Linux

[herme3]

Seriously, the problems or percieved problems you are pointing out are either a) minor problems, b ) non-existant, or c) things that you consider to be important. You must understand that other people have different opinions of what is important. The fact is, my Gentoo system is far more responsive after prolonged use and even before than any Windows system I have used. It's memory management system uses as much memory as possible to cache recently used data or recently opened programs, leaving enough that programs can be loaded in without having to immediately swap out, making the best use of the memory available rather than just leaving it idle wastefully. Again, I am not saying Windows is crap, or that Linux is better than it, but you must understand that some people see advantages in Linux or Unix or Mac OS or any operating system that you dont appreciate as much in your use of a computer. These people have their own needs that Windows doesnt fulfill or that these other operating systems fulfill more easily or to a better degree in certain ways (stability, security, efficiency etc). If you can't understand that, then theres no point arguing with you, as then you are simply what yourdadonapogos says, a fanboy.

 

I do agree with your latest post. Everything that I need to do on my computers works great with Windows XP. I suppose that there may be some things that might work better on the other operating systems. To be honest, I really don't know anything about the reasons you listed. Everything that the average computer user needs to do works great with Windows. Therefore, I would recommend Windows to the average user. However, there probably are some cases where another operating system may be a better choice.

 

Trust me, I am not a Microsoft fanboy. I only like Windows because I've never had any problems with it. I would love to see the Xbox 2 be as crappy as the first one. Maybe people won't buy it this time. I'll be buying a Nintendo Revolution, although the PlayStation 3 looks cool too.

 

From your comments I guess that those mac's where probably running macos 8 or 9, which was attrociouse, from personal experiance they crash all the time and don't seem to be able to handle simple tasks. But saying that macosX is one of the most stable and fastest os's avaliable, and guess what it's bassed on BSD. The powerpc (the processor inside most mac's) is an EXCELLENT processor. Shame they are so damn expencive

 

I really don't know anything about Macs other than the ones I used froze all the time. They were always crashing and pulling up weird error messages. I would agree that the PowerPC is a good processor. I have a Nintendo GameCube, which is a great video game system. That has an IBM Gekko PowerPC processor. I've only had my GameCube freeze one time, and I'm sure that was a glitch in the game.

[Aeternus]

Sounds reasonable to me

[ydoaPs]

I don't know too much about games and 3-D rendering. I like to play some games, and surf the Internet. Would Linux make that easier than Windows?

afaik, it would make it much safer for you to use the internet (especially the if you download a firewall). even if you got a virus, it wouldn't be able to do much unless it had root access. there are plenty of games for Linux and several programs designed to let you play windows games on a linux os.

[Clara]

afaik, it would make it much safer for you to use the internet (especially the if you download a firewall). even if you got a virus, it wouldn't be able to do much unless it had root access. there are plenty of games for Linux and several programs designed to let you play windows games on a linux os.

 

Thanks. I did download ZoneAlarm. Is Linux safer than using Windows with ZoneAlarm? I've never had any viruses or anything like that.

[ydoaPs]

chances are you HAVE some malicious software. one program won't get everything. i can't really answer your question, because i have never heard of zonealarm.

[Dak]

Thanks. I did download ZoneAlarm. Is Linux safer than using Windows with ZoneAlarm? I've never had any viruses or anything like that.

 

as i understand it, the majority of malware are not compatable with linux; so, you might come into contact with them, but they shouldnt be able to install/work on your linux.

 

Having said that, there are malwares specifically writern for linux, so for that reason (amongs others) its worth using a firewall even with linux.

 

Id hazard a guess that linux with a firewall is probably safer than windows with a firewall.

 

one program won't get everything. i can't really answer your question, because i have never heard of zonealarm.

 

ZoneAlarm wont 'get' anything, what with it being a firewall and not a scanner*. It just stops (most) stuff from getting on your computer in the first place.

 

[edit]* just remembered, ZoneAlarm do make anti-virus and anti-malware scanners, but i assume your talking about the bog-standard free firewall[/edit]

[Klaynos]

One of the significant advantages with Linux over windows is that on a windows system every file on your file system is executable as a program, so you download something and it can be run as a program by a milliciouse script without you knowing, on Linux by default only things which need to be executable are executable and everything else isn't unless you specifically tell it to be.

[1veedo]

Why would anyone want to go through a lot of work to install hardware when it takes less time with Windows? Let's say you want to visit someone who lives a few miles away. You could get in a car' date=' and drive there in a few minutes. Or, you could buy some plane tickets, fly all the way around the world, and get there using much more time and money. It makes no sense!

 

Even if you do know how to setup your hardware the difficult way, why wouldn't you just save the time and use Windows?[/quote']Actually, I want to point out that, assuming there are drivers, it is quicker to install hardware on Linux. In fact, it's automatic. My printers all automatically work. My ethernet adapter automatically works. When I downloaded drivers for my video card it took seconds.

 

From experience these things take longer on Windows. Takes longer to install printers (after all, it's not automatic). I had to install my ethernet hardware. I had to install my video card drivers with an EXE that still didn't work! I wrestled with customer support for about an hour before they finally understood what I was asking for (at the time, their website was being redone and I needed a specific file Windows was asking for after it started installing the driver)

 

Right now I'm trying to get a neighbors computer connected to the Internet. She has a cable modem directly connected to her computer via USB. Ironically, I had to boot into Ubuntu live in order to download the driver! Ubuntu had absolutely no problem -- it was automatically connected. But now that I have the driver I still cant get her ME computer to do likewise. And it's aggravating too: Every time I try something I have to reboot the computer!

 

Oh, and off hardware, it took almost 30 minuets to get my XP computer on the network and it periodically does not work with my 98 and Linux system.

 

So, just a question (sense you know so much about Windows), is there any quick way to fix either of the last two problems? Or would you be doing the same thing I've been doing? Reboot, reboot...reboot. Finally, it seems to be working now!

[Klaynos]

I used to have fun with a windows 2k, and windows me network, the 2k computer controled the network effectively, but occationally winMe would decide that it liked the idea of controling the network, at this point 2k would go "nope" and the whole thing would fall the pieces :S deeply annoying. Never did find the problem

[herme3]

Actually' date=' I want to point out that, assuming there are drivers, it is quicker to install hardware on Linux. In fact, it's automatic. My printers all automatically work. My ethernet adapter automatically works. When I downloaded drivers for my video card it took seconds.

 

From experience these things take longer on Windows. Takes longer to install printers (after all, it's not automatic). I had to install my ethernet hardware. I had to install my video card drivers with an EXE that still didn't work! I wrestled with customer support for about an hour before they finally understood what I was asking for (at the time, their website was being redone and I needed a specific file Windows was asking for after it started installing the driver)

 

Right now I'm trying to get a neighbors computer connected to the Internet. She has a cable modem directly connected to her computer via USB. Ironically, I had to boot into Ubuntu live in order to download the driver! Ubuntu had absolutely no problem -- it was automatically connected. But now that I have the driver I still cant get her ME computer to do likewise. And it's aggravating too: Every time I try something I have to reboot the computer!

 

Oh, and off hardware, it took almost 30 minuets to get my XP computer on the network and it periodically does not work with my 98 and Linux system.

 

So, just a question (sense you know so much about Windows), is there any quick way to fix either of the last two problems? Or would you be doing the same thing I've been doing? Reboot, reboot...reboot. Finally, it seems to be working now![/quote']

 

I've connected printers to my computer. I also installed a new CD burner. All of them installed automatically with the Windows XP plug-and-play feature. The only printer I had to manually install was an all-in-one system. That was because it had its own software for the fax, copier, and scanner.

 

If you have hardware that needs to be manually installed, it should come with a CD. Cable modems should be installed using an ethernet port, not USB. However, if you need to connect it via USB, the drivers should be on a CD that came with the cable modem. Just enter the CD and install the drivers before you connect the cable modem.

 

You mentioned that your neighbor was using Windows ME. In my opinion, that is a really bad operating system. This is just a thought, but Microsoft was probably working on Windows XP at the time. Windows 98 sells probably started going down, so Microsoft threw a few extra features into it, and sold it as Windows ME. They obviously never took the time to get any bugs out, and continued their work on Windows XP. I would really recommend using Windows 98, or Windows XP. Windows ME is really unstable.

 

Now, I'm sure I can help you with getting a Windows XP computer on the network. I setup my own home network, and also setup a Windows XP network for a business. Do you have all of your computers connected using a router? If so, go to My Network Places. Click on "Set up a network for home or small office". After that, it should give you simple instructions. Repeat the process on each of your computers, and make sure that the network name is the same on each computer.

 

Windows 98 should be very similar. It has been a while since I used a Windows 98 computer on a network, but I think you need to be very careful with naming your computers and network. Try to keep the names short, because Windows 98 can only read so many characters in a name.

 

If you are still having problems, there is probably something causing interference with your router. This could be a cell phone or other things. I've also noticed that Christmas lights can cause problems with a wireless network. I really don't know why.

 

I don't know if Linux and Windows computers can be connected to the same network. You might be able to download a patch to get them connected. I don't know very much about Linux.

[Aeternus]

I don't know if Linux and Windows computers can be connected to the same network. You might be able to download a patch to get them connected. I don't know very much about Linux.

 

You can . I have it happening with my setup, Gentoo server pc hosts files and a cups print server and a Samba server and then my Gentoo desktop and my Windows XP laptop can both access the file share (passworded) and print normally (comes up as a normal printer). Samba uses the Windows networking protocols (they have reverse engineered them using packet sniffing etc) to allow everyone to get along nicely.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course Linux and Windows can be connected on the same network. The network connection protocol is standard and it doesn't matter which OS you use.

 

I should also note that since I upgraded both of my computers to XP, I have been unable to use the Shared Documents folder to transfer files on the network.

[Aeternus]

Cap'n Refsmmat, i think he means getting them setup with file shares, printer shares etc rather than simple tcp/ip etc communication (at least thats what I assumed, could be wrong).

[Pangloss]

From experience these things take longer on Windows. Takes longer to install printers (after all, it's not automatic). I had to install my ethernet hardware.

 

Well this is a fair point, although it should be said that the process each OS uses is technically more or less the same (i.e. "automatic"). And no matter how good the distribution is, Linux can't include a driver for a piece of hardware that doesn't yet exist. (grin) So whether it's Linux or Windows, the manufacturer has to put the driver for a new device on a CD or a web site. Linux is really in the same boat as Windows when it comes to that, although it seems like most manufacturers do make Linux drivers available day-and-date with Windows drivers now, so any advantage Windows used to have in that area has more or less evaporated.

 

Anyway, the main difference between Windows and Linux in this area (and why I think your point is fair) is that a newly downloaded and burned set of Linux CDs will have a much newer set of drivers than a three-year-old Windows XP CD-ROM. This is one of the good things about Linux, in my book, that you can go to the Linux distro's web site and grab a new set of CDs frequently and they'll have new drivers and whatnot, so if you do a lot of installs it can be a real time saver (as you point out). Windows is going years between new CDs, and Linux distros are going months if not weeks. Hence, they have newer drivers on the OS CDs more often than with Windows.

 

This is something Microsoft could learn from. They do have a "slipstreaming" method which does work pretty well, but it's a pain (and mainly designed for Service Packs) so it's not something you'd do for a home user. Even the big houses like Dell will generally opt for a separate configuration CD bundled with a raw Windows CD.

 

I think it's clear that a typical non-computer-savvy home user is not going to download a distro and burn CD-ROMs. But I think the gist of this point is that a techie can make an appropriate set of CDs for that home user (friend, business customer, whatever) and they'll be set for the life of that computer, or at least until they want to update to a later driver off a web site.

 

I do like Microsoft's "Windows Update" feature better than most of the Linux approaches I've seen (even Red Hat's, which is pretty darn professional), but the down side of it is that companies have to pay a lot of money (many thousands) to have their driver listed there. Most companies don't bother, simply putting driver updates on their own web sites. It's a shame, really, because it means that in a practical sense you have to update Windows from Windows Update, and then check each manufacturer's web site for drivers. From what I've heard recently (although I haven't really seen this for myself), you can get most 3rd party drivers from a typical distro's online update site. One-stop shopping.

 

Of course these matters are more along the lines of "logistics" and "distribution", rather than "technical" in re Windows v Linux. But logistics and distribution issues are big deals for the people who have to deal with them all the time. On the other hand, it's also fair to say that none of those indicates that Linux is really "better" than Windows in any really major way.

 

I have learned over 20 years of computing that you can't get too hung up on these kinds of issues, because they tend to change frequently. And again, what matters is not that it's "Linux" (cheer, shout, rah-rah), but that it's better. If it's worse, you need to use something else, otherwise the competitive environment fails. Competition only works when people are willing to USE the competition. After all, Linux wouldn't be here today if people weren't willing to try it out and see if it worked.

 

Put another way, people need to be willing to use Windows, if for no other reason than to keep Linux sharp and competitive. This would be more obvious if 80% of the market share were on Linux's side, but it wouldn't be more true. As computer people, we have to be smart and recognize this sort of thing BEFORE it becomes desperately necessary.

[Dave]

I should also note that since I upgraded both of my computers to XP, I have been unable to use the Shared Documents folder to transfer files on the network.

 

You might want to check the Windows Firewall settings; that was my problem last time that happened.

[Klaynos]

An interesting thing is that Samba is offten found to be faster under testing than microsofts implementaion of their own protocole.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You might want to check the Windows Firewall settings; that was my problem last time that happened.

I don't use Windows Firewall...

[Dave]

I don't use Windows Firewall...

 

Fair enough; just a suggestion

[herme3]

Of course Linux and Windows can be connected on the same network. The network connection protocol is standard and it doesn't matter which OS you use.

 

I should also note that since I upgraded both of my computers to XP' date=' I have been unable to use the Shared Documents folder to transfer files on the network.[/quote']

 

Go to "My Computer" and right-click on the shared documents folder. Click on properties, then click on the sharing tab. Make sure that "Share this folder on the network" is checked on both computers. That should work. If not, are you using any type of a firewall?

 

Cap'n Refsmmat, i think he means getting them setup with file shares, printer shares etc

 

Exactly. If you can't get those setup, what is the purpose of having a network? Those network cables aren't for decoration.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Go to "My Computer" and right-click on the shared documents folder. Click on properties, then click on the sharing tab. Make sure that "Share this folder on the network" is checked on both computers. That should work. If not, are you using any type of a firewall?

Of course I've tried that. I've also tried the setup wizard, going to My Network Places, and so on.

I've also looked through ZoneAlarm to see what it's doing. But our firewall didn't change through the upgrade to XP.

[Dave]

ZoneAlarm really doesn't like Windows filesharing in XP. If you select Firewall in the left hand toolbar, click on Zones, select your local network's zone and then set that to "Trusted" it may fix the problem.

[herme3]

ZoneAlarm really doesn't like Windows filesharing in XP. If you select Firewall in the left hand toolbar, click on Zones, select your local network's zone and then set that to "Trusted" it may fix the problem.

 

I use ZoneAlarm too. I normally keep my network in the "Internet" zone for maximum security. However, when I transfer files or print something across the network, I need to change it to "Trusted".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It already is in Trusted.

 

Also I was using it with two computers on Norton for a while, and I just recently found the setting in that. But ZoneAlarm also blocks it.

 

 

This is irellevant anyways.

[herme3]

It already is in Trusted.

 

Also I was using it with two computers on Norton for a while' date=' and I just recently found the setting in that. But ZoneAlarm also blocks it.

[/quote']

 

So is your file sharing working now?

[Klaynos]

This may sound silly, but are you looking for the share in the right place on the computer where you want to download the files?