> With Win2K, I think I've had 1 lockup in 6 months,
> and that was my fault for installing 7 year old ASPI drivers.
If Win2K was truly as stable as Linux, why isn't he telling us what he is using it for? More than surfing the web & writing the occasional email? Is he running an enterprise-level application (e.g. a multiuser database, or a webserver)?
I use Windows 2000 both at home and at work; at home I use it for surfing, games, a light-duty web- and FTP server, and it needs a reboot about once ever three weeks. At work, I administer a couple dozen Windows 2000 machines, most used for development and a few used for serving. The development machines go down about as often as my home machine, but the server has gone down exactly once since we started using Windows 2000 almost a year ago, and that was to install the Service Pack. That's right, once. Performance is still there, too, and memory utilization is low.
Just anecdotal evidence, but take that for what you will.
Funny, I think "free and it runs pretty well on an old PII-450" is pretty good value compared with the costs of four Athlon-class servers and four Win2000 server...
Err... what? Are you talking about Linux here? I thought one of Linux's strong suits was modest hardware requirements. Even today, I wouldn't exactly call a PII-450 underpowered. Windows 2000 runs well on anything down to a PPro-200 or so, and on a 450, well, responsive is an understatement. Bragging about performance on a 450MHz chip is like getting cocky about your ability to hit the broadside of a barn.
Linux, of course, could certainly be shoehorned onto a 486, something I would be loath to try with anything after NT 3.51. Concentrate your praise on that ability, instead.
Your last four lines are nearly incoherent. Might you please rephrase what you were trying to say? Not a flame, an honest request...
Re:Ouch! What a crushing blow to my egocentricity!
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
please, for the love of god, can we end this exchange now? get in the final word, if you must, but please let that be the conclusion to this little saga.
But on the other hand, 2.4 was originally supposed to be released quite some time ago. While it's obviously not vaporware afterall, Wired could certainly be forgiven for questioning its late arrival.
For the record, the system did not have all current patches installed. The exact same thing could have easily happened to the Unix/Linux/Other system of your choice, had it been run by similarly incompetent "professionals."
Because its default file format is obfuscated and proprietary, and requires someone else to have either their own copy of Word or a special limited-purpose reader, and is difficult on anything but a Mac or Windows-running PC.
That's lunacy? Sorry timothy, but methinks either your definition of lunacy has a very low threshold, or that you're a tad hysterical. Only readable on Windows and Mac machines? Fair enough assessment, but then again, that is some 95% of the desktop market.
I also think your analogy is a bit incomplete. It's like having an x-ray machine whose default output is proprietary, and is only readable by another x-ray machine from the same manufacture (ok, ok, I'm torturing the analogy quite a bit, I admit it), but this x-ray machine also has alternative methods of producing output with most/many/all of the same features, or even a sort of fail-safe mode with the information expressed in a standard, basic format.
I suspect I can still read a Word document in 20 years. Thirty? Who knows. But I suspect that in 100 years, we'll not only be unable to read present day word documents, we'll also be unable to read present day RTF, HTML, ASCII, etc. Media degrades, y'know. I think we have more important things to worry about over the next century than a particular file format, of all things.
I appreciate and respect your ideal of a open file formats, but if Microsoft wants to make theirs proprietary, that is their choice after all. There are open alternatives, and their reluctances to use them may well bite them in the ass one day. (I also fail to see how an open BeOS will lead the charge toward such openess of formats. Elaboration, please?)
Whew. I hate going on that long. Sorry 'bout that:)
By the way, I hope I didn't come across as sounding as though I didn't believe you. I've found Windows 2000 to be an all-around excellent OS, and I'm sorry you've had so much trouble with it. If you ever figure out what's going so terribly wrong with it on your machine, I'd be curious to know.
I have to suspect that something is wrong with your Windows 2000 system (beyond whatever faults may or may not exist in the operating system, of course.) I'm using Windows 2000 Professional right now on a home workstation/server, and I've found it to be INCREDIBLY stable. I reboot it perhaps once a month, and the only time I've ever seen a blue screen is when I once downloaded some beta (as well as faulty) video drivers. I replaced those and haven't seen one since.
I'm not sure what exactly you're doing to that poor computer of yours to make it crash so often, but I doubt that your experiences are typical.
I wonder if I might be so bold as to inquire who, initially, implied that the many aspects of your personality are of a contradictory nature. I know many people who possess similar traits, but do not feel the need to champion them in such a pretentious manner. As long as you insist on keeping such as tack, you might as well add 'Prick' to your litany of accolades.
Naturally, that's just my point of view, and your mileage will certainly vary.
I believe you have a valid point, but it likely could have been made without the personal attack. But again, your point is certainly one worth considering.
Slashdot Mirror
> With Win2K, I think I've had 1 lockup in 6 months, > and that was my fault for installing 7 year old ASPI drivers. If Win2K was truly as stable as Linux, why isn't he telling us what he is using it for? More than surfing the web & writing the occasional email? Is he running an enterprise-level application (e.g. a multiuser database, or a webserver)?
I use Windows 2000 both at home and at work; at home I use it for surfing, games, a light-duty web- and FTP server, and it needs a reboot about once ever three weeks. At work, I administer a couple dozen Windows 2000 machines, most used for development and a few used for serving. The development machines go down about as often as my home machine, but the server has gone down exactly once since we started using Windows 2000 almost a year ago, and that was to install the Service Pack. That's right, once. Performance is still there, too, and memory utilization is low.
Just anecdotal evidence, but take that for what you will.
Funny, I think "free and it runs pretty well on an old PII-450" is pretty good value compared with the costs of four Athlon-class servers and four Win2000 server...
Err... what? Are you talking about Linux here? I thought one of Linux's strong suits was modest hardware requirements. Even today, I wouldn't exactly call a PII-450 underpowered. Windows 2000 runs well on anything down to a PPro-200 or so, and on a 450, well, responsive is an understatement. Bragging about performance on a 450MHz chip is like getting cocky about your ability to hit the broadside of a barn.
Linux, of course, could certainly be shoehorned onto a 486, something I would be loath to try with anything after NT 3.51. Concentrate your praise on that ability, instead.
Your last four lines are nearly incoherent. Might you please rephrase what you were trying to say? Not a flame, an honest request...
please, for the love of god, can we end this exchange now? get in the final word, if you must, but please let that be the conclusion to this little saga.
But on the other hand, 2.4 was originally supposed to be released quite some time ago. While it's obviously not vaporware afterall, Wired could certainly be forgiven for questioning its late arrival.
For the record, the system did not have all current patches installed. The exact same thing could have easily happened to the Unix/Linux/Other system of your choice, had it been run by similarly incompetent "professionals."
Because its default file format is obfuscated and proprietary, and requires someone else to have either their own copy of Word or a special limited-purpose reader, and is difficult on anything but a Mac or Windows-running PC.
:)
That's lunacy? Sorry timothy, but methinks either your definition of lunacy has a very low threshold, or that you're a tad hysterical. Only readable on Windows and Mac machines? Fair enough assessment, but then again, that is some 95% of the desktop market.
I also think your analogy is a bit incomplete. It's like having an x-ray machine whose default output is proprietary, and is only readable by another x-ray machine from the same manufacture (ok, ok, I'm torturing the analogy quite a bit, I admit it), but this x-ray machine also has alternative methods of producing output with most/many/all of the same features, or even a sort of fail-safe mode with the information expressed in a standard, basic format.
I suspect I can still read a Word document in 20 years. Thirty? Who knows. But I suspect that in 100 years, we'll not only be unable to read present day word documents, we'll also be unable to read present day RTF, HTML, ASCII, etc. Media degrades, y'know. I think we have more important things to worry about over the next century than a particular file format, of all things.
I appreciate and respect your ideal of a open file formats, but if Microsoft wants to make theirs proprietary, that is their choice after all. There are open alternatives, and their reluctances to use them may well bite them in the ass one day. (I also fail to see how an open BeOS will lead the charge toward such openess of formats. Elaboration, please?)
Whew. I hate going on that long. Sorry 'bout that
-T.A.F.
By the way, I hope I didn't come across as sounding as though I didn't believe you. I've found Windows 2000 to be an all-around excellent OS, and I'm sorry you've had so much trouble with it. If you ever figure out what's going so terribly wrong with it on your machine, I'd be curious to know.
I have to suspect that something is wrong with your Windows 2000 system (beyond whatever faults may or may not exist in the operating system, of course.) I'm using Windows 2000 Professional right now on a home workstation/server, and I've found it to be INCREDIBLY stable. I reboot it perhaps once a month, and the only time I've ever seen a blue screen is when I once downloaded some beta (as well as faulty) video drivers. I replaced those and haven't seen one since.
I'm not sure what exactly you're doing to that poor computer of yours to make it crash so often, but I doubt that your experiences are typical.
I wonder if I might be so bold as to inquire who, initially, implied that the many aspects of your personality are of a contradictory nature. I know many people who possess similar traits, but do not feel the need to champion them in such a pretentious manner. As long as you insist on keeping such as tack, you might as well add 'Prick' to your litany of accolades.
Naturally, that's just my point of view, and your mileage will certainly vary.
Tristan.
I believe you have a valid point, but it likely could have been made without the personal attack. But again, your point is certainly one worth considering.