1veedo Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 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.Unfortunately it did not come with a CD because it was made to work with plug and play. Windows tried to install it that way, several times (reboot after each, sigh...), so eventually I decided to go to their website. From there I got the SB4100 drivers. Oh, and yes. I do know that USB would slow down your transfer rate. They used to have hardware for ethernet but couldn't get that recognized by Windows either... As for ME, I thought there was a second addition 2000 or something that supposedly fixed all these original bugs? 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.Yes, I know that. And this is what I've been trying to do. I even tried the little troubleshooting help guide. Ironically, on Linux, the only thing I had to do was change the workgroup. No wizards. No reboots. Took literally about 30 seconds if you include adding my /home and printers -- it can do these tasks as fast as you can possibly click. The two computers down here are connected via ethernet. We use wireless for the 98 computer upstairs. 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.Linux has this thing called samba that connects over the same protocall, or whatever, as Windows. Windows itself does not have the capability to be on any other kind of network but Windows. I wish I had the news link handy but in this whole europe microsoft mess, one of the compromises was to open up Windows networking standards but only to closed source companies. Samba is an open source project and there is no other client (except Windows) that can work on a Windows network without hacking. Hows that for marketing practices?
Pangloss Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 Linux has this thing called samba that connects over the same protocall, or whatever, as Windows. Windows itself does not have the capability to be on any other kind of network but Windows. No. Samba is a tool for Linux that makes it compatible with Microsoft Networking. It's not the other way around. Windows does have the capability to be on many other kinds of networks. You are mistaken. Dipping a bit into my distant MCSE knowledge, I know that it's compatible with IPX/SPX, NetBIOS/NetBEUI, DLC, and plenty more. It's just a matter of having the correct modules installed. Note also please that as of Windows 2000 (aka NT5), Windows' native networking protocol is IP, just like Linux. It's only the LAN stack at the application layer that's different, and you don't have to use the standard "Microsoft Networking" layer if you don't want to.
herme3 Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 Oh' date=' and yes. I do know that USB would slow down your transfer rate. They used to have hardware for ethernet but couldn't get that recognized by Windows either... [/quote'] If possible, I would really try to get the ethernet hardware working. If it isn't working, there is a good chance that there is conflicting hardware. I don't know if Windows ME has anything that would let you check that. For Windows XP, you would click on Start, All Programs, Accesories, System Tools, and then open System Information. Windows ME might work the same way. As for ME, I thought there was a second addition 2000 or something that supposedly fixed all these original bugs? Windows ME was released for home users. Windows 2000 (Windows NT) was mainly for businesses. Windows XP combined the Windows 2000 and home versions. The Windows 2000 kernel was used for Window XP. That is why Windows XP is much more stable than some of the older home versions. I wish I had the news link handy but in this whole europe microsoft mess, one of the compromises was to open up Windows networking standards but only to closed source companies. Samba is an open source project and there is no other client (except Windows) that can work on a Windows network without hacking. Hows that for marketing practices? My opinion is that all operating systems should use the same standards. The differences should be the GUI, and extra features. I think that all hardware and software should work easily on all operating systems. However, the reality is that most hardware and software works best with the Windows operating systems. That's why I can't understand why people would want another operating system with compatibility issues. The problem isn't really with the other operating systems, but it is still a big disadvantage to the other operating systems.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 My opinion is that all operating systems should use the same standards. The differences should be the GUI' date=' and extra features. I think that all hardware and software should work easily on all operating systems. However, the reality is that most hardware and software works best with the Windows operating systems. That's why I can't understand why people would want another operating system with compatibility issues. The problem isn't really with the other operating systems, but it is still a big disadvantage to the other operating systems.[/quote'] I'm sorry but you perhaps don't understand the concept of what an operating system is? operating system <operating system> (OS) The low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no application program is running. The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and various system programs which use facilities provided by the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting as servers in a client-server relationship. Some would include a graphical user interface and window system as part of the OS, others would not. The operating system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing the operating system would generally not be considered part of the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS. The facilities an operating system provides and its general design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up around the machines on which it runs. Example operating systems include 386BSD, AIX, AOS, Amoeba, Angel, Artemis microkernel, BeOS, Brazil, COS, CP/M, CTSS, Chorus, DACNOS, DOSEXEC 2, GCOS, GEORGE 3, GEOS, ITS, KAOS, Linux, LynxOS, MPV, MS-DOS, MVS, Mach, Macintosh operating system, Microsoft Windows, MINIX, Multics, Multipop-68, Novell NetWare, OS-9, OS/2, Pick, Plan 9, QNX, RISC OS, STING, System V, System/360, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, TRUSIX, TWENEX, TYMCOM-X, Thoth, Unix, VM/CMS, VMS, VRTX, VSTa, VxWorks, WAITS. FAQ (ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/comp.os.research). Usenet newsgroup: news:comp.os.research. [Jargon File] (1999-06-09) Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis Howe In my experiance hardware and software are more compatiple with linux than windows XP. After installing several distros on linux on different ages of machines from modern ones to pIII's Linux has had better hardware and software support everytime.
Rakdos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 My opinion is that all operating systems should use the same standards. The differences should be the GUI' date=' and extra features. I think that all hardware and software should work easily on all operating systems.[/quote'] Then Design and Write it.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 A major feature will be the new type of icons. The icons will actually show a preview of the entire document, or picture. It will be much more than the Windows XP thumbnails. You seem quite impressed with this. Linux's windows manager and GUI's have done this for years, as well as proper transparancies.
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I'm sorry but you perhaps don't understand the concept of what an operating system is? Your definition of an operating system is a little old. Today, a good operating system includes everything the average user would need to enjoy their computer. This includes advanced word processors, web browsing, media players, picture editors, security software, games, and more. A good example is Windows XP. Not all, but some non-Windows operating systems are living in the past, and don't seem to keep up with public interest. That's why Windows is often a better choice for the average computer user.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 no that may be a well packaged desktop operating system package, but the deffinision of an OS hasn't changed. Windows does not include or come with or install with "advanced word processors" or a good "picture editor", so Windows XP by your own deffinition is NOT a good OS, ubuntu to take one DOES come with all of that so by your deffinition (which is flawed) is a GOOD OS.
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 you mean MSWinPOS? Huh? I've spent plenty of time on Microsoft's web site, but I've never heard of that.
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 no that may be a well packaged desktop operating system package, but the deffinision of an OS hasn't changed. Windows does not include or come with or install with "advanced word processors" or a good "picture editor", so Windows XP by your own deffinition is NOT a good OS, ubuntu to take one DOES come with all of that so by your deffinition (which is flawed) is a GOOD OS. No, Windows XP is the operating system. You can buy packages that include Windows XP and Microsoft Office. However, you can't buy Windows XP without the games, IE, Media Player, etc. I suppose WordPad isn't very advanced, but it is better than what some operating systems come with. I also think Microsoft Paint is a fairly good picture editor. I've designed some Internet banner ads using Microsoft Paint. omfg...nice... Does that post actually have a point, or did you just feel like typing something?
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 yes, it did have a point...a sharp one... What was the point? I said I never heard of MSWinPOS before. I also can't find anything about it on search engines. Your reply was: omfg...nice... How did that explain anything about MSWinPOS?
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 No' date=' Windows XP is the operating system. You can buy packages that include Windows XP and Microsoft Office. However, you can't buy Windows XP without the games, IE, Media Player, etc. I suppose WordPad isn't very advanced, but it is better than what some operating systems come with. I also think Microsoft Paint is a fairly good picture editor. I've designed some Internet banner ads using Microsoft Paint. Does that post actually have a point, or did you just feel like typing something?[/quote'] I'm sorry but I really can't bring myself to give a well structurd argument against this paint, I mean it's paint, try using the gimp 2 then you will see what a good image editor packaged with an os is..... You said: Your definition of an operating system is a little old. Today, a good operating system includes everything the average user would need to enjoy their computer. This includes advanced word processors, web browsing, media players, picture editors, security software, games, and more. A good example is Windows XP. Then you said: No, Windows XP is the operating system. You can buy packages that include Windows XP and Microsoft Office. This looks like a change of deffinition mid argument to me. Which shows you're arguments however poor they may be to start with are showing even more cracks...
ydoaPs Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 What was the point? I said I never heard of MSWinPOS before. I also can't find anything about it on search engines. Your reply was: How did that explain anything about MSWinPOS? if you can't see it, i'm not going to explain it...
Dave Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I have to say that this doesn't look like it's going anywhere. The reason I didn't contribute to this thread is because I have my feet in both camps (I dualboot). However, after 5 pages of some rather inconsistent arguments from some people, I'm beginning to doubt whether it's worth keeping this thread open. Comments?
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I hoped he might broden his view but it seems I was foolish :s My vote is close...
Pangloss Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I agree, Dave, it's just vapid at this point. FWIW, I thought herme3linuxsux had some fair points at the very beginning, but he's just as pointless and erroneous in his posts as yourmommauseswindows at this point. All I got out of this is that you and Klaynos have some pretty good insights into the industry, and Sayo still knows how to remind a user when he's crossed the line. (chuckle) I say shut it down.
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I'm sorry. I'm just posting the facts about Windows. I never even said that Linux is bad. I just said it doesn't work with a lot of hardware and software so I wondered why anyone would want it.
ydoaPs Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 I'm sorry. I'm just posting the facts about Windows. I never even said that Linux is bad. I just said it doesn't work with a lot of hardware and software so I wondered why anyone would want it. read the following: No, its a bit accurate. I have seen it written here by more verbose members than myself; you are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not[/u'] entitled to your own facts.
herme3 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 This looks like a change of deffinition mid argument to me. Which shows you're arguments however poor they may be to start with are showing even more cracks... No it didn't change. Windows XP is an operating system. It also includes web browsing, Media Player, games, word processing, and image editing. You said that Windows XP is a package. I simply stated that Windows XP is the operating system, and Windows XP with Microsoft Office is a package.
Recommended Posts