This is just something I noticed.

I know alot of people who say microsoft sucks and that Linux is the best system there is but the funny thing is they all use Windows. If they really hated microsoft as much as they say why do they use microsoft products. Just an odd fact of nature I guess.

It is our nature to hate the king or in this case the richest man on earth. When he was an underdog taking on IBM, everybody supported him...go figure...

I bought a linux by Corel and it scrambled my hard drive...

Until Linux does more than windows, I dont want it...

But for business computing using IBM - DB2 UDB, that is a different matter...

I hate MS so that I put windows as the slave behind all my computers. I love linux so much that it sits on the book shelf enjoying the falling dusts without any sweat. :D

Well it is not that I hate Windows, but in some aspects it is poorly designed. It can be pain to work with - but it is useful and there are some parts of it that I like alot.

Without Windows you have 0 compatibility for most useful products out there.

I am used to the interface and don't want to take the time to learn something new (never used Unix, Linux, Mac, or anything else)

But that has nothing to do with memory leaking, poor coding, taking too much effort to customize, and things of the like (not to mention stealing info with the use of XP products)

microbrain is evil regardless of whether they made it or not.

I hate windows. But I also hate linux. Windows is easier and faster to use, so it wins. Well, I don't hate either system, but they both ahve a lot of things I dislike.

Originally posted by Clarentavious
Well it is not that I hate Windows, but in some aspects it is poorly designed

Ok. Some of you will know where I stand on Microsoft. For others here it is...

Microsoft makes the best software at the moment, It has some flaws but I would like to see you design something to do everything everbody in the world wants it to do, and relatively secure and reliable!

I have always had a grudge to learn from Bill gates's moves,his innovation,his aptitude and approach.one of the best things i know about this man is that he is a genuine techno interested person(i paused before saying that,i was about to say Geek;))

Whatever people say,i still use Windows actively.i love mac too.but i spent a month with Linux and i dont know why i got bored of it.it had everything,it was sheer power,but that <b>feel</b>of Windows wasnt there.




bye!

PS:I tried Vmware(emulators)in Red hat,but it really sucked...

(Atlthough i am crazy about Caldera Linux...Raw power.)

gee...

bye!
Zion

I think we had a good run with windows. It is time to start with a new OS with a clean slate from what we have learned so far - that is do something about those DLLs and keep every program separate instead of getting into the OS system tent. Also start with security in mind.

If IBM can embrace Linux big time, why does not Microsoft do the same with a GUI interface? On the otherhand what happens if Microsoft ports Windows XP Pro to IBM z90 series mainframe. Since MS owns a piece of Apple, how about pushing OS X to Intel on a cross license?

BTW, because of Caldera and Novell, Utah is one of the states still suing Microsoft...

I think we need multiple entirely new operating systems dedicated to a single purpose (i.e., one for gaming, one for spread-sheets, one for networking, etc...).

microsoft is still screwing up to this day. Only now with DirectX 9 just coming out are they finally starting to make good use of video card features (like API design). OpenGL 1.2 was doing better than them well before this.

microsoft's main idea that got them so far was developing the Windows interface. When Windows 3.1 was out, and they compared it to DOS - everyone was like "WOW, look at this, these graphics are so cool. We now have boxes (the "windows") and neat interfaces instead of all this text typing"

MS made it seem like Windows 95 was a revolution (which I guess it kind of was).

Problem is, they really don't know what they are doing. Their main targets (until recently) were big businesses for fancy text and networking programs, and home users who really don't know what they are doing (computer idiots - they try and make it seem like the Windows interface is so simple and everyone's mom can use it - they tried to target people who just want to get on their PC once a month to send chain letter e-mails to their relatives - but they actually wound up failing at this - I can even think of many 25 to 65 year old people today who are afraid of computers and say "computers are too damn complicated, I don't know what I am doing).

Beyond that they did a little work on the side.

They kept this up with releasing Windows 98. Then they tried to expand a little when they released ME (if anyone still recalls that Millennium Edition was actually released ;) ) but wound up screwing things up. Now they've screwed up again releasing XP, but not in the same manner.

We now have a decent 64-bit OS that performs well, but their greedy nature and CEO who desires to be more rich, decided he wanted to stuff his products down people's throats and see that only his products can be used (not to mention trying to force you to upgrade to later versions which don't work as well, like the IE 5 to 6 transition, same thing with Windows Media Player 6.4 to 7) - and even worse (with this new SW), is trying to steal info from people.

As far as the actual technical side, I can't really say much other than until XP came out (at least on the home operating system side, 2000 and NT service pack 5.0 and up have been ok) windows was terrible about memory management.

I'd really like to see a much lighter, simpler, more stable OS, maybe more text-based, but with mouse capability. Forget all the funky graphics for the OS; just have basic boxes displayed for each task or whatever, and save all the heavy duty graphics for games and graphics work and such. An OS simply doesn't need to look like a work of art.

You CANNOT go back to a text only OS. I use Solaris in Uni, and everthing that you can do in the GUI it is possible to do in a text box...

Win 95 was the same you could still bring up a MS-Dos prompt IF you wanted to use it. Surprisingly people decided to take the easier option and use the GUI.

GUI's are alot easier to use if all you are doing is a bit of word processing or spreadsheet design...

Originally posted by sjmarsha
...but I would like to see you design something to do everything everbody in the world wants it to do...The heart of the problem. Microsoft wants to be all things to all people. It can't be done, and they consistently prove it. They are not evil. They are sloppy and unconcerned. In the world of software design and implementation, that is worse.

Now a serious flaw has been discovered (http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5KP0Q1P6US.html) in the way the new Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer handles, of all things, security. Data that it collects and stores is left open to attack, which could enable hackers to discover other vulnerabilities that are exposed to assault. Not only have their been compatibility problems and incorrect hotfix reports, we now stir a newly-introduced security problem to the mix.

If I was using this thing, I’d be mad enough to spit mouse balls.

It's a good sign that Microsoft is uncovering bugs in existing software; it proves that they're actually doing something. But when they release a security-specific tool that does more harm than good, someone ought to toss a brick through the window of Microsoft’s corporate office.

Peace.

Apple GUI is the standard Windows is being judged all the time. And ofcourse apple got it from Xerox Lisa...anyway, once you have a taste of GUI, it is difficult to go back to balck and white days.

I really like Windows 2000. Very stable and never gave me any problem. What we really need for home is a browser based operating system that can also do spreadsheets and documents and artwork - since most people use computers for email and internet browse...

I heard rumor that Microsoft is waiting for people to migrate their old software to XP platform. Then they will comeout with an integrated smart agent based technology including natural voice interface in 2005. By then, we will have multiprocessors on video and sound cards and 1 GB of RAM, 4 GHz or higher system etc.

I look forward to the future - it also could be that the government dismantles Microsoft and we go back to 1995...

I don't suggest going back to a pure text system, sorry if I gave that impression. I mean that windows and such are just so much heavier on system requirements than they need to be. Look at what you are doing now. All it has to do is display text as formatted by HTML, with the links and all. You need some borders to identify the pieces of the page. You need basic text formatting tools in operation. You need a method of selecting different displays/pages/tasks. And maybe a clock in the corner. Maybe also a menu button. I have the idea that such things should not require 128 megs of RAM and over a gigabyte of disc space.

For the most part all the user needs is:
- Text displayed on screen.
- Images displayed on screen.
- Borders to identify screen/page areas.
- Text formatting tools.
- Mouse adapter, the ability for the mouse to be used on the screen.
- Task selector.
- Clock, menu button, et cetera.

Now these can all be produced with far less system overheads than we see in windows (I can't yet do it myself, but I'm pretty certain this is the case). Look at our windows screen, and you basically have only these things in your user interface. Yet windows makes such a big deal of it all that you now need a whopping great big computer to do these small tasks. If all these things were done in nice light code/operation, all that system power could then be used for your applications and games and such.

An OS Opinion article (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17500.html) grabbed my attention today, and you must read this.
Last Friday, testimony given by Christopher Jones, Microsoft’s vice president in charge of Windows, illustrated a level of arrogance that even the biggest Microsoft apologists will have a hard time swallowing.

As if illegally leveraging its Windows monopoly to enter new markets and thus stifle competition were not enough, Jones actually said that Microsoft should be allowed to make changes to its operating system to impede performance of competing applications.This is where the rubber meets the road.

Microsoft has built Windows as the king of operating systems over the past couple of decades, and the one premise that holds true is that it's simply an operating system that is designed to run applications of the users' choosing. Now that they have the world by the neck, they want to close off every market that they decide they want to enter, by way of hindering other, competing applications. If that's truly what Microsoft wants to do, then they should go the way of Apple and market a Microsoft PC and be done with it. They'd still have many, many customers that they could maintain for years to come, including businesses. But it's a bait and switch type of behavior to offer an OS that will run a bazillion applications, and then qualify it by slanting it in favor of Microsoft's products.

Peace.

I don't see how they can possibly deny they want an unfair monopoly if that is MS policy.

What the hell is going on with the computer industry in the USA? First that stupid legislation idea that would make all hard discs basically number-plated so you can only use approved software, and now this.

Re. "For the most part all the user needs is:"

Ashton-Tate's 'FrameWork' did it all and I still use it on my 'workhorse'
486 DOS desktop ... along with OS/2 for some of the 'bells &whistles' I
occassionally need.

But, I spend most of my time 'goofing around' with a Win2K laptop ...
Can't beat it for the Net and listening to my favorite CD's while surfing,
or occassionally watching a DVD.

Take care ;)

Um, kmguru. No offense or anything, but some corrections.

Some GeForce cards do have multiprocessors (one for the even frames, and one for the odd frames - like 2, 4, 6, 8, - 1, 3, 5, 7, etc....)

VIA's KT333 chipset supports 3 gigs of RAM (though no one expect people running servers generally goes about 512)

4GHz processors are not needed. Alot of people don't seem to realize, having processors higher than what they do now (2.5GHz) is not really going to help things much.

Processors mainly handle number cycling and instructions. This is primarily for literal real time performance that is running off a direct bus. If something like a harddrive (that is not direct, it has a spin up and spin down time, and will run on parallel or serial bus) is involved with whatever the current process is that you are doing, it isn't going to matter.

For things like loading times (for like starting your computer with Windows) - it would work faster if you had a 933MHz Pentium 3, with a 15,000 RPM, 3.1ms, Ultra160 harddrive on Adaptec's latest SCSI card (of course, with a 64-bit PCI slot), than a 2200+ Athlon XP with a 7200 RPM harddrive.

Processors going faster than what's out now are really not going to help things much. Because they might just add a little extra speed where it is not needed (because you are going to be limited by things other than your processor). The main thing is, unless you intentionally try to crush your processor (like by running a billion things at once), your accplications are not going to slow down (they will run at a steady rate, and not drop or get clogged up - like your frame rate hitting the floor in a game).

The only time the processor might really matter (in these types of really high clock speed instances), is if you are running like a mainframe server that handles 5% of america's internet traffic. Home users who run anything close to normal accplications don't need to worry about crazy new processor speeds.

I don't know what the future will hold though.

Intel proved they know how to mess things up with their Pentium 4's All they tried to focus on was rushing a processor out the door that had a clock speed faster than anything else. You could use the phrase "too fast, too soon - for its own good" As we've seen in benchmarks, Athlon XP's with lower physical clock speeds outperform P4's in many applications (because the rest of the processor was designed better).

If the industry keeps up the trend "we've got to get the lastest and greatest, the absolute fastest technology, out to the public as soon as possible (mind you, without doing research and testing your beta product thoroughly enough)" - things probably won't go so well.

Plus as that other guy mentioned (looking at microsoft), you can't be the master of everything. If Asus is the best vendor of motherboards, they can't be the master of CD-writers too. Creative Labs might be the best maker of sound products, but they've proven over and over again, they foul up in the video card area.

The industry has been making some not so good design decisions recently (just as can be seen Nvidia is slowly starting to go down hill - they obviously made a mistake releasing their nForce motherboards - and they made too many versions of their GF 4 chipsets - plus to my knowledge, they haven't incoporated 3DFX's anti-aliasing technology into any of their GF chipsets, even though they bought them out a couple of years ago - they have Quincunx AA, and HRAA, but I haven't seen the method 3DFX used to provide full scale AA with so little a performance loss). I'm content to stick with some of my current technology (heck my PC here is running on Windows 98 SE) and am not that eager to go out and buy some of the new stuff that is bound to come out.

For me it has to be a good mix of performance, reliability, and compatibility.

Looks like I started rambling off in this post, but I wanted to mention all of that I guess :)

I have to agree about processors for PCs. They simply don't need to be any faster unless for some reason games development starts incorporating some ridiculously heavy-duty new stuff. Rather than blowing zillions of dollars on research to reach the next big CPU speed benchmark, people should be reducing the size and weight of operating systems.

While I would hate to see MS broken up (for what it would do to the OS's), I do have a beef with them over the data collection. Another about when they want to have the right to "authorize" any changes I want to make to my computer. Yet another when they seek the right to slow down any competing software because it's run on Windows.

I finally found where to turn off the automatic updates that xp uses. It was bogging down my internet connection something terrible, as I use the standard phone modem connection. For some unknown reason, at the time, it would suddenly take 4 times longer to load a page. Later I found it was "connecting to the Microsoft update site" in the background. I dislike my computer going where I don't know.

If Joe Blow Public bought a used car, and found he could only install factory equiptment on it, he would hit the roof.

Hey, why is my car only wanting to make left turns and will not make right turns? And it goes bump, bump at speeds over 10 mile per hour.

mechanic, [in a voice used to explain to morons] because you bought tires from the tire shop and not from the manufacturer. They will only allow 1/2 the use of products they do not make on their vehices.

I'll just quote one guy you all..........LOVE:p


"640k ought to be enough for anybody."
Bill Gates when speaking about computer memory in 1981

Originally posted by goofyfish
Now a serious flaw has been discovered (http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5KP0Q1P6US.html) in the way the new Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer handles, of all things, security. Data that it collects and stores is left open to attack, which could enable hackers to discover other vulnerabilities that are exposed to assault. Not only have their been compatibility problems and incorrect hotfix reports, we now stir a newly-introduced security problem to the mix.


I din't look at the link, but I am going to guess that it points to a flaw in Microsofts O/S.

Now, If Spotty computer geeks had something better to do in their spare time (like drinking!) instead of trying to break someone elses hard work by writting viruses etc, we would not have the security problem...

So the perfect answer is to make women suddenly like spotty computer geeks, this will distract them from their computers, and we wouldn't have to worry about the security problem. Unfortunatly that means less women for the rest of us... so perhaps we had better shout at Microsoft instead!

AHAHAHAHAHAHA...

you"re doing a great job Marsha.people on Science Forum are obsessed with the fact that Microsoft's S/W are nothing but weakpiece of coding.i asked Goofy in another thread,is that why MS comes under CMM LEVEL 5?
the ammount of polling conducted in creation of MS's O.S is far greater than in any other OSes.
Unix is cool,its a real powerful O.S,i agree but one cannot escape from the fact that Bill is earning great bucks from it and most common fellows refer to a computer with windows on it,not Linux...



bye!

I can't remember if i said this earlier, BUT...

you are right. Linux is one of the most powerful O/S's on the market. BUT you have to learn text based commands to get the most out of it.

Microsoft Windows however is so simple (when compared to the other o/s's around) that even your dumb blond secretary (no offence intended:) ) can figure out how to use it.

I think a poll should be started to find out how many people here use Microsoft programs, and how many use one of the other o/s's.

If you are comparing Linux, one should compare it to windows 2000 or XP pro. Why are we comparing a business product with a home product?

The declaration that Linux is more powerful, compared to what? Dodge RAM 1500 is powerful compared to Ford Pinto too. If you really want to compare Linux, compare it with HP/UX or Solaris. People have been using SCO/UNIX for a long time - 24x7 on the intel chip...

It is aapples and oranges here...

UNIX is Unix - no matter what flavor....

Sorry:mad: I meant Unix not Linux.:rolleyes:

Slight correction, the KT333A chipsets support 4 gigs of RAM. I thought I remembered reading that, but wasn't sure. When I opened up my computer yesterday, I saw 4 DIMM slots.... (on my 266A board)

Ooops, again. Looks like VIA has delayed the release a little. But the regular KT333's (not the A revision) support 4 (along with the 266A).

http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/KT333.jsp

Let us tackle the whole thing professionally.
earlier when the computers were used,they were mostly used by elites,as far i can remember.(before the days of internet,the proper Boom)that was time when most of the comp user were professionals.so the softwares were made mostly for business usage.that is to say they were business oriented.(apart from things like Mac)

Post internet scenario has bought a great change in software market.today software is sold as a commodity to a common man with promise of great reliability and ease of use,gone are the days when only elites could use the resources allocated by the OS.


with the above development the change has come in trends of making and implementing and O.S.UNIX earlier was a Teflon Babe.it always was a research oriented O.S available to only those elites who were either in a small time college or attending a degree or pg course in a University,they used to have their own network.At that time DOS came into the picture.it became immensly popular.later on when Windows was introduced it revolutionised the whole market.Mac was there,but with a sizeable group of people.so with this IBM family Windows came over.the sole reason of Windows success was its Home oriented,common user oriented approach and target.

All was okay until very recently this BUG called Linux was released by Linus Torvalds on a web site where the elite programmers group contributed heavily t its development.hence it became popular.Gradually Linux is begining to enter the territory of Home oriented O.S.large group of people are accepting it,for its security etc.this makes the whole thing go wrong.Windows market has been hijacked by Linux and it is growing there already 10 million users(they are very old estimates,they may be more).

so the point of this while thing is that Linux may be business oriented,but in todays market nothing is specific(especially for O.S) they are multipurpose things,like Windows NT server like softwares have also entered market of Unix,so things are changing fast.Unix is no longer Teflon babe,its open,its cheap,(its free for christ sake),plus it has advantages like you can modify it,so a customer is getting whatever he wants plus with add ons that he wont mind why wont he compare a Home soft with Business oriented Software?


bye!

And its hurting software professionals.people who bank on just software for their bread will be forced to sell their whole day and night work for nothing but a cheap vendor price or may be for free.

Until,the student period,i was always against copyrights about a softwares and charging money for it,but now that i will enter(i know someday)in that market,i know how it is for guys to earn if this GPL scheme takes charge...

Even AI based O.S will be educational,they are softwares you know,for educational purpose.

gee...


bye!

I agree with every thing you said.:) BUT I was always under the impression that Unix was insecure. i.e. Solaris is littered with security flaws, and bearing in mind that Unix was orginally devoloped with the idea that no more than 20 users would ever use it, and those would be scientists, you cannot expect it to be secure.

I hope that made sense...

Now I'm no expert on this, but this is what I have heard.

Linux is based on Unix. It was mainly developed by geeky home users and hackers (mind you, I said hackers, not black hat crackers).

The whole concept of it is free software. The free graphics editting program GIMP (www.gimp.org), the text and HTML program Textpad, the command-line program Cygwin, etc....

All of these are relatively high tech, complex, and powerful programs (even if they were basically "stolen" and modified underneath the surface - not that I am making any accusations).

To my knowledge you still can't run most mainstream programs on Linux.

IMO, whether microsoft makes functional software or not, they are evil (such as it is now being made more and more clear, they are trying to steal info from people). I'm not sure it really matters to me though, because I am using their software (though older versions of some things - as most of the newer ones grow nastier and nastier in every aspect)

I think it all really depends on what you want to use your computer for. Heck, if you want to print out life like graphics all day to start making a custom shirt business, you'd be better off buying one of those huge Cannon color laser image duplicators (though they cost around $15,000) than an iMac (even though, as I've been told at least, graphical design is the main purpose of Mac/Apple computers)

You wouldn't be able to get on the internet with a Cannon color copier (or do much else computer related, besides type on a little keypad and look at an LED screen), but you'll be able to print out special design paper that you can't paste on to shirts (some of which is equal quality to a custom airbrush job).

I really don't see any serious problems with operating systems except with microsoft's latest products (such as security issues, among other things).

I think pretty much any program out today (except those designed specifically for other OS) will run on 98 SE (which is what I am using). I don't need the power of XP Pro (I just rendered over 120MB of movies this morning using Ulead Visual Studio 5.0).

I guess it all really depends on what your priorities are.

in todays market nothing is specific(especially for O.S) they are multipurpose things,like Windows NT server

Here we get into a problem. Microsoft wants to entrench and protect their market. As such, mentioned in another thread, they have brung up the possibility of slowing down any application that doesn't have the MS products brand on them and is attempted to be used with a MS OS. In otherwords they are thinking of the possiblity of getting you to fork over more money for the "privilege" of using that computer you purchased with their OS on it. That certainly does not endear them to me for trying to rule my computer and what I chose to use on it.

I have enough problems with the idea that Windows XP will require "permission" at some point from Microsoft when I go to modify my computer and update the hardware. That is intrusion and I do not like it. Nor do I care for the automatic updates that Microsoft thinks you should have without asking first. XP has a "feature" that comes enabled, that it will contact the Microsoft site and download updates, pass info from your computer, ect. It does not ask if you want to. It slows down your connection, as two applications fight for the same resources and you are wandering around trying to find why. I would hate to count the times that I have run the virus checker before I found where to turn the thing off at.

I am running original professional version.it does ask in my case what do you intend to do for these updates available,i always say remind me later(in 3 Days ;))...

when it starts click on the tray where small ic of update is there.it"ll solve the problem.

bye!

Originally posted by Clarentavious
All of these are relatively high tech, complex, and powerful programs (even if they were basically "stolen" and modified underneath the surface - not that I am making any accusations).

whats so high tech about that stupid Vi editor that we are forced to worked with,everytime you use UNIX,it is so dumb,even my Notepad TSR can perform more functions than that.now off course things are improving,(like now they have something called Vi improved.)
Most of the linux programs are simple to write but require some knowledge on your part,this is what i call lousy programming.that Vi for me took a long long time to learn and Notepad in windows?just couple of minutes.(actually its just a matter of becoming accustomed than learning).so one cannot say that Unix programs are so high tech,High tech programs are the ones which provie users the ease of use and Windows and Macs are doing that.Linux has just begun.


To my knowledge you still can't run most mainstream programs on Linux.

Compatibility issues are there,but if you purchase a full fledged version of Linux from company like Red Hat or Caldera,you"ll find they have emulated most of the important softwares which are meant only for windows.these softwares are present within the O.S which makes it easy for users.

As far as hardware is concerned Linux is compatible with almost everything.hell it supports 400 different sound cards! what more could you ask?


IMO, whether microsoft makes functional software or not, they are evil (such as it is now being made more and more clear, they are trying to steal info from people). I'm not sure it really matters to me though, because I am using their software (though older versions of some things - as most of the newer ones grow nastier and nastier in every aspect)

well first of all,theres no reason to call Microsoft evil.if i were in place of Bill gates i would have exploited the market to suit my needs,since i am the King in my software market.i would have blocked the development of other softs for my own business.you"re lucky enough Billy is not going this far.had it been the case,no one would have cared for making additional softwares for Linux.To my mind Windows XP professional is very very stable.most stable infact.



I really don't see any serious problems with operating systems except with microsoft's latest products (such as security issues, among other things).


Okay,yes the problems exist,in security,i agree.but is Linux a Teflon Babe?hell no.most of the hackers havent used enough of their skill towards Unix,since they were busy with Ms products,since they are more popular.let unix become popular,people like them will find billion holes to exploit the hell cribbed security.


I guess it all really depends on what your priorities are.
yes you"re right.no argument here.



bye!

Wet1,

i think the basic problem is not MS products,its somehing else,you know what i mean?;)


bye!

Considering that they've paid my rent for the last decade, I have no complaints about Microsoft products... The bugs in Windows are job security in my book

Well, I can't fault making a living. If my source of incoming came from that I would be making less racket also. Unfortunately, I'm one of the booze-oh's that have to put up with it without pay. That makes it a little less appealing.

Don't like VI, I only use Emacs... much better and very powerful!


All of these are relatively high tech, complex, and powerful programs (even if they were basically "stolen" and modified underneath the surface - not that I am making any accusations).
So are you suggesting that most of the programs in Unix are stolen? From where?? GIMP is a group of programmers who make extremely good software FREE!! If you've got an accusation to make don't skim around it.

Just because something is high tech doesn't mean that it is powerful.

Note: When you are using VI remember that is was designed to be used WITHOUT a mouse, and doesn't have pretty pictures, hence making it feel alot harder to use. In reality it is alot more powerful than notepad!

As I kind of said in another post:

Microsoft wouldn't be so big, and have so many systems running their software if they hadn't of appealed to one human flaw.... Laziness.

The whole GUI/Point-n-click scenario changed the way that people are, before you use to spend hours mastering your typing skills so you wouldn't make so many mistakes while moving through directories, but the GUI made it possible just to click your way there.

As horrific as everyone states the products are (and they can be percievable bad) what exactly do you expect on a system that was build to cover dynamic calculations?

In other words the whole OS lives in a evolving world, and to evolve the flaws have to be covered. Now Microsoft is but one company, with a set amount of employees (who probably have jobs in the balance), while the Open-source OS's have people freely adding code and patches constantly, a truly evolving OS.

Microsoft's only flaw is not allowing preportion of it's code to be freely distributed without fear of legal comeback.

If you want all those bugs to be patched, it's got to be opened right up. (which is another portion of their legal battle)

Memo: 'Streaming media ... likely to follow a similar pattern

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/05/03/microsoft.antitrust.email/index.html

Stryder,
that free thing is the most fearful thing for Software proffesionals and is hurting the most...



bye!

And i think GUI is also part of Linux.
Bear in mind various situations.
take Rocket launching computers,that is computers in traffic control center or traffic launchers.there you would expect the computers tobe GUI,isnt it?otherwise those people will be rather busy in memorizing commands,rather than calculating projectile motions and various predictions...




bye!

You don't memorize commands, you learn them.

Zion

They wouldn't necessarily memorise or learn a command, they would just program a macro to carry out a command cluster.
I can see what you mean about GUI as an interface but in certain respects would you want say a missle defense running a GUI that any point-n-click script-kiddie could just walk up to an operate???

In truth the command-line OS is power because it's less consuming on resources, afterall to move a mouse cursor across the screen, how many modules have to be loaded?

This is especially the truth when it comes to a webserver or data-analysing system, they shouldn't worry too much about GUI because it's preference to open that processor right up. (I mean have it cycling without interfering modules.)

In fact some of the problems that caues crashes in windows is due to the memory allocation, and modules being loaded in conflict. (where two modules try to load into the same area)

That's what hte main aim was in XP I believe, in comparison to the old BSOD.

Memorization of commands comes from their usage and further exploration and experience.this is time consuming.
Consider this:
there someone known as Capt S.Piccard who is about to retire(he has a term remaining for 3 months)lets say he is not a computer literate,will the academy expect him to learn the computers first or not?.it will,most certainly and in that case he"ll find GUIs pretty useful.Untill we have prototypes like the one ASIMOV spaceship,where a mere touch on keyboard is required,brain will scan minds thoughts automatically and execute it,we have a long way to go and in this case GUIs will continue to provide ease of use to people.

Business men of today require GUI,they are getting so why waste time practising commands on shell prompt itself?
And <b><i>we</b></i>are providing it to those people.Programmers are ones to blame not lame users...

I completely agree with you on the note that Command prompt is pretty fast and exudes Raw power.that is problably the reason why Keyboard is more popular with programmers than any other thing...


bye!

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
[B] afterall to move a mouse cursor across the screen, how many modules have to be loaded?

I cant believe you just said that.you"re an expert in programming field,so you know better than me.It just takes a single function to do that.


#include"stdio.h"
#include"conio.h"
#include"dos.h"
#include"bios.h"
union REGS i,o;
initialize() //for mouse initialzation
{
i.x.ax=0; //service routine 0
int86(0x33,&i,&o);
return(o.x.ax);
}
void showmouseptr() //for showing mouse pointer on screen
{
i.x.ax=1; //service routine 1
int86(0x33,&i,&o);
}
void getmousepos()
{
int *button,x,y;
i.x.ax=3;
int86(0x33,&i,&o); //interrupt 33H is for mouse
*button=o.x.bx; //when *button =1 mouse is left clicked etc...
*x=o.x.cx; //x coordinates
*y=o.x.dx; //y coordinates
}

you can use the above functions to do the things you mentioned.there some more like restricting a mouse pointer,hiding a mouse pointer,changing cursor shape etc...but they are not much they dont require much memory in execution state.


In fact some of the problems that caues crashes in windows is due to the memory allocation, and modules being loaded in conflict. (where two modules try to load into the same area)

that depends upon the type of CPU scheduling you"re using.in my mind Windows has lots of effective ways to do that.Priority based,SRTF,SRTN,SJF,RR(ROUND ROBIN) etc

thanks for your time.
bye!

Zion,

When I suggested the modules, I didn't mean just the basic code for the pointer, but the graphics compressed into DLLs being extracted, and animations also running causing multithreaded processing. (Thus my mention of modules)

I just had to clear that up a bit.

As for your mention of what process you use, well let me put it like this:

You run a windows system and have a bunch of programs the people have written using different processes, to be able to get them to load. The problem occurs when these processes find that they corrupt each others allocation, because their priority bases get too stretched.

I know this from watching server downtimes on a game that isn't even running on a windows system. The guy has a bunch of CRON events running to List the top 100 players of each race, now originally he had the CRON events all running at the same time rather than spacing them apart in CRON. This caused the dreaded Buffer overflow when you add on top of the 6 hour re-list and the hundreds of players that too cause priority overloads when they refresh from his server.

Plus, he just happens to be running a bulletin board on it, that gets packed with games players nattering which also causes yet more load pressure.

I really do hate Buffer overflows.

I am not sure what CPU scheduling Windows is using,but in SJF type schedulling ready queue executes the process running first even if another process which has entered has Burst cycle reduced or half than that of the process which has been given priority,since it had the least time in burst cycle.

the problem occurs in SRTF schedulling,thats because of quick switching of processes so as to make the job done fasters.thats where i think conflict might occur.so is Windows using which type,i dont know.

:(

bye!

There is no such thing called Free Lunch...

Sun Microsystems Inc.'s decision to start charging users for its upcoming StarOffice 6.0 desktop office productivity suite is coming at a price: Linux sales and service company Red Hat Inc. has decided not to use StarOffice 6.0 in any of its distributions going forward.

Interesting (but long) article on mandated use of open source software for government use.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25157.html

Originally posted by kmguru
Apple GUI is the standard Windows is being judged all the time. And ofcourse apple got it from Xerox Lisa...anyway, once you have a taste of GUI, it is difficult to go back to balck and white days.

lol that reminds me of a joke...

ahem


Knock knock!

whose there?

*15 second pause*

Lisa.

LOL *for those who don't get the joke i was implying that lisa takes forever to compute even the simplest of commands*

I don't hate Windows 2000 Pro... I hate most other Windows operating systems. Maybe because the stupid masses use them, and I don't want to be grouped with those people. But maybe it's because the other versions of Windows really do suck!

I use Slackware Linux (latest stable) with Blackbox for a gui (I can't stand KDE or GNOME). It was hard to use at first since I grew up on windows, but that soon changed. It's way more interesting than Windows, more stable, more fun. But if you like gaming or graphics you're going to have a harder time than if you were going to use a Windoze or OS suX computer (mac os).

So untill the emulation gets better, or untill we see what Lindows can do, I'll have to use both to meet my needs.

I hate windows because Microsoft always make half-assed products and they almost have monopoloy on everything. That is why I pirate all their software. It is not legal but a moral decision.

hmmm...excuses...excuses...:D

Originally posted by Joeman
I hate windows because Microsoft always make half-assed products and they almost have monopoloy on everything. That is why I pirate all their software. It is not legal but a moral decision.
OMG how do you get around the copy protection??

That warning that says "please do not make illegal copys of this disc" foils me every time.....:D

Why do people think Microsoft is evil? Microsoft is one of the few remaining gems of American Capitalism thats hasnt been corrupted by radical liberals. Why is Microsoft great? Simply because it embodies America. Dog eat dog. Top man win. Best is better.

Prehaps JJ's first few lines in his post has specified the whole attitude of the people who call themselves the Linux Gurus and preach that salvation of human race lies in the hands of Linus Torvalds...;)





bye!

Has anubody heard of Free BSD with a killer GUI?....that can do your prom night video....

The biggest problem is that Microsnot makes sure that everything is Winblows compatible, then everyone buys Windows because it will run everything, and then nobody makes thier products for other OSs besause there is no market.

Sun and Unix will continue to dominate mainframes. My father's work(Unigraphics) switched to Linux for thier workstations. As Linux is more Unix compatible...

Plus: Microsnot I heard said that people kept asking for more stuff, and so instead of fixing the bugs, they just kept adding more stuff, with more bugs.

Actually there are plenty of Unix flavors. Sun, HP/UX, IBM etc. All Linux will do is replace IBM UNIX and may be HP/UX. SCO UNIX already adapted Linux because they could not compete with the bigger guys.

Will Linux be a desktop client? We already have one good one called Mac OS. I predict the way Mac is going - finally they will give Microsoft a run for money in the OS market. But other software for Mac? It will be still be Microsoft.

I used to love DOS... It was TR-DOS at first on ZX spectrum :), then MS-DOS, then I loved Windows... Then I found freeBSD (1996) - something new - a new challenge. Later I changed to Linux due to it being more popular... I have been mainly using Linux since then. Now I use Linux for everything, except for things like games which have to run on Windows.
One interesting thing was I was excited about installing Windows 95, then I got bored very quickly... Too easy. The reason I use Linux is:
1. Programming is easy, stable and comfortable.
2. I can monitor every part of the operating system and examine it when something goes wrong, etc.
3. The window manager is more versatile and powerful (I use Windowmaker).
4. I can do automization of various tasks easily, most of these things would require C++ programming on Windows... which is a real pain... Did anyone had an experience with DIB and DDB on Windows.. I had one, when I was already late for a deadline. ;)
I would never say Linux is for everyone, but then it is a real pain for people using Linux (or anything else really), when Microshoft keeps inventing new standarts which aren't compatible with their OWN previous standarts and most people use it. But then I love all the things in life that are complicated.
I would suggest Linux at home for people who:
1. Want to learn/do programming
2. Want to learn about computers in general, hardware, networks etc..
3. Want everything their way. :)
Also, I am sure a lot of younger peoples interest in computers is being hampered by the simplicity of Windows, but Linux is here to save the day. :D
...ndrs

kmguru: don't forget the new Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is quite similar to Linux (except for license).

ndrs: yes I know. I have already posted several times.

Remember Next computer that Jobs did many years ago? I think that was based on BSD. Anyway it was a great product then. But their marketing department sucked. They did not support me when I was trying to develop an Expert system for Industrial applications. Rest is history. Microsoft took over.

Moral of the story is never hire idiots for your marketing department.

Microsoft has done something again which defeats all understanding...

Firstly in the old Browsers without the particular patch, their was a potential exploit where someone could manipulate your "PROXY" settings through the use of a trojan.
You wouldn't notice and surf the net, while possibly bouncing through a computer that had been set up to listen to your packets with a packet sniffer. Passwords and bankdetails could be broken through this method.

So Microsoft made a patch, now you can no longer use an external proxy. Now this is all very well but this now means that computers are getting more and more to the point of blocking privacy. So no more anonymous functioning

This has it's good points at catching the wrotten few, but the bad points are that people will know who you are throughout the net even easier than before.

so
screw IE!
use Mozilla 1.0 or Opera 6.0

Let me put it simple. MS is trying to make everything they invent the standard. You know this whole .NET MS supposedly came up with. Where all your programs and files will be stored somewhere and all you have to do is log into a computer and voila, there's your stuff. Sun came up with this idea. It goes like this. Sun envisions a day where there won't be files stored locally. Instead, Sun wants to see the day you can access your files and have them ready at any instant, sort of like a phone. It's always ready to connect you, all you have to do is pick it up and there it is. Anywho, MS is trying to take other companies ideas and toot it as its own. I still remember hearing how Bill Gates didn't know what an email was until his mother told him about it.

I'd hate tht my critical data is stored n some doubtful server, especially if it is a MS server. Think of it- all your data is accessable to them. I'd better make my own server and put it on-line somewhere.

Actually it is not the SUN but EMC that has the idea when implemented will be instant. The data does not reside in a server but continuously loops on a high bandwidth net globally 24X7. So you get it when you want and where you want.

Another "Bug/Exploit" was brought forward to me, I'm sure your all aware it's called "Homepage Hijacking".

A Friend recently asked for help aiding him with a problem, something had caused his right click in explorer to foul up, and all his menu bar buttons to disappear as well as his system kept loading information through the net without his permission.

Now I'm not sure exactly how his system had been altered, but on investigation of the site (www.tinybar.com)

At the bottom of the page is "Upgrade your Search Page: Click Here". The anchor loads a .REG file. Changing some keys in your registery.

Those keys had Hijacked his Explorer.

I investigated further into the keys and found a mention of:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run]
"sp"=""
"spp"=""

This was a key in the use of deleting a Hijack from the computer.
The SP is supposedly a DLL that can load on boot if the key exists.
So those keys should be deleted

More information: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/qa/134432267_ptmrsh06.html

Originally posted by Chagur
Re. "For the most part all the user needs is:"

Ashton-Tate's 'FrameWork' did it all and I still use it on my 'workhorse'
486 DOS desktop ... along with OS/2 for some of the 'bells &whistles' I
occassionally need.

But, I spend most of my time 'goofing around' with a Win2K laptop ...
Can't beat it for the Net and listening to my favorite CD's while surfing,
or occassionally watching a DVD.

Take care ;)

Yeah Framework rules (IMHO). Although it doesn't have the multimedia features of Windows or LINUX it's a great workhorse and it's getting better all the time since Selections & Functions took it over from Borland. See http://www.framework.com for screen shots & other info.