 'cool' stuff won't work with it.

    It's just frustrating. I hate hotmail and I don't want to have a 'passport' to use software on my computer(s)

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:I know it's a pipe dream by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

      You don't need to use passport to use software on your computer. You will however need to activate XP (send some info about your hardware) if you want to use it for more than 30 days. Passport is primarily for IM and other pieces that you can choose not to use.

  83. Re:Transparent Encryption? - E4M by dasunt · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Not totally transparent, since you have to "mount" the drives (actual partitions or just a virtual drive saved in a file), but E4M is a wonderful (free, OS) encryption scheme that works across all windows versions (although win98 has a shutdown bug).


    Price is right, and it works fine for me. Although NTFS has a built-in encryption on its filesystem that is truly transparent, but since I can't see the code behind it, I don't trust it.

  84. Not for me by Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    I dont bother to upgrade software unless what I have isn't working. Win98se runs all the productivity software I've purchased, supports my hardware, and runs my favorite games. I have no compelling reason to spend my hard earned money on a product that from what I understand, benifits MS more than me.

    --
    It was like that when I got here.
  85. I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems most people on this FUD factory believe:

    1) Microsoft won't sell many copies of XP becuase people think their current Windows system is fine.

    2) Microsoft's products aren't very good.

    How can those both be true? If they were poor products people would be switching or upgrading.

  86. XP has renewed my fait in MS by stew-a-cide · · Score: 0

    I don't know who's pulling the strings over at Microsoft these days but XP is far and away the best piece of MS software (and probably the best piece of software period) I have even used (yes, I'm using a bootleg :). Win2000/9x and Linux don't even compare (OSX looks nice, but awfully confusing and slow as hell). Anyways, XP is incredibly stable (I've been install software, hardware, messing with everything, and it hasn't crashed or slowed down a bit in 3 days). It's also incredibly fast, definitely a big improvement over 9x and Linux... apps are much faster, and games are faster and definitely much smoother. It's stunningly beautiful (fade effects, transparency, etc.) but in no way slow or skippy. Multi user support is the best there is. The tasked-based approach is a bit half assed but definitely better than anything else out there (no more digging through 4 layers of 'start' 'k' or 'g' panels to find the apps I use).

    An upgraded OS with tonnes of new features that's 1. Faster and 2. More stable than the previous version... has this ever happened before... EVER!?! :)

    Does it make up for the shit they've been selling us all these years? I don't know, but it's a long way towards getting there. As for the annoying security features, if you wrote something this good you probably wouldn't want people stealing it either (and if you're really determined you still can: I did).

    1. Re:XP has renewed my fait in MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyways, XP is incredibly stable (I've been install software, hardware, messing with everything, and it hasn't crashed or slowed down a bit in 3 days). It's also incredibly fast, definitely a big improvement over 9x and Linux... apps are much faster, and games are faster and definitely much smoother. It's stunningly beautiful (fade effects, transparency, etc.) but in no way slow or skippy. Multi user support is the best there is. The tasked-based approach is a bit half assed but definitely better than anything else out there (no more digging through 4 layers of 'start' 'k' or 'g' panels to find the apps I use).

      Funny... I remember hearing this same hype bullshit when W2K came out. But now you are implying that is exactly what it was... bullshit. Which makes me think what I'm hearing now from you is bullshit as well.

      Get lost, you fucking shill.

    2. Re:XP has renewed my fait in MS by AlXtreme · · Score: 1
      I've been install software, hardware, messing with everything, and it hasn't crashed or slowed down a bit in 3 days
      [sarcasm-mode] Wow. 3 whole days. That MUST be an improvement for you. [/sarcasm-mode]

      Even my laptop (Debian G/L) has a bigger uptime. Get over yourself.

      Your indoctrination about this OS fascinates me (and the rest of the "XP = kewl" posts here).

      It's also incredibly fast, definitely a big improvement over 9x and Linux apps are much faster, and games are faster and definitely much smoother.
      Linux aps are faster? wonder how M$ did that without breaking the GPL ;)
      It's clear to see that you havn't seen 2.4.* in action, come back when XP boots in 3 seconds

      Ahh, games. Thats probably the only real reason to use Windows for "geeks". That and the fear of learning something else besides "point-and-click".

      Oh well, i've had my rant for today. All you XP-(l)users may mod me down, it's a free world.

      PS: Multiuser support, lol :)
      PPS: "G" menu? Have you ever even tried Gnome (if that is what you are trying to mention)? We have a nice little foot, not that anyone ever uses it. Instant Application launcher in under 1 sec. It's called a terminal...

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    3. Re:XP has renewed my fait in MS by cREW+oNE · · Score: 1

      [sarcasm-mode] Wow. 3 whole days. That MUST be an improvement for you. [/sarcasm-mode]

      Except that the Windows XP final (corporate) has been out only for about 3-4 days.

      Windows is, unfortunately, the superior desktop OS and definitely more user friendly.

      --

      +++ATH0

    4. Re:XP has renewed my fait in MS by stew-a-cide · · Score: 0

      I meant that apps under XP are much faster than their linux equivelents.

      And it's been up for 3 days cause I've only had it for 3 days.

      And yes, it does boot nearly instantly, and literally stuts down instantly as well (definately much faster than Linux, which takes quite a while to boot for me.. but then again I'm not using whatever crazy filesystem you probably are).

      And no, I've never been able to keep Linux up for more than a few hours (I'm talking with KDE and some actual applications, not the command line you probably use to judge uptime by :)

      And yes, I mean the foot by G... and Gnome, in my experience, is much buggier than KDE.

  87. Re:Ridiculous upgrade restrictions?.rape you 4 $$$ by cworley · · Score: 2

    >I was shocked to see that the only upgrade path from Win 2000 is to the XP Professional Edition, which costs $100 more than the Home Edition.

    Does anybody know the history of DOS/Windows pricing?

    It seems hardware competition is fierce; greater functionality and lower prices to the point of putting memory manufacturers out of business.

    I'd like to see a comparison between PC hardware and MS OS prices.

    Does anybody know a link to this info?

    --
    When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
  88. 2600 by CrimsonHat · · Score: 2, Funny
    Did anybody else find it funny that the final build number on Windows XP was 2600? Do you think the programmers there wanted to be cool and go along with the "hacker" ideal of 2600 magazine? When our group got the latest build, I started laughing my ass off, but nobody in the group got it.

    I'm not really in a position to boycott it since I have to write software for it. From what I've seen it's not too bad, and has some new features that W2k didn't have. Overall, I'm probably going to stick with W2k on my desktop for quite a while still.

    One other fairly positive thing that I have to say about MS is their support for developers. Mac came out with OS X and then tried to give support to developers. Just try and find drivers for OS X and it's already been out for months! MS lets developers know a couple of years ahead of time that they are going to have a new OS come out. They give developers a bunch of Betas to work with, a bunch of release candidates, so that by the time they have the OS released, there actually are a good amount of drivers released for the OS. Apple released an OS which was basically a beta that people had to pay money for, and then didn't really give driver developers good support. Sure Windows XP isn't going to support every piece of hardware ever made, but I bet when it's finally released it will support a lot more than OS X does.

    1. Re:2600 by Knobby · · Score: 1

      Sure Windows XP isn't going to support every piece of hardware ever made, but I bet when it's finally released it will support a lot more than OS X does.

      Uhm.. OS X supports (or will within the next 2 weeks) every piece of hardware that Apple ships. The thing you need to remember is that Apple has the luxury of knowing what hardware their OS is going to be installed on, and therefore Apple does not need to support everything under the sun as MS does..

      As for the developer support issue. Apple provided a public beta with their developer tools. They then shipped the first version of OS X, which was still really a beta with updated developer tools. In the first month, they provided 4 updates to the OS, and further revised the developer tools. Apple isn't perfect but they're working their butts off trying to get the developer community behind them.. In the last few months, I've seen almost every app I use in OS 9 ported to OS X, and then a bunch of Apps from the NeXT days as well as the entire BSD ports collection. Scilab was recently modified to route it's display through a cocoa app thereby circumventing the need for rootless X11 and taking advantage of OS X's pdf display layer.. There's all kinds of developers trying to port their apps, but it takes a little time.. So in the mean time, I run non-native apps through classic or boot into OS 9.. Not a big deal.. Really.

    2. Re:2600 by CrimsonHat · · Score: 1
      Uhm.. OS X supports (or will within the next 2 weeks) every piece of hardware that Apple ships. The thing you need to remember is that Apple has the luxury of knowing what hardware their OS is going to be installed on, and therefore Apple does not need to support everything under the sun as MS does..

      uh... what about third party hardware? Apple does sell a bunch of their own stuff, but third party hardware such as scanners, printers, digital cameras, data acquisition cards, etc is in a really poor state of support right now.

      Apple isn't perfect but they're working their butts off trying to get the developer community behind them.. In the last few months, I've seen almost every app I use in OS 9 ported to OS X

      Why only in the past few months did this happen? The stuff we released in July 2000 works on Windows XP without any new development. I think that you're really overlooking the impact of third party hardware on Apple's success. They have overlooked supporting third party hardware for ages and it has killed them as a company. Microsoft has always supported driver developers to get a lot of different hardware working on their OS really fast. This is really one of the reasons that MS is taking over, not just their mean business practices.

  89. Gnome and KDE do the same thing as MS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knome and KDE copied MS. when you are browsing files you can just type a URL in the address bar and you got a 100% copy of IE! it does the exact same thing.. isnt that what MS is introuble for by integrating there browser with there IS.. I dont really remember wanting that option when I installed Redhat 7 or mandrake.

  90. XP support for copyright 'protection' BAD by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Windows XP has built in support for many new 'copyright protection' features. Why buy an OS that ASSUMES you are a software pirate?

    SAP - Secure Audio Path, adds static to music if not 'authenticated.
    WPA - Windows Product Activation - can deativate software if it thinks its running on the 'wrong' computer.
    No Java, MS takes its toys home
    Built in support for Passport - let the spam begin.
    Before the Hard-drive manufactures came to their senses it was rumoured that XP would fully support the 'copyright' protection scheme IBM thought up for HDs. Anyone have info?

    For more info see these fun loving fanatics:
    XP and Privacy/Copyright

    --
    Anarchists never rule
    1. Re:XP support for copyright 'protection' BAD by shic · · Score: 1
      I've mixed feelings about XP - needless to say I want to avoid it as long as possible - but I can think of several reasons why I may want to use an OS that assumes I am a software pirate - for example:
      1. Lots of software is pirated... and XP would prove a good platform on which software with more flexible licences could be developed. If I wanted to work with a particular expensive piece of specialist software for just a day, at present I'm often faced with spending thousands to buy a copy, or to be forced to use "go illegal". XP hails a promise of a new legal solution without having to buy outright software I don't need to keep.
      2. If XP brings about cryptographic authentication of users (as hideous as this sounds) it brings a significant bonus to vendors of bespoke systems. By providing a mechanism to reliably identify users/machines, it should dramatically reduce the (possibly unintentional) illegal duplication of systems - hence enabling a fair distribution of charges between customers and enabling developers to provide unencumbered systems, which can be easily audited.
      3. XP's registration paves the way towards authentication of people, and hopefully towards the widespread use of secure digital signatures in mainstream computing. I would see this as a big bonus as it would improve my confidence in received messages. Hence, XP registration can be seen as being central to widespread use of this enabling technology.
      4. The fact that every installation will need to be purchased is likely to drive down the unit price over time... not as a direct result of competition from other vendors, but because the optimal price (to maximise profit) is likely to be lower. MS depends upon its monopoly on the desktop, and this means that it is in MS's interest to ensure that XP will be the OS on every home computer, which won't happen if they price themselves out of the market.
      5. Hardware vendors will love this product, as it will have a psychological impact on your average user/buyer. Many people are willing to install new "borrowed" software on old hardware (as it costs nothing) but when faced with a charge are far more likely to want to upgrade their "system" as they must pay real money anyway. Once hardware vendors realise the benefit, they will have an incentive to ensure compatibility only with XP.

      The real hope for open source and free software is that MS are forced to publicly release their protocols some time before they release their products, as this presents new opportunities for other players to move into the market of services, which is (IMHO) the holy grail for commercial computing software. Linux and friends don't need to be on the desktop in the foreseeable future in order to make their presence felt - providing that MS clients can interact seamlessly with non MS servers. In the long term, I can envisage a situation in which new competition may arise to compete solely for the desktop user interface, which will only be possible once operational issues are completely decoupled from the end user interface.

  91. Boycott XP and/or Passport by RAVasquez · · Score: 1

    It's a moot point for me to boycott XP, since it's never going to run on my Mac anyway. What I plan to concentrate on is a boycott of Passport, and any services that require registering with it.

    MS knows that the big money is selling services through Windows. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many copies of XP go out as warez or how few home users install it at first, because MS will make its money back through .NET, through media tie-ins with WMP, or through other goods and services bought by means of my name and vital statistics sold through Passport. It's even conceivable that I won't have the option of "Don't want it? Don't buy it!" -- if my employer, for example, were to require use of Messenger, and Messenger requires a Passport account, I become an unwilling MS customer, and my name goes onto Passport's ultra-secure (?) database.

    What I hope to see is for MS to get out of the services business, and to stop their leveraging their OS monopoly to get me to require MS products I don't need. The Electronic Privacy Information Center [epic.org] has a detailed list of complaints about Passport (note: the official complaints are in .pdf format).

    --

    --- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith

  92. Windows XP FAQ by Strangely+Unbiased · · Score: 3, Informative

    From someone who's running XP RC2:

    - If you have a legal copy, WPA is no problem. You just click 'Next' , then 'Finish'.Done. And Microsoft can't use your PC spec info; it's a one-way hash code.(BTW, it's been cracked.)

    - It's not bloated: It runs perfectly fine on my p250 128MB, with visual styles enabled. All the patronising features (simple file sharing and that puppy on the search bar) can be easily disabled.)

    - It's stable.Mostly.

    - It's got a pretty nice stealth firewall (grc.com's ShieldsUP says so, anyway.). And the built-in cd-writing's convenient too.

    - It DOES run every one as administrator by default, for Win9x legacy reasons. Not hard to change that, but the default 'Limited User' profile has problems with older apps and games. The trick is to put the users in the predefined 'Power Users' group.

    - It's still Windows. If you hate Windows, it probably won't change your mind, but nevertheless it's the best Windows to work with.

    It's got lots of other features too, so if you have a question before you consider upgrading, I'm here for you(so nice of me isn't it)

    --


    There is no such thing as 'world peace'.
  93. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by Webz · · Score: 1

    It's not just a modified UI... It's a skinnable one, so that opens up path that UI developers can take. And since I'm assuming that you've never used it before, or at least more than just looking at it, you would know it makes subtle yet effective changes in responsiveness and usability, key factors in the operation of any device regardless of operating system. So, yeah, pretty colors go a long way, although (i'm guessing) most /.ers wouldn't know that since they're power users anyway...

    Windows XP doesn't require an upgrade to the latest hardware. The people it tends to hurt are those that bought computers with Windows 95 on them. They're old. Windows 95 is old. Sure Linux or what have you can run on older hardware forever, but Windows is a commercial beast that needs attention, and its just about time for those old Windows 95 to revive their "computing experience" and upgrade.

    Again, if you actually used Windows XP, you would know that is isn't all that useless. Things like System Restore do wonders in undoing the number of headaches caused by some Windows applications... It's automagical.

    You know, there are always fans of any operating system, so the fact that there are Windows fans shouldn't be of any surpised. *gasp* /. is populated by Linux zealots!

    As far as the stability of 9x vs NT... I don't know. I'm using XP right now, and it crashes sometimes (yet I attribute those crashes due to my lack of RAM) but it doesn't crash nearly as bad as 9x. 9x just doesn't play nice when stuff goes wrong. At least in XP, you have a whole slew of user friendly tools to get you up and running again.

  94. And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    XP will be the doom of Microsoft. One day in the future, XP will be studied along with the Apple III, IBM Micro Channel Architecture, and Intel/Rambus as an example of corporate arrogance trumping common sense with DISATEROUS results.

    As one /. poster has put it (brilliantly, I might add), that with XP, Microsoft has done to itself what the DOJ never could have done: Release a product that will ENABLE competition, and possibly ruin the company.

    XP is the product of the two biggest sins a corporation can commit: arrogance and contempt. It's arrogant in that it's overpriced, offers NOTHING new over WIndows 2000, and in fact, takes away from it.

    The "Home" version strips you of network capability, unlike 98/95/ME/2000, it CANNOT be used as a client on anything but a peer-to-peer network. It won't allow you to log into a NT domain. I haven't tested it to see if Novell Client 32 will allow logins to a Netware server, but I'd suspect that it's broken as well. It has no support for SMP at all (though 9X didn't either), to get SMP requires the $200 "Professional" version upgrade. None of this is because XP can't do SMP or serve as a network client, it's because MS chose to deliberately CRIPPLE it, and yet sell it for a radically increased price over ME/98.

    The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! (ME could be had for $50 to upgrade from 98). For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100? Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.

    MS comits the sin of contempt with Product Activation, and it's spyware nature. XP "decides" how far to let you upgrade your hardware before requiring reactication. Which can lose you your data if there is but the SLIGHTEST glitch in this process. MS is better known for creating "unintended consequences" in it's "features" than it is in writing bug-free code. XP constantly monitors your hardware configuration,assigning it a "checksum" number via some formula, and if it gets too far from the "checksum" number originally generated when you installed it, it will CEASE to function.

    I hope they have those support lines well staffed.

    That's right, now on a XP system, the system owner does NOT have root access to the machine! This is something no MS OS has attempted to do before.

    Even if XP didn't have the fatal flaws of arrogance and contempt, the fact that it's a 100%-200% increase in price over 9X alone would be enough to doom it. In this time of economic crisis, particularly in the tech sector, a 100+% increase in the "MS Tax" will do nothing but slow sales, ESPECIALLY when you expect MS to make licenses of ME, 98, and 2000 scarce quickly.

    The "window" of opportunity for Linux is open.

    --
    === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    1. Re:And so it begins.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The licensing on XP is tied to the system's BIOS. Upgrade your CD-ROM...no reactivation required. For most home users, who don't even know what a BIOS is, they will likely never need to re-register XP.

      Most of the new hardware requirements are due to the new GUI, don't like it? It can easily be switched back to "classic" mode from the start panel. Thus XP will require similar hardware requirements as Win2k.

      And as for the Home edition connectivity issues, Client for Netware is not included on the home edtion, but Client services for MS networks is. Beta versions of XP Home DO allow you to access resouces on a domain, just as 9.x clients. But they can't "join" the domain like win2k or XP pro clients...meaning no Group Policy, etc.

      They had to give big business a reason to spend $ for the Pro version.

    2. Re:And so it begins.... by Pengo · · Score: 2

      Not that I am the MS XP lover, but a few points I must disagree on.


      XP is the product of the two biggest sins a corporation can commit: arrogance and contempt. It's arrogant in that it's overpriced, offers NOTHING new over WIndows 2000, and in fact, takes away from it.


      Hmm... Bold statement. Do you have anything other than blind rage to back that up?


      The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! (ME could be had for $50 to upgrade from 98). For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100? Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.


      Hmm.... Isn't stability a pretty big thing for the home user? ;-) Lets face it, thats what drove a lot of people from windows to linux in the early days.. Quite frankly, the world will be a much better place with Windows running w/out crashes. 9x->ME was a joke, thats why it was a complete flop. MS admited that the sales where disapointing.. who won in the end? The consumer.. they made a choice not to buy it. I made a choice to buy Windows 2000 at home for my gaming/family computer because it's compatible with all the games I enjoy and it's VERY stable.
      As to what I have heard on the street, XP is has had almost flawless backward compatibility and various 'compatibility' switches to help you if you have compatibility problems.

      If XP sucks so bad, people won't buy it.. (ie. ME).. As for me, I am quite happy with Windows 2000. (I also have a dual processor PIII system) and won't be upgrading to XP .. but at least I have a choice.. even on the windows platform. I will probably be able to use my copy of Windows 2000 for the next 2-3 years without 'having' to upgrade either. For $200 thats not so unreasonable is it? I pay more than that in distributions (Mandrake) over 2 years. I wouldn't think of it as unfair. Your predictions are a bit agressive and in the end the consumer will win. There are alternatives and MS is facing huge competitors (IBM, Sony, Sun, Apple, HP, AOL/TW, etc). Someone would rise and offer a -real- alternative(s), if the situation became so hideous.

    3. Re:And so it begins.... by nomaad · · Score: 1

      Seriously, MS can do what ever the hell they want, the OEM's will still stuff it in their systems.

      That's because the average home-user sees no huge difference between the various versions of Windows. ME is, visually, very similar to 2000, so the average user thinks that it is essentially the same OS. Now take a look at XP. It is, visually, very impressive. Ergo, the user thinks it is a very advanced version and decides that it is better.

      The fact that MS still have that ridiculous pricetag on their OS's is to maximize what they can get from retail, most of the money they get from their OS's come from OEM's.

    4. Re:And so it begins.... by manly · · Score: 1
      You've overstated the upgrade cost. Historically, the retail price for Windows (not NT/2000) upgrades was $89. Mickeysoft made a couple exceptions, I believe for Win98SE, and you state they made one for WinME. However, I checked around and the standard retail price for WinME is still $89. The upgrade price for XP Home is only $10 more. And I doubt that the license price OEMs are paying to preinstall Windows will change much.

      The times they made exceptions were because the upgrade was so incremental over the previous version that they knew they had to somehow make the upgrade more affordable. For example, Win98SE had two main differences w/ Win98: some bug fixes, and integrated IE5. IIRC, there was a "Step-up" upgrade specifically for Win98->Win98SE that cost about $30.

      In general, the upgrade game is just one of the monopoly's many cash cows. Although Microsoft has gotten quite better at releasing security patches, they generally do not release many bug fixes for operating systems, instead forcing consumers to buy the latest OS upgrade instead. A few years back, I would have been happy to continue running Win95 if they would actually support it with fixes & feature updates. Of course they didn't.

      In contrast, although Red Hat also frequently releases distros, the difference is that Red Hat does a better job of releasing updates, and their product is much more affordable anyway ($30 list price). Not to mention the fact that you're not limited to one purchase per machine, as with the M$ monopoly.

    5. Re:And so it begins.... by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      The worst bit is that people have to pay to call support

    6. Re:And so it begins.... by Nailer · · Score: 2

      The "Home" ... CANNOT be used as a client on anything but a peer-to-peer network. It won't allow you to log into a NT domain...iIt has no support for SMP at all. MS chose to deliberately CRIPPLE it, and yet sell it for a radically increased price over ME/98.

      98 can't join a domain or do SMP either. Neither can its equivalent, XP home. Ho hum.

      The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! For what benefit? None that I can tell.

      Well, asides from the stability, XP is specifically designed to be more legacy compatible than 2000 was. Oh, and multiple user GUI logins, and a nicer help and support, and Media Player 8, more readable text, and a newer, different version of Windows Explorer.

      As one /. poster has put it (brilliantly, I might add), that with XP, Microsoft has done to itself what the DOJ never could have done: Release a product that will ENABLE competition, and possibly ruin the company.

      hehe. Because MS allows you to uninstall all 300k of the Axtive X loading system known as IEXPLORE.EXE (and not the stacks of activex control it actually calls?). In case you haven't realized, Mozilla failed, spectacularly. Galeon's and Konq and Opera are usable on Linux, but Window users use IE because THEY PREFER IT.

      The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100?
      Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.


      I'd bet otherwise. In fact, I bet you ten US dollars, redeemable on 20030101, that XP is not widely viewed upon as the downfall of MS. Something else might be, but not XPs lack of quality.

      Unfortunately, many Linux users still don't get basic usability. Why do most Linux distributions sort their apsp by toolkit rather than function? When was the last time your parents on their Windows box asked for a MFC (as opposed to VCL or other) app...oh, and it can it be a web browser.

      Better yet, read the modem HOWTO for a laugh.

      Which can lose you your data if there is but the SLIGHTEST glitch in this proces

      That is false. You will not lose you your data. If you perform certain upgrades, you your os might require you yourself to call MS within a few days and reactivate you your OS. Most people don't perform such upgrades so frequently. Even techies don't, and when you do, its only a phone call.

      For the record, I use and adore Linux, and write books and articles that try and make things easier for people to do so. But I use Linux because its good and because I like Open Sourc,e not because of somerreligios anto MS zealotr, that prevents me from recognizing the good bits that are worth stealing. Oddly enough, I find Linux users that matter (i.e, not me) share the same view - the GNOME and KDE folk seem to be able to recognize that MS actually does some pretty good work, and works on taking elements of that into their various apps. In fact every major influential Linux person I've ever had the chance to meet - Alan Cox, Richard Gooch, John Hall, Marceij and George from Ximian, Raph Levine, etc. etc. has been a reasonable and clear headed person who can actually recognize that MS comes up with the odd good idea. Which is good - because we can copy them.

      And that redeems my faith in Linux after listening to the Slashdot trolls condemn everything MS does, including the things it will be important to emulate if Linux is to have any chance of world domination.

    7. Re:And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "98 can't join a domain or do SMP either. Neither can its equivalent, XP home. Ho hum. "

      Excuse me, but I've set up MANY a `98 and ME system to run as clients on a NT domain, including this machine I'm writing this on right now (can dual boot into 98SE, and one of my servers runs 2000 Server).

      Either I'm better than I ever thought I was, or else those versions of `Doze supported it.

      XP Home will NOT allow you to log into a domain, because MS wants to force all businesses to use the twice as expensive "Pro" version. It's a MS tax increase, nothing more. They took OUT vital features for no good reason other than profit motive.

      And the worst downturn in the tech industry since the early 1980's is NOT the best time to be doubling your prices. That alone (aside from WPA, MS's BSA extortion racket, etc), is enough to dissuade the corps from upgrading, and to give them motivation to try an alternative.

      "That is false. You will not lose you your data. If you perform certain upgrades, you your os might require you yourself to call MS within a few days and reactivate you your OS. Most people don't perform such upgrades so frequently. Even techies don't, and when you do, its only a phone call. "

      Will it? You assume that the code that does this will be foolproof. I've seen 9X machines LOSE PNP hardware after rebooting before, and automatically reinstall drivers. I can't say that I've seen a 2000 or NT box do that, but it's not out of the question. Microsoft HARDLY has a reputation for writing flawless code. WPA is a new CORE OS component, that has only been around for a few months now. Hardly long enough to test thouroughly, especially on the diverse configurations that will be seen once it's out of beta.

      Also, I RESENT paying $100-$200-infinity for an OS, only to have the fucking OS decide not to run until I "call home" (what happens if it's on an evening, or a weekend, or a holiday?) before letting me at my data.

      You see, Microsoft is ASSUMING all their customers are thieves, and are guilty of running a WAREZ `Doze until proven innocent. That is not good PR, and alone will cost them money. In fact, I'd bet that the cost of staffing the support lines ALONE because of this "feature" will eat away far more than any additional revenue they'd get because people who otherwise wouldn't buy a legit copy.

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    8. Re:And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "The worst bit is that people have to pay to call support"

      Even worse is if they get it preloaded, you can't even call support at all (other than their 900 number).

      MS convieniently "cost-shifts" all support for OEM versions to the OEM. Which hardly justifies the slightly lower price for OEM software.

      It's not an unsafe bet (given MS's history of bug-infested code) to bet that there will be serious bugs in WPA that will cause the system to just DIE suddenly because a new mouse, keyboard, printer, etc was added.

      Which is why I'm all in FAVOR of it being in there! WPA could be the death of MS. The more inconvienient and expensive MS makes it to own Windows (especially in a business), the MORE likely people will look to alternatives.

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    9. Re:And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "You've overstated the upgrade cost. Historically, the retail price for Windows (not NT/2000) upgrades was $89."

      Historically, MONTHS, or even YEARS after the release, you are correct, a `Doze upgrade sells for $89. However, the past few releases, notably `98SE and ME, sold for much less at release. You are correct in stating that they were just minor upgrades (bug fixes that should have been free), but then, XP Pro is also a VERY minor upgrade from 2000, yet costs $200 to upgrade to. In fact, it's a downgrade, when you consider the (holey) firewall (which I predict will go over as well as MS's anti-virus software they put in DOS 6.0), and WPA.

      When you also consider that XP Home is a similarly minor upgrade from `98SE or ME, when you SUBTRACT the network functionality that has been stripped, it hardly seems worth $100 there either. Networks at home are getting more and more common these days, especially for internet broadband sharing. MS has just made it impossible to use their "home" OS to be a client of any sort of secure network, when previously this existed.

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    10. Re:And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "Now take a look at XP. It is, visually, very impressive. Ergo, the user thinks it is a very advanced version and decides that it is better. "

      Actually, I think XP takes a huge step BACKWARDS from the very clean, practical 2000/ME GUI. The bad 70's shag carpet color-overload "kindergarden" GUI is an insult. Actually, it's a sign that MS couldn't think of anything USEFUL to add to the GUI, so just decided to change the colors radically and make the buttons bigger. Whee!

      MS changed the GUI only to make it LOOK different because they are banking on consumers and IT managers to think just because it LOOKS new, that the OS beneath it must be LOTS better, when nothing can be further from the truth. XP is a downgrade from 2000, not an upgrade, and it is debatable as to whether XP Home is even a significant upgrade from 98/ME.

      You can change back to the 2000 GUI in XP, which is something I did quickly on each test machine I had to run it on.

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    11. Re:And so it begins.... by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "The licensing on XP is tied to the system's BIOS. Upgrade your CD-ROM...no reactivation required. For most home users, who don't even know what a BIOS is, they will likely never need to re-register XP."

      And what happens if you have to FLASH your BIOS to fix a bug or add support for hardware? Time to call home...

      "Most of the new hardware requirements are due to the new GUI, don't like it? It can easily be switched back to "classic" mode from the start panel. Thus XP will require similar hardware requirements as Win2k"

      Huh? Not true! The GUI is nothing more than a "skin". The old GUI is just another "skin" (like Mozilla, which has a new look, but also has the Netsacpe 4.x GUI option). Changing to that kind of engine is what accounts for the increase in RAM/CPU the GUI takes, NOT what skin you run on it.

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
  95. This is idiocy. by _pi-away · · Score: 1

    This whole idea is just retarded. You know what guys, i love linux! i do, it's great. It's stable, it's free, it's flexible, it's just plain cool. Now, with that said, why don't you try to dump an ADAT down to your pro-level sound card and then master a CD in linux . . . having some problems? ya, me too.

    Let's face it, no professional or even semi-professional level soundcard is supported in linux, and even if they were there is no pro-level audio software around for linux. Now, i know what you're gonna say, but what about BEOS?

    What about BEOS, i don't know if you've noticed but its taken a nose dive. They had a shot there for a brief period, but then right as they were starting to take off they decided to "change focus" to networking from AV, a wise move considering no one has that area covered yet. At this point BEOS support is almost as rare as linux, rendering it more or less useless.

    Let's face it, at this point only mac and windows have any real abilities in this area, and mac is too damned expensive. XP is the next phase of windows, and it marks the end of the 9x/NT schism which is fantastic, cos i'm tired of the driver divide.

    Lastly, the raw sockets, umm, who cares? Raw sockets have been around for a long time, this is nothing new. Security for raw sockets? Again, who cares, XP isn't meant for shell users. Besides, maybe once the net is flooded with malformed and spoofed packets ISPs will start doing what they should have done long ago and start blocking packets that couldn't possibly be real right at the source.

    --

    "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
  96. Re:98 code base is dead: quit complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What a pile of crap.

    This piece of shit "stable" software crashes my certified Dell system every fucking time I try to use it.

  97. why? by coneKtor · · Score: 1

    i am just wondering what is this story doing on slashdot? there have been far too many m$ related stories on /. for my liking. as i see it, you either upgrade to winxp or you don't. from many of the posts it is obvious that many people don't have a clue what winxp is but they just flame away. i have been using rc1 for a while and i don't have any problems with it - all my software / games work and i see no real difference in speed compared to w2k. instead of trying to boycott m$, why don't all you guys get involved in oss developement and give the world a reason to switch to opensource. after all, what's the use in having 10 window managers in a linux distro if the average joe cannot use it daily for their productivity needs. i am a avid supporter of opensource (linux, freebsd, openbsd) but in my opinion windows still has the upper hand in certain applications. just my 2 cents...

  98. Bullshit by sheldon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Today what is the situation?

    Roxio has a monopoly in CD recording software by way of CD Creator. Roxio dictates to manufacturers how to do the hardware interface. Roxio charges an extremely HIGH price to consumers to obtain this software.

    I had to upgrade from CD Creator v3 to v4 for Win2k compatibility. Roxio wanted like $90 for this upgrade.

    I was able to buy a brand new CD-RW drive with bundled CD Creator for $99. A new 10X drive which was faster than my old 4X Yamaha.

    I would hardly say that Roxio by itself has been benefiting consumers.

    Besides, all Microsoft has done is license the software from Roxio and include it in WinXP by default.

    If anything this is an example of how bundling can benefit consumers.

    Chances are, the Roxio software in WinXP is limited in some fashion. Obviously Roxio did this in order to leverage sales of their Deluxe product.

    But since WinXP contains some rudimentary support for CD-R drives in some fashion we now have a standard! Hardware makers can write drivers that plug into the existing WinXP OS. Software makers of all sorts can leverage the existing CD-R handling and create more full featured writing programs.

    I see this as increasing consumer well being, similar to the way Microsoft increased our ability to network when they integrated TCP/IP into Win95 and eliminated the need to buy third party products like LANtastic.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Roxio doesn't have a Monoploy on ANYTHING. There are at least 10-15 other CD burning softwares for Windows. Let me think, Nero, Padus DiskJuggler, CDR-WIN, Clone-CD, NTI CD-R,...Ok well that's all I could think of off the top of my head but Roxio is still a far cry from a monopoly.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Bullshit by sheldon · · Score: 2

      That's like saying Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because of Apple and Linux.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I had to upgrade from CD Creator v3 to v4 for Win2k compatibility. Roxio wanted like $90 for this upgrade.

      I was able to buy a brand new CD-RW drive with bundled CD Creator for $99. A new 10X drive which was faster than my old 4X Yamaha.


      If this is true, then this is yet another truth-ism.. nothing can stop the market. Any tricks a dealer/manufacture trys, the consumers will find the path of least resistance and circumvent the problem.

    4. Re:Bullshit by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I know at least Nero and NTI are bundled with OEM systems and Burners. I also know that Padus is better IMHO than any other x86 CD-burning software out there.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  99. heh yea right, "buy" an os by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i dont think ive ever "bought" an OS
    Dos, win3.11, win95 a b & c win98 & se, several flavors of NT, a few different linux distros

    have yet to pay for any of it

    1. Re:heh yea right, "buy" an os by mkarpinski · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn beyond the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
  100. That's fine and dandy for Roxio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about Ahead Software who makes Nero Burning ROM software. Guess they're screwed, huh?

    1. Re:That's fine and dandy for Roxio by O · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, because Roxio sucks some big fucking ass.

      --

      1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
    2. Re:That's fine and dandy for Roxio by O · · Score: 0

      How is this off topic? It is a perfectly valid statement, stating that Ahead should not be worried, because Roxio's software gets worse with every revision, and now since they are in bed with the RIAA, people will not be able to burn their mp3 collections without paying royalties, and the market for unencumbered cd burning software will be strong.

      --

      1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  101. Barf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good God Almighty...look at what Slashdot has come to.

  102. The only thing I give microsoft for is the xbox by mhandlon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft has fucked everyone inside and out.... The only postive looking product they have have made is the xbox which looks like it will be the shit. Well, that and my microsoft intellimouse. hmmmmmm in the end I'm just a fucking poser running linux.

    --
    Nyquil = Nectar of the devil
  103. Re:98 code base is dead: quit complaining by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

    And yet mine stays up for months at a time. Go figure.

    Must be the operator.

  104. Re:Get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't see how this makes you a troll. You are completely correct sir. Why do people need to boycott MS pricing? If there is anything that should be boycotted, it is every OEM computer company who pre-installs Windows and offers consumers no choice of opting out. Yes, MS cuts some pretty sweet deals for OEMs who only bundle their OS, but this is a pretty lame ass excuse not to offer in some manner a proper, no OS system. But vendors don't want to hear about that.

  105. Linux isn't the alternative, it's the standard by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what if the normal user can't use Linux, they can't use Windows either. Face it, Redhat 7.1 is much less trouble to install than Windows, fact is that the Average user doesn't understand Windows either, so Why rant about why they don't understand windows also? When the pc manufacturers come to an agreement to not ship windows anymore, we will be rid of that problem. Here's why.

    IBM, Compaq, and HP have reasons to dislike Microsoft, they make up probably nearly half of the manufactured computers, throw in companies like gateway, who would do it just to make an extra $100 (windows is expencive), and you leave people having to get a specialist to install windows for them, or have one custom built! Linux could work on the desktop through that route, or by apealing to the gamers (convince id software to no longer support windows). Of course other game companies would follow.

    Why would that help? think about windows 3.1 vs dos... 3.1 had better office stuff, better internet capability, and it was easier to use. Yet, Dos was still the major setup, until windows 95 came along, and supported games, well. Which is still the only thing that windows9x/me does better than anyone else.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  106. prices from June 1990 by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just for shits and giggles, here are some prices from a June 1990 Byte magazine (the one with a rave review of Windows 3.0):

    Windows 3.0 retail: $150

    Price of a Dell 386 with color monitor and 40mb hard drive, 512K, 16MHz, a midrange system for running Windows: $2,399

    Price of a 25MHz 486, a high-end system: $5,295

    No conclusions but I thought maybe somebody would find this interesting!

    1. Re:prices from June 1990 by ikekrull · · Score: 2

      What amazes me is that the 512K 386 running Windows 3.0 machine offered a more consistent and useful UI than my P3/500 with 256MB of RAM running Mandrake 8.0

      --
      I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    2. Re:prices from June 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What amazes me is that the Apple Mac 512 that I used back +/- 1985 offered a more consistent and useful UI than Windows 3.0 did, nearly ten years later.

      The computing industry is desperately going nowhere it seems :/ Linux is bulky and overcomplicated for desktop use because, well, its based on a Unix design, Microsoft Windows is only starting to get around to stability after over ten years in the OS business, and feature-wise generally runs five to ten years behind anything else (e.g. many features present in the Mac 512, released in 1984, only first appeared in MS's Windows95). Apple spent so long struggling that they're only now starting to head on an upwards development curve again, OS/2 died after MS stabbed IBM in the back. What a fsck-up. And the customers all suffer the worst.

      For the past ten years I've been hearing exactly the same thing whenever MS releases a new OS .. "maybe this one will be better" .. "this is the one" .. "this one will be stable". And so goes the cycle.

    3. Re:prices from June 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 3.0 also had to run on top of MS-DOS, so you can add another $45 for OEM or $90 for Retail to that.

      Yes, hardware has gone down in price, but programmers have gone up in price.

      Free software is nice, but karma doesn't pay my mortgage, car payment or health insurance.

  107. The Pinnacle by BSDevil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a Windows user - the folks use the machine, I like games and Word, etc... for reasons - and I see no point in shelling out all this cash for XP. Even if my machine could support it (which it can't), I see nothing really groundbreakingly "new" or "special" in XP. For my money and computational power, Windows98 is the pinnacle of OSes that Microsoft has put out. The only reason I'm not saying 95 is because I like my USB. 95/98 wasn't that bad a Windows release; not too sugar-coated and it did what I needed it to do; nothing more, nothing less, and it allowed me to tweak as I pleased.

    --
    Cue The Sun...
  108. Punctuation by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 1

    u r so so lame

  109. Give me a break by raistlinne · · Score: 2

    What he posted wasn't even remotely brave. Slashdot is not a pro-linux environment and hasn't been for a long time. Every MS/Linux article now has hords of posts like this, i.e. hords of posts talking about how MS products have upsides and linux products have downsides, and linux isn't for everyone (often mixed in with some idiotic thing about linux users looking down their noses at beginners).

    I don't know what /. you're reading, but his post is really very redundant. Not to mention silly - if it installed fine, you generally need to learn how to do things like using the gimp - as if learning to use photoshop is substantially easier. Using netscape doesn't change from windows, and none of your standard word processing software is difficult to use (I expect that he's not using TeX).

    But oh well. It's hip to bash linux here on /., and then to claim that it's actually dangerous to do so, or at least any more dangerous than to post anything here. Please stop with the calling pro-MSers brave. They might have been on /. three years ago - not now.

    --
    They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
  110. What about DOS games? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I game just fine on 2000 professional ... Ive run programs that were compiled 10 years ago for a very old dos

    Then how do you play closed-source games originally designed for MS-DOS? Windows 2000 Professional is known to have some serious issues with respect to support for DPMI services, sound, and mouse and joystick input, and Microsoft has repeatedly stated that "these bugs are marked WONTFIX; if you want games, wait a couple months and buy an Xbox console and a Microsoft TV Tuner card."

    Or do you just dual-boot into DOS and lose all access to NTFS?

    I wouldnt know of any other commerical OS that would let you hotswap processors or anything

    Several commercial UNIX systems let admins disable processors, exchange them, and enable the new processor. But you shouldn't have to reboot to install a device that connects to the back of the computer, especially a 1394 or USB device.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:What about DOS games? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I personally boot to FreeDOS for any dos related activities on a completely seperate machine, but I suppose I could do that on my main machine if I wanted too. I avoid DOS for the most part and dont game much in all honesty, but I did game heavily for sevral months and found 2000 more than up to the challenge. And still that is one of the weaker arguments for upgrading to XP.

      Jeremy

  111. What about porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these diatribes slamming Windows XP...

    But nobody has brought up the built in porn, er image viewer/slideshow. Now that's a reason to upgrade...

    -acidboy

  112. It still has some way to go. by maunleon · · Score: 1

    Linux still has a long way to go. You can't expect people to use an OS where much of the software is distributed in source code form. People (regular people, not geeks) don't like to compile. Many don't even know what compile means.

    Also, the lack of a nice installer/uninstaller is crippling linux. Installshield (which I hate by the way because of certain technical reasons) and related tools do have a place in the hierarchy of things.

    I don't know what the popular opinion is, but I see this as a major drawback. RPM is not the solution, it's just a kludge... For GUI based apps (KDE, etc), Linux needs a graphical installer (and uninstaller!) similar to InstallShield, wise, etc.

    I think linux is great as a server or single utility OS.. But as a desktop for the average home user, noooooo... I shudder having to tell my mom "download this thing in your /tmp, gzip and untar it, run ./configure, run make all, run make install"

    And I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that the next day she doesn't say "I don't like it, how do I uninstall it?"

    Just my $0.02

    1. Re:It still has some way to go. by whaley · · Score: 1

      The source code is only distributed along the binary packages in order for really brave people to be able to see what it does and maybe even improve it :) No really, I have only one program that arrived as source (PINE) and it compiled and installed without ever looking at the source, I just needed to follow some simple command-line instructions from a README file.

      dselect, dpkg and apt-get do a very good job at installing and uninstalling things for me. I update the list of available software from the net, select the software I want, it checks if that's okay and if I require any other software for it to run, I hit install and it fetches the software for me, after downloading asks a few questions and the software is set up. Much better than Windows, where I will have to find how to download the .zip or .exe (huge because it includes all the libraries I already have), need to run the installer and HOPE that it will work after a reboot. Often it is a gamble if there will be any stability problems and sometimes the installer even doesn't get that far. Then how do I find out which files I have just installed into my system and where to get the original files that were copied over? On my Linux system I type dpkg -r and it either tells me some other program needs the file so I can't remove it unless I remove the other one as well, or it goes along and removes it without killing any other program.

      The Debian install/uninstall system may be different than the Windows 'system', but it's easy to learn for someone who could also manage Windows and does a much better job at it.

      There are graphical installers for RPMs and DEBs but personally I prefer the command line/text menu way.

      If your mom knows as much of computers that you can tell her 'go to download.com, find the program, download it to c:\windows\temp, run it, answer all the questions, then reboot' and 'go to control panel, add/remove software, click on the program and answer all the questions' you may as well tell her 'run dselect, update, select the package, type +, install, answer all the questions' and 'run dselect, select the package, type -, install, answer all the questions'.

  113. $15 cheaper at Costco by Drestin · · Score: 1

    Take all those amazon prices and slash $15 off of them and buy at costco.

    Also, note. these are prices before the OS is even released and at quantity 1. HELL, give it a month (after release) and the price will drop another 15. In 6 months it will drop 25%

    Either way you look at it, WinXP Home cost the same as Win9x/Me and WinXP Pro cost the same as Win2K Pro. And you get a better OS with more features. Looks good to me.

  114. Microsoft licensed Trumpet Winsock? Prove it by joneshenry · · Score: 2
    Okay I'll play. I've read quite a few accounts of Peter Tattam's adventures starting Trumpet Software including this and this. I don't see any mention anywhere of Microsoft licensing Trumpet Winsock. Nor is any such thing asserted in the alt.winsock FAQ. The closest I could come is Tattam's comment in the interview: "I had by that time established a good reputation producing internet software and was even offered a job by Microsoft as a consultant at one point. I'm glad I didn't take it up..:-)"

    As O'Reilly states, WinSock is more a specification, a set of APIs. Anyone could write an implementation. Several did. It just so happens that Peter Tattam wrote the best for Windows 3.1. Also he wrote a scriptable dialer which back in those days was what a lot of people needed to negotiate the hodgepodge of dial-in methods required by the much less consolidated ISP industry. And Tattam gave his package away as shareware so it could spread very fast.

    It gets better though from the perspective of an argument against bundling. There were quite frequent warnings as you can see in the alt.winsock FAQ about having the "right" WINSOCK.DLL installed with all others removed. And with the change to Windows 95, I can remember the huge amount of hype over whether one should go "32-bit". Here's a sample from back then which includes advice to simply remove Trumpet Winsock under certain circumstances.

    Unfortunately for the opponents of bundling, the problem with this otherwise perfect example is that it is inconceivable that a modern consumer OS would lack either a TCP/IP stack or a dialer. Trumpet Software had the clear market leader. Microsoft in Windows 95 bundled both its own TCP/IP stack and a dialer DUN. This bundling introduced potential incompatibilities that even led for some to advise uninstalling Trumpet's product. So should the government have had the right to force Microsoft to stop invading this software niche? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't the head of a much larger company such as Netscape? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't American?

    By the way, Trumpet Software is currently developing a new 32 bit OS PETROS.

  115. Windows is easier to use than Linux...or something by foqn1bo · · Score: 3, Interesting


    To be sure, whenever Slashdot has a story that involves M$ products, everyone gets hot and rustled with the age old "Why the hell do people still use Windows" thread. Primarily I see two arguments that surface:

    Windows has better/more software for my needs.

    (I would argue with 'better', but point taken).

    Windows is and will always be easier to use than Linux.

    I am sick and tired of hearing that excuse. And before you mod me down for being a snobbish troll, consider my reasoning first.

    Barring great paradigms such as Graphical vs. CL interfaces, I don't believe that there is such thing as a 'More intuitive than another' OS. Obviously Linux has got GUI covered. Face it people, you are good at what you know. The reason that windows users don't think that Linux is easy to learn is because it isn't Windows . When you have spent maybe 10 to 15 years using M$ operating systems, you have grown very used to the way things work there. eg., I want to know the filesize of this document, I rightclick, and select properties. Does anyone really think that a person who has never used a computer before (after learning what a mouse is and does) is going to think "Oh, I think I'll right click on that icon and select 'Properties!" ? Like C++, swimming and Italian cookery, using a particular operating system is a learned skill.

    Case in point? I hear that the Macintosh is supposed to be the end-all be-all of OS simplicity and intuitive design. *Yeah Right.* Just ask any windows/other user that is inexperienced with MacOS, and they'll tell you that it is a bloody nightmare. I work in IT at a University and I see this all the time--we have a small enclave of Mac users who are unbelievably frightened of PCs and our PC users are afraid to touch the Macs in fear that they'll cause the dreaded 'OsError' Bomb to come destroy the machine in spite. Not to mention the 'Boop of Death'. (True script involving my friend Renee at the library)

    Renee: Ok, I'll just click the...
    Mac: 'Boop'
    Renee: Ahh! Ok, how about...
    Mac: 'Boop'
    Renee: Aiee!! I'm trying to close you! Stop Booping!
    Mac: 'Boop Boop Boop'


    What I'm getting at (and there is a point I suppose), is that making any platform shift is shaky at first. Linux comes naturally for me now, but I spent a good long amount of time in confusion. If we want people to understand computers better and have the ability to make these kinds of migrations painlessly, then they need to be educated about the abstracts of how computers interact with humans, and not through a computer literacy course that deals strictly with an OS. Maybe then ./configure ./make ./make install won't be quite as terrifying.

  116. How does boycotting deprive anyone of rights? by dsfox · · Score: 1

    By saying `if it is good people should have the right to use it' you are implying that a boycott will somehow deprive someone of this right. A boycott is simply declining to buy a product and using free speech to express an opinion about it to others. You would have to be a timid creature indeed to equate this with depriving someone else of their rights.

  117. "mom" shouldn't install anything anyway Re:It stil by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    your mom shouldn't download or install anything on your computer. independant of the OS.
    my mother also doesn't have the root password of her linux computer, just as nobody else. i also wouldn't give out the nt-admin password. why should I ? she couldn't do anything useful with it anyway !

    and "installshield"... if you do a rpm -e pkgname, doesn't it remove the package ?

    if you install something with configure et.al - it's the same as if you're developing something with Visual Studio - you don't get an uninstaller for these apps neither !

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  118. I want my freedom, and my Linux partition - back! by TheRealKennRoss · · Score: 1
    It always bothers me to hear that MS is anti-competive for reasons such as packaging extra software with their operating systems that are not core to its functionality. What I'd like to know is why doesnt anyone complain that Win98 tries to overwrite my Linux partition when I do a complete reinstall of Win98 (need it for StarCarft, Quake, and my mother)? No Linux distro I have ever used bitched and asked to overwrite my Win98 partition. Now that is anti-competitive.

    BTW, a workaround - Install the MS OS, use FIPS to non-destructively make a new partition then install Linux on it.

  119. I won't be watching the Win XP release by Sadfsdaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally, I don't give a care weather Windows XP is a success or not, let's be honest here, how will this affect other operating systems? It's just a pretty GUI that you have to buy.. there isn't any massive improvements. Nothing to see here folks, move along now.

    What I'll be watching though, is the X-Box release. I'll be HELPING it become madly successful, and I hope all of you do the same. Go out, help out microsoft and BUY AN X-BOX! Why help the Other Side(tm)? Because if X-Box becomes the gaming platform of choice, above Windows, then there IS NO REASON TO USE WINDOWS ANYMORE. Yes, you've heard me right, why do any of us keep a spare windows partition? Yep, games. Windows XP won't affect me, weather I upgrade or not, but if X-Box becomes successful and everyone makes games for it, then i can finally fdisk my windows partition to hell, and so can the rest of you. I can finally convince all my friends to switch over to linux because they'll all be happily playing games on the X-Box.

    So Windows XP? What the hell, the masses like it or don't like it I don't give a crap, but with X-Box, you betcherass that I'll be watching closely and helping the MS X-Box movement along ^_^

    1. Re:I won't be watching the Win XP release by astafas · · Score: 1

      The problems I have with this is that console
      machines lack the games I like to play. I am
      more of a civilizations or xcom (original),
      turn-by-turn game. I haven't found anything similiar to them on any of the playstation,
      nintendo, whatever types. If x-box changes
      this I will probably buy it and wipe away my
      windows partition.

  120. why boycott??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i mean... wtf for really??? are people really that jealous of how far MS has gone? Has MS personally ever hurt you??? Gosh people can be so harsh, and I hear WinXP is great. well if people keep on boycotting and talking to authorities about their "monopoly" tactics I dont think they will ever get a chance to advance . Thanks a lot LOSERS

  121. Uhm.. by Deleted · · Score: 0

    boycott XP.. a lot of dumbasses who haven't tried it deciding to hate windows because it's non hackerific. I haven't met someone who's really tested WindowsXP, compared it to other MS releases, and still said it sucks. Quit being such little hackers and hating windows for no reason at all.

  122. Mandrake 8.0 beats Win2K, out of the box... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...at least in my experience. I've been a Win98/Linux dual booter for several years. Win98 is such crap it's hard to be productive, so I've been using Linux more and more, usually Mandrake. I ordered my new laptop with Win2K, so I could use Windows without constant crashes, spontaneous system screwups, and general bitrot. While Win2K has been generally reliable, it came with very little compared to Mandrake 8.0, and a lot of the apps I had to install needed updates to get working. After a month of downloading, installing, twiddling, and diddling, I still don't have a system as good, reliable, or comprehensive as with an out of the box Mandrake 8.0 installation- plus a few of my own apps- which I can have up and running in a couple of hours. With XP, which is brand new, this can only be worse. FWIW, I'm a technical writer, web publisher, web backend developer, and Java programmer.

    1. Re:Mandrake 8.0 beats Win2K, out of the box... by drsoran · · Score: 1

      Well, you of course know why. If Win2k came out of the box with all the types of applications Mandrake 8 does people would be screaming bloody murder and yelling "Monopoly! Monopoly!" Look what happened when they did something like bundle a browser (a VERY good one at that) with the OS! I'm actually on Microsoft's side on this one... most people today are buying computers to browse the web. If they didn't include IE how would people browse the web? Would they get instructions on how to open a DOS window and use ftp to download Netscape? That's just ridiculous.

    2. Re:Mandrake 8.0 beats Win2K, out of the box... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, in all the linux distributions i have tried, I MAY DESELECT THE NETSCAPE/LYNX/Konqueror PACKAGE, windows wont let me do that..I am not able to setup my computer without IE, and that is pretty crappy...

    3. Re:Mandrake 8.0 beats Win2K, out of the box... by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      Look what happened when they did something like bundle a browser (a VERY good one at that) with the OS! I'm actually on Microsoft's side on this one... most people today are buying computers to browse the web. If they didn't include IE how would people browse the web? Would they get instructions on how to open a DOS window and use ftp to download Netscape? That's just ridiculous.

      That would be the reason why as soon as I install windows 2000, I have to download:

      SP2: 11-30MB

      IE5.5SP2: 11MB

      HOTFIXES: 15MB

      A goodly proportion of the above fixes to IE. (I do agree with you that it is good, but i digress).

      I would much rather have a clean OS. And then add my browser &tc after the fact. That way i could have 100% avoided IE4. People would pick one or the other browser. (If you include the common controls for VB 6 &tc, NS 6.1 and IE 5.5.x/6 weigh in at about the same). Then web sites would support both browsers (apologies to those who use lynx etal.)

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
  123. Re:Don't Boycott Just Steal by Flabdabb+Hubbard · · Score: 0

    I would normally disagree with any illegal behaviour, but since the Jusice Department has found Gates, Monkey-Boy Ballmer and the rest of the Redmond Retards guilty of anti competitive behaviour, I would have to agree with the parent poster.

  124. Re:Top 10 reasons why Linux kicks ass by epsalon · · Score: 1

    All features mentioned are better supported under Linux:

    10) Remote assistance lets support people connect to people's machines and fix problems over the internet.

    Linux has been remotely administrable from the very first versions. Just ssh to the machine and su to root.

    9) Locking toolbars: No more accidently fucking up your IE toolbars or your taskbar. They stay where you want them.

    Use Mozilla. Problem Solved

    8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.

    Use Mozilla. Problem solved.

    7) New visual themes in explorer. New "skins" that let windows different.. finally.

    Use Mozilla. Problem solved.

    6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.

    The terminal in and Linux distro lets you easily access all files and directories without needing to scroll though long lists of filenames. Also, you can use konqueror (conveniently launchable from the panel) to do this too.

    5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally work, will.

    Why use buggy win9x/95/2k/xp programs when you could use stable open-source software?

    4) The new task oriented shell. It is nice once you get used to it. If you open a directory of pictures it will let you view a slideshow of them, print them, etc. If you open a folder of mp3s it has tasks on the left that will let you burn them to audio cd, play them, etc.

    Again, MS thinks it known what you want. What if you don't want a slideshow? What if you want only part of the mp3s burned to CD? You can do all this in Linux remotely via a textual console.

    3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now ;)

    Linux, however, requires zero reboots to install anything but a kernel update or hardware.

    2) Built in cd burning. Burn data cds in the shell or audio cds in media player. Very convenient especially for users that would normally not be able to figure out how to burn a cd.

    Linux features many GUIs for the excellent CD-Burning tools and ofcourse the option to burn a CD remotely via command line on a slow link. Can your shitty WinXP do that?

    1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.

    One word: VNC. Linux VNC lets you work on seveal desktops simultaneously on the same host. You can access the existing desktop or start a new one for the remote link, and works reasonably well on slow links. Also, esd includes support for remote sound tunnelling.

    1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me

    So is Linux.

  125. Re: Mathematica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucky bastard. Mathematica is one hot piece of software and cost megabucks ($1,495) for non-students/non-academics. It is sad (and surprising) that nothing even close exists in the open-source world.

    Sigh...

  126. X-Box by Spunk · · Score: 1
    A version of Windows XP (because the only reason I still use Windows is for my ATI-TV card, and to review computer games) that only has these features:

    1. Basic OS/Gui.
    2. Directx 8

    Isn't that the idea behind the X-Box?

  127. Usability testing by mattdm · · Score: 2

    It's not too late. Have you seen the GNOME usability report from Sun? http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report /report_main.html.

  128. No you don't by epsalon · · Score: 1

    Consider using CDRDAO for burning VCDs. Search the web for detailed instructions on how to do this.

    There is no reason to pay for properitary software, when there is free software that can do the same, and probably more.

    1. Re:No you don't by ShishCoBob · · Score: 1

      This still shows me having to get another program outside of windows. Which is my whole point. Anyway... I like nero.

      --
      http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.
  129. too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Windows costs over one week's pay for people in this country. It is the most expensive componet in the computer, it costs even more than a 17" monitor!
    This is nuts. How can MS justify this? New features like a 'firewall' !? A talking dog from MS Bob? What next, MS Windows YP for $600 + a Active Pay Gate Homage TM feature?

  130. Re:98 code base is dead: quit complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine .. if you say so .. now give me your IP address and I'll net nuke you. Your "first reboot in months". Yeah riigggghtt!!!! What a joke, your statement is so ridiculous noone here believes you. Win9X is fscking CRAP. The only time a Win9X box is stable is when noone is using it (and its not a network either, for people to nuke for example).

  131. -10: Most painful truth ever written at Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny 'cause it's true.

  132. Re: Installing by Jebediah21 · · Score: 1

    I honestly do think Linux is easier to install except for one thing: the partitioning. Mind you this is not a fault of Linux. People just want to keep their old Win install around. If Linux gave no choice like MS (don't care what is on the drive, just use it) the Linux install would be smooth for everybody who doesn't have a shoddy ISO burn.

    --

    Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
  133. Warning about 'trying'XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I recently attended a presentation about XP. It was claimed that reloading an older version of Windows on top of XP would "get you into a world of hurt", even if it was just a trial version of XP.



    Supposedly, what you have to do is "remove/uninstall" XP, then reload your other version of Windows.

  134. Microsoft want pirates by epsalon · · Score: 1

    Actually, Microsoft won't admit it but they want home users to pirate their software. This way windows will be the only OS they will know and then Microsoft can keep holding its market share in the more important (to them) buisness sector.
    You can realize this when you hear all the BSA commercials are all pointing to buisnesses. Has anybody told you not to pirate a copy of windows at home? No!
    Microsoft would better prefer that the customer whose unwilling to pay for software will pirate their software than install Linux.
    Just my $0.02.

  135. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  136. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

    Let me clairify a fow things.


    Firstly Joe Public probably only has the vaguest idea of what NT is, so there is limited mileage on the "based on NT" bandwagon.


    I was actually referring to the group of people who will start baking the latest microsoft acronyms at me and considering that to be final.

    Win NT may run with stability on an old PC, but it can't say much else. I spent two years using it on various worksatations (from a p166 to a PII 333)and it was stable alright, but it was also brutally slow compared to even an older system using (even!) win9x. Stability at the cost of speed is not the answer. Linux et. al. can claim speed and robustness, why can't the financially daft microsoft?

    Oh yes, and you have too much ram to really be considered low end. Try 32 or 64 megs. 64 megs of ram will run just about anything without swapping -- except under NT.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  137. brain missing? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2

    A boycott doesn't stop anyone who doesn't want to participate from buying it.

    Second, not buying stuff from MS on general principal is perfectly valid, would you buy products from a company owned by Nazi's (or any other evil organization of your choice)? I'm not comparing MS to Nazis, I'm simply demonstrating that maybe there are products you might not want to buy on general principal. Seems a valid reason to me...

    disclaimer: "brain missing" isn't supposed to be an insult, I'm just kidding ; )

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  138. Our uproar is good news to Microsoft by WHudson · · Score: 1

    The mere fact that there is this outlash against the bloated XP product line is a sign of a true community of individuals who want some choices in their computing experience. Needless to say, this is a good thing.

    On the other hand, by encouraging this popular support and vocal outlash, Microsoft has the conniving sidegain that they do indeed have some competition - I mean, look at all those people who are so vocal in their support to use other, non-Microsoft products. Microsoft needs a strong Linux/OS community to justify the nonfact that they have some competition in the desktop sector of the computer industry.

    I don't really mind the fact that Microsoft has a huge market share and Linux doesn't - the only thing I ever wanted from my computing experience was the same as I want in a bookstore - choice and freedom to choose. Microsoft isn't giving us either.

  139. damn idiot by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2

    Look, I hate zealots, they do nothing but distract from the real issues and make us all look like fools. BUT, you're being a damn idiot, the reason it would be different than FUD is that he would be telling the truth, not half truth, not flat out lies, the plain simple unadultered truth.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:damn idiot by Homewrecker · · Score: 0
      Uh huh, and yet if I were to start the same "grassroots movement" that carefully explained the many deficiencies of Linux (all carefully researched and perfectly true), it would suddenly be Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. How stunning of a doublestandard would that be around Slashdot?

      But, since I don't agree with your definition of truth, I'm an idiot. Call it a hunch, but I don't think you're as anti-zealot as you claim.

      --

      --- Linux R00lz!

  140. all of you are losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man xp is the best Windows platform and I use it...

    of course i use mac OS X as my main machine but i also a pc, and XP is still crap compared to OS X !

    but against all orther windows XP is the best period. Price (what are you stupid or something if you wanted it you find a way to get it...)

  141. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by archen · · Score: 1

    NT using an obscene ammount of resources is considered a feature - that way it can't allocate the resources to run viruses because NT is busy.. um... running.

  142. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ram is cheap
    geforce2mx is cheap
    celeron1100mhz are cheap

    Get a job looser.

  143. Its getting that way for MS Office. by Nailer · · Score: 2

    Seriously, are we approaching the day that windows will cost more than the computer it runs on for most people?

    Brand new current model imac - $AU 1800
    MS Office:Mac - $AU 950

    Its nearly already the case with MS Office.

  144. I Got Your Alternative Standing, Boy! by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Buy a freaking Imac. That's what I'm going to make my parents buy next time they buy a computer. Apple's got that hold your hand shit the average user loves so much down to a science. Buy hardware, plug it in, have it work. You're not paying significantly more for the box anymore, so why punish yourself?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  145. These fuckers at boycottxp.com censor the poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These fuckers at boycottxp.com have some censorship over their poll. I've run a stress test against their site thrashing their poll with Windows XP votes. And, mind you, after site has recovered (after an hour or so) the number of votes for Windows XP has DECREASED. It should have been increased by 1011 votes. Welcome to the world of censorship and duplicity.

  146. Re: Installing by odaiwai · · Score: 1

    It's my understanding that RH has a two default partitioning schemes for Workstation and Server installs and you only need to worry about partitioning when doing a custom install.

    They could probably take a leaf out of FreeBSD's book and have and A)uto option in diskdruid/fdisk which picks some reasonable defaults based on the size of disk available.

    dave

  147. Microsoft partition naming is even worse by pyramid+termite · · Score: 1

    It's driven me up a wall several times, whenever I've added or subtracted a hard drive or CD-ROM. If you have one hard drive, the first partition is C:, the second is D:, and so on until you have your CDROM, E:. OK, if you add a second hard drive, C: stays the same, but D: is now the first partition of your second hard drive, E: is the second partition of the first, and the CD-ROM is F:. This results in over half of your programs having to be reinstalled, either because they can't figure out that the CDROM has changed drive letters, or that they're on a different drive letter, or both. It's a major pain. If you add a CDR to your system, it may insist on being E: instead of F:, which bumps your regular CDROM to F: and you get to reinstall all those programs again. There's no way you can just tell the system to use certain drive letters - no, it's going to be the way it is and you just have to deal with it. Oh, yeah, if you wipe one of your partitions to install Linux in, you'll have one less drive letter and so the CDROM letter will change again and ... well, it's time to reinstall all that crap again. It's the most asinine partition identification system possible.

    In Linux, switching around hardware, the names of the CD-ROMS (hdc1 + hdd1) stay the same, no matter what you do with the hard drives. Now THAT'S logical!

    1. Re:Microsoft partition naming is even worse by mobets · · Score: 0

      you may still be stuck with the hard drive letters, but in the properties for any other drive in device manager, you can specify the begining drive letter.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    2. Re:Microsoft partition naming is even worse by whaley · · Score: 1

      Yep, and a friend of mine uses 'R:' for his CD-ROM and 'W:' for his CDRW. Works nicely. Then again, remembering /dev/cdrom isn't too hard either.

    3. Re:Microsoft partition naming is even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You change the drive letters under NT/2K without trouble, except for whatever you installed on.

      Linux of course has the same issues with it's stooopid sequential SCSI device naming. Apparently Linux has problems with a solaris-style Bus/ID/LUN scheme that would prevent your drives from jumping around, Windows-style, when you add a hard drive.

  148. There are pretty gui faces everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did you first decide that you need a
    graphical interface to install a piece of
    software?
    If you do, and mom does too, compile the source
    , test it , zip the files, write a tk widget around the unzipping of the files with a few user choice prompts in it for the user , and have a little progress bar in another widget for the copying over.

    This whole project can be completed by a non-programmer with references and 3 yr technical computer user, with less than two years linux experience in a week. You will learn a lot more and so will mom.

  149. mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had X do this to me today with kde 2.1.2..
    Irritating isn't it.

  150. try this at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get everyone you know (hey, everyone here on slashdot) to call up Dell or Gateway's sales support. Tell them you're ordering a system and you'd like them to sell you something. Let them recommend everything. And finally, when they sense the deal being cinched, ask for Linux instead of XP. When they say they can't provide Linux, argue with them. "Why not? Didn't they just rule Microsoft a monopoly? By not supporting an alternative operating system, aren't you just feeding the monopoly? I can't bear to have Microsoft on my machines, so I guess I'll have to see if someone else has the cajones to get rid of Standard Oil. Thank you, though, for your time."

    Or something like that.

    Imagine if everyone on slashdot did that for days on end. Hrm..

    1. Re:try this at home by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you go to Dell's website in the business section, you can order a Linux box. Just in business not for home. At least they sell one.
      I saw the eXPerimental beta 3 weeks ago. A friend was loading it. Three others tried it and it seemed ok, Win 95 is finally here, just 7 years late. I sat down and opened one app. Locked that sucker up. Never met a Microsoft product I couldn't crash. One guy says it's my Linux aura. Hope so.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  151. and you'd be wrong by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2

    with your assumption about me. When people disregard some of the technical advantages *BSD has over Linux I try to find out the real scoop.

    The difference isn't in what you could do, it's between what the guy was saying and what MS has done. You were defending MS comparing their tactics to what he was saying, but they are not the same thing at all as MS has attempted to spread blatant lies and misinformation about Linux while he was advocating no such thing at all.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:and you'd be wrong by Homewrecker · · Score: 0
      Well, then we're even, because I'm not defending Microsoft. I am defending the freedom of choice that Linux zealots wear like a badge yet don't tend to follow. I use Win2000 for my desktop PCs and FreeBSD for my servers because they are the best choices as far as I am concerned for each application.

      The original comment I replied to consisted of more "let's convince people that Microsoft is evil" when there's not much to steer them toward. Have I used Linux and the BSDs on the desktop? Yes, and I couldn't wait to get rid of them (and I'm not alone). Zealots tend to think that the only reason why anyone would stick to Windows is a lack of education... which is often false. I'm educated and I use it because it's the best tool for the job and, politics be damned, there are no better alternatives.

      Should educated users abandon Windows simply because of questionable business tactics? If so, it means also ditching Chevy, Ford, Sony and virtually anyone else who isn't mom-n-pop.

      --

      --- Linux R00lz!

  152. But you wouldn't want to visit this censor site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Trolling is not tolerated here"

    ... which is the same thing as saying "censorship will be rigorously applied".
    Well hey, it's your bedroom and your linux box. But don't you have anything better to do? Instead of urging other to boycott XP for reasons that have more to do with ideology than technology why not go make your preferred OS better? It's a lot easier just to be negative...

  153. Re: Installing by LegendLength · · Score: 1

    fdisk is no easier than the Linux alternatives. The reason you think that is because most machines come with Windows pre-installed and partitioned.

  154. here we go again by WildBeast · · Score: 1

    Look, I don't care, I use Windows for my day to day tasks and I use Linux to learn about computers, so I can be closer to my machine. Windows is great, I don't see why we should boycott it. It's nice to see that now we can choose which OS we want to use and I don't want anyone to tell me which one I should use.

  155. stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since you give no reference to your preferred OS, I can only assume you use Windows

    ever 5 year olds know Windows isn't stable

  156. Wrong info by rabtech · · Score: 2

    I always find it rather pitiful when zealots from any side spew false information to promote their cause... whether it be PC vs Mac or Windows vs Linux, fools on both sides tend to make up more information than they research. For example...

    "Linux has this kind of stability ever since version 1.0. Linux separates the kernel from the GUI. Windows NT and 2000 built having the GUI in the kernel. Finally with Windows XP they copy the Linux approach and separate the GUI from the kernel. "

    He is dead wrong here. Both in Windows 2000 and XP, the video drivers live in kernel space for performance reasons. But what is called the "Window Station", which takes care of drawing/widgets, et al lives smack dab in user-space, under the guise of csrss.exe, which also happens to provide the entire Win32 API, since the NT kernel itself only has about 200+ APIs collectively called the Executive.

    Furthermore, the Window Station has always had both the capability to have multiple desktops, as well as the capability to redirect its output. Why Microsoft waited this long to expose that to end users is a mystery to me.

    At any rate, here's how an XP/2K machine works (except for fast-user switching, which is new to XP).

    System boots the kernel, loads drivers, etc (XP does nearly all driver loads in parallel following the dependancy tree, and remembers what loaded last time and prefetches that from disk before it is needed.)
    Once that process is complete, Window Station 0 is initialized with Desktop 0 -- this is the primary console on which the GINA runs (the GINA provides login/auth, and the screen you see when you press CTRL+ALT+DEL).
    Once a user logs in, Desktop 1 is initialized, which is where explorer.exe (the shell) and your programs live.

    When a Terminal Services client logs in, a new "Job" is created by the kernel, and Window Station x is initialized within that job space. That Window Station also inits Desktop 0 and 1.

    XP Adds the capability to init other Desktops on Window Station 0 as other users, which is where the Fast User switching comes from.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  157. I'm a Windows user, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll pass on XP until I see how all the other sheep upgrade their computers. I'll be willing to bet XP gets a lukewarm welcome.

    First of all, all the "buzz" about personal computers that enveloped most of the US for the last few years is pretty much gone by now. Nobody except the minority geeks give a crap about new and shiny OS upgrades and apps. The majority of users already log into AOL, use AIM, check their email, manipulate pictures with their digital camera, well you get the picture. They already have what they want already and they are not talking about it around the dinner table or party.

    Second, just wait until the suckers who do upgrade find out that XP drivers dont exist for their old legacy hardware. Or it runs too slowly (64 Mb MINIMUM, 233Mhz CPU, not everyone has this people). Or their old DOS or Windows 3.1 or early Win32 apps won't run either. Or that you're going to need a .NET Passport account to use Outlook Express (see http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%253D1470%252 6a%253D13705%2526app%253D3%2526ap%253D4,00.asp). Only the complete morons will actually believe M$ when they say their data is safe with them.

    Third, for the majority of people who have been upgrading from Win95 to 98 to 98SE and to ME because M$ says "this upgrade is more stable" (http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/software/winme/ + various reports of crashes with ME) have probably had enough of M$'s crap. How many times can you be burned and still fall for that bulls**t? Sure, XP "probably" is going to be more stable, as it's based on 2000, but what about the interaction between app and OS? I have apps that run on Win98 crash on 2000, due to some coding shortcuts. To the average user, this will appear as an instability, and thus feel like they've got burned again by the M$ and shill reviewers hype machine.

    It'll be an interesting sociological and psychological experiment to see just how much bulls**t the general public buys into or tolerates...

  158. Why Boycott XP? Time for silly consumerism to end by konmaskisin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Boycott is perhaps too strong a word - ignore would be more kindly. Besides, you probably can't boycott it indefinitely without significant effort. If you buy consumer computer equipment in the next few years (especially laptops) it will be *forced* upon you whether you like it or not. If the boycott means "give me the choice to not consume this product" and it shakes up suppliers then I'm all for it. I can certainly think of better ways to spend 299$ (US$ .. larger number up here in Canada). Ways that don't involve technology even ... or at least what passes for "technology" in these days of hype.

    Hey I'm all for technology, being sort of a geek and all, but it's time for this fascination with truly mediocre and overpriced software to end ... and perhaps with ITC and computers in general. We need to be geeky and technophilic about *REAL* important technology. Shift Magazine's article "Why technology is failing us [and how we can fix it]" will explain:

    http://www.shift.com/mag/9.3mag_toc.asp

    The stupendous waste of money and capital that was poured into IT/dot.com and that could have gone into more thoroughly revolutionary technology is staggering when you stop to think of it. In reading the Shift piece about Silcon Valley's "non-revolutionary" landscape (traffic jams, malls, SUV's, etc), Ivan Illich's "Ideology of the automobile" and "Tools for conviviality" come to mind: at least there's a place to start grounding technology in human needs ...

    In that context Microsoft is not an innovator - it's been proven over and over again; and that just in the area of the IT industry alone. In fact a huge chunk of the IT industry *itself* is more hype than anything else so this makes it even more compelling to avoid spending even more on MS products. Taking into account the fact that, for what we *do* need computers for the free OSes are now more than "good enough" for anything and everything the utter irrelevance of MS as a "technology leader" is clearer than ever.

    What Microsoft **is** significant for is its vast pool of capital - which is most likely going to be **horribly wasted** reinventing the wheel, slowly, in a way that benefits shareholders. They are like a huge bank that doesn't have enough loans in play ... IMNSHO the most useful thing they could do now is exit the market intact and redeploy that capital in other sectors (Bill? time to retire!) because there is really nowhere to go but down for a good long while otherwise. But hey, yah gotta love the "free" market: it can't be "free" without vast waste, irrationality, duplication and utterly pointless uses of resources going along with that freedom. We all need to remember *that* the next time some analyst on CNN says "the market" or "the economy" (like they are discrete describable objects) is "adjusting" or that some kind of rational "equilibrium" is being established ...

    All the other reasons for "boycotting" MS can be found detailed here http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ - yup, all the bad stuff MS did and then denied while what it really should have been doing was truly innovating. Sorry,.NET and C# are too little too late. It has been proven MS can't play nice and it seems high time to me for them to go sit in the corner for a really long long time.

    Meanwhile perhaps someone could buy their cash pool in a breakup firesale and put it to use ...

  159. Re: Installing by Jebediah21 · · Score: 1

    No, the reason I think installing Windoes is easier at this point has nothing to do with fdisk. It is easier because there is no way to configure it. Windows doesn't worry about anything but it's own data. Since Linux is the underdog and often installed on dual-boot machines this makes it appear more difficult to intstall due to the partitioning step (which only dual booters really need to do).

    --

    Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
  160. I just don't understand ... by Hadean · · Score: 2

    After reading all of these comments, I'm really sad to admit that many of them are complete lies (or at least, false accusations). I've been using WinXP since it's RTM last week (being a beta tester, I got a free copy). I'm also a hacker, hardware enthusiast and general computer nerd... So far, it's actually impressed me (and my wife) and am glad to say that I'm quite happy with it.

    There seems to be a lot of complaints about the UI: You can turn off the cuteness! There are tons of compaints about the WPA: I changed the motherboard, CPU, RAM and CD-ROM (to DVD-ROM) and still haven't had to call anyone. If I do later, then, presumably it should only take a few minutes... And, plus, we all know it's been cracked already: if we're such enthusiasts, we can crack WinXP so it doesn't complain anymore. The speed? I just finished Max Payne, and it was running at the same speed it did in Win98SE (on my Duron 800, 192megs PC133 system).

    Sure, I love Linux. It's a great hobby operating system when it comes to home use. It may be powerful in the business world, but for my uses? It's far too clunky and lacks a huge number of features and utilities that I need to work with. The answers I get? "It's coming!" or "Make it yourself, it's open source!". Those are both silly, considering I'm using an OS only the paranoid will steer clear from that has everything I need, now.

    If you're going from Win2k, then yes, here isn't a huge difference and may not be worth the extra money (yet), but I honestly thing it's worth the upgrade from Win98... (of course, I didn't pay for it, so it would all depend on your financial position... rent would be more important, for example).
    *shrug* Basically, I'm just getting sick of hearing the same complaints from so many people who haven't even TRIED it yet... (quoting Beta 2 stats and misinformation, such as WinXP Home not supporting dual monitors, is annoying, to say the least).

  161. BoycottXP.com: wrong approach by screamager · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the main page of BoycottXP.com:Windows 2000 is the first stable piece of crap that microsoft put out and it isn't that bad.


    As long as the people that run this site allow this kind of speech on their main page, they will never be taken seriously and will never get the media attention they're after. What a waste...

  162. Gatesgamel by phee · · Score: 2
    "Papa Geek! Papa Geek!"

    "Yes, Geekette? What is it? You're blue with exhaustion!"

    "I had to run from the evil Gatesgamel! He shot flying Rainbow Disks at me, labeled with evil symbols like 'XP' and 'Do not make illegal copies of this disk'! He sent his Ballmercat after me! I was nearly geeked to death!"

    "Great geek in the morning! Gatesgamel, so close to Geekville? Quick! Everyone! Geek for your lives! And hide your little geeks! Don't let them listen to his words! They'll follow him and never geek again!"

    ...and that's all I gots to say 'bout XP.

    --

  163. but if microsoft never existed... by superpeach · · Score: 1

    I am a linux user now, by choice, and I hate it when I need to use most microsoft products. But, without microsoft being so good at convincing people that they needed to upgrade to this that and the other how would things be now? Most people here run their free (as in..blah.blah) OS on an x86 machine, without microsoft this architecture would have probably not been around today. I was just trying to think of a reason why that is good, but I couldn't. At least that microsoft dream of having PC's on every desktop thing means that, indirectly, there should be more people to work on those fun projects people come up with..

    -sorry, i'm drunk and decided to post.

  164. Re: Mathematica by mj6798 · · Score: 2
    There are lots of tools like Mathematica. Maxima will do symbolic math and general programming. OCAML, Haskell, and a bunch of other functional language give you the functional programming part of Mathematica. R is more numerically and statistically oriented. Python with VTK and several other packages is more than competitive for numerical and visualization applications.

    You can't get exactly Mathematica, but you can get better functionality overall with different open source packages.

  165. you're missing the point. by ananke · · Score: 1

    the point is NOT the fact that you happen to be on a slow link, have no time to waste on the download, don't have any empty cds, or stuff like that. the REAL point is that there is an OPTION available for you to do it for free, unlike with windows.

    --
    --- d'oh
  166. Congratulations! by mj6798 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You just spent $130 for the privilege of learning a proprietary system. Because you will now invest months and years in learning that system, you'll then basically be forced to spend thousands of dollars on the full version once you graduate, since you will already have sunk the cost of learning something.

    Are there open source alternatives? You bet. No, not quite the same bundle of functionality, but overall better: Maxima (symbolic math+functional programming), OCAML and Haskell (functional programming), R (graphics, interactive numerical programming), Python (graphics, 3D visualization, interactive numerical programming), and many others.

  167. Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    And what, precisely, can you do in Windows that you can't do in Linux other than run games?

    Once I can play my games in Linux I see no reason whatsoever to use Windows for any purpose. Linux does the job, and better, for everything I need, from email to programming Perl or C to CAD to running any kind of server my heart could desire.

    Can any of the I-want-to-suck-Bill boys out there name a single useful function that Windows is better at than Linux? *And* provide proof?

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  168. Stupid, eh? by sideshow-voxx · · Score: 1
    theres 1000 of us

    Uh, check your user number, dude...

    --

    "Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another" - Doctor Who

  169. Immenent death of Microsoft predicted! by xixax · · Score: 2
    I can't find the original article (work's pR0n filter deems ESR's home page to be grossly offensive) but I recall Something along these lines being said about the last Windows release as well. It all reads just like predictions of the death of UseNet.
    Windows 2000 will be either canceled or dead on arrival. Either way it will turn into a horrendous train wreck, the worst strategic disaster in Microsoft's history. However, their marketing spin on this failure will be so deft that it will barely affect their hold on the consumer desktop within the next two years.

    Is there an echo in here?

    Xix.
    P.S. I apologise if the above links are broken. I can reach cached copies, but not the pages themselves. Blame the PHBs.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  170. Boycott! It's the CAPITALIST way!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVERYONE here saying that it is somehow "wrong" or "uncapitalist" of us to boycot XP is 100% WRONG. The boycott is one of the most basic, fundamental tools of capitalism. It is how WE, THE CONSUMERS, tell a corporation they have crossed the line. WE, THE CONSUMERS, REFUSE to GIVE them OUR MONEY. Corporations do NOT have ANY intrinsic RIGHT TO OUR MONEY.

  171. Just checked out Boycott-XP by Steffen · · Score: 1

    I went to look at the linked site, and here is the title of the first story:

    Linux vs. M$ (in the home market)

    Once I see that M$, I just know it's unlikely you are going to see well balanced arguements. It's one step up from declaring M$ = p00pyp4nts.

  172. It has become a matter of principle. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I do not care if XP is the best OS under the Sun, I refuse to put more money in a company with the dubious moral attitude of MS regarding the computer market, its clients and what competition should be.

    It is also important that people that do know how to use a computer keep alive alternatives to MS, otherwise there is absolutely no chance that there will be solutions available when the time comes to break the MS "embrace". (example: sooner or later most goverments around the world will realize how foolish it is to depend on one company for the format in which they are storing information. Most sensible goverments are horrified to thing to delegate responsibility of strategical resources in the hands of private, foreign companies. Most goveerments will sooner or later realize that MS is a foreign company and that they have them by the b@@11s because MS holds the key to access their own information).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  173. Re:Why Boycott? by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

    W2k gave me problems with The Sims, NT4 drivers (all that were available at the time) for my scanner, and an initial problem with RealAudio (fixed in a newer version of RA). That is all I can think of at the moment. There may have been a few others.

  174. Obviously principles don't matter much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the hand wringing and spleen venting of the Linix community against the scourge of Redmond, your operating system of choice has perhaps a 6% share of the U.S. market. Adding the governments (principally in Europe) to the whine won't make any difference. Look at how long this dependancy on a 'private, foreign company' has been developing, and yet nothing has been done about it.

    1. Re:Obviously principles don't matter much by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

      Thing s will change, it is just a metter of time and horrors.

      Just recently the UK goverment has been questioned very heavily about why they are using MS only technologies for a supposses "goverment portal'.

      After many complains they had to make sure alternative browser could use it when at the beginning (oh surprise) only IE would work.

      Each Outlook outage wisens up a few more people.

      --
      IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  175. M$ are now unamerican by levinas · · Score: 1
    I think that is can be summerised that WindowsXP is both over priced and bloated. However, what version of windows isn't (with the expection of win2000 perhaps). This does not matter since while XP may well fail on the retail side, since what person in there right mind is going to pay more for less, they can still force XP on consumers though OEM distribuion channels. M$ have been sucessful of depriving the consumer of their only right and this is choice.

    America is the most powerful nation in the world today(although I give it 200 hunfred years on the outside) because of one single concept and that is freedom.

    To me freedom == choice.

    Donning my flamesuit

    M$ with no motivation rather then greed have now made is impossible for people from the same countries that make computer"s to use the software to run them due to cost. This is a perversity. Now there is motivation for hackers of these countries to create their own software industry which could overtake America's oneday. All thanks to Linux ofcourse

    The rule is: that if you crash innovation in your own country then you provide cause for innovation in other. The Japinesness automotive industry ate Americas because of the exact arrogaince that M$ have started to display. To have a software industry dependand on, or owned by one company is a path to ruin.

    Crush competition in one area leave yourself open to another

  176. I don't get it. by hawk · · Score: 2
    I followed the windows RG link a few days ago when someone sent it to me. In the interests of honesty, I don't and never have used windows. It launches some games for the kids (ok, and an occasisonal game for me). I went from unix to mac and back to unix when I found LyX. So just how is this RG supposed to be different from the current version? In that it takes slightly longer to crash?


    I tried everything it displayed; I just can't see the difference. I suppose it's a joke along the lines of Dogbert's new operating system . . .


    hawk

  177. Re:bah, for windows users... This is BS by krynos · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but this is far from the reality.
    When programming under DOS (MZ), Unix (ELF) or Win32 (COFF). The debugging info is not in the middle of a text (code) segment.
    Under DOS debugging info was in the overlay, under linux it's (if my memory is right) in the .stabs and .symtabs section. COFF should be similar.
    Debugging info affect load time, but not execution time.
    Usually programs with debug infos have less optimization too.
    That's why you can strip a program with debugging infos, it's just remove the ELF/COFF/... sections that contains the debugging info.

  178. Help make Microsoft's life miserable! by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    You need two computers for this to work:

    Get a retail copy of XP, so they can't complain about EULA violations.

    Install it on one of your machines. Register and validate it. Then wipe the partition.

    Install it on your second machine. When prompted, call Microsoft and have them re-validate your install on this machine now. Then wipe that partition and re-install back on the first machine.

    Repeat hourly until you start getting busy signals when you call their number.

  179. We're going about this the wrong way. by Dwonis · · Score: 2
    We're attacking the Microsoft platform from all the wrong angles. We're trying to tell the public that nobody needs Windows for anything, which is utter crap.

    I run Debian most of the time. Occasionally, I boot into Windows for the odd Blizzard game, but that only happens about twice every two weeks. I actually don't mind running Windows at home, because my Windows partition is expendable, so if anything craps out, I just wipe and reinstall. ( Also, since I barely use it, it tends not to break. Go figure.)

    Many Windows users' biggest fear is that something will happen that will cause all their hard-worked-on files to be wiped out. For me, this is not a problem because I don't do anything important in Windows.

    Rather than telling people that Windows should never be used for anything, and that Linux is better for everything, we should simply tell them that "these are the things that GNU/Linux can do better than Windows, and for anything else, feel free to use Windows if you want." Eventually, that list will grow, and with more Linux users, there will be more Linux-native apps. That, my friends, is how we shall take over the world. [laughs evilly]

  180. Winsock Horrorshow by Jeffk67 · · Score: 1

    Whether MS licensed it's winsock (I don't think they did) or not this has to be the best example of bundling benefiting the consumer I can think of and one of the best things MS ever did. Back in the day using IP on windows was a nightmare. Every ISP/online service/app had it's own IP stack and they all went by the name of winsock.dll. If you used Compuserve and decided to try Delphi the installation program would likely overwrite your previous winsock. The new one either would not work or worse worked 90% of the time and then caused everything to lock up. I used batch files to copy/rename wisock.dll for every ISP I used. Of course windows 3.x was a nightmare in itself. I used OS/2,then tried Slackware linux but I always needed a dos partition for acceptable game performance. Anyway, when windows 95 came out the integrated winsock was my favorite feature. Had MS not included it, I doubt they would have kept their market share.

  181. +5 insightful by sulli · · Score: 1

    but then again, why are we reading slashdot?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  182. Re:Why Boycott? by matty · · Score: 1

    I had always been able to start downloading large files (uhh, .iso's! yeah, that's it! ;) and then start playing a game on top of it, like Warcraft II, under Win98SE. The desktop would disappear and the game would play on. When I noticed the lights stop flashing on my DSL router, I would save the game and go 'inspect' my downloads. Win98SE was very stable doing this (well, for Windows anyway). It usually wouldn't crash but maybe once per playing/downloading session.

    I thought I'd try W2K since Linux, although I love Debian, just isn't quite there (I love Free Agent and Windows Media Player 6.4. Pan doesn't quite do it for me, and while there are progs to run most mpegs quite well, I haven't found a good .avi viewer for Linux. *sigh* Oh, well, my requests for Linux are getting more esoteric, which is a sign of progress, I guess...). The first time I tried W2K in this situation, it locked up after about 60 seconds of game play (this was on a fresh install to an empty partition). Hit the reset button, try again, crash after 60 seconds.

    I then wiped out the partition, and reloaded Win98SE with the .tar.bz2 image I had taken of the install, and started downloading the same .iso ;) and started playing the same game, and continued until the .iso ;) was done. No crash.

    W2K isn't always more stable in all situations.