Microsoft Windows XP Is Truly the Superior OS

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 55

Microsoft Windows XP Is Truly the Superior OS

Author:

MessiahWWKD

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 02, 2002

Comments:

Recently, I upgraded from Linsux to Microsoft Windows XP and I am posting this diary to tell the world of the joy I received five minutes into using this wonderful operating system. I hope that those of you who are pondering whether or not to use Linsux or other "alternative operating systems" read this and realize the truth.

More diaries by MessiahWWKD

	Ask Adequacy: What's with two masks?
	Atheism, Crime, and the Connection
	A Love Sonnet
	Even OSS Prefers Windows XP
	Accepting Homosexuals
	My Hard Life
	Free Escorts
	Miss Adequacy 2002
	Declaration of War Against Adequacy
	Wicca FAQ
	Native or Lying?
	Capital Punishment
	Literature and the Law
	I hate the Open Source Community
	I Miss Jin :(
	Ask Adequacy: Am I a Pedophile?
	Seatbelts - Bad Influence
	The Perfect Career
	End of Open Source

I am sure many of you are wondering why I was using Linsux in the first place. It is simple: I was bored of using Windows 98 and the propaganda fed to me by Linsux zealots was convincing me that it was better than Microsoft Windows. For months of forcing myself to use Linsux, I was convinced that Linsux was indeed a great operating system, despite the lack of uniformity and the alpha feel of applications, both giving Linsux a truly Frankenstein feel. It simply isn't true. The pros and cons Linsux apologists are highly biased and highly exagerated as I will explain now.

Linsux's Immunity to Viruses

It is true that Linux is not as vulnerable to viruses as Microsoft Windows XP is, but anybody who is computer literate enough to run Linsux is computer literate enough to avoid any viruses that might do harm to one's system. Furthermore, anybody who is a target for a virus will have no problem logging into root and running the infected program in Linsux.

The Security Holes of Microsoft Windows

These holes have been patched, and it isn't like Linsux has holes either. It is simply that Linsux apologists love to make a big deal of the holes of Microsoft Windows XP while only mentioning theirs on obscure security sites. One can easily protect themselves from holes by using a firewall. XP will be vulnerable to security exploits without a firewall but Linsux will also be vulnerable.

Rumors of Microsoft Monopolizing

It is funny how people claim that Microsoft is a monopoly yet always claim how Linsux is serious competition for Microsoft Windows. That statement contradicts itself. Besides, if Microsoft is such a monopoly, why can I go to my nearest Best Buy, Circuit City, or even Wal-Mart, and find a copy of some version (as long as you Linsux apologists call 98 and NT versions of Windows, I'll call Mandrake Linux and Redhat Linux versions of Linsux) of Linsux? For a monopoly, there sure are plenty of alternatives.

These same Linsux apologists also have a way of supporting companies such as Apple, IBM, Sony, and Sun, which have far more unethical tactics than Microsoft ever had. What is with your lack of consistency?

There might be uses for Linsux, such as learning how to build your own amateur operating system, but for regular desktop usage, Microsoft Windows XP is simply the superior operating system.

	HuH?? (1.00 / 2) (#1)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:02:17 PM PST

	Umm...ok. Firstly, Microsoft IS monopolizing!! It's .NET system is designed to destroy existing LINUX ( it's not Linsux and it's very discrediting for you to insult it that way ), UNIX, and OpenBSD networking systems that exist already. Also, where's your proof, credit, and accountability on all of this? Why are ALL Linux apologists the way you say they are? And besides, Windows wouldn't exist without IBM and Sony. Microsoft has made very little of their own operating system. By the way, firewalls are useless against any hacker who really knows what they are doing. If you wanna get in, you will. Root accounts increase security immesely. Many of the bugs in Microsoft's OS' could be fixed if they put things in a localhost administrator account. But they don't. Note: People complain of Microsoft's anti-competitve / monopolistic activities. The lack of open source software and GNU licenses on some of their software makes it impossible for developers to produce at their full potential. Really, you're wrong because Windows XP is NOT a superior OS. there is none. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages that make them unique. In reality, relating 1 OS to another is relating an apple to an apple pie. You can compare tastes and likenesses, but they aren't the same. Thank you.

	Hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by iat on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:10:08 PM PST

	LINUX ( it's not Linsux and it's very discrediting for you to insult it that way ) Can you explain why it's discrediting and insulting for someone to called Linux "Linsux", but it seems prefectly acceptable for Linux Zealots to rename Microsoft as "Micro$oft" (or other such childish names)? Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Clarification (1.00 / 1) (#3)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:16:45 PM PST

	I never qualified Linux Zealots to call Microsoft Micr$oft. It was more of a universal statement that mutilating any name is just a knock on your own credibility. Better? Sorry for that confusion.

	how about this? (1.00 / 2) (#20)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:06:00 AM PST

	I'll stop printing it as Micro$oft, Microshaft, Microsux, Windoze, Windblows, Internet Exploiter. Notice I didn't mention Internet Exploder as it is a real ActiveX exploit of IE. I'll stop that when every editor and adequacy.org nimrod can stop their misspellings like Leenos, Lynee, Tovates, Torvardales, Tovaldeez, Linsux. The real one that makes you look dumb is Lunix. When will you guys realise Linus Torvalds wrote Linux (a kernel). LUnix (Little Unix) is a UnixLite designed for the c64/128 and other 8-bit computers. It was NOT written by Linus Torvalds nor does it use the Linux kernel. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	arent you? (none / 0) (#25)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:57:14 AM PST

	Can you explain why it's discrediting and insulting for someone to call Windows "Windont", but it seems prefectly acceptable for Window users to rename Linux as "Linsux" (or other such childish names)? Anyway I dont know about you, but im a hypocrite. Lets face it the best version of Windows was Windows 3.1. Hardly ever crashed for me. I rate it higher than 98/95/2000/XP/ME blah blah. But I cant use it anymore as no programs support it :( <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Win 3.1 (none / 0) (#54)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:41:54 PM PST

	I hated Windows 3.0 - 3.1 because of that STUPID exploit they had which made DR-DOS inoperable! GRRR! I loved DR-DOS drifts off in bliss remembering those days...

	yawn (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:58:00 PM PST

	Really, you're wrong because Windows XP is NOT a superior OS. there is none. No, XP is so much better than Linux it isnt funny. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages that make them unique Nope. XP can do everything Lunix can do and do it much better. Absolutely everything. Do you understand this? There is nothing Lunix does which XP cannot do better. Nothing. As a bonus, XP runs the widest variety of useful, polished, easy to use applications -- but that's just icing on the cake. Wait. There is something Lunix is good for. Lunix is good for people who enjoy running a second rate clone of a second rate, ancient OS called UNIX. I am not intimate with these people's pathologies, but apparently there's some thrill to cobbling together an endless series perl scripts for mundane, "house keeping" tasks which that get in the way of useful work and which XP handles automatically, as it should. XP looks much nicer, too.

	Right you are (5.00 / 2) (#5)
	by Exitium on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:08:52 PM PST

	I wonder when this whole lunacy about Lunix being better than WindowsXP will die down. Maybe when they stop sniffing glue and their braincells regenerate, but that's just wishful thinking.

	LoL (none / 0) (#7)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:21:55 PM PST

	LoL, that's a great comment. Way to enhance the debate.

	Matter of time... (1.00 / 1) (#8)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:29:51 PM PST

	Learning from history, I suppose it is just matter of time until it will become obvious that XP is an acronym for Xtreme Problems. Remember my words then. (And yes, Linux sucks. For mission-critical applications go for BSD. If my life would depend on a computer[1], I'd be rather calm with OpenBSD, somehow nervous with Linux, and scared to death with XP.) [1] assuming that hardware reliability is somehow ensured, but it is off-topic at this moment

	Alas.. (none / 0) (#9)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:47:29 PM PST

	and so because OpenBSD is good for Mission Critical Programs, Linux Sucks? You're completely being narrow minded about this. Niether Windows, Linux, OR OpenBSD sucks straight off...they each have advantages and disadvantages beyond the other. Besides, BSD & Linux really don't do the same thing. BSD, from my understanding, was designed to BE a mission-critical style machine. Linux is more like Windows: All-in-one. Obviously an OS with 1 purpose will outperform the AIO in that given situation.

	ahhh (none / 0) (#11)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:55:18 PM PST

	ShadowWolf-- I think I'm gonna cry....no not really. Good points though. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	You're right :) (none / 0) (#15)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:40:27 PM PST

	...I am biased because I am mostly a server-side person. I don't understand the users well - it takes typically twice as long to figure out what they want than to actually implement it. (Plus their attitude to report errors by "... doesn't work" instead of complete error report. I will probably have to make an error report chart.) And treating servers as mission-critical even when they aren't, is a recipe for longer, uninterrupted sleep. I don't like surprises. I am only beginning BSD, but for servers it gives me the best "belly feel" from all the OSes I got my hadns on as far. I learned to trust my feelings. Sometimes the bitter way...

	Really? (1.00 / 2) (#6)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:18:53 PM PST

	( It's LINUX by the way ) Really? I love how you say this YET, YET...Linux running almost any WINDOWS game in a non-native environment properly will run better. YET, Linux is a much easier programming environment which allows you to program in more languages natively ( no buying extra stuff ) than Windows. YET, Linux is a more secure and much faster operating system than Windows XP is ( check benchmarks my friend ). YET, Linux has MORE software available than windows. Check sites such as: www.rpmfind.com http://freshmeat.net www.linux.com www.osdn.com www.gnu.org ( information ) You'll find FREE software that, in some cases, does better work that Microsoft's similar software. you say that windows is better, YET, Microsoft has never released a bug-free operating system that worked fine out of the box with no major system problems or security holes since MS-DOS days. also, I'd like to mention that if users used LINUX they could update their system in mere seconds using shell scripts that don't require effort but are fully customizable. also, I'd like to mention that you aren't forced ( even though MS denies it, I've never gotten XP to work right without using it ) to use Internet Explorer. also, I'd like to mention that Linux's cost is significantly cheaper than that of that of the similar Windows ( 79.99 for Mandrake 8.1 Pro vs. 299.99 for Windows XP pro ). Not to mention that Windows XP requires constant driver updates and doesn't use any form of hardware manipulation, which regulates your ability to use hardware. Also, Windows XP requires you to do things like activate software and what-not. Windows OS's requires you to download multiple updates before any installed Operating System is really usable to it's full potential. Windows XP is NEVER FREE ( Legally )! Microsoft does not support open source ( and I'm suprised any of it works ). You cannot obtain a Microsoft update from any other webpage ( legally ) than Microsoft's own ( to my knowledge ). it doesn't offer you fair chances to install/not install any of it's own software and tries to force you to use ONLY the ones they want. it gives you no options suitable for a fully customizable system. Windows XP has HARD CODED AGP TIMINGS ( which prevents overclocking of the front-side bus ). Done in Windows XP -- it's the nature of a lot of the nVidia BSOD's ( with nv.dsp's infinite loop ). Microsoft attacks Open Source agencies and drives other companies out of business. etc..etc.. ( i went on far to long :p ) Also, everything i've listed is a fact. I use Windows XP on my laptop and used to use it on this very computer. Windows XP is a slow, unstable, resource hog. I've been using Linux for 3 months now and have never gotten a slowdown, lockup, or any other form of system crash. Ever. A friend of mine who attends my college has been running Linux for about 4 weeks without a single reboot, no crashes. Windows is Simply NOT a superior OS. Any good programmer will tell you this. It's a horrid, poorly designed, SLOW operating system from a company who's known to produce more security holes than useful programs ( just look at their windows update site already for XP ).

	what's a bsod? Never seen one. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:07:06 PM PST

	Nothing you said is true or even relevant. I'm sorry you dont have money and must resort to free, second rate software, but if you insist, you can always compile your alpha and your beta quality Lunix apps to run on XP. I mean, if you know computer programming. If you dont, you'll first have to abandon some of the slogans in your head in order to make room for some actually useful knowledge. WARNING: catching up on all the advances in OS design since UNIX pipes wont be a sinecure for Lunix addled mind. Meanwhile, the actual XP OS is to Lunix as Hiroshima is to a pimply geek with a bad case of Cheetohs gas. I cannot bothered with a point by point rebuttal; you are clearly insane and I fear indulging you will only make you violent.

	ShadowWolf is right (none / 0) (#24)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:50:59 AM PST

	yup. windows is slow. the 'install new hardware' rarely works correctly. it has abundant memory leaks and so do many of its programs meaning I have to reboot every few hours or face sluggishness. It has many many security vulnerbilities which require countless updates or patches. A few of which arent compatible and end up screwing the system up. For such a price as windows is, I would expect it to be much better than it is. If microsoft sold Linux and Windows was the 'alternative' OS then I bet noone would have any problem with way things were. The reason microsoft wont release any of their source code is that they are embarassed. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	The bottom line as I see it (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:47:20 AM PST

	I'm sure this has been said before, but after reading all this stuff I'm gonna have to say it again. Until there is a LINUX distro that your ordinary Windows user can install and use for email, surfing, word processing, games, listening to music, etc. etc. without considerable effort/knowledge, it will not make huge gains with the general computer public. I have installed and used Mandrake without ever successfully connecting to the internet (damn those winmodems!) It does seem to be very stable and the price is right (can't beat free!!) but the learning curve for someone without the time or inclination to figure out how to operate in some other manner than point and click is too steep. People with jobs, kids, tv shows to watch, yards to mow, cars to wash, etc. just don't have the patience and I'm afraid that these people probably make up the largest percentage of computer users.

	fair enough (none / 0) (#62)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:45:10 AM PST

	im running win 2000 :) <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	me too (none / 0) (#74)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:39:57 AM PST

	:-)

	Eh? (none / 0) (#52)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:14:54 PM PST

	If you read my comment and then read what I reply to, you'll find that I'm always responding directly to what I read. Note that there are interpretational errors that CAN occur since we are not directly speaking. Umm...quite to the contrary, I'm fully aware of all of the OS advancements...and am working on starting one of my own. Windows = old OS based on old code Linux = constantly updated, some old code good amount of new code. Just so I know, how much do you ACTUALLY know about computers? Do you even have a degree I'm not insane, that's a legal term. I can't be insane until I've been caught for a crime. Just so I know...what degree in Computer Sciences do you ACTUALLY have? If you don't have one, what are your credentials to state that I know nothing? Besides, I would have no desire to program on Linux to make Windows Apps. That's pretty annoying if you ask me...I'd have to transfer my programs to another computer probably or have multiple partitions & HDD's in one PC and have to multi-boot OS's.

	No, you dont understand. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:26:24 PM PST

	Not surprising since Lunixheads are such computer illiterates. Allow me to clarify: if you boot XP to a port of bash written without any win32 calls -- MS Explorer shell is just another program -- it will be like a fast Lunix on steroids. If you boot to the usual Explorer shell or a graphical replacement like WindowsBlinds (similiar to replacing X with Berlin -- ha!), it will be like a fast Lunix on steroids which never seizes (unlike X), looks nice (unlike X), is easy to use (unlike X), presents a coherent, predictable UI, and runs the widest variety of useful software. Not umpteen versions of vi; not "scratch my itch" or homework assignment scripts on Freshmeat (although they run on Windows, too); not the abandoned abortions on SourceForge which would be blatant ripoffs of existing Windows software were it not for the fact that the subset of functionality they try to emulate doesnt work well. Are you begining to understand? If not, ask the 99.76% of people who dont run Lunix to fill you in on the elusive details. I think I understand your problem. You dont actually know what an OS is. Is this a common failing in Lunix circles?

	Umm...no? (none / 0) (#50)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:03:11 PM PST

	Just so you know: I own the following windows versions ( and run them as well NOW ): Windows 98Second Edition -- My DOS computer Windows 2000 Professional - SP2 -- My Fileserver Windows XP Corporate Edition ( Pro w/ no activation ) -- My laptop I also run these OS's Linux -- Mandrake -- Gaming Machine OpenBSD -- Work Interface Machine Thank you, you stand corrected. I am VERY familiar with Microsoft's OS's and am, in fact, a Microsoft Certified Expert in all fields I can be ( for free :) ). Besides, I don't have the ability to have an unlimited income spending over 1/2 my income on college and most of my time there & at work.

	FSB Speeds (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:31:34 PM PST

	"Windows XP has HARD CODED AGP TIMINGS ( which prevents overclocking of the front-side bus )." Oh really? Then explain why I am currently running at 10.5 * 140 with an overclocked Ti 200. Completely stable I may add.

	Oh? (none / 0) (#51)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:05:39 PM PST

	They must've fixed that problem then, which I'm glad for. Sorry about that, I stand corrected. In the original versions of Microsoft Windows XP you couldn't overclock your nVidia GeForce cards ( I had a GF3 ) because of an AGP hard coded timing issue. But I also note that these problems occured in boards such as Abit, IWill, and SOYO ( boards who don't use software AGP timings ). But I hope they really DID fix that!

	good job sort of (none / 0) (#10)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:47:47 PM PST

	Furthermore, anybody who is a target for a virus will have no problem logging into root and running the infected program in Linsux. So if I take a malicious file or program to a network running Linux I should EASILY be able to, NOPE. SORRY. That would make sense if the root password were universal, but it's not. Also you seem to make the point that anyone who runs a Unix based OS could easily run Windows without problems. I guess Bill Gates will never run Linux as he asmits his computer does crash (if anyone want's a link to that interview let me know). Also during the Code Red, Nimda, Sircam fiascos MS did flop on its clooective ass if not for just a little while. One can easily protect themselves from holes by using a firewall. XP will be vulnerable to security exploits without a firewall but Linsux will also be vulnerable. Well a firewall did not stop 3 buffer overruns associated with UPnP. If it's a software firewall you had better make sure it is patch because XP can disabkle it. The reason you don't see more probelms with XP yet is because the "bad people have been concentrating more on cracking the WPA (which was successful by the way). why can I go to my nearest Best Buy, Circuit City, or even Wal-Mart, and find a copy of some version.... That's likely because of the low overhead and higher profits. Also a single vendor does not control linux and therefore a single company cannot hold a monopoly. You should have looked up the definition of monopoly before writing that. These same Linsux apologists also have a way of supporting companies such as Apple, IBM, Sony, and Sun, which have far more unethical tactics than Microsoft ever had. First off I don't know why you mention Apple. They are strong supports of the open source community, but not linux specifically. They show their support because of it's adoption of NeXTStep and opening up the development of the MacOS kernel (FreeBSD and Mach 3.0). There are other reasons but I will leave it at that. But could you bee more specific about these unethical things Apple, Sun, Sony do? I don't say IBM because bringing up the 3 antitursts suits is too easy. here might be uses for Linsux, such as learning how to build your own amateur operating system, but for regular desktop usage, Microsoft Windows XP is simply the superior operating system. Please define REGULAR desktop usage. Also MS will be dropping support for Windows 2000 (according to MS reps) sometime in this year (2002 for the slow folks). this will hopefually set people up for a product that is set to release this year or early next called Server.NET Frankly I don't see XP as a big deal. It's just another improvement like 98 was for 95 and Me tried to be for 98Second Edition. XP is just an enhance 2000 which is just NT 5 with a name change. Microsoft OSes won't be a big deal until BlackComb (codename) which is supposed to fully realise .NET. Of course we'll have to wait for Longhorn (codename) first. Ms claims BlackComb will be released in 2005/6. Of course they have been promising it since 1998. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Here we go... (none / 0) (#46)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:22:39 PM PST

	So if I take a malicious file or program to a network running Linux I should EASILY be able to, NOPE. SORRY. That would make sense if the root password were universal, but it's not. XP also has administrator passwords that can be set and different user statuses, to prevent one person from destroying the entire network. Also you seem to make the point that anyone who runs a Unix based OS could easily run Windows without problems. I guess Bill Gates will never run Linux as he asmits his computer does crash (if anyone want's a link to that interview let me know). Also during the Code Red, Nimda, Sircam fiascos MS did flop on its clooective ass if not for just a little while. Anybody who runs Linux tends to spend hours reading manuals on how to use it properly. I'm assuming that they would do the same if using Windows. As for Bill Gates running Linux, of course he won't. Why fix something that isn't broken? Well a firewall did not stop 3 buffer overruns associated with UPnP. If it's a software firewall you had better make sure it is patch because XP can disabkle it. The reason you don't see more probelms with XP yet is because the "bad people have been concentrating more on cracking the WPA (which was successful by the way). I see. Firewalls for Windows don't work, but firewalls for Linux have more security than Fort Knox. Bullshit. Also a single vendor does not control linux and therefore a single company cannot hold a monopoly. You should have looked up the definition of monopoly before writing that. I never said any Linux company holds a monopoly. I'm saying that how is Microsoft a monopoly you Linux "lusers" are claiming how Linux is converting MS users and when even at stores like Wal-Mart, they're selling versions of Linux? First off I don't know why you mention Apple. They are strong supports of the open source community, but not linux specifically. They show their support because of it's adoption of NeXTStep and opening up the development of the MacOS kernel (FreeBSD and Mach 3.0). There are other reasons but I will leave it at that. But could you bee more specific about these unethical things Apple, Sun, Sony do? I don't say IBM because bringing up the 3 antitursts suits is too easy. Of course Apple supports open source. That's why they are, as you Linsux lusers have said, hardware monopolists, and why they are telling everybody that they can't copy the Aqua design, make Darwin so that any change you make to it must be sent back to Apple, and why they've ported QuickTime to open source OS's (which they haven't). Microsoft meanwhile, also supports open source by using BSD software in their software, porting IE to Unix, etc. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Uhhh...? (none / 0) (#55)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:50:54 PM PST

	Just FYI: Microsoft just recently added this huge problem that makes it impossible to accesss https:// webpages without special scripts & what-not using an OpenBSD Network System ( as we use at Office Depot ), so we were unable to access any of our KIOSK machines on Windows XP Home Edition Computers... Actually a Firewall under a Linux system IS a more secure firewall because the directory tree itself is, in essence, firewalled in most distributions, thus meaning you have TWO firewalls instead of just one. not to mention Code Red targeted Windows machines last I checked, as does Code Red II! XP does NOT have administrator passwords in the way you said. There is an invisible universal administrator account that's accessible to the outside world. Just to note: The hours I spent learning the insides of Windows XP are about 2 times the hours I've spent learning Linux so far, and I have a much more universal working knowledge of Linux. My knowledge with Mandrake is pretty much portable, My knowledge of XP does DICK on an NT 4.0 machine ( same Kernel and Dir Tree ). Grow up while you're at it and stop saying childish words like 'linsux' and what-not. Learn something REAL about computers while you're at it, what you know is just horse-crap jargan that MS feeds out to the ignorant public.

	I Love Christina Aguilera (none / 0) (#73)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:46:02 AM PST

	Just FYI: Microsoft just recently added this huge problem that makes it impossible to accesss https:// webpages without special scripts & what-not using an OpenBSD Network System ( as we use at Office Depot ), so we were unable to access any of our KIOSK machines on Windows XP Home Edition Computers... Funny how you use Home Edition in the example and not one made for networking of that nature, such as Professional edition. That'd be like me saying "Oh Linux (compiled without support for journaling filesystems) doesn't support journaling filesystems!" XP does NOT have administrator passwords in the way you said. There is an invisible universal administrator account that's accessible to the outside world. You Linux users love spreading lies, don't you? Next you'll say that there's a secret account on Windows XP that hypnotizes people and turns them into Nazis. Just to note: The hours I spent learning the insides of Windows XP are about 2 times the hours I've spent learning Linux so far, and I have a much more universal working knowledge of Linux. My knowledge with Mandrake is pretty much portable, My knowledge of XP does DICK on an NT 4.0 machine ( same Kernel and Dir Tree ). Yes. The fact that XP has vast amounts of improvements in 5.x is a problem, while Linux remaining the same for years and years in its primitive state is a good thing. Learn something REAL about computers while you're at it, what you know is just horse-crap jargan that MS feeds out to the ignorant public. Funny how since I don't like Linux, I must be completely computer illiterate, even if I was able to stay ahead of the rest of my UNIX/LINUX, many times without having to RTFM. To a Linux user, a computer literate person is somebody who pretends Linux is the greatest thing since hardcore lesbian porn. Face it. Linux is overrated and Windows XP is truly the superior operating system if being productive with your computer is what you want to go today. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	funny... (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:38:06 PM PST

	Because you obviously have no idea what a KIOSK machine in retail is. For your info, it's a machine designed to represent the machine used by the consumer so they get a feel for it WHILE shopping in an online experience so that they are more encouraged to buy. A network-ready machine with Pro edition would give them false information and wouldn't represent the product properly now would it? Thus it's impossible to do so. Our KIOSK was down from Oct - Dec until we finally found a suitable work around. We lost a lot of potential customers waiting around for us to reinit our KIOSKs. If you read about Windows XP ( Such as inside-out books ) you'll find that the administrator account still exists. It's supposed to be a NULL account that only starts up universal services. Unfortunately, you can also enter this account. The Windows XP stuff I had to read were tech documents. If you don't read those, you DO NOT know everything about it. They were also reviews, findings, and programmer's tips. You may think you were ahead of the curve, but obviously you weren't. Or you were like 4 or 5 years ago, which means you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE. What the hell is this "5.x" you're talking about? If you're trying to talk about an NT version, that was Windows 2000. A Home version (95/98/ME) this is only 4, so I don't know what the heck you're talking about. And Linux is UNDERRATED. Just look at it, sooo many problems and discrepencies wouldn't exist, and the reason the software isn't as good is because of Microsoft's backstabs and contractual agreements. I love how you say you know so much, but you never really explain HOW you know so much. You've never once answered my question as to your credibility, and when were you involved with Linux or Unix? Linux is NOT a non-RTFM Operating System, very little can be known without reading at least SOME manuals. You don't just 'magically' know things and figure out things...

	LFT Reached (none / 0) (#79)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:33:16 PM PST

	Because you obviously have no idea what a KIOSK machine in retail is. For your info, it's a machine designed to represent the machine used by the consumer so they get a feel for it WHILE shopping in an online experience so that they are more encouraged to buy. A network-ready machine with Pro edition would give them false information and wouldn't represent the product properly now would it? Thus it's impossible to do so. Our KIOSK was down from Oct - Dec until we finally found a suitable work around. We lost a lot of potential customers waiting around for us to reinit our KIOSKs. You're right. I don't know what a KIOSK is and neither would any of your potential Windows XP Home Edition customers. If you can't make your network easy enough for you to set it up, how in God's name would you expect home users to do it? Don't blame Windows XP for your inability to set up a proper KIOSK machine. Besides, if they wanted an online shopping experience, they wouldn't have went to your fucking store in the first place. Next time, why not simply set up an ordinary computer to show off Windows XP rather than try to make it more complicated for yourselves so you could bash Windows? And Linux is UNDERRATED. Just look at it, sooo many problems and discrepencies wouldn't exist, and the reason the software isn't as good is because of Microsoft's backstabs and contractual agreements. I have used Linux, and it wasn't nearly as good as you apologists claim. By the way, you have officially cross the Linux fault threshold. What the hell is this "5.x" you're talking about? If you're trying to talk about an NT version, that was Windows 2000. A Home version (95/98/ME) this is only 4, so I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I haven't used Home edition of Windows XP, so you may be right about it being as bad as Windows 95/98/ME. As for Windows XP Professional Edition, it is 5.x (not sure of the exact number) and is indeed much better than Linux. I will give you the benefit of assuming that you knew that Pro Edition was 5.x, although I'm sure you didn't know. The Windows XP stuff I had to read were tech documents. If you don't read those, you DO NOT know everything about it. They were also reviews, findings, and programmer's tips. You may think you were ahead of the curve, but obviously you weren't. Or you were like 4 or 5 years ago, which means you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE. You are correct. I easily knew how to navigate through Linux and I knew how to fix problems in Linux without having to ask for help. I also had no trouble installing Debian Linux, which many say has a pain in the ass installer. Don't even ask me about how easy it was for me to install programs from the source tarballs. I must be some kind of moron! I love how you say you know so much, but you never really explain HOW you know so much. You've never once answered my question as to your credibility, and when were you involved with Linux or Unix? Linux is NOT a non-RTFM Operating System, very little can be known without reading at least SOME manuals. You don't just 'magically' know things and figure out things... In what way do you want me to prove to you all that I have used Linux? I'll provide some screenshots of my usage and if you desire, I'll take a fucking picture with me holding a Mandrake box. If that isn't enough, then you Linux users are simply in denial that not everybody will get a boner for your shitty operating system that needs tons of tweaking to reach the same potential as Windows XP. I'm sorry, but productivity is where I want to go today, not busy tweaking for hours and still not have the potential I would have in Windows XP. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	My experience with Linux (5.00 / 2) (#12)
	by moriveth on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:57:54 PM PST

	I'm no "computer whiz," but I decided to try Linux because I kept hearing it mentioned on the Internet. Now, I'm obviously not one of those "hackers," but I programmed some Fortran in college and a little Visual Basic more recently, and I basically know my way around a computer pretty well, so you'd think I'd be the kind of guy who'd like Linux, right? Well, no. To make a long story short, I wansn't impressed. Ok, I'll make a short story long. (LOL!) I got a Linux user to install it for me, so I don't know how hard it was, but it looked pretty strange and he deleted the "Manual Boot Record" (maybe a Linux user would know what that means). Anyway, I was real pleased once he finished. It kind of looked like Windows, only it marked me as a sophisticated and intelligent computer user! Or something like that. Then...the nightmare began. First, Internet Explorer isn't available, only inferior browsers like Netscape and Konqueror. But that's ok, I can live with a browser that crashes every half hour, right? Well, it turns out there were other things I couldn't live with, like: The lack of a good word processor or spreadsheet application. The snotty, superior attitude of Linux users when asked simple questions like, "How can I set up my Sound Card?" The absence of Windows functionality like Shortcuts--they sure make things easier for me! Having to recompile the kernel to do practically anything. The inability to copy and paste. How the HELL can I do a simple thing like rename a file?! This by no means exhausts my complaints with Linux. It merely scratches the surface of my immense frustration with this (non-)operating system. Best of all, I got "hacked" inside of a week. That was the last straw. I re-installed Windows 98 and everything was just great--it was like entering a warm house after being out in a snowstorm! I've never been hacked running Windows. I think my experience proves that those geeks who claim Linux is more secure than Windows are morons. I hope all non-computer experts take my advice and step real carefully around Linux. If it's for anyone, it's for obsessed nerds with the spare time to learn the minute details of an operating system that makes DOS seem easy to use. It's not for people like us.

	Your nightmare (1.00 / 2) (#16)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 09:43:58 PM PST

	Netscape and Konqueror crash every half hour? Wow, I wonder if anybody told that to my Netscape. It crashes less than Internet Explorer, both running on Windows 98. Setting up a sound card isn't easy for any operating system. It assumes that your OS has a copy of the necessary drivers. For a new user, setting up a sound card on a Windows machine is a nightmare. For an expert, setting up a sound card on a Windows machine is a pain in the ass. Windows only allocates a very limited amount of resources, and a lot of higher-end soundcards require more than their fair share of those resources. My condolences for the snotty responses, though. Snobs will be snobs, no matter what operating system you run. I understand that the KDE is still in its relative infancy. However, what you want is probably out there. Check Linux software sites to find what you want. One of the features I love about Unix windows is the ability to switch back and forth between processes just by holding my mouse over the desired window. You can't copy and paste in Unix? You can't use your keyboard, or even your mouse? You're right. Unix environments are not for you. How do you rename a file in Unix? By typing "mv <oldfilename> <newfilename>". It's that keyboard thing again. Sorry to bring up that painful topic. It helps to read up on what you're jumping into before you jump into it. As for getting hacked, did you change your root password? And how well do you know this friend who set up your OS for you? Inquiring minds want to know... A troll's true colors.

	This Linux-user arrogance I know all too well... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 12:56:20 AM PST

	People like you often wonder why so few real people use Linux. Hint: look in the mirror, SpaceGhoti. Like so many Linux users, you're a conceited ass, convinced that your superior knowledge of Linux makes you a more intelligent (ergo better) individual. Well, that's not true. In fact, SpaceGhoti, you demonstrate an amusingly cavalier attitude towards the facts that goes hand in hand with your arrogant spite. In fact, I'm not sure if you're attempting to "troll" me or not, but I'll take you seriously, and if that means you get some sick amusement out of denigrating your technical inferior, so be it. Herewith: All versions of Netscape have crashed every 30 minutes since the beginning of time. Or perhaps my unique aura is unfavorable to the operation of computer software (I have, in fact, long suspected this). If IE crashes, ever, you've got a problem. It shouldn't. It doesn't for me or anyone else I know (are you using the correct version?). And no other browser is as fast or renders as many pages correctly as IE. Even many Linux advocates admit this. Setting up a sound card: I'll have you know that I've set up sound cards in DOS (DOS!) with far less trouble than I've had with Linux. But clearly I'm just a yammering idiot, right, SpaceGhoti? Regarding copy and paste: I understand the concept of copy and paste fine, thank you. I am merely curious why, when I "copy" in (for example) Konqueror, and select "paste" in a different program, like Emacs, why doesn't it paste what I copied? What incredibly obvious principle am I missing, SpaceGhoti? As for the "root password," I would have to ask my friend whether he changed it (from what?) or not. Although I do not see why it should matter. That about does it. Now, if you want to mock a pathetic Windows user who tried Linux and was burned, go right ahead.

	tips for ya (3.00 / 2) (#19)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:55:21 AM PST

	All versions of Netscape have crashed every 30 minutes since the beginning of time. Or perhaps my unique aura is unfavorable to the operation of computer software (I have, in fact, long suspected this). I find that nuking the pitiful shell MS insist on throwing into Windows really helps. I did this and Netscape hasn't crashed yet. Setting up a sound card: I'll have you know that I've set up sound cards in DOS (DOS!) with far less trouble than I've had with Linux. But clearly I'm just a yammering idiot, right, SpaceGhoti? Setting up a sound card (or any other device) can sometimes be a pain no matter what OS you are using. Most of the time for me it's a pathetic IRQ conflict. The other problem is the Windows "let daddy help"/driver signing bullshit. MS says this driver will work much better. OK. Now reboot. It was funny to see Windows load...and the flop on its ass. As for the "root password," I would have to ask my friend whether he changed it (from what?) or not. Although I do not see why it should matter. Well you said your "friend" set it up for you. Did he choose the password or did you? Who astually typed it in? If it was you did you make sure he didn't watch you type it? If he knew the root password it would be extremely easy for him to crack. It could have been your "friend". You know just as a joke. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Signed drivers work (none / 0) (#29)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:17:22 AM PST

	Setting up a sound card (or any other device) can sometimes be a pain no matter what OS you are using. Most of the time for me it's a pathetic IRQ conflict. The other problem is the Windows "let daddy help"/driver signing bullshit. MS says this driver will work much better. OK. Now reboot. It was funny to see Windows load...and the flop on its ass. Please supply information on which driver you're talking about. It must be for a sound card, yet if you own a (fairly common at this point) sound card like the SB Live, I don't see what the problem could be. I haven't had a problem with those drivers at all, and even setting up my four way surround speaker system was a breeze. Your problem may stem from the fact that you were using some hacker's "illegal, optimized" drivers. These drivers are not supported by the original manufacturers of the hardware, and you get what you deserve for playing with them.

	This is what I was installing (none / 0) (#41)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:03:41 PM PST

	Philips Acoustic Edge 5.1 I installed the dirvers which MS said would work better and Windows flopped on it's ass. I later installed the drivers which came with the card and it work perfectly. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers (none / 0) (#22)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:32:54 AM PST

	Well, here's the first shocker: I am not a Linux user. I don't know enough about Unix administration, only user-level. I log onto Unix machines other people run to use them (with permission, thankyouverymuch). Eventually, when I find employment in my new home city, I'll put together two machines: the first will be a Windows environment (because I know how to build it), and the second will be a Linux environment (because I don't know how to build it, and I want to learn). My comments to you were restricted to either Windows administration (like the sound card installation) or user-level Unix commands (mv). I did not speak to that which I did not know. Here's the second shocker: Netscape is very stable for me. Always has been, always will be. I've kept Netscape open for days on end, clicking back and forth to my favorite sites with nary a hiccup. It's fast, it's easily customizable and I'm comfortable with it. IE is also stable, but I like it less. I don't like the feel and customization as much, mostly. Yes, it does crash on me more often than Netscape, but I didn't intend to imply that it crashes all the time. I usually use the second-to-latest and greatest version of IE, because I know better than to use a Microsoft product straight off the development floor. Here's the third shocker: I'm not mocking you. Some of my statements may have been mocking (probably toward the end, as your complaints becaming whining and petty), but overall I was attempting to sympathize and answer some of your complaints. You don't have to like Linux. I'm easy that way. You go with what you like, I'll go with what I like. I don't do the OS/browser holy wars. My preferences are based on my own research and experience. Yours are based on whatever motivates you. That's fine by me, and at no time did I mock you or otherwise insinuate hostile sentiments for your preference of Windows. Here's the last and final shocker: your friend might be your hacker. If your friend set it up and you didn't change your root password after setup was complete, then your friend had the key to get in and do whatever he wanted with your computer. I'm not saying he did do it; it might have been someone else. But as the police would say, he's the primary suspect. Read up on hacking and crime sometime; you'll find that the butler does it more often than not. Enjoy your Windows experience. Linux isn't for you, and that's not a bad thing. It just is. A troll's true colors.

	Yes and no (4.00 / 1) (#23)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:34:29 AM PST

	Yea I prefer internet explorer over netscape personally because pages look as they should in IE. Then again I do find internet explorer does crash quite a lot more than netscape. Unless you have both installed then the only reason netscape crashes is because internet explorer causes it!! What web authors should do is write the web pages to be compatible with both browsers but they often only bother with IE and thats why netscape sometimes displays the pages wrong - its not netscapes fault. Maybe the reason you couldnt do half the stuff in linux is because you didnt know the commands and where stuff was. You cant say windows is easier just because you know all the DOS commands. I find windows easier than Linux but thats because Ive been using it all my life not because its better or anything. Internet Explorer and Windows are both Microsoft products so they designed them to allow copying and pasting between them. Same with notepad. If programmers want to allow their programs they have to use the API. Maybe Linux doesnt have a copy-paste environment or maybe netscape wasnt programmed to do it - a lot of windows programs wont allow you to copy and paste stuff to other programs too. the root password is kind of important. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	IE has been out for 2 years on linux (none / 0) (#35)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:24:45 PM PST

	IE has been out for 2 years on linux The fact that you pathetic little dimwits refuse to use a truly superior browser and use some preschool browser for a third rate OS while ignoring the fact that MS has selflessly ported their browser to that very same third rate OS is nothing short of astounding! http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp? I have beaten dogs smarter than linux zealots. --philipm

	where is it? (none / 0) (#39)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:51:58 PM PST

	I don't see Linux in the drop down box. TRy looking at the BOOTOM of the page when you select an OS (not the top). You will find that OLDER versions of IE are only available for HP-UX and Sun Solaris and no other Unix-based OSes. They are only distributed as binaries so they cannot be ported easily to to other unix variants including IBMs AIX, Compaq's Tru64Unix, BSD, Linux, AtheOS, etc. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?*

	see (none / 0) (#40)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:58:04 PM PST

	this is exactly what I'm talking about. LiNUX. Get it? NUX? --philipm

	what are you trying to say? (none / 0) (#48)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:31:48 PM PST

	No I don't get it. How does that show that IE has been available for LINUX for 2 years? Also MS isn't exactly supporting Unix platforms with recent software. I seriously doubt you'll see IE6 on Solaris. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Isn't Linux UNIX? (none / 0) (#65)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:21:52 PM PST

	It's funny how Linux users state that any software that is made for UNIX can run on Linux and all other nuxes. I guess IE is an exception, eh? As for IE6 not being on Solaris, that is because Solaris is uncapable of having the advanced features of IE6. Hell, UNIX has yet to have anti-aliasing done as well as Windows XP. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.*

	Problem: (none / 0) (#68)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:29:09 PM PST

	Unix doesn't control anti-aliasing or other graphical things like that, it's all hardware based. The graphics cards do, so if you're having problems update or reevaluate your graphics card(s). It's not like Windows or anything OS9 or earlier where it's all software based.

	Sorry, but... (none / 0) (#64)
	by budlite on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:23:13 PM PST

	IE isn't available for Linux. It's available for a few Unix variants (and I've used the Solaris port), but not Linux. Unless...of course! There's a little piece of software called WINE which can run Windows software on POSIX-compliant operating systems! Internet Explorer included.

	wow... (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:26:46 PM PST

	slow down killer... linux takes time and patience. the best thing you can do is have an expert set you up to get xwindows (the gui part), your internet connection, and sound/video/hardware all working. once all this is setup, which is NOT hard, half the battle is done. if you would open your mind and get out of the windows "where are the icons" mindset, the linux experience would be a lot better. linux is VERY different! "All versions of Netscape have crashed every 30 minutes since the beginning of time. Or perhaps my unique aura is unfavorable to the operation of computer software (I have, in fact, long suspected this)" sorry, my netscape isn't setup to crash every 30 minutes. you might want to try mozilla if netscape is acting up. * If IE crashes, ever , you've got a problem. It shouldn't. It doesn't for me or anyone else I know (are you using the correct version?). And no other browser is as fast or renders as many pages correctly as IE. Even many Linux advocates admit this." interesting point. get your head out of your closed windows world and wake up! programs crash... it happens.. IE crashes on my parent's windows machine all the time. again, mozilla/netscape hardly ever crash on this machine. i'm not going to even say they DONT EVER crash because they DO. i most definately prefer IE over netscape any day, but you know what? it crashed for me just like netscape/mozilla do. "* Regarding copy and paste: I understand the concept of copy and paste fine, thank you. I am merely curious why, when I "copy" in (for example) Konqueror, and select "paste" in a different program, like Emacs, why doesn't it paste what I copied? What incredibly obvious principle am I missing, SpaceGhoti?" you aren't in windows... did you ever think to ask someone or maybe read a little bit on it BEFORE you installed the os? didn't think so. if you highlight the text you want copied, and you have a three-wheel mouse, clicking the middle mouse button will copy anything highlighted. You are not a pathetic windows user. You tried linux and was burned, but don't even try to say linux is to blame. Sit down, print some manuals BEFORE YOU INSTALL, ask a friend to spend a little time with you; it might actually be that you like linux.

	Total FUD (none / 0) (#49)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:38:27 PM PST

	All versions of Netscape have crashed every 30 minutes since the beginning of time. Or perhaps my unique aura is unfavorable to the operation of computer software (I have, in fact, long suspected this). This is totally untrue, the Mac Version crashed every 15 minutes

	Linux-user arrogance is one thing.. (none / 0) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:08:28 AM PST

	--All versions of Netscape have crashed every 30 minutes since the beginning of time. Or perhaps my unique aura is unfavorable to the operation of computer software (I have, in fact, long suspected this). This is simple FUD. I run Netscape 4.78, 6.02, as well as Mozilla, and Opera. None of them crash every 30 minutes, let alone thirty days. --If IE crashes, ever, you've got a problem. It shouldn't. It doesn't for me or anyone else I know (are you using the correct version?). And no other browser is as fast or renders as many pages correctly as IE. Even many Linux advocates admit this. Name five Linux advocates that admit this. IE renders pages htat are sepcifically coded for IE more "correctly" but for the vast majority of sites out there, this is an incorrect statement. Try www.t-online.de and see how it looks in you IE, and how it looks in other browsers. Check out the incorrect rendering of colors under IE.Setting up a sound card: I'll have you know that I've set up sound cards in DOS (DOS!) with far less trouble than --Setting up a sound card: I'll have you know that I've set up sound cards in DOS (DOS!) with far less trouble than I've had with Linux. But clearly I'm just a yammering idiot, right, SpaceGhoti? Yup, you are a yammering idiot. SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat and a new distro ELX, all recognize my sound cards, install the proper drivers and set the cards up. The first time that I log in to KDE, I hear the lovely KDE sound theme. Besides, if you had ever really done this in DOS, you surely could have done it in Linux, since there is NOTHING to do! --Regarding copy and paste: I understand the concept of copy and paste fine, thank you. I am merely curious why, when I "copy" in (for example) Konqueror, and select "paste" in a different program, like Emacs, why doesn't it paste what I copied? What incredibly obvious principle am I missing, SpaceGhoti? How about the middle mouse button? --As for the "root password," I would have to ask my friend whether he changed it (from what?) or not. Although I do not see why it should matter. Of course you do not see why it would matter, since win9x has no security at all. Anyone logging in to your copmuter has access to all of your data, by default, under Win9x. Since this is a huge problem, you really need to upgrade to an NT box, at least. By default, under Linux, no one in my house that uses my computer can hurt it in any way, shape or form. They can hose their won home directory, but my stuff is safe. Do you understand why it matters now? The world is not safe with people like you around. ...to spout off about things you know nothing about and get called out on it is another....

	questionable (3.00 / 2) (#17)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 09:47:59 PM PST

	What's a "Manual Boot Record"? I know what a Master Boot Record is but I'm not too sure about that. What distro did the person install? GNOME or KDE? Why did you expect Internet Explorer? The only non-Windows OS you're likely to find with IE install these days is Apple. And that's only because Apple pays the huge licensing fees. The small list of things you couldn't find or do are there and they are EXTREMELY simple. I wanna tackle th simple thing like reneaming a file Using the GUI try right-clicking and choosing RENAME. If you wanna do it from a command prompt switch to the directory (cd [directory]/ [subdirectory]..... Then simply type ren [filename] Do not type the brackets! Now you wanna try to make up a more believable story next time? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Interesting--your suggestion doesn't work (none / 0) (#30)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:31:29 AM PST

	I decided to try your method for renaming files on an acquaintance's Unix system. I typed it in and got the result: `ren: Command not found.` So if I didn't do anything wrong, it doesn't work, or maybe it's different under Linux than just Unix. SpaceGhoti's method worked for me, though. But how am I supposed to know that you rename a file using "mv," anyway?! It's small but important things like this that make using Linux a frustrating, unintuitive experience compared with Windows. As for "Manual Boot Record," it may have been the "Master Boot Record" that got messed up, I don't know. I think the type of Linux installed wasn't either KDE or GNOME, but RedHat 6.0. Are KDE and GNOME more Windows-like and intuitive?

	whoops (none / 0) (#37)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:35:57 PM PST

	My fault, I found that many linux distros do have additional DOS commands in order to ease the migration to Linux. Typing the `dir` command in some linux distros will produce no result you have to use `ls`. Same goes for `copy` and `cp`. `mv file1 file2` works across the board. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	But isn't it so much more fun this way? (none / 0) (#38)
	by elenchos on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:41:15 PM PST

	Getting flamed by an arrogant dickhead every time you have a question about your computer? FOR FREE!!! Sure, you could pay money to some commercial outfit like Apple or Dell to sell you a complete computer with support and everything, but who wants to put up with all that "customer service"? It's so phoney! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	If you don't want fun,... (none / 0) (#42)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:16:57 PM PST

	...you can buy customer service for Linux as well. eLinux is authorized reseller of Linux-based machines - including customer support, RedHat offers service contracts as well, LinuxCare offers paid customer support. A set of more links can be found at Google Linux support directory. Or you can befriend and contract your local geek if you prefer personal interaction over strictly-business relations. I have couple of such service contracts. As far, they work pretty well for both sides and bring me a comfortable side income without paperwork.

	so he should pay for abuse, then? (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:53:50 PM PST

	Yes but customer service companies for Lunix employ the arrogant, flaming dickheads elenchos can get for free. Think about it the possible employment sources. What other category of people have wasted their youth on Lunix? Or you can befriend and contract your local geek if you prefer personal interaction Please resolve the internal contradictions in your sentences before submitting. man preview, or something.

	command sets (none / 0) (#45)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:29:12 PM PST

	Understand that Unix was first developed by bored computer techs with more of a sense of humor than practicality. Many commands are abbreviations of what the developer thought it was supposed to do, which is why you have `cp, mv, grep, sed, awk` et al. No, Unix is not intuitive, and probably never will be. It requires time, patience and research to master. Many years ago I bought a second-hand car. It was a 1980 Ford Mustang, and I'd never driven a manual shift Ford before. My experience with manual shift had always been with Toyota. So damn me if I didn't find the reverse gear to be broken! It absolutely refused to accept that gear! I spent a few days working around this handicap, until someone more familiar with cars than I was pointed out that the reverse gear in a manual shift Ford is slightly different. You have to push to the side, then sort of angle down. Lo and behold, my car had a reverse gear after all! The moral of this story is that before you assume something is broken, it helps to read the manual first. In the case of Unix, it helps to pick up a book and discover what undiscovered country you're about to travel. Unix is a world apart from Windows, and you can't expect it to be like a Bill Gates production. Linux is attempting to introduce Unix to the common user, but somebody needs to add a disclaimer that it requires a new skillset. Perhaps in time somebody will add more shortcuts to KDE to give more of a "Windows" feel to it, but I get the feeling that would defeat the purpose. They don't want to emulate Windows, they want to offer an alternative. A troll's true colors.

	O.O (none / 0) (#53)
	by ShadowWolf on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:24:27 PM PST

	Redhat is, in my opinion, an utterly terrible distribution. It's like Windows meets Horrible marketing and bias people!! If you're looking for a user friend, easy, and something that offers both ease of use AND gives you the overall ability to customize and do advanced things without destroying the system go for Mandrake 8.1. It's a little bit more now, but the cost is worth it. It comes packaged with an app called Star Office ( take MS office and give it the ability to take just about ANY document type!! ), automatic drive, Sound Card, Video Card, X setup, and USB detection. Ease of use! Decent shortcuts, new technology, support for just about EVERYTHING, good sound, and over 10,000 rpms & tar.gz's!! You can basically do ANYTHING you would want to with Windows on this Linux distribution ( I sound like a commercial ) and the install is VERY automated. You can go so easy as clicking buttons and answering questions all the way to manually fdisking and choosing packages! If'n your new to Linux or don't have to mess with it but want the benefits, Mandrake is for you!

	really? (none / 0) (#57)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:55:06 PM PST

	I guess my experience with Red Hat was a little different. I used Mandrake and it seemed like it would be betters for newbies. I had gotten my copy of SuSE Linux 7.2 LiveEval. It runs completely of the CD so everything was kid of limited to the seek time of my DVDROM drive. It was rather hard to get a feel for it. I've been reading up about this RedmondLinux and how it's supposed to make the switch to Linux extremely easy and be a great desktop distro. Of course I am a little cautious about installing it on my system. There seems to be a lot of confusion and talk around by the RL developers especially about the licensing. Not to mention the eerie ties to another Redmond company. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	This is why (none / 0) (#63)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:49:31 PM PST

	The very fact that there are numerous 'distributions' of Linux is proof positive that it is nothing more than a cobbled together piece of crap that no one can really use to accomplish anything meaningful. There are a multitude of groups (I hesitate to use the word 'company' to describe them) out there who put together their particular version of Linux. Red Hat, Mandrake, KDE, Gnome, Turbo Linux, Caldera, Bee Hive, Corel, PPC, Debian, Sackware, Helix, Connectiva. I could go on for hours. Contrast this with Windows, there is just one single version out there at any particular time. (Yes, I know there are Professional, Home, etc. but those are more about what tools come with the OS, not entirely different systems). That one system is backed by a huge company with top notch technical support. Can that be said about any version of Linux? No! Essentially, all of these people who put out distributions are just standing in line behind the multitude of others who came before them in trying to make something useful out of Linux. It is impossible. No one has yet made a distribution that people like, no one has yet made one that people are willing to pay for. Please tell your fellow hackers to give up. It is a lost cause.

	Grrr (none / 0) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:22:09 PM PST

	Actually, the fact that there are numerous distributions is because NOTHING ( and I mean NOTHING ) is held back from the end users. Because of this, any joe schmoe can go out and make his own version of Linux. This is why Linux can support up to 8 Processors, Unlimited amounts of RAM ( Windows XP is limited to 7 GB ), has no hard drive limitations, and is also why you don't have to buy new versions to get updates for a lot of new hardware and what-not. Thank you. By the way, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, Open, and plain ol' Linux ALL come with Tech Support just as good as the lame-brains at Microsoft's. --ShadowWolf ( Login Problems )

	KDE & GNOME (none / 0) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 11:39:09 PM PST

	KDE and GNOME are GUI (Graphic User Interface) which come with some if not with all releases of linux.

	Losers... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:23:54 PM PST

	In the real world, losers are people who think others are losers for their choice of operating system.

	Your Linux xperience (none / 0) (#60)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:51:47 AM PST

	--I got a Linux user to install it for me, so I don't know how hard it was, but it looked pretty strange and he deleted the "Manual Boot Record" (maybe a Linux user would know what that means). Anyway, I was real pleased once he finished. It kind of looked like Windows, only it marked me as a sophisticated and intelligent computer user! Or something like that. That is the Master Boot Record. The thing that BG loves for his OS to overwrite, since you then have to repair it to get all of your OS's working if you are multi-booting OS's. --The lack of a good word processor or spreadsheet application. Well, there you have it, folks. The wintroll has shown is true colors. How can it be that you found no good wordprocessors or spreadsheets? Have you heard of StarOffice, WordPerfect, KOffice, Applixware? --The snotty, superior attitude of Linux users when asked simple questions like, "How can I set up my Sound Card?" Read the post in alt.os.windows-xp, if you really want to see people get ugly. These are windoze users who call other windoze users idiots because they cannot get the supposedly most simply OS in the world to act the way it is expected to. Sound card problems, mysterious reboots, setting up a home network--all of it is there is black and white. --The absence of Windows functionality like Shortcuts--they sure make things easier for me! Hmm, let's see... Yup! Under KDE, setting up a shortcut is identical as doing it under windoze--are you sure that you tried Linux? --Having to recompile the kernel to do practically anything. Nope, you have never used Linux. No one needs to recompile a kernel, anymore. All of it is loaded as modules when you need it. This is thx to those windoze losers who cannot figure out what software they really need. Bullshit, you say? Well, why does windoze need to load drivers for every piece of hardware that ever existed, during the install. I have no SCSI devices in my computer, but if I ever get one, I know that MS installed it for me. --The inability to copy and paste. Do you know how to use a mouse? I thought not. See they work the same under Linux and windoze--only under Linux it is much better, since I do not need to open a dialogu box and click on copy, then paste. Under Linux, I simply use the middle mouse button. Sure, under windoze, I can do ctrl-v, ctrl-c, but that takes longer than highlighting test and pressing the middle mouse button where I want the text to be pasted. And yes, I can set up shortcut keys in KDE to do all of this without the mouse, but why bother? --How the HELL can I do a simple thing like rename a file?! In Linux, there are things called window managers and if you right-click on a file, you can rename it, copy it, move it, do whatever you damned well please, since it is really difficult to use cp * , or mv '. Windoze has something similar called windoze explorer, in case you don't know. --I hope all non-computer experts take my advice and step real carefully around Linux. If it's for anyone, it's for obsessed nerds with the spare time to learn the minute details of an operating system that makes DOS seem easy to use. It's not for people like us. Nope, it is not for the stupid masses who have become used to being controlled by others, lack the ability to form an intelligent opinion after doing real research, who have forgotten that learning can be fun and that reading is truly fundamental. Even BG uses Linux, how else is he going to "innovate?"

	whatever (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:08:40 AM PST

	anybody who is a target for a virus will have no problem logging into root and running the infected program in Linsux. what? excuse my idioty, i didn't understand that one. It is funny how people claim that Microsoft is a monopoly yet always claim how Linsux is serious competition for Microsoft Windows. That statement contradicts itself. no it doesn't. it goes hand in hand with "people tend to be stupid" These same Linsux apologists also have a way of supporting companies such as Apple, IBM, Sony, and Sun, which have far more unethical tactics than Microsoft ever had. What is with your lack of consistency? well, if you can't beat capitalism, join it. There might be uses for Linsux, such as learning how to build your own amateur operating system, but for regular desktop usage, Microsoft Windows XP is simply the superior opeating system. true, but only for regular desktop usage. win xp is for stupid people, that's why it's so popular.

	The reason why Linux isnt as vulnerable to viruses (none / 0) (#26)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:59:34 AM PST

	"anybody who is computer literate enough to run Linsux is computer literate enough to avoid any viruses that might do harm to one's system." No, the real reason is that hardly anyone writes viruses for Linux. All virus programmers write them for WINDOWS!!!! Its a sort of punishment thing. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	What bull Crap! (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:07:40 AM PST

	In this article it's said that XP has no serious security flaws yet just the other day Microsoft and the FBI issued a warning! I have NEVER seen the FBI issue a warning for any other operating system! http://www.msnbc.com/news/675850.asp The flaws, first reported by The Associated Press Thursday, create an extensive playground for malicious hackers. One permits hackers to take complete control of a victim's computer from anywhere on the Internet. Another allows a computer criminal to mass an entire network of computers into a denial-of-service attack by issuing a single set of instructions. The vulnerabilities exist in a new Universal Plug and Play service installed by default in all Windows XP systems. Windows 98 and Windows ME users might also be impacted, but only if the special Universal Plug and Play features had been added. Sounds like Microsoft may be funding this site. Hummmmmm! All Microsoft does is steal ideas from other companies.

	Probally (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:19:54 PM PST

	This site does have a anti-linux bias and has stupid articles by complete computer illiterate imbeciles (does the "Is your son a computer hacker" ring a bell?) that i have started not to take this site seriously anymore. And about the "extreme vunerability to hacking of lunix". You said that hacker has to hack into the comp and pretty much try to crack the root password. The thing is atleast linux has a administrator login for the hackers to try and get through but guess what? WINDOWS DOESNT HAVE ONE! So the hacker would find it much easier to hack windows than linux because they dont have to mess with passwords and other things that makes LINUX MORE SECURE THAN WINDOZE. And about Windoze not monopolizing, due you are one brainwashed fucker. Microsoft runs on 95% of all the computers on the world!!!! The person who has wrote this really needs to get a clue.

	there's a reason why its 95% (none / 0) (#44)
	by Husaria on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:59:22 PM PST

	its much easier for joe blow to use than Linux and its just as secure, even if they have some problems, no program is perfect, it is virtually impossible to create a bugless program that will run on all OSes in any enviroment and these editors are honest people who are not in the pay service of microsoft. they're just people who speak their mind in a hostile world Sig sigger

	Errr... (none / 0) (#67)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:27:12 PM PST

	Microsoft is #1 because of Shady Dealings and VERY VERY Smart Marketing ( probably the BEST I've ever seen ), NOT a good OS. Windows isn't ( and in fact never has been ) as secure as many other OS's out there. It's very open and very easy to hack -- thus is why people do it. --ShadowWolf

	LOL (none / 0) (#70)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:15:59 AM PST

	Microsoft is #1 because of Shady Dealings and VERY VERY Smart Marketing ( probably the BEST I've ever seen ), NOT a good OS. Windows isn't ( and in fact never has been ) as secure as many other OS's out there. It's very open and very easy to hack -- thus is why people do it. When I was using Linux and knew nothing about Microsoft Windows XP except propaganda, I might have believed you. Now that I've eXPerienced the greatness that is Microsoft Windows XP, I can honestly say that you are full of shit. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Wha... (none / 0) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:27:39 PM PST

	What version of Linux did you use? I use BOTH Linux AND Windows XP...my WinXP because it's easier to use with my laptop because I bought it from Compaq, also because I'd like to have my mobile machine compatable with my college. I'd say, without a doubt, Linux is better than Windows XP. Besides, if you doubt ( in any way ) Microsoft's shady dealings you're just a media product and have no clue what you're talking about anyways ( which is probably true beside-the-fact. ).

	Linux Sucks (none / 0) (#78)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:08:32 PM PST

	What version of Linux did you use? I use BOTH Linux AND Windows XP...my WinXP because it's easier to use with my laptop because I bought it from Compaq, also because I'd like to have my mobile machine compatable with my college. I used Mandrake Linux and Debian Linux. Debian Linux I'd say, without a doubt, Linux is better than Windows XP. I'd say, without a doubt, Windows XP is better than Linux. Besides, if you doubt ( in any way ) Microsoft's shady dealings you're just a media product and have no clue what you're talking about anyways ( which is probably true beside-the-fact. ). I know of Microsoft's ethics. If you doubt, in any way, of Richard Stallman's agenda, you're just a typical communist apologist and have no clue of what you're talking about and have never actually used Windows XP, which is probably true anyway. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	my god i'm sick of linux groupies (4.00 / 1) (#31)
	by iceweezel on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 11:30:23 AM PST

	it's just a tool. it's JUST ANOTHER FREAKING TOOL FROM A TOOLBOX TO DO JOBS WITH. YES, I KNOW I'M FREAKING YELLING! Before we begin, I'm a professional programmer (C/C++/VB, if you have to know), so don't tell me I don't know computers. (Of course, I'm sure you will.) Linux isn't special. It isn't salvation on CD. Linux is NOT JESUS CHRIST. I don't understand why some people must insist that the messiah will personally come down from heaven to fellate you if you run Linux on your computer. It's just one more tool. An OS is a TOOL. Linux can make a nice little mail, web, or database server. But it can't do everything, and it even does some things pretty badly. The entire architecture for X server comes to mind. Grow up. Get over your penis envy of Bill Gates' stellar business accomplishments and admit that different tools have different strengths.

	i agree. (3.00 / 1) (#32)
	by derek3000 on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 11:47:05 AM PST

	I was into Linux a little bit before. I think that the direction it should head in is server-side. i don't think that it should try to compete with Windows for the desktop, although it would be nice to see a more customizeable desktop for Windows. If it is going to compete in such a fashion, it needs to innovate instead of imitate. There have been a number of articles lately talking about user interface design which say that the desktop isn't the best metaphor for the computer. What's better? I'm not sure, but maybe Linux should try to come up with that answer instead of making crappy attempts at re-creating the Microsoft look. Why can't I just right-click the desktop to change my X resolution? Simple things like this piss me off. I'm currently running XP and haven't experienced any problems. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	XP does not hold a candle to Linux (none / 0) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:33:14 AM PST

	--Furthermore, anybody who is a target for a virus will have no problem logging into root and running the infected program in Linsux. I will give you my IP address and you can try and get my root password, if you like. Windoze is blasted for having security problems because BG told the world that it is the most secure OS ever. Didn't quite live up to the billing, did it? --There might be uses for Linsux, such as learning how to build your own amateur operating system, but for regular desktop usage, Microsoft Windows XP is simply the superior operating system. Would you mind telling us how XP is superior? All you did was spread some FUD and put out a bit of bait to troll with. No where in your post did you offer some real evidence of XP being better than Linux. MS has been found guilty, in a court of law, of violating the Sherman anti-trust act. They used strong arm tactics to ensure that no other OS would ever be bundled with hardware, they misused their position in the market to destroy competition, and they continue to produce software and, through planned obsolecense, force people to spend money on upgrades. BG himself admitted that windoze crashes, yet you MS flunkie continue to state otherwise. BG promises that the current version of windoze is the best ever, until a new version comes out that he claims fixes problems that his previous version was not even supposed to have. He wants to control all of your data, under the guise that he is doing you a favor and you will fall for it. Get a life and if Linux is too difficult for you, stick to windoze and keep paying your MS tax.

	No Doubt's the Best (none / 0) (#72)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:34:43 AM PST

	I will give you my IP address and you can try and get my root password, if you like. Windoze is blasted for having security problems because BG told the world that it is the most secure OS ever. Didn't quite live up to the billing, did it? Sorry. I'm not a hacker. It's also funny how when Linux has serious holes, you Linux users always make up excuses such as "the security flaws in 2.4.16 are irrelevant, as they will easily be fixed by by a simple patch." It seems that patching flaws in Linux is fine, but you criticize Windows XP without end for holes, that have been fixed already. Would you mind telling us how XP is superior? All you did was spread some FUD and put out a bit of bait to troll with. No where in your post did you offer some real evidence of XP being better than Linux. While containing the best parts of Linux, it has usable software, a great GUI, lovely ClearType fonts, and the only two applications for which I would keep Linux on my hard drive, the GIMP and StarOffice, are also on it. BG himself admitted that windoze crashes, yet you MS flunkie continue to state otherwise. BG promises that the current version of windoze is the best ever, until a new version comes out that he claims fixes problems that his previous version was not even supposed to have. He wants to control all of your data, under the guise that he is doing you a favor and you will fall for it. We Windows users never say Windows NEVER crashes. You Linux users are the ones who are always saying how Linux never crashes. I guess that's true if all you ever use is the console and vi, but if you use Linux like we use Windows, it will crash occasionally. I know that from experience. By the way, I have been using Windows XP for a couple days now and it has not crashed yet, while Linux did have the tendancy to crash every so often when I first used it. Get a life and if Linux is too difficult for you, stick to windoze and keep paying your MS tax. The fact that I have a life is why I won't use Linux anymore. As for it being too difficult, the fact that I was able to install Linux from scratch shows that it was a cakewalk for me. I simply do not have the time nor desire to waste my time with primitive overrated software even if it is free, because INNOVATION is where I want to go today. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	What about Mac OS X? (none / 0) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:49:47 PM PST

	Stronger, faster, better. You lose out in game support, but that's pretty much it. You win on superior hardware, superior graphics (in realtime), and generally maintaining a foot in both the trendy open source world and the more realistic desktop computing world. 'sides, any OS with such a beautiful interface, the ability to run Xwindows without suffering for it (and believe me, I've known some true Xwindows suffering), and in general get all the benefits some linux users get with none of the cost. The only hitch? The hardware, which much better than pentium or AMD architecture, is more expensive on the desktop. On the laptop however, it's much more competitive. It's not like money is hard to make, anyways.

	Why not do a real comparison? (none / 0) (#71)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:17:33 AM PST

	Compare a Pentium of the same price to an Apple of the same price, and I can assure you that the PC will whoop the Apple's ass. Quit with your Apple propaganda and just accept the fact that Apple screwed themselves over. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	HACK THE PLANET!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#75)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:57:44 PM PST

	1\|= ;00\|2 \|\\|07 1337 3\|\\|0\|_\|]>\|-\| 70 \|_\|$3 \|_00\|\\|1>< 7\|-\|3\|\\| \|)0\|\\|7 \|_\|$3 17

	Excuse me, but that's not quite right. (none / 0) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 02:17:00 PM PST

	Umm, Ma'am. You're mistaken. For equivalent prices, the Apple always wins, since about last year. In every way except memory architecture (and the next generation Apple computers will have rambus, so that problem will be solved). The megahertz count of a computer isn't really a performance metric. You could happily do a lot of comparisons, and I happily find that my machine tends to come out ahead. You can easily grab a 1+ Ghz machine from Dell, a P4, with monitor, for about $1100. For $1500, you can get an Apple wih monitor that wins on FLOPS and MIPS, that can simply run complicated programs faster due to architecture differences ( I'll spare you the details ) and only runs at 733mhz! If you are a student or educator, that can be much cheaper. Apple might have screwed itself over, but that doesn't mean it won't be a competitor soon. Hardware aside, Mac OS X squarely beats Windows XP. In what way? The only meaningful way when you get rid of hardware: Features. Name something Windows XP can do, and I'll give you the mac equivalent, prebundled. Heck, if you are really attached (emotionally or economically) to MS products, they've been ported, and work quite well. Have you played with a Mac OS X machine with an open mind? It's a remarkable OS. Now, if Apple just drop's it's prices 5-15%, they'll actually be in a position to really mess with the marketshare MS holds. Heck, if they just ported OS X to x86, that right there would be pretty much enough to put them in a real war, one they stand to win, given the current state of Windows XP. I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for an OS that is just a shiny polished Win2k. XP home has the raw sockets problem. Glad you found happiness in Windows XP. It's a decent OS. For people who "like to live in Disneyland" it's fine. You are missing out though, give OS X a try.

	Apple versus IBM (none / 0) (#81)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 04:35:50 PM PST

	The megahertz count of a computer isn't really a performance metric. You could happily do a lot of comparisons, and I happily find that my machine tends to come out ahead. You can easily grab a 1+ Ghz machine from Dell, a P4, with monitor, for about $1100. For $1500, you can get an Apple wih monitor that wins on FLOPS and MIPS, that can simply run complicated programs faster due to architecture differences ( I'll spare you the details ) and only runs at 733mhz! If you are a student or educator, that can be much cheaper. I know about the difference in megahertz, but unless there was a noticeable difference, unlike in Linux compared to Windows XP, in performance on similar priced hardware, I'd go with the PC. OS X does look nice, but unless it is actually superior to Windows XP and not just a matter of taste (or propaganda like from the Linsux camp), I'll stick with Windows XP because broke isn't where I want to go today. :) Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	IBM and apple work together though. (none / 0) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:21:51 PM PST

	Umm, IBM and Motorolla are the ones making the PPC chips, the G4e series, and most of the components for Apples. I know about the difference in megahertz, but unless there was a noticeable difference, unlike in Linux compared to Windows XP, in performance on similar priced hardware, I'd go with the PC. A reasonable stance to take, but I assure you, comparatively priced machines exist! Go to the Apple Store, set a budget of $1300, and you'll be amazed at what you get. For instance, an iMac is, dollar for dollar, about as good as those cruddy little Dell Systems people have been buying so much lately. The components are high quality, you don't need SO-SDRAM anymore, and they are no longer obsessed with goofy colors. :) Of course, the iMac has a rea stigma around it, and I'd advice waiting 3-5 months for the G4e iMacs to be finished, but other than that, it's a good deal. Especially as a workstation. I work at a lab that owns 4-5 of them, and once people get past the "iMac's are stupid because they have 1 button mice" nonsense, then they use them more than most of the Dell machines. I'm looking at the iBook pricing page right now, and $1299 for the low end laptop is pretty nice. It has about everything you need, and a lot more power (and battery life, with only 1 battery! These things are very light, as opposed to the VAIO line Sony has 2 batteries in for the ultimate in repetitive low stress weight lifting. Anyways, Apple's low end hardware is quite nice, people just don't look at is as much because their high-end stuff is so much more desirable. Even the lowest level machine in the desktop line or the tiBook series is an amazing machine, capable of a lot, even at that price range. I do agree with you to some extend, if Apple lowered their prices (as I said) they'd be truly competitive. I am the kind of person who wants the best operating system on the market, and from what I can see everything about Mac OS X is superior to WinXP, both home and pro.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.