PDA

View Full Version : All these various OS's?



BrianW
02-03-2007, 11:29 PM
How do ya pick one?

How do you get it after you decide to try it?

Can you load it on a 'puker running XP and try it out?

Thanks!

GregW
02-03-2007, 11:41 PM
How do ya pick one?

How do you get it after you decide to try it?

Can you load it on a 'puker running XP and try it out?

Thanks!

That is an excellent question.
To be able to try out software you have to install it. However to install it you have to agree to the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), which says amoung other things, that once you have installed it you can't return it, no matter what.
It's as if when buying a car if you take a test drive you HAVE to buy the car, no matter what. There's something wrong here.

John Bell
02-03-2007, 11:54 PM
How do ya pick one?

How do you get it after you decide to try it?

Can you load it on a 'puker running XP and try it out?

Thanks!

Trying Linux isn't hard. It's a bit of a learning curve, though. I view it as about the same as learning to use your PC for the first time. For all the talk about an OS being intuitive, none of them really are. They all require you to learn something about how the machine works, how it stores files, where all the settings are and what they do when you change them, etc.

That being said, most linux distros allow you to try before you commit by running off of a live CD. All you do is download the distro you want, burn the ISO file you downloaded to a CD and reboot. You may need to change a setting in your PCs BIOS to allow booting from the CD drive, but that's about it. In about a minute or so, a fully functional system will boot to let you try out the OS and the included packages on your PC all the while leaving your existing system fully intact.

If you decide to install a particular OS, you can set it up as a dual boot Windows/Linux (or Mac/Linux!) if you so choose.

There are some details about disk partitioning I've learned along the way that I'll tell you about later if you decide to install something, but that can wait.

I've tested a bunch of distros:

1) Ubuntu - good, but seems a little sluggish on my computers. It's a pain though, because the base system lacks the software to play MP3s.,DVDs, WMVs, and Flash. These are fairly easy to add, but it can b confusing to the neophyte. They promise to have those things on the next update in April, so I'd wait until then.

2) PCLinuxOS - I really like this one, it is a good place for Windows users to begin. It's quite fast, but required a bit of tweaking to get my wireless network going and to be able to share files across my LAN. They are working on these things, though and I expect the 2007 update that should be out before spring to be quite good. It's a nice system.

3) Mepis - this is what I'm currently running, the version 6.04 beta. It doesn't feel like a beta, though. It's fast, and most importantly: everything just worked. It's the one I'd suggest you look at first.

There are also a plethora of other distributions that are kind of cool to play with. There is something called the GParted live CD which has an awesome disk partitioning tool that I find very useful.

There are some tiny distros like Puppy Linux and Damn Small that are cool because they fit on a 128 or 256 meg USB drive and can run a very nice system from there. Both are lean and lightening fast.

The best place to start looking is a http://www.distrowatch.org.

Good luck and have fun.

TimH
02-03-2007, 11:58 PM
How do ya pick one?

do your research, then make an educated choice.

How do you get it after you decide to try it?

either purchase it or download it.

Can you load it on a 'puker running XP and try it out?

since XP *is* an OS, you either have to reformat your hard drive and install a different OS, repartition the drive and install another OS on a different partition, or get VMware. With this you can indeed run another OS using XP as the base.

High C
02-04-2007, 12:06 AM
Brian, I've tried a bunch of the Linux distros and would pretty much echo what John said.

It's easy to try them out by booting from a "Live CD". The computer boots and runs entirely from this CD. It's a bit slow when run from CD as CD is much slower than a hard drive. It doesn't touch the hard drive or your XP installation at all. If you decide to do a permanent install, THEN you could install it to the hard drive and wipe out XP, or possibly do a dual boot, though this is tricky. In fact, you could run the Live CDs in a computer that has no hard drive at all.

You have to know how to download the iso images and burn them properly to CD. It's a little tricky. Tell me which ones you're interested in and I'd be happy to mail 'em to you. I have piles of 'em sitting around here. :eek:

Like John, I recommend Mepis 6.04 Beta 4 or PC Linux for your first look.

PM me an address and I'll mail you whatever you want.

John Bell
02-04-2007, 12:19 AM
With Linux most of what you download is totally free.

I wanted to point out something about partitions if you do decide to install Linux on a dual boot computer. I've fooled around with this a bunch and I think this is about perfect for me. The screenshot below is of the 80GB drive on my laptop:

http://mistermoon.home.mindspring.com/snapshot3.jpg

You can see I have a total of seven partitions. This seems like a lot, but there is a reason for what is what.

There are actually three primary partitions on this machine. Partitions 1-3 are primary partitions. Partition 3 is subdivided into four parts. The reason for this is that most (all?) PCs won't let you have more than four primary partitions on a disk.

Partition 1 - my windows (Win2000) system files and program files. This is where all my windows OS and programs are loaded.

Partition 2 - Windows user files. This is where the "My Documents" folders for each user live.

Partition 3 - A virtual partition for Linux and shared Windows folders. Divided into the following four partitions.

Partition 4 - Linux root. This is where the Linux system files live.

Partition 5 - Linux swap. This is where the virtual memory paging files live.

Partition 6 - Linux home. This where all the user data and files in Linux live.

Partition 7 - Linux/Windows shared partition. This partition is formatted as FAT32, so that both Linux and Windows can read and write to it. This where I put things that I want to share between the two OSs on my computer. Linux can read NTFS , but can't reliably write to NTFS. Windows can't see EXT3 formatted disks, but both can read an write FAT32 formatted disks.

This probably seems very obtuse if you haven't tried Linux yet, but you'll quickly come to understand.

When High C says installing dual boot is tricky, what he means is that setting up the partitions on you disk is tricky. Once you figure that part out, it's not very hard at all to get a dual boot system working. The above is a suggestion of one way to go that may make it easier for you.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 12:20 AM
WHOA John Bell can you say uber dork screen shot :eek: :D


This is the OS ya want Brian, all the cool kids are using it ;)

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid198/p419e9340098b8959c5603b2cb5c96bd3/f0d26fd8.jpg

John Bell
02-04-2007, 12:30 AM
BTW, I've only got $200 invested in this used laptop and $0 in Linux. Priceless.

GregW
02-04-2007, 12:30 AM
I guess we all have our favorites. I like SUSE, in fact today I just picked up my favorite Linux magazine ( Linux Pro ) and what do you know they have they latest version of SUSE (10.2) as this month's DVD. Every month they include a DVD with a different distribution, which has allowed me to try several distribuitions, lots of fun.
I've been using SUSE for about 5yrs now and it works for me, however the beauty of Linux is that it's FREE to try and FREE to own, and if you don't like one you can try another for FREE!:p

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 12:38 AM
BTW, I've only got $200 invested in this used laptop and $0 in Linux. Priceless.

Ya get what you pay for ;)

Me I'll take beauty, a rock solid OS with flawless ease of use over a $200 used laptop with some free OS slapped on it.

Hey but different stokes fer different folks. ;)

GregW
02-04-2007, 12:42 AM
I prefer a cleaner desktop :)

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b393/Gregwpl/snapshot2.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 12:46 AM
I prefer a cleaner desktop :)

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b393/Gregwpl/snapshot2.jpg

Thats pretty clean - I can't see anything but a little blue box LOL :D

John Bell
02-04-2007, 12:58 AM
Ya get what you pay for ;)

Me I'll take beauty, a rock solid OS with flawless ease of use over a $200 used laptop with some free OS slapped on it.

Hey but different stokes fer different folks. ;)

Setting up my Mepis system took less than an hour. Then there was a little more time spent setting up favorites in my browsers, adding various applets that I like, and configuring my email client. After that, it ease of use is, well, flawless. And don't tell me you didn't have to spend any time configuring your system, cuz you did. They all need some tweaking to get them they way you want them. I've still got the $1000 you don't have! Neener, neener!

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 01:03 AM
Setting up my Mepis system took less than an hour. Then there was a little more time spent setting up favorites in my browsers, adding various applets that I like, and configuring my email client. After that, it ease of use is, well, flawless. And don't tell me you didn't have to spend any time configuring your system, cuz you did. They all need some tweaking to get them they way you want them. I've still got the $1000 you don't have! Neener, neener!

Setting up my mac took 18 seconds (I turned it on ) Time is money :D

John Bell
02-04-2007, 01:09 AM
Setting up my mac took 18 seconds (I turned it on ) Time is money :D

You didn't spend any time figuring out which widgets you wanted on your desktop? You didn't have to configure your email client?

You win. I had no idea that Macs were so smart they could read your mind!

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 01:17 AM
You didn't spend any time figuring out which widgets you wanted on your desktop? You didn't have to configure your email client?

You win. I had no idea that Macs were so smart they could read your mind!

Yea they can

A cool automatic feature on macs is Bonjour

Bonjour creates an instant network of computers and smart devices just by getting them connected to each other.

The computers and devices take over from there, automatically broadcasting and discovering what services each is offering for the use of others. The network could be as simple as two AirPort Extreme-equipped PowerBook users sitting in a hotel meeting room miles from the nearest AirPort Extreme Base Station with some large files they need to share. Before Bonjour, frustration. With Bonjour, your computer will discover others, making file sharing completely simple.

Standards Based, Open Source
Bonjour works over today’s most popular standard connection technologies, including Ethernet and AirPort (802.11). And it uses the standard, ubiquitous IP networking protocol for its connections, the same protocol that runs the internet itself. Indeed, all of the technologies driving Bonjour are open and part of the standards creation process of the IETF, as is Bonjour itself.


Simple Setup
Safari, Apple’s turbo-charged web browser, uses Bonjour to find any web addresses on your local network — for printer, router or webcam setup and administration, for instance. With the help of Bonjour, iChat AV lets you see which people are available for chatting or video conferencing on your local network, and automatically removes them when they leave. iTunes and iPhoto also use Bonjour to facilitate sharing music and photos on local networks.


No Wizardry Necessary
Since Apple introduced Bonjour technology in 2002, every major printer manufacturer has adopted the technology so you can add and remove such machines from networks without configuration. When you add your Mac to a network, Mac OS X will then automatically discover and connect to the available Bonjour-enabled printers and you’re ready to print. Also, innovative cameras may include wireless networking to download pictures, perfect for spycams. To setup these devices, simply navigate to the Bonjour bookmark in Safari.

Zero Configuration, Zero Hassles, Anywhere
Now?anyone using a Windows PC can take advantage of the effortlessness of Bonjour for free. The Bonjour Setup Wizard makes setting up a printer under Windows as easy as Mac OS X (we can’t make it as beautiful, unfortunately). Bonjour for Windows includes a plug-in for Internet Explorer, so you can setup a Bonjour-enabled device without knowing its IP address. You can even print to printers connected over USB to Airport Extreme Base Station or Airport Express. If you’re an Open Source enthusiast, you will be able to download the Bonjour source code to create software for virtually any platform.

You broke up set up and configure your email client as two different things? I did not have to partition my HD or load bloatware or special various applets

But things like automaticaly linking with my wirless network or my printers or all my perifial devices was handeled yea it was that easy . :D

John Bell
02-04-2007, 01:30 AM
Enough of your mac press releases. Let's get back to the question at hand: how does one go about trying various OS?

We all know Joe's way: buy a mac.

Ok, we get it. :rolleyes Now let the rest of us talk about the things we like... Yours is not the only path to enlightenment.

Besides, in trying new things somebody might have the opportunity to actually learn something.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 01:39 AM
why do you need to learn something ? Do you need to learn how to build a TV to enjoy it? It's a freaking computer, it's an appliance fer crizt sake, like a DVD player, or a playstation or a microwave.

Get something that is easy and works and looks good. 20 years from now people are going to wonder about the kind of people that had to cobbled together an appliance.

ingo
02-04-2007, 04:16 AM
What has Vista together with a submarine? - If you open windows, trouble beginns...

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 08:09 AM
Let's face it, Mac OS is essentially just another of the many variants of Linux (Unix Kernel). Both Linux and Mac OS have the same lineage in BSD Unix. The good point of Mac OS is the vast amount of programming effort that has gone into creating the user interface, availability of commercial software (albet more limited than PC). The bad points are that you have to pay for it, and it requires proprietary hardware (BIOS).

I think that in a few years Linux will have replace Windows and will be giving Mac OS a run for its money. Power to the People!

John Meachen
02-04-2007, 08:59 AM
It's on threads like this that we really miss Meerkat's presence.I posted on one of the Vista threads that I found Mandriva very useful.Another very good distro is Knoppix.Not only is Linux becoming a presence in the home user market,it does a huge proportion of running the servers that the web depends on.One final thought,how much money would be saved if government departments switched to open source software?

htom
02-04-2007, 10:00 AM
I'll put in my usual plug for Slackware, but it's probably not the best distro for a Linux newbie.

High C
02-04-2007, 10:07 AM
I'll put in my usual plug for Slackware, but it's probably not the best distro for a Linux newbie.

No good for slackers?

TimH
02-04-2007, 11:59 AM
I'll put in my usual plug for Slackware, but it's probably not the best distro for a Linux newbie.

Have they kept upgrading Slackware? you never hear about it these days much. I used Slackware back in 1993-94. Compared to Windows 3.11 it was absolutely incredibly! :D
My last distro was Suse before Novell came into it.
If Solaris had a driver for my wireless card i would be trying that these days.

htom
02-04-2007, 12:45 PM
Slackware 11 (http://www.slackware.com/)

We are proud to announce that Slackware Linux version 11.0 has been finally released; it took some time but is well worth the wait. You can read the official announcement at this link.

Slackware 11.0 contains the 2.4.33.3 Linux kernel, 2.6.17.13 in /extra and 2.6.18 in the /testing directory; the default boot option is the dependable 2.4.33.3 kernel, but this time we included more choices and support for 2.6.x kernels.

This Slackware version is by far the most cutting edge ever released, it includes KDE version 3.5.4 (including the Amarok media player), XFCE 4.2.3.2, the latest versions of Firefox and Thunderbird, plus SeaMonkey 1.0.5 (replacing the Mozilla suite). It also includes glibc-2.3.6, gcc-3.4.6, X11R6.9.0 from X.Org, and more!

Due to the overwhelming number of changes in this release, we have added a CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT file which contains information on the evolution of slackware-current. This should prove useful for users upgrading to slackware-11.0. To order your copy of Slackware Linux (available on CD-ROMs and DVD this time) or some other Slackware goodies visit our store. You'll be helping to support the continued efforts of the the Slackware Linux Project.

As always, ISO images are available through BitTorrent but you can also download them from any official Slackware Mirror or from these other mirror sites.

Thanks to everyone who helped to make this new release of Slackware possible, the mirror administrators, and to a fine group of friends on irc.oftc.net for their help with Slackware development, this site, and the BitTorrents!

Have fun!

Pat, and the Slackware team

elf
02-04-2007, 12:50 PM
90+% of the market is going to be replaced in a few years? Not likely.

actually, recently I read somewhere about the growth of the google OS, which is used entirely through a high-speed connection to the web. Apparently many believe that within 10 years we will be liberated from OSes on our personal computers and be using such a networked OS.

What goes around comes around, hey? (Recalling the beginnings of computing with mainframes.) How we longed to be liberated from all that restricted tether and now here we are, imagining returning to those days but in such a different style.

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 12:57 PM
90+% of the market is going to be replaced in a few years? Not likely.

Don't forget, Mr. Softee is involved in Linux, too. Their SUSE deal with Novell just signed their first big customer; Wal-Mart.

Businesses are faced with a huge PC replacement bill if they want to migrate to Vista. Because of this, Vista has not been well received by commercial users.

Given a choice of spending huge sums of cash on upgrading Windows OS (and the necessary hardware) and migtrating to an essentially free OS that will run on the PCs already in place, they will eventually choose the low cost option. I think that we are at a tipping point in the PC industry.

This is the same reason that many companies are installing Citrix thin client solutions.

High C
02-04-2007, 01:14 PM
Businesses are faced with a huge PC replacement bill if they want to migrate to Vista....

Business has been at this crossroads before, and always chose to pay the piper. But there was no practical alternative in those days.

Now there is.

High C
02-04-2007, 01:54 PM
The primary alternative is still the same as it has been in the past; stick with the Windows OS currently working for you...

Sure, this usually works out well, for a while. It gets sticky when company expansion leads to the need to purchase new computers, or when a company decides to switch to an online application that requires a certain version of IE that won't run on an old system, or when a new hardware item comes along and becomes uber popular (USB, for example), or when people start sending you files written in new formats that an old OS can't handle. A company clinging to a network of NT 3.51 machines would have a lot of problems in today's environment. It's hard to hold out forever.

Microsoft has been masterful at creating this demand over the years. Ve have vays of making you svitch!

High C
02-04-2007, 02:27 PM
They don't have to go to Vista. In volume of a couple of hundred licenses, you can go to Windows/Office 2000 Pro for ~$150 per machine. Nobody cares anymore that MS doesn't support it.

No doubt about it. Win 2000 was clearly the best OS they ever made. It's probably a blessing that it's no longer supported! :D

Oyvind Snibsoer
02-04-2007, 03:51 PM
Install Virtual PC, available for free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx . Then you can install various OS-es in separate images to play around with, without screwing up your original configuration. If you're running low on internal HD space, you can just as easily run the VPC image from a USB disk, memory stick or network share.

TimH
02-04-2007, 04:07 PM
No doubt about it. Win 2000 was clearly the best OS they ever made. It's probably a blessing that it's no longer supported! :D

Win 2k wasnt the best OS ever made... it was simply the first stable OS Microsoft ever made...

TimH
02-04-2007, 04:21 PM
I found W95 and both NT's I used to be bulletproof stable.

thats a first

John Meachen
02-04-2007, 05:40 PM
$150 per machine for an old version of Office!If i were an investor in any such company I would be asking why they hadn't gone for an up to date installation of Open Office.It will deal with Microsoft office files and it's free.As for software with 90% of a market being invulnerable,whatever happened to Netscape?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-04-2007, 05:40 PM
They don't have to go to Vista. In volume of a couple of hundred licenses, you can go to Windows/Office 2000 Pro for ~$150 per machine. Nobody cares anymore that MS doesn't support it.

I think that's true to W2K, but iirc, XP in all the versions above "Home" has an expiry date.

I've heard people saying that Linux was really desktop capable - since about 1998 - sometime soon it my be true.

TimH
02-04-2007, 05:43 PM
I've heard people saying that Linux was really desktop capable - since about 1998 - sometime soon it my be true.

Those people are right.

John Bell
02-04-2007, 05:47 PM
Open Office is OK, but it ain't MS Office.

For linux to really viable on the desktop, it needs a good office suite that everyone in the world is standardized on, kind of like MS Office is now. OO is close to being good enough, but it's still got a ways to go. Excel and Access are far better than the OO offering. OO's pivot tables are particularly stinky.

Excel is the one MS application I could not live without. It's just too good to not use.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-04-2007, 05:53 PM
Access was nearly magical the first time I met it, but Excel - a pale imitation of Improv.

And then there's the Mail problem.
In 1992 MS Mail was a "Hot contender"
By 1999 no sane person would permit Outlook on their own machine - and its got no better since.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 06:06 PM
He said the best they (MS) ever made.

I found W95 and both NT's I used to be bulletproof stable.

http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/courses/java/Images-JDKhandout/CommandPromptScreen.gif

It's all DOS :rolleyes:

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 06:09 PM
http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/courses/java/Images-JDKhandout/CommandPromptScreen.gif

It's all DOS :rolleyes:


And your point would be?

The command prompt on a Mac is a typical criptic Unix screen.

I fail to see a significant difference.

TimH
02-04-2007, 06:09 PM
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/MSimages/bluescreen.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 06:12 PM
And your point would be?

The command prompt on a Mac is a typical criptic Unix screen.

I fail to see a significant difference.

DOS = UNIX ? :rolleyes:
Yea sure OK :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TimH
02-04-2007, 06:14 PM
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/85500/85642PuXT_w.jpg

WX
02-04-2007, 06:17 PM
Give Dreamlinux a go, it runs from the cd, it's fast and it's stable.
http://www.dreamlinux.com.br/english/imagens/screenmain.jpg

http://www.dreamlinux.com.br/english/index.html

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 06:34 PM
DOS = UNIX ? :rolleyes:
Yea sure OK :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Both are criptic cammand level interfaces.
Both perform the same function.
Both are about the same to use (awful)
Thanks to GUIs we no longer have to use them.

I personally like Unix better than DOS, but only because I used Unix more.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 06:45 PM
Both are criptic cammand level interfaces.
Both perform the same function.
Both are about the same to use (awful)
Thanks to GUIs we no longer have to use them.

I personally like Unix better than DOS, but only because I used Unix more.

OH yea they're inter changeable :rolleyes:

MS-DOS began as QDOS (for Quick and Dirty Operating System), written by Tim Paterson for computer manufacturer Seattle Computer Products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

Unix (officially trademarked as UNIX®) is a computer operating system originally developed in the 1960s and 1970s by a group of AT&T employees at Bell Labs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Unix's influence in academic circles led to large-scale adoption (particularly of the BSD variant, originating from the University of California, Berkeley) of Unix by commercial startups, the most notable of which is Sun Microsystems. Today, in addition to certified Unix systems, Unix-like operating systems such as Linux, the Mac OS X and BSDs are commonly encountered.

Yea UNIX and DOS interchangeable :rolleyes: lol

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 06:52 PM
Joe:

Please complete the following line:

Joe is to Apple as ____ is to the Neocons.

BTW:

You still haven't stated what your point was in the post with the screen image of a DOS screen.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 06:59 PM
Joe:

Please complete the following line:

Joe is to Apple as ____ is to the Neocons.

BTW:

You still haven't stated what your point was in the post with the screen image of a DOS screen.

Joe is to Apple as Carl Rove is to the Neocons. :D

Point is Donn and others are comparing which version of windoze is better. It's like asking me which crap Lucky dog takes is the least smelly :D

All Windoze versions are just green grass and blue sky on-top of the same smelly DOS crap ;)

Bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ™ :D

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 07:02 PM
Joe is to Apple as Carl Rove is to the Neocons. :D

Point is Donn and others are comparing which version of windoze is better. It's like asking me which crap lucky takes is the least smelly :D

All Windoze versions are just green grass and blue sky on-top of the same smelly DOS crap ;)

Ahhh. I see no point at all. It's like saying that The Apple OS is just lipstick (GUI) on a pig (Unix).

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 07:04 PM
Better a Blue Ribbon Pig than DOG(S) CRAP :D

John Bell
02-04-2007, 07:07 PM
I like the line from the other thread:


As Deiter said, "Your story has become tiresome now."

It has here, too.

WX
02-04-2007, 07:08 PM
The Unix or Linux CLI is a very powerful beast once you get the hang of it, it makes DOS look like a first grader reader in comparison.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 07:08 PM
Yes but I am so angular - Touch my monkey TOUCH IT !!! :D :D :D

http://www.funtimeok.com/files/2006/03/dieter5.jpg

I feel just like a little girl :D

WX
02-04-2007, 07:11 PM
Joe, lay off the drugs for a while.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 07:22 PM
MSDOS has already carved out it's space in PC history as the single most important PC OS, ever.

Duh :rolleyes: That was rhetorical wasn't it ? You do realize how silly a comment that is given the fact that WINDOZE has been the default OS crammed down 90% of the PC buying public. You never had a choice, ya got crap and ya liked crap.

There is a lot of crap in this world I guess a gardener like you appreciates fertilizer ;)

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 07:27 PM
That's right Joe, you pointy headed fanatic. When do can't win the argument you just start personal attcks and name callling.:D

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 07:30 PM
I just cant believe this thread has disintegrated to the point where the PC heads are now defending DOS :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes: ? Am I the only one who sees how silly that is ?

Shhhesh even Linux is UNIX based.

S/V Laura Ellen
02-04-2007, 07:35 PM
I just cant believe this thread has disintegrated to the point where the PC heads are now defending DOS :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes: ? Am I the only one who sees how silly that is ?

Shhhesh even Linux is UNIX based.

I'm not defending DOS. I hate the DOS CLI as much as the Unix CLI. But to claim the Apple is superior because it isn't layered on DOS is just fanatical gibberish.

What makes the Apple platform better is the GUI not the underlying OS. What makes the Apple platform worse is the lack of application support for commerical applications.

Larry P.
02-04-2007, 07:38 PM
Am I the only one who sees how silly that is ?

Nope and soon it will be even sillier.





http://images.apple.com/macosx/leopard/images/indexdesktop20060807.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 07:40 PM
I'm not defending DOS. I hate the DOS CLI as much as the Unix CLI. But to claim the Apple is superior because it isn't layered on DOS is just fanatical gibberish.

Again my DOS comment was based upon all these post about how great once version of Windoz was over another and we all know Windoz, is just layered on a INFERIOR DOS.


TimH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn
I found W95 and both NT's I used to be bulletproof stable.
thats a first
Today 04:20 PM
Donn
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
Win 2k wasnt the best OS ever made... it was simply the first stable OS Microsoft ever made...
He said the best they (MS) ever made.

I found W95 and both NT's I used to be bulletproof stable.
Today 04:07 PM
TimH
Quote:
Originally Posted by High C
No doubt about it. Win 2000 was clearly the best OS they ever made. It's probably a blessing that it's no longer supported!
Win 2k wasnt the best OS ever made... it was simply the first stable OS Microsoft ever made...
Today 03:51 PM
Oyvind Snibsoer Install Virtual PC, available for free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx . Then you can install various OS-es in separate images to play around with, without screwing up your original configuration. If you're running low on internal HD space, you can just as easily run the VPC image from a USB disk, memory stick or network share.
Today 02:27 PM
High C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn
They don't have to go to Vista. In volume of a couple of hundred licenses, you can go to Windows/Office 2000 Pro for ~$150 per machine. Nobody cares anymore that MS doesn't support it.
No doubt about it. Win 2000 was clearly the best OS they ever made. It's probably a blessing that it's no longer supported!
Today 02:19 PM
Donn
Quote:
Originally Posted by High C
A company clinging to a network of NT 3.51 machines would have a lot of problems in today's environment. It's hard to hold out forever.
They don't have to go to Vista. In volume of a couple of hundred licenses, you can go to Windows/Office 2000 Pro for ~$150 per machine. Nobody cares anymore that MS doesn't support it.

TimH
02-04-2007, 08:07 PM
comparing DOS to Unix is ludicrous. Thats like saying a Farrari F40 and a Yugo are the same because they both have wheels.
The fact that Unix is till found under the hood of todays most powerful operating systems over 30 years after its inception, speaks for itself. DOS isnt even a toy by comparison.

John Bell
02-04-2007, 08:33 PM
comparing DOS to Unix is ludicrous. Thats like saying a Farrari F40 and a Yugo are the same because they both have wheels.
The fact that Unix is till found under the hood of todays most powerful operating systems over 30 years after its inception, speaks for itself. DOS isnt even a toy by comparison.

Practically ALL modern operating systems are extraordinarily powerful. That means all the -nix derivatives AND the Microsoft offerings. Any of them are light years ahead of early microcomputer OSes like CP/M, DOS, and the even Apple II OS.

There ain't no DOS in windows any more nor has there been in some time. Just because you can pull up a terminal window with a C:\> prompt in it doesn't mean it's DOS.

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 08:47 PM
TimH...it's hard to tell if you or Joe know less about operating systems.

DOS is 'till found under the hood' of the vast majority of operating systems currently in use in this world.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Donn what programing languages do you know fluently ?

I can be proficient enough in ;

C
C+
C++
Pascal
Fortran
Cobol
Basic
and my favorite APL


I think I can hold my own. I built my first computer, a Sinclair. I Wrote the BASIC & machine language database progs for my high school library on TRS-80's I have worked on everything from a Commodore 64, to IBM 370's main frames. I even had the First Mac :D. So I'm also extremely fluent in some pretty artistic and design programs such as Photoshop, Quark, VersaCad, Velum, and I'm absolutely gifted in Illustrator. I also work daily on Windoze XP :(, I think I can hold my own with computers and all their systems. ;)

Joe (SoCal)
02-04-2007, 08:55 PM
There ain't no DOS in windows any more nor has there been in some time. Just because you can pull up a terminal window with a C:\> prompt in it doesn't mean it's DOS.




DOS is 'till found under the hood' of the vast majority of operating systems currently in use in this world.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

WHOA :eek: :confused: that sounds contradictory ???? Is DOS under the hood or not ? Or does John Bell not have any idea at all what he's talking about? Make up your minds guys :D :D :D

:D :D :D

TimH
02-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Well I should know if I dont, Im a computer science student in my last quarter at the University of Washington. The #7 computer science program in the world.

Bruce Taylor
02-04-2007, 10:12 PM
Is DOS under the hood or not ?

Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME were, arguably, based on DOS.

The various flavours of Windows NT and XP are not. Vista is not.

John Bell
02-04-2007, 10:19 PM
Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME were, arguably, based on DOS.

The various flavours of Windows NT and XP are not. Vista is not.

2000 was based on NT, but otherwise Bruce is correct.

Bruce Taylor
02-04-2007, 10:19 PM
Sorry, you're right about 2000.

WX
02-06-2007, 02:10 AM
Windows is a bit like the qwerty keyboard...it works but it's not terribly efficient.
I wouldn't touch Vista for any reason, it's garbage.

boylesboats
02-06-2007, 03:40 AM
I prefer a cleaner desktop :)

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b393/Gregwpl/snapshot2.jpg

You wouldn't want to see my desk top, I have over hundred icon, and I can't even see the wallpaper, unless I boot up..:D

boylesboats
02-06-2007, 03:42 AM
Windows is a bit like the qwerty keyboard...it works but it's not terribly efficient.
I wouldn't touch Vista for any reason, it's garbage.

For real, I am not ready for Vista

boylesboats
02-06-2007, 03:46 AM
Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME were, arguably, based on DOS.

The various flavours of Windows NT and XP are not. Vista is not.
That is why we used the Winders 98 s.e. on other machine because those older games are still fun to play...

Windows NT based machine refuse to install them..
My favorite game is "Redneck Rampage"...:D ...