Lee wrote: > Tim Wunder wrote: > > >>Lee wrote: >> <snip>
>>Huh!? Are you REALLY saying that Win95 was better than Win98SE? Are you >>REALLY saying that COL 2.2 was better than 2.4? >>Speaking as someone who's used all of the above, I would have to say >>that my experience sharply contrasts yours. Win98SE was definately a >>better product than the original Win95, which in light of the hype >>surrounding it is a much better candidate for "ultimate crapzoid" than >>XP is. >> > >> > Yes, that's what I'm saying. I use my computer for desktop work nothing exotic like > calculation the value of pie to the last decimal place, just gp stuff. Also I run a > small computer business on the side. Most of my work has been installing OSs on > client's boxes in their own home. In four years I've had two Win95s come back. One > was blasted when a squirrel shorted out the electric transformer on the pole and the > system was on line. The other when an idiot decided to make space on his hd by > removing "unused" files. > > 98 (either FE or Se) usually runs for about a year to a year and a half before I see > it again. Too many bells and whistles and not enough OS engine. It's easy enough to > understand why. When 95 was being developed Gates and crapany still had competition > for the desktop market. OS/2 was still around and Win had to prove that was better. > When 98 came out it was either Win or a blank screen. So M$ could taylor it to the > same market that demands new chrome strips on this year's model car. But, as I said > 98 was slightly worse than 95. Many of the 95 bugs were fixed, but 98 compensated by > adding in its own. > OK. I see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree. There were 3 versions of Win95, though, each better than the previous, IMO. You can make the argument that the first Win98 broke as much, if not more, than it fixed, but I've had much better luck with the SE release on the few installs that I'v done. I've got a friend who builds Win-based PCs that swears by 98 SE, and has uninstalled Win2K from several boxes to put Win98SE on 'em. He stays far away from ME, with good reason. Suffice it to say that I don't think it's a clear cut "Every new release is worse" situation with what you get from MS. Your free to have your own opinions, though ;). > >> >>And it was the quality of eDesktop 2.4 that finally pushed me over the >>edge to using linux full time at home. Further, once you get past some >>of the installation issues with COL 3.1, it's a fine product in itself. >>I'm very pleased with both of my 3.1 installs at home. Neither of the >>Mandrake releases I've installed (7.1, 8.0) are as good, in my experience. >> > > >I came to Linux from COL1.3 bought at flea market to COL 2.2 to 2.4 to 3.1. > Tried 2.2 from a book, then 2.3 from a download. They were fun to play with, but I still USED Windows to DO stuff. 2.4 was the first linux release that I could really get comfortable with using to perform my day to day tasks. > Mandrake wise from 6.2 to 7.1 to 8.0 and 8.1. The COL 2.2 that I installed on my > dual boot (Win95/COL 2.2) ran for almost 3 years with little trouble. I should note > that I am not of those who continually recompile their OSs for the latest updated > thing-a-ma-giggy. Not critizing, Linux is different things for different folks. 2.2 > did everything I needed, I was satisfied. Then one day in the middle of a net surf > my monitor screen went black (not lost power just shut down) On reboot there was > nothing there. Neither Boot Magic nor the Linux boot disk could find Linux on the weird, sounds like some of my experiences with Mandrake 7.1... <snip> > five minutes. It never came back and wouldn't reboot even with a boot disk. Sooo. I > installed 3.1. Pure turkey. The icons for floppy and cdrom or even terminal wouldn't > access. Got message that the file /dev/floppy /dev/fd0/ /mnt/floppy/ /auto /floppy > (take your pick) couldn't be found. That was strange in that the properties listing > of the floppy icon listed the iso95660 driver as being loaded . Cdrom the same. Yea, that's part of the installation issues I mentioned in my previous post. The problems were fixable, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Once I got past that kind of stuff, 3.1's been fine. Of course it's only been up for a few months, now. > ...Gave > up in disgust and installed Mandrake 7.1. What an OS! On install it found and > installed my cdrom, cd burner, zip drive and floppy. The system was fast and easy to > use. Problems? Only two. The Scripting on Netscape could be better and the printer > base is rather limited. But, like one of the chrome strip crowd I installed > Mandrake 8.0 over it and later 8.1. Two turkeys. Same problem with the floppy and > cdrom as 3.1 only not instead of can't find file it was you don't have permission to > access the device, even as root. Also 8.0 and 8.1 have a nasty tendency of switching > Xservers after install. Finally let common sense prevail and reinstalled Mandrake > 7.1. Much happy again. > My experience with Mandrake 7.1 was not as good. I had a lot of trouble figuring out how to troubleshoot the problems. My linux background has primarily been with Caldera, and Mandrake is different enough for me that it was easier just to stick OL 3.1 on it, with it's known problems that I could fix, and go from there... > >> >>I've also been using Win2K SP1 at work since March with very few >>problems. It is, by far, a better product than any of the Win9x >>releases. If not for my philosophical difference with how MS goes about >>doing business, I wouldn't mind using Win2K at home. And I really must >>question your opinion of XP being an "ultimate crapzoid". Although I >>have no experience with using XP, I've read that the primay issues with >>the O/S are over licensing, not quality. >> > > > Most of my work lately has been installing Junk 2000 on computers, because the only > licensed 2000 tech in the county refuses to touch it. 2000 (desktop) is only a <snip> > Lately, the hackers have developed a fondness for 2000. In the last two months I've > had to do reinstalls on three boxes because of Code Red and other nasty things from > the net. > We're using Win2K on desktops running no server services on any. All conected to RedHat 7.0, with several security patches (except the kernel -- gotta do that soon), running Samba 2.2.0 (which also needs to be updated -- sure would like to play with roaming desktops and domain logins). It's not bad. It's a shame that the linux desktop didn't come around enough for me to install that on the desktops. It's close, now, and in another 6 months, I think it would be fine for a new install. Heck, in another year, it might be worth migrating to. Code Red and Nimda haven't affected me (other than filling my webserver logs). My users use Netscape for Browsing and Mail, which helps cut down on virii, and I tend to keep our copies of MS OFfice and IE up to date with security patches. Not unlike what you need to do with linux as a server ;). > > >As for XP the extent of the complimentry write up is directly proportional to the >extent that the writer gets free software from MS. XP dictates (if Gates gets his >way) what type of box you will run and the hardware you will run. It takes about a >gig and ahalf of hd space to accomadate all the bells and whistles and chrome >strips. Each of these is a potential bug and slows the box down. Which is why >Gates wants it to be only run on boxes with 233mhz cpu and 128 meg memory. >Because of this and the license issue some writers have been recommending to >businesses that they look elsewhere for their OSs. > You got a point there. I agree that the only fully complimentary reviews are from questionable sources. But many of the negative reviews relate to the licensing policies of MS as opposed to the technical merits of the O/S. Regards, Tim _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
