| Author |
Message |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4780
Location: Down Under
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: Continuation of OS flame war #1345324 |
 |
|
Continuation of OS flame war. Managed to start in only the second post of this thread:
http://lifelesspeople.com/foru.....hp?t=47671
| Scar wrote: | | no. my network isn't writeless. I have an intel network adapter and a linksys router. Works perfect under windows, so it's weird that it'd be slow on linux. |
So you are connected to the router through an ethernet cable? I find it hard to believe that it would be any slower on any Linux but let's leave it at that, after all, that problem is bothersome to diagnose remotely.
| Scar wrote: | | Photoshop is one example of a program that i use alot. Microsoft office also. i don't like open office as much. |
Yes, we've covered Photoshop many times. I know GIMP doesn't compare so Photoshop can be one of the few programs that you can use with WINE. As for MS Office, I believe that is one of Windows' only strong points. A themed and customised Open Office 3 still struggles to keep up but then again, the only thing I miss in MS Office is the data analysis and better conditional formatting in Excel which have to be mimicked with Open Office plugins. All in all, corporate software, Office and games that are Windows oriented are almost the only selling points of Windows now. Small compromise, for me anyways.
| Scar wrote: | | enjoy your linux, and i'll enjoy my windows and be very productive. Smile |
Good statement until that "and be very productive" nonsense. I'm all for "each to their own" but don't imply that Windows is more productive. Refer to that graph again, Windows might get a more usable system up front if you fit into the one size Windows caters for but instead of using the time maintaining the OS on Windows, you are extending the system with Linux into something tailored to your needs, and that is how to get a truly productive system.
| Scar wrote: | | Vista is much better, works perfect for me. I actually use it and love it. I use alot of resource intensive programs, and the system runs really smooth still. |
Then count yourself lucky you have such a system beyond the point where the balance between resource consumption and functionality no longer matters. And again, let's see how things go in a few months.
| Scar wrote: | | i can talk about linux because i've actually used it for more than half a day. Crap it took me like a week just to get it to detect my network card. |
The difference with Linux is you will always find more and get more out of your system as you go on. And lucky you on having only one issue with a network card... how was it fixed? Windows had problems with about 5 hardware parts for me plus software issues (on a laptop), compared to 2 issues on Ubuntu Gutsy and 0 issues on Hardy.
| Scar wrote: | | There is no point in continuing in with this conversation with you because all you're going to do is pretend you're smarter than me and try to avoid anything i say and counter it with some generic message you found on the web. |
Hypocrite! And I can tell you I am not part of many forums and only get into these discussion here so I'm not copying what others say or something else I "found on the web". And avoiding your arguments? No, I can't vouch for SolidRaven as I skim over his posts but if I miss a solid point you make, it is by accident. Remind me of what I avoided if you like. So far, a solid argument you made is Office, most others are outdated, or myths, or untrue. Maybe add the slow Internet thing albeit being most likely externally stimulated. And lastly, I have no reason to flame and avoid your arguments, I participate in arguments like this for insight. Do you think I gain anything if you actually start using Linux? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4780
Location: Down Under
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moose must have missed my post mentioning the thread is here but I'll respond to the few points in between this unfounded hypocritical mess:
| Moose wrote: | I use vista. I enjoy vista. Don't take sides unless you use vista on a machine with balls. Else, keep it to yourself. I've used Linux. I've ran it for months. It's not fun. When I can't play Diablo II without lagging, then by golly, I'm stumped.
Vista runs great with my 4gb of ram, my vid card setup to 756mb, and my 2.3 ghz dual core processor. I can play Diablo II without Wine, without lagging, I can listen to music at the same time, while running macros on firefox, and using programs that do auto-attacking on certain web-based games, plus, I can also have photoshop open while I open up 10 or so 5megapixel images for editing. Also, I can click an .exe to install ****, and just open up the Windows Updater to make sure I'm up to date. Oh, and if I want some fancy **** GUI, I can figure out some way to get it, but I never need my Vista to look like vista, it already does, and oh, by God, I can play games on it at the same time too! It's not just a faux look!
Honestly, Vista isn't for the faint of heart. Run it good if you run it at all. It also has it's downfalls. Games do run slower, the os does run "hotter" but you know what, to be up to date and not have to deal with stupid bull Linux nerd-bitch ****, Vista is GG. Also, I don't care if I make you mad, but when you get Linux to actually run correctly out of the box, if it ever uses one, while having to not do some sudo apt-get, and other such nerd ****, then maybe I'll jump on board. But for now, I'm fine with my resource hogging OS, and if I want to game faster, I'll just dual-boot my XP and call it a day. |
As with Scar, count yourself lucky you have such a system beyond the point where the balance between resource consumption and functionality no longer matters.
Also, the whole "linux is for nerds" thing was years ago. It still caters for geeks but the last 2 years and what is coming up opens Linux up to much more users. Besides, you're not one to talk about nerds and what is "nerdy".
Also, what's with the "no taking sides" and then blasting Linux?
"Also, I don't care if I make you mad" Believe me, you won't make anyone mad with your arguments and manner.
| Quote: | | Also, I can click an .exe to install ****, and just open up the Windows Updater to make sure I'm up to date. |
First you have to go to the page, download that exe, and maybe repeat for the .net framework, directx and so forth. Then go through the setup wizard for almost every program. You said you used Linux, why would you make that point considering Linux's package management which makes installing, removing and updating everything much easier (Windows Update only handles select Windows products)
| Quote: | | but when you get Linux to actually run correctly out of the box, if it ever uses one, while having to not do some sudo apt-get, and other such nerd ****, then maybe I'll jump on board |
Frankly, I rather you stay on Windows. Besides, the console is only a shortcut for what you can do through the GUI, and console commands are usually copy pasted from an online guide so you are not being forced to use or remember "nerd ****". And as you may find out from my posts here and in the last thread, Linux worked out of the box much better for me than Windows and would probably do so for must users (I can only vouch for Ubuntu gutsy and hardy though)
And I believe your only other half decent point was "but I never need my Vista to look like vista":
1. Vista doesn't look good in my eyes. The black taskbar turns me off, the window borders don't look that good, the icon set is nothing special and it is still trying to be too generic, that "one size fits all" stuff again.
2. The point about making Linux look like Windows is usually just an easy to showcase how customisable Linux is. Most people stick with a better custom theme with Compiz if they want it for resource efficient special effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7359
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scar wrote: | | Man you said you probably used Vista for half a day at most on a system that wasn't designed for it and kept crashing. |
Everything except the sound card is vista compatible. So shut up about that. Learn to read.
| Quote: | | How can you even tell me how vista works and what it does? You haven't even used it. You seem to just be giving me the generic answers all the linux fan boys say even though they have no clue. |
I've used vista more (in the sense of having to fix other people their computers). A lot of things are hidden, ever tried to configure a laptop in vista so it would use less power (in other words, so it runs less programs automatically). I had to do that once and believe me. It's no fun on vista. I did the same thing on a linux laptop in about 5-10 minutes. Only thing I had to do was activate power management.
| Quote: | | Vista is much better, works perfect for me. I actually use it and love it. I use alot of resource intensive programs, and the system runs really smooth still. |
What do you call resource intensive. I run programs that sometimes take up 1gb of ram on their own and almost every cpu cycle. Vista won't perform well under such conditions.
| Quote: | | i can talk about linux because i've actually used it for more than half a day. Crap it took me like a week just to get it to detect my network card. |
I've used linux like two years or so (actually using, not constantly switching between windows and linux)...
| Quote: | | There is no point in continuing in with this conversation with you because all you're going to do is pretend you're smarter than me and try to avoid anything i say and counter it with some generic message you found on the web. |
Generic message? You should really learn to realize that:
1) Not everybody has 2000 euro to buy some totally brand new computer so they can run vista
2) Not everybody wants to run vista
3) Not everybody is used to using microsoft operating systems
4) It's not cause hardware isn't supported by vista that it's old. In fact not every company has the money to get their drivers signed by microsoft. What shuts up some of the newer players on the hardware market. That is how much damage vista is doing.
5) If you would live close to my house I'd invite you to check my browser & search history. Than you would know that I haven't even searched for the word vista on the internet in the last months (probably a half year by now)
| Quote: | enjoy your linux, and i'll enjoy my windows and be very productive.  |
Go and enjoy your graphics and animations that draw your attention away from your work.
| M0ose wrote: | | I use vista. I enjoy vista. Don't take sides unless you use vista on a machine with balls. Else, keep it to yourself. I've used Linux. I've ran it for months. It's not fun. When I can't play Diablo II without lagging, then by golly, I'm stumped. |
Oh sure, that's linux its fault? That's the fault of the developer of the game that he didn't port it. If you get a game to run on linux it's not a great step to get it to work on bsd and mac. (bsd can in fact run linux executables and mac has a similar structure so modifications are minor)
| Quote: | | Vista runs great with my 4gb of ram, my vid card setup to 756mb, and my 2.3 ghz dual core processor. |
And how much did you pay I paid about 500 euro for my computer. About half of that is for the CPU actually.
| Quote: | | I can play Diablo II without Wine, without lagging, I can listen to music at the same time, while running macros on firefox, and using programs that do auto-attacking on certain web-based games, plus, I can also have photoshop open while I open up 10 or so 5megapixel images for editing. |
Okay, open a complex drawing in heavy CAD software and I'll talk to you again about this.
| Quote: | | Also, I can click an .exe to install ****, and just open up the Windows Updater to make sure I'm up to date. Oh, and if I want some fancy **** GUI, I can figure out some way to get it, but I never need my Vista to look like vista, it already does, and oh, by God, I can play games on it at the same time too! It's not just a faux look! |
Oh, if I want to update I simply have to tell the package manager it should update everything (that includes all software actually). If I want to install something I simply open the package manager, enter the name in the search box and click find, select it out of the list of options and click install. Now I have yet to see a package manager like that for windows.
And about the graphics go and watch Beryl. I got Beryl to run on a machine with a 64mb graphics card, 1ghz cpu and 512mb ram with graphics that were way better than vista.
| Quote: | | Honestly, Vista isn't for the faint of heart. Run it good if you run it at all. It also has it's downfalls. Games do run slower, the os does run "hotter" but you know what, to be up to date and not have to deal with stupid bull Linux nerd-bitch ****, Vista is GG. |
Vista is xp with a new skin and super prefetch on. Have fun with it...
| Quote: | | Also, I don't care if I make you mad, but when you get Linux to actually run correctly out of the box, if it ever uses one, while having to not do some sudo apt-get, and other such nerd ****, then maybe I'll jump on board. |
It's kind a funny how debian worked out of the box for me. The only thing I had to do at first boot was set the resolution from 800x600 to 1280x1024 and not a minute later I was already on irc again (yeah I installed xchat in less than a minute). On windows it would take a minute before you even have the setup started.
| Quote: | But for now, I'm fine with my resource hogging OS, and if I want to game faster, I'll just dual-boot my XP and call it a day.
P.S. "Your system has been running for 30 hours and 3 minutes." |
My linux box has been running for about 2 weeks now. And actually one of my other computers here has been running for about 2 months now (it's running NetBSD if you were wondering).
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Scott
tutorialtoday.com
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I personally like the software on Linux a lot more than I do on Windows. The only exception is the popular exclusive software which Windows has such as Photoshop or Flash, although Photoshop can be ran under Wine from what I have read (I don't know about Flash).
Most other applications I end up using is complete garbage. For example, I just wanted to burn on ISO file to a CD, and unfortunately I had to use Windows. So I spent about an hour looking around trying to find something to do such a simple task, I probably went through 10 different applications which all ended up saying like "buy this now" or "you need to pay to burn more than *** sized files".
If I wanted to burn a CD under Linux it is just a matter of clicking the menu button -> Multimedia -> K3b and it isn't going to bother me with limitations and I know it is going to be good because I feel like I can rely on open source projects to always be good, since it isn't just crap that someone put together to bother you with limitations and trial software.
_________________
Tutorial Management Script - Version 1.4 Released
TutorialToday - Up and running, submit your tutorials!
Linux Tutorials - Coming Soon |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
M0ose
SPAMMING IST VERBOTEN!
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 1552
Location: I am 48.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, as to steer clear of you linux nerds who always think they're right, I'll leave you with my cost. For a 22" monitor, computer, and upgrades. Some upgrades I haven't been able to throw in yet due to manufacturer faults, it cost me a total of $900. Which, compared to your 500 euros, is quite cheap. But, not counting the power supply, and the video card which aren't in yet, the cost is really only $734. Which, again, exchange rates show, is a bit cheaper, and ****, my OS actually works 100% of the time.
Also, I've ran Linux. I ran DSL, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, FreeBSD, and I think I'm forgetting one. Honestly, I've clocked almost six months of use. Why? Because they were free, and I didn't have cash. That's the only reason why you should run Linux. Windows can do everything Linux can, be it in XP, Vista, or even ME. Hell, 98 is a great version of Windows that can even still rock some socks off. But the fact that I can do whatever I want, without emulation, without dicking around with config files, all while having a very easy to follow installer, or wizard, is quite good. I don't have to worry about ports, I don't have to worry about none of that. My OS is the standard, my OS is what all of your OS's want to be in terms of availability, support, and programs. But you will never be my OS, you will always be a dumbed down version of my OS trying to have points that a good. But until you are accepted by the programmers, you will always fail and fall short. I don't give two **** or a **** about emulation, because if we cared enough about you in the first place, you would be top shelf at Wal-Mart, not bottom sewer drain of some piss-stained alleyway.
So there. My final words. I'm done with your stupid threads, because at least I can admit when my OS is wrong. Sadly, you are to stubborn to yourselves.
Oh, and Scott, if you honestly went through 10 different applications to burn an ISO, then honestly, go back to Linux, because it's **** easy to do ISO's, under Windows or not.
By the way, Alan Cox is a **** creep.
Oh, and quick question, can someone tell me where I can get Chrysis to run for Linux? Maybe it will run better.
_________________
[img]http://wna.com.ru/sig/msig60.gif[/img]
AreaMJ.com
Wings, Nachos & Anthrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Scott
tutorialtoday.com
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not had to edit one config file on Kubuntu, everything is just a step by step process which does it automatically for you just like Windows. I probably have to go mess around more to set up hardware on Windows, because the only problem I ever have is the printer which takes about an hour to setup on Windows and even then is a bit sketchy as to whether it will work or not, where as I follow one of those "wizards" which you seem to love and setup a printer in Kubuntu in about 2 minutes.
Also, you don't even need to use a command line to install things, if you have so much trouble typing "sudo apt-get install ***" then you might find there is also a GUI package manager which is the same thing, without actually typing the commands.
_________________
Tutorial Management Script - Version 1.4 Released
TutorialToday - Up and running, submit your tutorials!
Linux Tutorials - Coming Soon |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7359
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M0ose wrote: | | Well, as to steer clear of you linux nerds who always think they're right, I'll leave you with my cost. For a 22" monitor, computer, and upgrades. Some upgrades I haven't been able to throw in yet due to manufacturer faults, it cost me a total of $900. |
new hardware with manufacturer faults. That's what you get for buying new and cheap hardware.
| Quote: | | Which, compared to your 500 euros, is quite cheap. But, not counting the power supply, and the video card which aren't in yet, the cost is really only $734. Which, again, exchange rates show, is a bit cheaper, and ****, my OS actually works 100% of the time. |
Keep in mind my main spendings were CPU, soundcard and harddrives.And before you say everything is cheaper here, you're quite wrong. Computer parts cost a lot more here. Taxes on them are rather high. Also here it was power supply and video card included The only thing not included is the monitor (what would cost about 200-300 euro depending on where you buy it, high contrast monitors tend to cost more)
| Quote: | | Also, I've ran Linux. I ran DSL, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, FreeBSD, and I think I'm forgetting one. Honestly, I've clocked almost six months of use. Why? Because they were free, and I didn't have cash. That's the only reason why you should run Linux. Windows can do everything Linux can, be it in XP, Vista, or even ME. Hell, 98 is a great version of Windows that can even still rock some socks off. |
DSL isn't a worth while distro, the only use I found for it was system recovery. Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu are identical (only another window manager and some fine tuning based on that) and FreeBSD can't be qualified as linux. So you used 2 linux distributions and 1 BSD distribution. And actually I could say you used 1 linux distribution. Cause both ubuntu and DSL are based on debian...
Windows ME is a total joke that should never be talked about (it probably qualifies as the worst OS ever). And XP and Vista can't do everything linux can in fact. For starters the windows boot loader can't even detect any OS except windows...
| Quote: | | But the fact that I can do whatever I want, without emulation, without dicking around with config files, all while having a very easy to follow installer, or wizard, is quite good. |
All I have to do is open the package manager most of the time...
| Quote: | | I don't have to worry about ports, I don't have to worry about none of that. My OS is the standard, my OS is what all of your OS's want to be in terms of availability, support, and programs. |
The way Linux, BSD and Mac behave has an actual has an IEEE standard (generally named POSIX).
| Quote: | | But you will never be my OS, you will always be a dumbed down version of my OS trying to have points that a good. But until you are accepted by the programmers, you will always fail and fall short. |
Funny how a lot of things like testing new concepts happens on a non-windows computer. That happens to have a reason. Mainly the fact that you can access the lower level of the system on linux without a lot of trouble.
| Quote: | | I don't give two **** or a **** about emulation, because if we cared enough about you in the first place, you would be top shelf at Wal-Mart, not bottom sewer drain of some piss-stained alleyway. |
Than please explain why major companies (like IBM) choose to support linux?
| Quote: | | So there. My final words. I'm done with your stupid threads, because at least I can admit when my OS is wrong. Sadly, you are to stubborn to yourselves. |
You can't admit that vista is a total failure (it has in fact been voted as biggest failure of 2007 by several news papers).
| Quote: | | Oh, and Scott, if you honestly went through 10 different applications to burn an ISO, then honestly, go back to Linux, because it's **** easy to do ISO's, under Windows or not. |
In fact on linux you wouldn't even require software to burn certain cd image formats but I'm not even getting started on that.
| Quote: | By the way, Alan Cox is a **** creep.
Oh, and quick question, can someone tell me where I can get Chrysis to run for Linux? Maybe it will run better. |
Crysis, lol; Sure nice graphics but I would love to see new gameplay concepts. Cause I haven't exactly found any in crysis.
Also microsoft cheated again actually. They made OpenGL slower on vista.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4780
Location: Down Under
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M0ose wrote: | | Well, as to steer clear of you linux nerds who always think they're right, I'll leave you with my cost. For a 22" monitor, computer, and upgrades. Some upgrades I haven't been able to throw in yet due to manufacturer faults, it cost me a total of $900. Which, compared to your 500 euros, is quite cheap. But, not counting the power supply, and the video card which aren't in yet, the cost is really only $734. Which, again, exchange rates show, is a bit cheaper, and ****, my OS actually works 100% of the time. |
Define "works". And again, who are you to call others nerds? And I am doing this for insight and some fun, maybe disoriented based on the attitude of the person I am quoting. I definitely am not thinking I am always right and ask you to stop with that nonsense please.
| M0ose wrote: | | Also, I've ran Linux. I ran DSL, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, FreeBSD, and I think I'm forgetting one. Honestly, I've clocked almost six months of use. Why? Because they were free, and I didn't have cash. |
Considering the amount of time you use your computer, an OEM license of Windows is not really significant. My choice of using Linux would barely be changed if Windows was free.
| M0ose wrote: | | That's the only reason why you should run Linux. Windows can do everything Linux can, be it in XP, Vista, or even ME. |
Far from it. Or it is incredibly hard and/or expensive to mimic functionality that Linux can provide.
| M0ose wrote: | | Hell, 98 is a great version of Windows that can even still rock some socks off. |
Only if you are smoking those rocks.
| M0ose wrote: | | But the fact that I can do whatever I want, without emulation, without dicking around with config files, all while having a very easy to follow installer, or wizard, is quite good. |
I've edited more config files and gone through more configuration wizards in Windows than Linux (proportional to time spent too).
| M0ose wrote: | | I don't have to worry about ports, I don't have to worry about none of that. |
Now a days, that is mostly a function of the software and your router, e.g. UPnP. You do not have to worry about ports or any "of that" in Linux any more than you do in Windows.
| M0ose wrote: | | My OS is the standard, my OS is what all of your OS's want to be in terms of availability, support, and programs. |
Define "standard". Like your definition of "works", Windows has probably screwed up what you think they mean. Linux support is just as good, if not better than Windows. Take Ubuntu for example with its wiki, forums and archives and help section. According to you, noone should use hybrid or electric cars because they are not as available, against the wishes of oil companies that have a track record of unethically blocking the mainstream entry of such cars, and has less "support" for maintenance and parts. But go ahead and respond that your super charged V8 does 0-60 faster.
| M00se wrote: | | But you will never be my OS, you will always be a dumbed down version of my OS trying to have points that a good. But until you are accepted by the programmers, you will always fail and fall short. I don't give two **** or a **** about emulation, because if we cared enough about you in the first place, you would be top shelf at Wal-Mart, not bottom sewer drain of some piss-stained alleyway. |
Dumbed down? Try the opposite. Accepted by the programmers? Who? The ones in India that get outsourced to for corporate software who don't know jack about anything, let alone cross platform compatibility. Or throw the "games" argument out again. Emulation? Windows runs on the same architecture. The only thing closed to emulation is trying to duplicate the lousy Windows environment.
| Quote: | | Oh, and Scott, if you honestly went through 10 different applications to burn an ISO, then honestly, go back to Linux, because it's **** easy to do ISO's, under Windows or not. |
ISOs were stated as an example of many functions which are just a package install away in Linux. Ignoring that your comment barely made any sense.
| Quote: | | By the way, Alan Cox is a **** creep. |
Speaking of nonsense...
| Quote: | | Oh, and quick question, can someone tell me where I can get Chrysis to run for Linux? Maybe it will run better. |
I'm almost over gaming so I don't pay much attention to what options there are or what games run on WINE but supposedly Crysis doesn't work properly through it. It might work on commercial WINE alternatives.
| Quote: | | So there. My final words. I'm done with your stupid threads, because at least I can admit when my OS is wrong. Sadly, you are to stubborn to yourselves. |
Coming from you, the one who said your OS 100% works and that the alternative is full of "nerd ****". Out of Scar, maybe SolidRaven, and myself and anyone else who I missed in this argument, you are probably the least neutral (or most "stubborn").
--
BTW, Scar, I found out today that MS Office works on Linux through WINE and is legal provided you have a Windows license sitting around somewhere. Just when I was thinking that it was one of Windows' few selling points. Haven't tried it myself though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
The Grinch
Lifeless Person
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 6208
Location: Chuck Norris's nightmares.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krt wrote: | | M0ose wrote: | | Well, as to steer clear of you linux nerds who always think they're right, I'll leave you with my cost. For a 22" monitor, computer, and upgrades. Some upgrades I haven't been able to throw in yet due to manufacturer faults, it cost me a total of $900. Which, compared to your 500 euros, is quite cheap. But, not counting the power supply, and the video card which aren't in yet, the cost is really only $734. Which, again, exchange rates show, is a bit cheaper, and ****, my OS actually works 100% of the time. |
Define "works". And again, who are you to call others nerds? And I am doing this for insight and some fun, maybe disoriented based on the attitude of the person I am quoting. I definitely am not thinking I am always right and ask you to stop with that nonsense please. |
I am pretty sure that he wasn't referring to you, but rather to someone else who keeps reposting the same mistruths over and over and avoiding anything we say to counter it with the same mistruths over again (reposting) and we just aren't getting anywhere here due to that.
Which is why i stopped even talking about it. No point really.
But i thought it'd reply and clear that up so you didn't hate m0ose (he's a cool dude and just speaking his mind  )
But i wanted to comment on something else. Someone said something about how difficult it is to burn a disc in windows? and that you can burn cd's without any program at all, you seriously honestly must not use Windows at all, because as far back as i can remember you do not need any software in windows to burn anything.
You can simply drag a file to the burner drive in windows explorer and click "write these files to cd" and it'll do it. I don't think that's the exact text but its along there.
and if you install a program such as i have with nero, it's pretty much the same thing. No complication at all.
And to another comment (dont care to quote) SolidRaven said he shouldn't spend money on cheap hardware, or something. uh dude? his hardware is powerful enough to actually run windows vista without the errors that you received so you have no room to talk.
By the way i'm not like some super windows fan. I just hate when people post lame stuff that isnt true and act as if it is. Im not totally against linux. As we speak i am burning the latest version of DreamLinux to a disc so i can test it out. (I actually try out the crap before i diss it with generic lines i got off the net )
| krt wrote: |
Coming from you, the one who said your OS 100% works and that the alternative is full of "nerd ****". Out of Scar, maybe SolidRaven, and myself and anyone else who I missed in this argument, you are probably the least neutral (or most "stubborn"). |
I think you're giving someone a little too much credit 
i'm cool with what you're saying though krt. You arent saying alot of misleading retarded crap.
okay now im off to bed. 5am ha. Gotta goto work soon 
_________________
http://www.damnidunno.com | http://www.snapcite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4780
Location: Down Under
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scar wrote: | Which is why i stopped even talking about it. No point really.
But i thought it'd reply and clear that up so you didn't hate m0ose (he's a cool dude and just speaking his mind Silly ) |
I see. Guess I let myself get too carried away with some of the swearing and nerd bashing and then looked at the points he made with a negative perspective. Apologies are in order then, sorry M00se.
| Scar wrote: | But i wanted to comment on something else. Someone said something about how difficult it is to burn a disc in windows? and that you can burn cd's without any program at all, you seriously honestly must not use Windows at all, because as far back as i can remember you do not need any software in windows to burn anything.
You can simply drag a file to the burner drive in windows explorer and click "write these files to cd" and it'll do it. I don't think that's the exact text but its along there.
and if you install a program such as i have with nero, it's pretty much the same thing. No complication at all. |
I think it was to do with ISOs. It isn't very easy to find a simple freeware method to do this on Windows and Nero isn't free, albeit bundled with many PCs, at least in an Express but capable version.
| Scar wrote: | | By the way i'm not like some super windows fan. I just hate when people post lame stuff that isnt true and act as if it is. Im not totally against linux. As we speak i am burning the latest version of DreamLinux to a disc so i can test it out. (I actually try out the crap before i diss it with generic lines i got off the net ) |
There needs to be more people like you. 
| Scar wrote: | | i'm cool with what you're saying though krt. You arent saying alot of misleading retarded crap. |
Thanks, and likewise with you. It's nice to know things are mostly friendly and civilised.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7359
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scar wrote: | | I am pretty sure that he wasn't referring to you, but rather to someone else who keeps reposting the same mistruths over and over and avoiding anything we say to counter it with the same mistruths over again (reposting) and we just aren't getting anywhere here due to that. |
You guys keep shouting mistruths about linux in fact.
| Quote: | Which is why i stopped even talking about it. No point really.
But i thought it'd reply and clear that up so you didn't hate m0ose (he's a cool dude and just speaking his mind )
But i wanted to comment on something else. Someone said something about how difficult it is to burn a disc in windows? and that you can burn cd's without any program at all, you seriously honestly must not use Windows at all, because as far back as i can remember you do not need any software in windows to burn anything. |
Actually you do, windows has really limited burning support.
| Quote: | | You can simply drag a file to the burner drive in windows explorer and click "write these files to cd" and it'll do it. I don't think that's the exact text but its along there. |
There you say it, CD. Ever tried burnining anything else than cd's?
| Quote: | and if you install a program such as i have with nero, it's pretty much the same thing. No complication at all.
And to another comment (dont care to quote) SolidRaven said he shouldn't spend money on cheap hardware, or something. uh dude? his hardware is powerful enough to actually run windows vista without the errors that you received so you have no room to talk. |
You avoid my argument with crappy arguments like yours. An OS shouldn't do things like a BSOD on first boot even though all except one (non-essential) hardware part is on the compatible list...
| Quote: | | By the way i'm not like some super windows fan. I just hate when people post lame stuff that isnt true and act as if it is. |
Than you would know vista can be categorized next to windows ME. Cause it doesn't add a lot of new things (in fact none) and it has higher hardware requirements than games.
| Quote: | | Im not totally against linux. As we speak i am burning the latest version of DreamLinux to a disc so i can test it out. (I actually try out the crap before i diss it with generic lines i got off the net ) |
Ever considered that a lot of people complain about vista's performance for a good reason. Cause it's not exactly resource efficient.
Also nice try to personally attack me. Try to hide it better next time though.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4135
Location: A particular geographic area
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's the point of these endless discussions about which operating system is better?
Why can't we just accept that Linux is a better performance OS due to its transparent and organised internal structure, but that Windows is simply a more convenient alternative because it is supported so well by the gaming industry, the hardware industry (driver support in Linux is getting good, though) and the consumer oriented software industry.
Linux is free and Windows costs money. There is a lot of well-supported software for Linux, but not all areas are covered. Many people are fine with that and can save money by using Linux.
Other people who need the entire Adobe Suite, or the newest games will find that Linux is not a convenient option. They will buy Windows (or a Mac if it's only the Adobe Suite).
Whichever OS you choose, there are things that are simply not convenient (or even possible). People have different needs and have an OS preference based on that. No OS is superior.
_________________
Captain Jell-O Buster from the Future
[img]http://feeds.feedburner.com/sparepencil.1.gif[/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4780
Location: Down Under
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me first say that 6 months or a year ago, I would have had the same stance as you ClickFanatic, neutral consumer point of view. Maybe it was just the fact that Linux suited my computer usage or finding out more on the reasons why Linux can be better and why Windows is able to keep dominating with the several year gap between slightly more reliable and stable upgrades without much substance (proportional to time). Something changed my perspective.
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | What's the point of these endless discussions about which operating system is better? |
1. Open source could do so much more with more people behind it (either using or developing). Take the last 2 years for example. Desktop suitability became a focus and distributions like Ubuntu took it to a very high level which is continuing.
2. Most of the good things about Windows are just because of its market share. While the consumer usually doesn't care, it is the cause of many problems which end up affecting the end user.
3. Points
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | Linux is free and Windows costs money. There is a lot of well-supported software for Linux, but not all areas are covered. Many people are fine with that and can save money by using Linux. |
Money doesn't really matter. From what I've earned using my computer doing freelance/casual IT work, a Windows license, Office, Photoshop and other software is nothing.
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | Windows is simply a more convenient alternative because it is supported so well by the gaming industry, the hardware industry (driver support in Linux is getting good, though) and the consumer oriented software industry. |
Exactly what I mentioned in point 2 above. It is more convenient for most users because of factors that stem mostly from its market share. Take Firefox for example, when it was in its early stages, you could claim all these things about IE being better and has more support from Indian web developers. Get it the 10-20% market share and web developers focus on it, there are even more extensions and themes, etc. The same thing with Linux just on a smaller scale.
| Quote: | | Whichever OS you choose, there are things that are simply not convenient (or even possible). People have different needs and have an OS preference based on that. No OS is superior. |
Yes, there is not one OS that is close to being suitable for everyone. But Linux has the capability to come very close to that. It just needs more people behind it. And with a growing amount of support from corporations and more developers employed solely on open source technology, open source software improves at a must faster rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4135
Location: A particular geographic area
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krt wrote: | | Let me first say that 6 months or a year ago, I would have had the same stance as you ClickFanatic, neutral consumer point of view. Maybe it was just the fact that Linux suited my computer usage or finding out more on the reasons why Linux can be better and why Windows is able to keep dominating with the several year gap between slightly more reliable and stable upgrades without much substance (proportional to time). Something changed my perspective. |
I am familiar with your reasoning, because I sometimes use the arguments you use myself to make the point you are making.
I agree that open-source has a much greater potential if only its share of the market was bigger. However, when talking about operating systems and which one to use, you really should put yourself in role of the consumer. You are one after all.
Consumers rarely think ethically about technology, it just has to do what they need and, if possible, they should benefit from using it.
They will not choose open-source because they think it's just. Factors like "does the product do what I need", "will it work", "how much does it cost" and, of course, "how many people are happy using it" really determine the choice.
Consumers do not look at the future. Most don't even know how software is created and therefore have no idea about the potential of open-source.
What consumers do know now is that the latest games will run on Windows, that Adobe software runs very well on a Mac and that Linux is very stable and cool but lacks support in some of the big industries.
Consumers will choose their OS based on these factors. No need for games, but still a need for Adobe software? Get a Mac (or use Windows). No need for either of these? Choose Linux. I think you understand what I mean.
There are also consumers who blindly choose Windows because it's the only OS they know, but a well-informed consumer is more inclined to do the above. Consumers choose the OS based on their own needs or preference not ethics. This is why OS flamewars are pointless (except on this forum, where they generate currency).
_________________
Captain Jell-O Buster from the Future
[img]http://feeds.feedburner.com/sparepencil.1.gif[/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
The Grinch
Lifeless Person
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 6208
Location: Chuck Norris's nightmares.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | This is why OS flamewars are pointless (except on this forum, where they generate currency). |
i agree. The only reason i ever kinda replied are to correct people who post retarded crap that makes no sense. You haven't though, and neither has KRt. Eitherway i have givin up since it's going know where and the person is still reposting the same bs.
I don't hate linux. i just prefer windows right now. And the stuff he is saying just isnt true because i haven't experienced any of it myself and i actually use Vista all the time. and it honestly annoys the hell out of me how people can actually post the same crap over and over again that i know personally is not true.
_________________
http://www.damnidunno.com | http://www.snapcite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
