On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:48:34PM -0400, Ben Russo wrote:
Windows XP has virtual desktops (not as fully customizable as most
X-window managers, but good enough).
So, after about 15-20 years, Windows has finally caught up in
usability? ;-)
You have to get the Microsoft XP power toy for
On 11-Jun-2003/18:48 -0400, Ben Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
T. Ribbrock wrote:
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed,
but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with
almost
On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 06:36, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
Windows XP Pro also has Remote Desktop, built in ready to go right out
of the box.
That only works with another XP machine. X allows connections from any
machine that runs X, including Winboxes (see Cygwin/XFree86, eXceed, etc).
And as
Le 10/06/2003 01:43, « MWafkowski » [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the elephant in the
middle of the living room.
rant
mega cliché delete
/rant
*** Thanks Mike for your point of view.
For your info, ever since I joined the list in the
quote who=MWafkowski
Myth #1 - Stability. Linux is a more stable OS then windows (2000/XP).
This
true enough, UNLESS you're talking about desktop Linux ie: KDE or Gnome.
To believe that any out of the box install of any current major distro
setup as a desktop (KDE or Gnome) is more stable
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:18:39PM -0400, AragonX wrote:
[...]
Now here is where we see eye to eye. Somewhat...
X has been disappointing to me. I still have to use Windows because I
can't get my games on X.
[...]
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
eyes,
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed,
but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with
almost no effort at all - and that I've been able to so for years.
That's somethng MS
T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:18:39PM -0400, AragonX wrote:
[...]
Now here is where we see eye to eye. Somewhat...
X has been disappointing to me. I still have to use Windows because I
can't get my games on X.
[...]
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your
This has troll written all over it.
Please people, do not feed the troll! This list will degrade into a Linux
vs. Windows mess!
+++ MWafkowski [RedHat] [Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:43:54PM -0400]:
You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the elephant in the
middle of the living room.
Ah too true. I have yet to exploit the remote desktop but I do use the
virtual desktops with glee. I've heard that Windows will have that in the
next version. I bought a video card that has dual-head but unfortunately,
I'm still running 98 on my Windows partition. It doesn't support dual
You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the elephant in the
middle of the living room.
rant
Among all the high fives and rah-rahing on this list (and other Linux lists
I belong to) about Linux vs Windows there are some things most of us would
seem to rather ignore.
Linux people have
MWafkowski wrote:
To believe that any out of the box install of any current major distro
setup as a desktop (KDE or Gnome) is more stable than an equivalent install
of XP or 2000 on the same hardware is plain NUTS!
While I agree with you fundamentally, this is also a very subjective
matter.
12 matches
Mail list logo
