Um, it's pretty obvious Linux did lose, and would lose anyway. Redhat were there to oversea and do any tweaking they like (after all, they have the source no?). Linux failed cause of it's lack of a multithreaded ip stack and immature SMP support.
Use Windows 2000 before you make foolish statements.
They are so the same thing. IEXPLORE.EXE(60k) is there for applications which still expect internet explorer to be IEXPLORER.EXE. It's simply a wrapper for the EXPLORE.EXE file. If you open up Explorer, and close the explorer band on the left, tada, you have internet explorer, with look and feel. If you type in an internet URL, tada you have internet exploerer. Lets try it the other way round. Open up IE, goto view -> explorer bar -> folders, tada, the folders list appears in the band on the list and you have explorer. Or just type in a local folder address in the address toolbar and tada you have explorer. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
What you've just said is so idiotic and ignorant, I just have to do another reply.
What procedures does Unix have (that NT doesn't) that prevents libraries etc from being overwritten????? Secures system files and folders from non administrators? Gee, that's hard, and that's hardly an OS thing, it's an administrator's job to secure the system and registry. And "It happens more often that not" - LOL you mean over 50% of the time applications on NT fail for your friends? Unlucky guys. I get 99.9% success...but then I know what I'm doing. My original point was that Windows 2000 protects user level and root level system files from both users and root users. Obviously, if a user goes and deletes or overwrites system files that are secured, they can't. But say they install an application in their own user space that uses the new Windows Install API, then they delete the exe or something, windows 2000 will be able to automatically fix it for you. what you say unix does in 'protecting' system files isn't something unix does, it's just an administrator/root securing the files themself. It's not a special Unix feature that actively protects system files - and restores them.
He doesn't seem to be aware than Windows NT/2000 does have security over files!!! And obviously the registry. What I was talking about was even if the Administrator deletes files, or even if the user deletes files (which he owns), Windows will automatically (or optionally assist you) in restoring those files. In a network situation, windows will use intellimirror to restore network applications you break by deleting files. In conclusion, it's less the OS, but more the root/adminstrator that is the problem if you have a problem with DLLs etc being deleted. YOU CAN SECURE FILES. Windows 2000 takes much more measures than Unix does in protecting files. It even protects against mistakes made by Administrators. Failing all that, Windows 2000 has a safe mode (command line and GUI) to restore the system.
I use both linux and windows at work and at home. I can tell you now, for me, the gnome interface rates about 1:10 (gnome:windows). It's half witted attempt to be windows and something else. Why can't i right click on an icon and say have a look at it's attributes. There are so many 'little' things which haven't been implemented, which are the things which make it much, much more functional like explorer. It's lack of context menus etc is really bad. Heck, double clicking on the clock doesn't do anything - it SHOULD - not cause windows does, but because it's the sensible thing to do.
coming from the same people who think E is cool cause it looks cool. You can turn the fading off if you want to, and it doesn't slow me down AT ALL. I keep it turned on.
Most people need a web browser that works (unlike netscape), and explorer also is used to browse your local hard drives etc, basically they have replaced Windows Explorer - the shell to windows with Internet Explorer...not much increase in bloat. Windows Media Player, well most Linux users prolly miss being able to play videos with good quality. Pinball, well, yes. You can uninstall it tho. 3D mouse pointer, you can turn that off too. In the enterprise, these features will take up a mnimal amount of space compared to the other needs. Hell, enterprises are using Java, so I guess they don't care about speed or bloat.
Yes, you can turn off KDE etc...be in the dark. You'll still be using the command line when we're in space talking to our computers.
What's this bullshit about NT's design allowsing you to overwrite DLLs and VXDs, I can do the same in Linux. I can overwrite and delete everything. It's called being able to use the computer.
And I didn't 'copy' a feature list. Those are the things I've been using.
Gees, with all of those great things it's no wonder that W2K is a bloated piece of shit that MS can't seem to get out the door and that so many people are switching to Linux. bloated? Look at X, E, KDE (and it isn't even completed) and Java. So many people switching to Linux? Who? Did I miss something? I'm using Linux, but I'm not switching to it, and even if dual use counted, it's not exactly a lot of people.
Wow, a web browser, hibernation mode, telnet, offline internet folders (sounds almost as good as keeping all home folders on a server with Linux so that you can access all your files and configurations from any computer), support for Java and Perl, a terminal server, a self repairing function to make up for NT's poor original design (I don't get these problems with Unix), and even shadow mousing! Care to explain NT's poor orignal design? You don't get these problems with Unix? What problems are you refering to? Care to explain everything you're saying? Perhaps you don't get problems cause you're used to unix and know how not to do things. Throw joe blogs at unix, and i garuntee you, he could mess up heaps of things. Hell, we're starting to see library conflicts with Gnome apps already. Wow, that's great. But I think a.) you've been reading to many MS advertising pamphlets b.) MS has been keeping you in the dark ages for far too long and c.) no one really cares because no one is going to go out and switch to NT anyways. What???? No, you're working for Microsoft. No, how much is microsoft paying you? No, Joe Barr tricks like you're an evil Gates sucking hoar?
MS hasn't kept me in the dark ages, if it wasn't for MS, I probably wouldn't be into computers. And I do use Linux - infact I develop applications at work for the Linux platform. But I much prefer Windows 2000. It performs better too. And NT's IP stack and SMP support doesn't do so bad for a 'poor orignal design'. I guess all the research by those Phds as MS research really don't add up to much eh?
I consider Windows 2000 to be an absolutely amazing products cause of it's choke full of features, as well as remaning stable and fast. Speed is something Linux still needs to improve on (I'm talking about scalability here, not on a 386 w/2mb ram). Stability, maybe Linux is stable for the moment, X leaves much to be desired tho. Maybe we'll see that in ver4. And features. Man, boy oh boy does Windows 2000 have features.
-ACPI Power management -Hibernation mode (dump mem to harddisk) -On Now (with hibernation mode) (20second boot) -IE5.1 integration. Stable, fast, and NEVER crashes (for me anyway) - some people - interestingly enough, linux users, seem to somehow make it crash. -IE5 (explorer) lets you view ftp and web sites just like any other folder on your local system of NFS/SMB share. -You can start every explorer (file and web) in a new process now if you wish. Shouldn't have a reason to taken down your task bar with explorer if you decide to terminate it. I've never had that problem with Windows 2000 though. -Windows Common control open/save dialog enhanced and supports loading & saving from/to URLs (like above). Since almost all apps use Common Controls, including Java ones, it'll work with almost all your apps. -Offline internet and lan folders. (Network shares remain valid even when you're disconnected). -USB, IEE1394, DVD, Video Capture. -Auto personalising menus. -New Management console - control your computer and/or entire network from one console that's 'Pluggable' with COM objects. -Telnet server (for legacy guys). -Terminal server (for legacy guys). -COM+ and Transaction server integration. -Computer manager allows you to tweak every little bit of Windows. -IIS5, ASP support with VB, Java, Perl scripting -Windows Scripting Host for automating windows with scripting languages. -Extremely refined UI. Right click on anything and you'll get a context menu. Drag and drop anything on everything. (Gnome and KDE still need a lot of work on this). -Semi-Transparent windows support inbuilt into Win32. -SMP suppoirt for up to 32 processors (and they are actually efficiently utilized, unlike linux). -New Windows 2000 install API - Auto repairing. ...basically you can't destroy your system by deleting or overwriting vital DLLs/vxds etc, they are automatically recovered on deletion. -New NTFS5 file system supports cluster compression and encryption (and ofcourse security etc). -New Kerberos security model (developed early last decade at MIT). -DirectX 7 and OpenGL. -Win32 SoundAPI goes thru DirectX, legacy applications and new applications will all work be able to use the sound card at once - without being aware of DirectX or modification. -New generation Plug'n'Play support. Literally, just plug and play. Drivers install automatically - no reboots;). -New indexing with a cut down version of sql sever for fast file searches (which is done from the same IE band as web searches now). -Shadowed mouse (ok, ok, but it just looks cool:)).
And basically, every part of windows is pluginable more than ever because of the nature of Explorer now. Desktop is an ActiveX container, explorer file listings is an ActiveX container etc etc. Ofcourse you have to be a programmer and know what you're doing.
Basically Windows 2000 is your all round OS. And fit ready for consumer as well as commercial use. Beta3 IS the final beta - I don't know what all that crap other people were going on about haven't there already been heaps of 'final betas'. MS have always had a 3 beta cycle. And there has only been one beta3 - it took a while, but it's here non the less.
I find it um, amusing that people here are already claiming Windows is crap, or has 'nothing'...based on 'nothing'. And those who claim to have tested it say things like, it's crap! There's no way to add my com ports, and no way to add users. LOL.
I've prolly missed out heaps of other features but all of this is from the top of my head, and in the order they came out;). Windows 2000 has many little bits and pieces which makes it much more productive for the average person than Linux. And even for the advid programmer like me. I like the little bits which make my life easier. Ofcourse I still like command lines, but not for everything. Little time savers in Windows are much appreciated, and I can see where Microsoft put it's millions into GUI research. And I'll look forward to when MS Research's natural language engine gets integrated into Windows. (BTW text to speech is part of Windows 2000, and it reads dialog boxes etc). Ofcourse, when natural language gets integrated into Windows, people will say "bah", I'd rather type a couple of lines than just "say" "computer, search on the internet for traces of that operating system called linux".
(ok, ok, Linux won't die, but neither will Windows - and Microsoft would never release MS Linux - they've invested heavily into NT and their other Research projects). Besides Linux doesn't scale too well (yet) does it?
You love feeding on Linux weenie fud eh? The official recommendations for Windows 2000 is a Pentium 166. I'm running on a K6-200, and it's going great.
Did you hear about this 300mhz requirement from the same guy who thinks Windows 2000 doesn't come with the ability to administer users or add new hardware cause he couldn't find the computer manager?
I have a 64MB machine (K6-200). Running W2K professional, my machine boots very quickly, i can log on evn quiker. W2K professional is a workstation, if you noticed during the setup, it did ask you if you wanted a one user workstation, or multiuser (that's nothing to complain about). I have IIS, MTS, Telnet etc services installed (I like lots of toys), and It's taking 80MB memory.
And what's this about I hate ignorance? LOL Look who's talking. You don't think Windows 2000 allows you to add a new device? HAHAHAHAHAHA The control panel applets aren't 'hidden', microsoft have centralized administration. You can find the new device manager in Computer Manager (which allows you to manage EVERTHING). Right click on "My Computer" and click manage. Or use the icon in Administrative tools. And even if you couldn't find that (god knows why not), control panel has a "Add/Remove Hardware" applet, is that too hard for you to use to add your com port? Just say, I want to add new hardware, and choose communications port...tada
YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
Just cause you can't work with an 'idiot-proof' OS (to quote another linux weenie), doesn't mean Windows 2000 is worthless. Are you the same person who claimed Windows 2000 has less features cause you can't find the user administrator? haha one word - computer manager.
If you work in a company that isn't totally 'technical' you'll find it's cheaper to buy an OS that's userfriendly and has obvious and natural features for normal people, than to shell out for a 'free' os that's not user friendly. Training is very expensive (for me anyway).
Windows 95/98 are a huge technology step - just cause they run on top of command.com doesn't mean they aren't. Think about it. Preemtpice Multitasking, Preemptive Multithreading, memory protection, networking etc. They have more 'advanced' OS technology than MACOS which doesn't run on top of dos (or a command line for that matter).
We aren't here to debate the cost of free software vs windows. if you read the original thread, it was about the cost of windows dropping while at the same time the features increasing.
Why? What kind of REAL competition has Windows seen before Linux? And Windows 98 is certainly not an improvement over 95. OS/2 sound familiar? It's not exactly breaking news that Microsoft marketing has a heavy hand in development, and vice versa that's just fud. The current MSRP on Windows 3.1 is $179.99 Uh, Windows 31 is an old product. New windows products have are cheaper and have more features. The reason older products are more expensive is cause the cost of supporting a product that's no longer in development is higher. Estimated release date is mid 2001 full of crud. Beta3 has been out for over a month, RC1 will be out in july, and the full release will be out in october. As a beta tester, i'm confident that 2000 will be out before 2000. Doubtful. From what I have seen, it's a monster bloatware machine. actually, for what it does, it's tiny. Most of the space that it takes up is in help files/pictures/movies and thousands of device drivers. I don't know what you're talking about.
Compared to the competition, Windows is cheaper, and tho Windows hasn't dropped in price as much as other MS products (Office, Encarta etc), I think it has. Dos dropped in price quite a lot in the years leading to Windows 95, and Windows 95 wasn't expensive compared to OS/2. And even tho windows is on 90% of desktops out there, it remains cheaper than commercial alternatives like OS/2 and Unix etc. However, NT is a bit expensive, but it does come with lots of free stuff in the form of the option pack. If MS had a monopoly, Windows should be very expensive. It's clearly not. (OK, some i sound like a microsoft marketing guy:P)...i'm not one.
Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves. Is this crap from the same source that said it was based on linux's tcp/ip code? I guess that can't be very true now. What's next? Windows stole notepad from vi?
As someone as already pointed out, Joe Barr is by no means a nuetral writer. Judging from his hatemail to Mindcraft, he's a FUD machine.
His comments on Windows 2000 promising to be less stable is laughable (has this guy ever seen Windows 2000, or does he hang around slashdot collecting notes from Linux advocates). Maybe he just makes it up.
His talk of Windows not improving because of no competition is just plain stupid. Windows went from Win16 to Win32, and Win64 is in the works by some of the smartest engineers in the world. He confuses Microsoft's marketing division with Microsoft's development division. Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper. Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements. Sure linux's momentum is very high atm, but don't let that fool you into thinking windows has and will still remain stationary. Windows 2000 has been in the works for quite some time, and will be released later on this year. And the amount of features it has will blow Linux away (for a while). It's interesting (to say the least) at how Joe seems to define competition in the Linux community. Linux is supposed to be succeeding cause of cooperation, not cause of competition. He's an idiot. People work on Linux cause they are proud of their work, and they submit their work for improvement and examination by others. In a sense, MS workers are also proud of their work, certainly seeing the beaming smiles on their faces when they see Windows 2000 boot after they upgraded the first PDC at Microsoft is an indication of their pride in their product.
MS engineers aren't tied down by MS marketing and told, hey, you make Windows unstable and you can't be proud of your work. And Linux kernel hackers don't wake up ever morning preparing for battle with other Linux hackers.
All these praises from people for Joe's article is blind. Look at his email to mindcraft and tell me if you think this guy is worth listening too - regardless of what camp you're in.
It's a strategy for choosing which requests to serve and which requests to ignore for the time being- and if this is so hard to understand, I imagine the tested version of NT _is_ doing this because (a) Microsoft people are _not_ stupid, and (b) Microsoft people will always cheat given the opportunity This is a pyrrhic cheat- you can't use it on a real web server. It has nothing to do with CPU scheduling and is purely a hack to optimize benchmarks for intranet requests
How do you know MS are doing this (cheating) - can't you just say, oh, well, our tcp/ip stack needs to be multithreaded. It seems like you are trying to mislead - introducing little hints here and there that this was all faked. and that CPU scheduling is the only consideration in doing this, because the only algorithm that exists is serve-upon-request?
In that case, it would be interesting to see Linux against NT running a different web server. We've already seen that the bottleneck exists in Linux, even when using a different web server. Certainly, if we were to see that say, solaris kicked NT and Linux's ass, you wouldn't suggest it had something to do with sun running round cheating. Since it was shown (dispute it as you wish) that Linux's bottleneck is it's tcp/ip stack - I don't see that your argument about algorithms has any relevance in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
crash an OS?
Um, it's pretty obvious Linux did lose, and would lose anyway. Redhat were there to oversea and do any tweaking they like (after all, they have the source no?).
Linux failed cause of it's lack of a multithreaded ip stack and immature SMP support.
IIS etc are running.
Use Windows 2000 before you make foolish statements.
They are so the same thing. IEXPLORE.EXE(60k) is there for applications which still expect internet explorer to be IEXPLORER.EXE. It's simply a wrapper for the EXPLORE.EXE file.
If you open up Explorer, and close the explorer band on the left, tada, you have internet explorer, with look and feel. If you type in an internet URL, tada you have internet exploerer.
Lets try it the other way round. Open up IE, goto view -> explorer bar -> folders, tada, the folders list appears in the band on the list and you have explorer. Or just type in a local folder address in the address toolbar and tada you have explorer.
THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
What you've just said is so idiotic and ignorant, I just have to do another reply.
What procedures does Unix have (that NT doesn't) that prevents libraries etc from being overwritten?????
Secures system files and folders from non administrators? Gee, that's hard, and that's hardly an OS thing, it's an administrator's job to secure the system and registry.
And "It happens more often that not" - LOL you mean over 50% of the time applications on NT fail for your friends? Unlucky guys. I get 99.9% success...but then I know what I'm doing.
My original point was that Windows 2000 protects user level and root level system files from both users and root users. Obviously, if a user goes and deletes or overwrites system files that are secured, they can't. But say they install an application in their own user space that uses the new Windows Install API, then they delete the exe or something, windows 2000 will be able to automatically fix it for you.
what you say unix does in 'protecting' system files isn't something unix does, it's just an administrator/root securing the files themself. It's not a special Unix feature that actively protects system files - and restores them.
Thank's for saving my time ;)
:)
Actually, I will add to it tho
He doesn't seem to be aware than Windows NT/2000 does have security over files!!! And obviously the registry.
What I was talking about was even if the Administrator deletes files, or even if the user deletes files (which he owns), Windows will automatically (or optionally assist you) in restoring those files.
In a network situation, windows will use intellimirror to restore network applications you break by deleting files.
In conclusion, it's less the OS, but more the root/adminstrator that is the problem if you have a problem with DLLs etc being deleted. YOU CAN SECURE FILES. Windows 2000 takes much more measures than Unix does in protecting files. It even protects against mistakes made by Administrators.
Failing all that, Windows 2000 has a safe mode (command line and GUI) to restore the system.
I use both linux and windows at work and at home.
I can tell you now, for me, the gnome interface rates about 1:10 (gnome:windows).
It's half witted attempt to be windows and something else.
Why can't i right click on an icon and say have a look at it's attributes. There are so many 'little' things which haven't been implemented, which are the things which make it much, much more functional like explorer.
It's lack of context menus etc is really bad.
Heck, double clicking on the clock doesn't do anything - it SHOULD - not cause windows does, but because it's the sensible thing to do.
I'm defintely more productive in Win2000.
coming from the same people who think E is cool cause it looks cool.
You can turn the fading off if you want to, and it doesn't slow me down AT ALL.
I keep it turned on.
Most people need a web browser that works (unlike netscape), and explorer also is used to browse your local hard drives etc, basically they have replaced Windows Explorer - the shell to windows with Internet Explorer...not much increase in bloat.
Windows Media Player, well most Linux users prolly miss being able to play videos with good quality.
Pinball, well, yes. You can uninstall it tho.
3D mouse pointer, you can turn that off too.
In the enterprise, these features will take up a mnimal amount of space compared to the other needs.
Hell, enterprises are using Java, so I guess they don't care about speed or bloat.
Just out of interest, you can mount partitions into a folder in Windows 2000.
Yes, you can turn off KDE etc...be in the dark. You'll still be using the command line when we're in space talking to our computers.
What's this bullshit about NT's design allowsing you to overwrite DLLs and VXDs, I can do the same in Linux. I can overwrite and delete everything. It's called being able to use the computer.
And I didn't 'copy' a feature list. Those are the things I've been using.
Gees, with all of those great things it's no wonder that W2K is a bloated piece of shit that MS can't seem to get out the door and that so many people are switching to Linux.
bloated? Look at X, E, KDE (and it isn't even completed) and Java. So many people switching to Linux? Who? Did I miss something? I'm using Linux, but I'm not switching to it, and even if dual use counted, it's not exactly a lot of people.
Wow, a web browser, hibernation mode, telnet, offline internet folders (sounds almost as good as keeping all home folders on a server with Linux so that you can access all your files and configurations from any computer), support for Java and Perl, a terminal server, a self repairing function to make up for NT's poor original design (I don't get these problems with Unix), and even shadow mousing!
Care to explain NT's poor orignal design? You don't get these problems with Unix? What problems are you refering to? Care to explain everything you're saying? Perhaps you don't get problems cause you're used to unix and know how not to do things. Throw joe blogs at unix, and i garuntee you, he could mess up heaps of things. Hell, we're starting to see library conflicts with Gnome apps already.
Wow, that's great. But I think a.) you've been reading to many MS advertising pamphlets b.) MS has been keeping you in the dark ages for far too long and c.) no one really cares because no one is going to go out and switch to NT anyways.
What???? No, you're working for Microsoft. No, how much is microsoft paying you? No, Joe Barr tricks like you're an evil Gates sucking hoar?
MS hasn't kept me in the dark ages, if it wasn't for MS, I probably wouldn't be into computers. And I do use Linux - infact I develop applications at work for the Linux platform. But I much prefer Windows 2000. It performs better too. And NT's IP stack and SMP support doesn't do so bad for a 'poor orignal design'. I guess all the research by those Phds as MS research really don't add up to much eh?
I consider Windows 2000 to be an absolutely amazing products cause of it's choke full of features, as well as remaning stable and fast. Speed is something Linux still needs to improve on (I'm talking about scalability here, not on a 386 w/2mb ram). Stability, maybe Linux is stable for the moment, X leaves much to be desired tho. Maybe we'll see that in ver4.
;). :)).
...based on 'nothing'. And those who claim to have tested it say things like, it's crap! There's no way to add my com ports, and no way to add users. LOL.
;).
And features. Man, boy oh boy does Windows 2000 have features.
-ACPI Power management
-Hibernation mode (dump mem to harddisk)
-On Now (with hibernation mode) (20second boot)
-IE5.1 integration. Stable, fast, and NEVER crashes (for me anyway) - some people - interestingly enough, linux users, seem to somehow make it crash.
-IE5 (explorer) lets you view ftp and web sites just like any other folder on your local system of NFS/SMB share.
-You can start every explorer (file and web) in a new process now if you wish. Shouldn't have a reason to taken down your task bar with explorer if you decide to terminate it. I've never had that problem with Windows 2000 though.
-Windows Common control open/save dialog enhanced and supports loading & saving from/to URLs (like above). Since almost all apps use Common Controls, including Java ones, it'll work with almost all your apps.
-Offline internet and lan folders. (Network shares remain valid even when you're disconnected).
-USB, IEE1394, DVD, Video Capture.
-Auto personalising menus.
-New Management console - control your computer and/or entire network from one console that's 'Pluggable' with COM objects.
-Telnet server (for legacy guys).
-Terminal server (for legacy guys).
-COM+ and Transaction server integration.
-Computer manager allows you to tweak every little bit of Windows.
-IIS5, ASP support with VB, Java, Perl scripting
-Windows Scripting Host for automating windows with scripting languages.
-Extremely refined UI. Right click on anything and you'll get a context menu. Drag and drop anything on everything. (Gnome and KDE still need a lot of work on this).
-Semi-Transparent windows support inbuilt into Win32.
-SMP suppoirt for up to 32 processors (and they are actually efficiently utilized, unlike linux).
-New Windows 2000 install API - Auto repairing.
...basically you can't destroy your system by deleting or overwriting vital DLLs/vxds etc, they are automatically recovered on deletion.
-New NTFS5 file system supports cluster compression and encryption (and ofcourse security etc).
-New Kerberos security model (developed early last decade at MIT).
-DirectX 7 and OpenGL.
-Win32 SoundAPI goes thru DirectX, legacy applications and new applications will all work be able to use the sound card at once - without being aware of DirectX or modification.
-New generation Plug'n'Play support. Literally, just plug and play. Drivers install automatically - no reboots
-New indexing with a cut down version of sql sever for fast file searches (which is done from the same IE band as web searches now).
-Shadowed mouse (ok, ok, but it just looks cool
And basically, every part of windows is pluginable more than ever because of the nature of Explorer now. Desktop is an ActiveX container, explorer file listings is an ActiveX container etc etc. Ofcourse you have to be a programmer and know what you're doing.
Basically Windows 2000 is your all round OS.
And fit ready for consumer as well as commercial use.
Beta3 IS the final beta - I don't know what all that crap other people were going on about haven't there already been heaps of 'final betas'. MS have always had a 3 beta cycle. And there has only been one beta3 - it took a while, but it's here non the less.
I find it um, amusing that people here are already claiming Windows is crap, or has 'nothing'
I've prolly missed out heaps of other features but all of this is from the top of my head, and in the order they came out
Windows 2000 has many little bits and pieces which makes it much more productive for the average person than Linux. And even for the advid programmer like me. I like the little bits which make my life easier. Ofcourse I still like command lines, but not for everything. Little time savers in Windows are much appreciated, and I can see where Microsoft put it's millions into GUI research. And I'll look forward to when MS Research's natural language engine gets integrated into Windows. (BTW text to speech is part of Windows 2000, and it reads dialog boxes etc).
Ofcourse, when natural language gets integrated into Windows, people will say "bah", I'd rather type a couple of lines than just "say" "computer, search on the internet for traces of that operating system called linux".
(ok, ok, Linux won't die, but neither will Windows - and Microsoft would never release MS Linux - they've invested heavily into NT and their other Research projects).
Besides Linux doesn't scale too well (yet) does it?
You love feeding on Linux weenie fud eh?
The official recommendations for Windows 2000 is a Pentium 166. I'm running on a K6-200, and it's going great.
Did you hear about this 300mhz requirement from the same guy who thinks Windows 2000 doesn't come with the ability to administer users or add new hardware cause he couldn't find the computer manager?
Or did you try and make up numbers anyway?
I have a 64MB machine (K6-200). Running W2K professional, my machine boots very quickly, i can log on evn quiker. W2K professional is a workstation, if you noticed during the setup, it did ask you if you wanted a one user workstation, or multiuser (that's nothing to complain about).
I have IIS, MTS, Telnet etc services installed (I like lots of toys), and It's taking 80MB memory.
And what's this about I hate ignorance? LOL Look who's talking.
You don't think Windows 2000 allows you to add a new device? HAHAHAHAHAHA
The control panel applets aren't 'hidden', microsoft have centralized administration. You can find the new device manager in Computer Manager (which allows you to manage EVERTHING). Right click on "My Computer" and click manage.
Or use the icon in Administrative tools.
And even if you couldn't find that (god knows why not), control panel has a "Add/Remove Hardware" applet, is that too hard for you to use to add your com port? Just say, I want to add new hardware, and choose communications port...tada
YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
Just cause you can't work with an 'idiot-proof' OS (to quote another linux weenie), doesn't mean Windows 2000 is worthless.
Are you the same person who claimed Windows 2000 has less features cause you can't find the user administrator? haha one word - computer manager.
Who the hell is Jesse Bersts anyway?
If you work in a company that isn't totally 'technical' you'll find it's cheaper to buy an OS that's userfriendly and has obvious and natural features for normal people, than to shell out for a 'free' os that's not user friendly. Training is very expensive (for me anyway).
Windows 95/98 are a huge technology step - just cause they run on top of command.com doesn't mean they aren't. Think about it.
Preemtpice Multitasking, Preemptive Multithreading, memory protection, networking etc. They have more 'advanced' OS technology than MACOS which doesn't run on top of dos (or a command line for that matter).
There was a time when os/2 was a threat to ms. (remember, only win31 was out then).
You can pick WIndows 98 up for $160.23 at egghead, and it's considerably cheaper if you buy it from OEMs.
We aren't here to debate the cost of free software vs windows. if you read the original thread, it was about the cost of windows dropping while at the same time the features increasing.
Why? What kind of REAL competition has Windows seen before Linux? And Windows 98 is certainly not an improvement over 95.
OS/2 sound familiar?
It's not exactly breaking news that Microsoft marketing has a heavy hand in development, and vice versa
that's just fud.
The current MSRP on Windows 3.1 is $179.99
Uh, Windows 31 is an old product. New windows products have are cheaper and have more features. The reason older products are more expensive is cause the cost of supporting a product that's no longer in development is higher.
Estimated release date is mid 2001
full of crud. Beta3 has been out for over a month, RC1 will be out in july, and the full release will be out in october. As a beta tester, i'm confident that 2000 will be out before 2000.
Doubtful. From what I have seen, it's a monster bloatware machine.
actually, for what it does, it's tiny. Most of the space that it takes up is in help files/pictures/movies and thousands of device drivers. I don't know what you're talking about.
Compared to the competition, Windows is cheaper, and tho Windows hasn't dropped in price as much as other MS products (Office, Encarta etc), I think it has. Dos dropped in price quite a lot in the years leading to Windows 95, and Windows 95 wasn't expensive compared to OS/2. And even tho windows is on 90% of desktops out there, it remains cheaper than commercial alternatives like OS/2 and Unix etc. However, NT is a bit expensive, but it does come with lots of free stuff in the form of the option pack. If MS had a monopoly, Windows should be very expensive. It's clearly not. (OK, some i sound like a microsoft marketing guy :P)...i'm not one.
Starting the graph at 90% making the AMD look much faster than it really is. I wish people would stop doing that.
Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves. Is this crap from the same source that said it was based on linux's tcp/ip code? I guess that can't be very true now.
What's next? Windows stole notepad from vi?
As someone as already pointed out, Joe Barr is by no means a nuetral writer. Judging from his hatemail to Mindcraft, he's a FUD machine.
.
His comments on Windows 2000 promising to be less stable is laughable (has this guy ever seen Windows 2000, or does he hang around slashdot collecting notes from Linux advocates). Maybe he just makes it up
His talk of Windows not improving because of no competition is just plain stupid. Windows went from Win16 to Win32, and Win64 is in the works by some of the smartest engineers in the world. He confuses Microsoft's marketing division with Microsoft's development division.
Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper. Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements. Sure linux's momentum is very high atm, but don't let that fool you into thinking windows has and will still remain stationary. Windows 2000 has been in the works for quite some time, and will be released later on this year. And the amount of features it has will blow Linux away (for a while).
It's interesting (to say the least) at how Joe seems to define competition in the Linux community. Linux is supposed to be succeeding cause of cooperation, not cause of competition. He's an idiot. People work on Linux cause they are proud of their work, and they submit their work for improvement and examination by others.
In a sense, MS workers are also proud of their work, certainly seeing the beaming smiles on their faces when they see Windows 2000 boot after they upgraded the first PDC at Microsoft is an indication of their pride in their product.
MS engineers aren't tied down by MS marketing and told, hey, you make Windows unstable and you can't be proud of your work. And Linux kernel hackers don't wake up ever morning preparing for battle with other Linux hackers.
All these praises from people for Joe's article is blind. Look at his email to mindcraft and tell me if you think this guy is worth listening too - regardless of what camp you're in.
It's a strategy for choosing which requests to serve and which requests to ignore for the time being- and if this is so hard to understand, I imagine the tested version of NT _is_ doing this because (a) Microsoft people are _not_ stupid, and (b) Microsoft people will always cheat given the opportunity
This is a pyrrhic cheat- you can't use it on a real web server. It has nothing to do with CPU scheduling and is purely a hack to optimize benchmarks for intranet requests
How do you know MS are doing this (cheating) - can't you just say, oh, well, our tcp/ip stack needs to be multithreaded. It seems like you are trying to mislead - introducing little hints here and there that this was all faked.
and that CPU scheduling is the only consideration in doing this, because the only algorithm that exists is serve-upon-request?
In that case, it would be interesting to see Linux against NT running a different web server. We've already seen that the bottleneck exists in Linux, even when using a different web server. Certainly, if we were to see that say, solaris kicked NT and Linux's ass, you wouldn't suggest it had something to do with sun running round cheating.
Since it was shown (dispute it as you wish) that Linux's bottleneck is it's tcp/ip stack - I don't see that your argument about algorithms has any relevance in this thread.