Windows XP: Prices, And One Reaction 598
Jim42688 writes: "Looks like the prices Amazon was reporting for Windows XP a while back were right. On the back of today's ad for CompUSA, it lists the prices to preorder. Home Full, 199.99, Home Upgrade, 99.99. Professional full, 299.99, Professional upgrade, 199.99." Perfect timing -- Fwis writes: "Use your power as a consumer to Boycott XP.
The site is now functioning smoothly, and we invite you to log in and
participate in discussions, polls, and news stories related to Microsoft's release
of the XP line of products." There are some interesting links on this page if you (or someone with purchasing power at your company) is considering XP.
bah, for windows users... (Score:2, Informative)
but anyway, check out these benchmarks of win2k vs winXP
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1501
Re:bah, for windows users... (Score:3, Informative)
Beta versions, on the other hand, often have a lot of debugging information built in that could cause bloat and lag.
Personally, I hate windows, and I'll be keeping XP at a very long distance. However, if we're going to rag a product, let's do it for the right reasons :)
Re:bah, for windows users... (Score:2)
Re:bah, for windows users... (Score:3, Informative)
(normal asm code)
jmp 245
(line number info, symbolics, etc)
245: (normal asm code)
Which really thrashes the cache and disrupts the pipeline pretty harshly.
WindowsRG (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/uploads/27000/27
price (Score:5, Funny)
Linux... Priceless
Re:price (Score:2)
Oh, and the Redhat Deluxe Workstation for $79.99.
So, ok another $20 or so and I can get WinXP. I'd rather have WinXP anyway since it runs my software.
Linux was a far more compelling upgrade when it sold for $20 at Best Buy. That was over two years ago, however.
Re:price (Score:2)
It still took 8 hours to download with my 1Mbps DSL line.
Again, the CD's need to be cheap at the local Best Buy or you can forget about it.
WinXP to the consumer is just another release... (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, if support for windows 9x dropped to a certain level, I'd just stop using windows altogether. To be perfectly honest, as soon as I can play the majority of my windows games using linux and my savage4 accellerator on another, non MS OS, I'll drop windows altogether. I'm just sick and tired of seeing microsoft pushing it's competitors out the window by including it's own version of an existing utility.
I own original copies of OS/2, Beos, Caldera Opendos, and Linux Redhat. I also downloaded Xgui, Gimi, and a host of other shells. My opinion? I don't have enough choice still. I could run Xdos on my 8088 and still run dos apps. Why is it so hard for the US DOJ to crack this obviously abused (on a regular baisis) monopoly?
Oh yes, and look at every windows release -- you'll see a huge group trying to fool themselves that 'THIS one will be good!'. They existed in winME, why not this one?
Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. (Score:2)
Firstly Joe Public probably only has the vaguest idea of what NT is, so there is limited mileage on the "based on NT" bandwagon.
Secondly NT is stable on older hardware - it's the more modern stuff that tends to trip it up (it really doesn't understand IR ports and USB very well). NT server on fairly standard hardware can easily have uptimes of more than a year (provided you don't and try and log on to the box - there is (or was - it may be fixed now) a memory leak in the GDI routines which breaks the explorer shell fairly terminally after about 6 months. All the services still work, but the box is a bit of a basket case if you need to do something interactive.
I'm not sure about people and new machines/OS. The machine I'm using now is triple boot box (Mandrake, Win98, W2K Advanced Server) with dual 350P2s and 256MB of ram. So fairly long in the tooth now. I've not seen anything that I want to do computer wise that I can't do on this box. So no reason to upgrade here. But I see lots of computers with a much higher spec being sold as the owner has upgraded to a more recent machine. What are these people doing with their machines?
So I think people may realise they don't need the new machine, but they still seem to want one. Then there is the monopoly leveraging that superwhizzy app only works on XP, to "encourage" people to upgrade to it.
and look at every windows release -- you'll see a huge group trying to fool themselves that 'THIS one will be good!'.
W2K was actually a good release. Probably too good. Having looked at XP from the server end (and particuarly the directory services bit of it, which is what I do at the moment) there is almost nothing that has changed that makes even a marginally compelling case for moving to XP. Of the top of my head the only change that is of note is how XP handles changes to group memberships (The gory details are that in the multimaster environment if person A is added to a group at DC1 and person B is removed from the same group later at DC2, but before the change had propogated from DC1 to DC2, this causes a conflict that is resolved by using the most recent change, which means neither A nor B are in the group after all the changes have replicated). This is a design flaw in how groups are stored and replicated in W2k (basically the group including all the members is replicated when changed in W2k, as opposed to deltas of the membership list which is how I think XP does it), but it isn't that hard to work around.
Re:WinXP to the consumer is just another release.. (Score:2)
Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work (Score:2)
These are hard times. Everyone has to learn to do more with less. The IT department is not exempt from this economic reality. The CIO who blows the budget on the fastest new computers and the latest bloated commercial software had best keep his resume up to date.
"I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!" -- "Bill Gates" on The Simpsons
Re:Let The Invisible Hand Do Its Work (Score:2)
Why should an MS user Upgrade ? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS-Win95b is acceptably stable given enough RAM, HD and maintenance. The only thing that has caused me to upgrade a few to Win98 is USB cameras not installing on 95.
MS-WinNT may be more stable, but some hardware and software still refuses to run under it. I believe XP is an NT descendant, so I'd worry about this.
Upgrading is fine for journalists who have stories to write, and for other software reviewers. I just don't know why the rest of us should upgrade. To get a bunch of bugfixes & security patches? Feh! If I need'em, I'll get them separately.
Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? (Score:2)
But let me first state:
Win9x is *NOT* stable.
As far as incompatibilies, this was true in the early days of NT. But since around 1998 or so it's been difficult to find hardware that does not work on NT. Similarly nearly all software with the exception of games has worked fine.
Win2k improved the situation greatly by implementing DirectX fully so now every modern game runs very well.
There are also numerous usability features in Win2k especially that make it a compelling upgrade over Win95. Far less annoying, it doesn't steal focus away from your mouse at inopertune times. The quicklaunch bar is good, as is the more consistent ability to manage icons in the start menu.
Another feature of NT/Win2k over Win9x is that they are faster. Part of this is because the shell is multi-threaded. On Win9x when you start a program up, as it's loading and doing it's thing, you are locked out of doing anything else. For someone going from WinNT/2k back to Win95 it is readily apparent and frustrating.
As far as Windows XP, the most compelling feature of this will be the final elimination of Win9x from the support channel. You spoke of incompatibilities, and now you will see none. A vendor can write one set of drivers which will work on either Home or Professional editions.
There are usability changes in WinXP as well. I haven't decided if I like them all yet, but I certainly find many of them to be solid improvements.
Yes, it's true that WinXP is a evolutionary upgrade from Win2k. But if you are coming from Win95, I shudder to think why you wouldn't at least upgrade to Win2k.
Re:Why should an MS user Upgrade ? (Score:2)
I like the idea of not giving my Mom or Dad Admin rights to a box, which was real hard to do with the Win9x versions. Win2K, much easier, but they balked at purchasing a "business OS" for home. This time, it has the right amount of sugar coating.... fluffy "home" version, still runs Office, and I'll never have to remove icons from the control pannel after my dad blasted an app rather than uninstalling it. The days of keeping a backup of my folk's registery settings is almost over!
a boycott makes us no better than M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a boycott makes us no better than M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite all the marketing information and even a few screen shots I looked at online, I had no idea what the XP overall "feel" would be until I installed a release-candidate 30-day trial for myself. The average user doesn't wipe their hard drive and install 30-day trials of operating systems, just to decide if they should buy it or not.
(For the record, I wiped XP off my drive after giving it about 5 days. My wife refused to use it, saying it looked too "cartoon-like" and was noticeably slower launching several programs she commonly uses. I could deal with the new appearance of things, but I really disliked all the attempts to coerce me into using MS products for everything. It installed MSN messenger by default, and each "mouse-over" to the shortcut in the system tray reminded me to click to sign up and activate it. Then, they kept bugging me to go to their web site and sign up for a Passport account, to use their
brain missing? (Score:2)
Second, not buying stuff from MS on general principal is perfectly valid, would you buy products from a company owned by Nazi's (or any other evil organization of your choice)? I'm not comparing MS to Nazis, I'm simply demonstrating that maybe there are products you might not want to buy on general principal. Seems a valid reason to me...
disclaimer: "brain missing" isn't supposed to be an insult, I'm just kidding ; )
For that price... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, are we approaching the day that windows will cost more than the computer it runs on for most people?
The private buyer pays a far, far higher price. (Score:2)
The private buyer pays a far, far higher price for Microsoft products than do large manufacturers.
Microsoft's major buyers are large manufacturers. Microsoft does what they want, which is make slower systems that require more powerful hardware.
Note that Microsoft no longer gives a full CD with every computer. You get only a recovery CD. If you use it, you must re-install all your applications.
Its getting that way for MS Office. (Score:2)
Brand new current model imac - $AU 1800
MS Office:Mac - $AU 950
Its nearly already the case with MS Office.
"Boycott" is defined as... (Score:2)
expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion."[dictionary.com] [dictionary.com]
"An expression of disfavor"? Okay, it might be a stress release, but unlikely to accomplish much.
Or fighting coercion with coercion? Lame and hypocritcal. (The ability to coerce is one of qualities people dislike in a monopoly.)
That's more than Windows 2000 (Score:2)
Back up now (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, I'm an editor at boycottxp.com, we got hit hard there but we're back up now and we should stay that way. It might be a little slow at first but keep checking back as the traffic levels off. We're excited to hear what you have to say.
I'd love to see (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Basic OS/Gui.
2. Directx 8
That's it. I don't want a media player, a browser, or all of the other stuff. If they had this out, I'd pay $30 for it, and be perfectly happy. If I wanted the other pieces (browser, chat module, blah, blah, blah), I could choose whether to buy them from MS, or go and use something else (so an extra $15 for MS Explorer, or I could put Mozilla on the box).
Now everybody wins. MS is happy because it gets $30 from me (and the potential of more money if I choose to pay $99/$199 if I want all the bells an whistles), the DOJ is happy (because it makes a truly level playing frield, since other companies can compete with the other add-ons (at least in theory)), and I'm happy because I can review my games.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Re:I'd love to see (Score:2)
Re:I'd love to see (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Microsoft is not happy, which is why you haven't and you never will see such a version of Windows. They aren't happy for (at least) two reasons:
- You're going to buy Windows anyway... why should they sell you what you want for $30 when they can sell you that + a bunch of crap you don't want for $200?
- Why should they give away a chance to get their software on your PC? Every PC that ships with media player is another PC they can claim is part of their "installed base". This they can then use to get companies to stream in their format, as opposed to Real Audio/Video.
So keep dreaming... such a thing will never happen.Re:I'd love to see (Score:2)
"We have over 1 billion users of Microsoft products in the USA alone!"
Re:I'd love to see (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though you are right, I have to say that even though WMP8 is an ugly piece of shit, RealPlayer is much, much uglier, more unstable, and it installs spyware and other crap to boot. I would prefer Quicktime to WMP and WMP to Real, however what I would really like to see is a single player for all formats that's small and fast, like Winamp... of course that will never happen since all those video formats are proprietary.
Transparent Encryption? (Score:2, Interesting)
I realize it's not likely to be really strong, but if it's decent (and not critically flawed in implementation), it might be an incentive for me to upgrade eventually. I've never seen a good encryption scheme for Win that wasn't a major hassle. If you know of one I'd like to hear of that too.
I can't escape Windows because I write software for it occasionally, and need the ability to work with Word/Excel/Access file types.
I heard somewhere (but have no idea if its true) that the encryption requires a different file system be implemented (NTFS vs FAT32, IIRC). How would this affect an upgrade?
Re:Transparent Encryption? (Score:2)
Re:Transparent Encryption? (Score:2)
I've got one box I've been running XP on for the past few weeks and can only say I'm pretty unimpressed. Win2k blew me away the first time I used it, and it's a great desktop system, but XP is trying to be WAAAY too many things to WAAAY too many people. If you want a wizard to tell you how to wipe your butt, buy XP, otherwise Win2k is the perfect level of maturity, driver availability, stability, etc...
Re:Transparent Encryption? (Score:3, Informative)
The mechanism for encrypting files is simply a checkbox in an "advanced" menu. Only 2 button clicks deep, but far enough out of the way that most people won't accidentally enable encryption. Also, you can't encrypt files that have been compressed natively... Of course, the work around is that you use winzip or pkzip or winrar to compress your files, then encrypt them with the built-in encryption.
This is only local encryption! If you want encryption over a network, you've still got to use IPSec, Kerberos, VPN, etc.
All of these features are available in Windows 2000 and XP. In fact, just about every worth-while feature in XP is also found in 2000. Oh yah, you get to use WPA in XP! Another reason to upgrade to 2000 instead of XP if you're going to use Windows.
Re:Transparent Encryption? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I'm curious how XP's encryption works in a file server environment, where multiple users or applications are shuffling bits on and off the disk using SMB or NFS, for example. It might be very useful.
There have been far too many cases of data hijacking these days and I suppose it would be advantageous to have a central file or database server encrypt data on disk, regardless of whether the client is a user or an application. There is an overall lack of regard for storing data in an encrypted format today, even though this is the place where the bits will live the longest (as opposed to the network, per say).
Re:Transparent Encryption? - E4M (Score:3, Interesting)
Not totally transparent, since you have to "mount" the drives (actual partitions or just a virtual drive saved in a file), but E4M [e4m.net] is a wonderful (free, OS) encryption scheme that works across all windows versions (although win98 has a shutdown bug).
Price is right, and it works fine for me. Although NTFS has a built-in encryption on its filesystem that is truly transparent, but since I can't see the code behind it, I don't trust it.
Grass roots movement (Score:2)
Well, mr. talk show host, I was talking to a friend who was testing this new version of Windows, and boy is it a dog"
[insert reasons that the talk show host can agree with]
just enough to poison the well. simple reasons for regular folks, like the whole Passport fiasco.
heck telling them the plain truth about the copy protection stuff and registration stuff will do the job.
now mind you, I would never do something like this, but you can't even make a copy for your kids machine, or for your wife. You got to buy a whole nother copy! I paid my money. I should be able to do what I want with it!
That should be good enough to do the job.
- - -
Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
an alternate news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
damn idiot (Score:2)
Already! (Score:2)
Boycott makes sense if I would buy something but I don't in order to "punish" the manufacturer. How many slashdotters would buy Windows XP if not this boycott?
Re:Already! (Score:5, Informative)
I would. I decide what our corporate technology standards are, what products are purchased and what OS is installed on our 150+ PCs. Currently, that standard is Windows 2000 Professional and Server so I am in a prime position to upgrade to XP. However....
About a month or so ago, a rep from Microsoft called me to give me the pitch for XP and how it would make 'everything so much better.' I actually had a great deal of fun with that call. Essentially, I told him that I had absolutely no intention of going to any XP product anytime soon. He courteously informed me that if I didn't it would cost us way more when we finally upgraded. I responded by saying that 'anytime soon' was just my nice way of saying that I'd never goto XP. He balked at that one and asked why. I told him that, frankly, I didn't care one bit for MS's licensing practices, the quality (or lack thereof) of their products, the inherent insecurity of their products and a few others that I can't remember. When he asked what our intentions were, I told him that we would stay with the 2000 line for a couple years. After that we would begin evaluating alternative operating systems and applications -- primarily Linux. I then told him that our core application was a client server model that already had a web based front end and could easily be ported to Apache & Oracle or MySQL. As for Office and messaging applications, I told him that there were many solid alternatives to Exchange already on the market and StarOffice would work just fine for our Office Suite needs. At that point he said "Oh. Thank you for your time." and hung up.
I decided to start boycotting Microsoft products a while ago -- when the details about the new licensing scheme were released. I know that 150 PC and 20 servers isn't much to MS, but it's aleast a half million dollars when it's all said and done. Had it not been for the licensing changes, I probably would have upgraded.
Windows XP for free? (Score:2)
Well.. I have to say. (Score:2)
I'm quite happy with win2k as my MS platform. It's the best thing they've produced so far, and after hearing about some of the sugar-coating in XP, sounds like it still is.
Like I'm gonna switch (of course, they'll make their licensing prohibitively harsher... but we'll move to sunrays next)
Re:Top 10 reasons XP kicks ass (Score:2, Funny)
You mean we don't have to even try to get BO onto Windows boxes anymore? MS is going to integrate it into XP for us? Sweet!
Ridiculous upgrade restrictions….rape you 4 $$$ (Score:2, Interesting)
I finally installed Windows 2000 on my work PC and was - for the first time in the history of Windows - actually impressed with its performance and stability. For the first time ever, I wasn't rebooting my PC five times a day (which is a frustrating contrast to some of my Linux boxes that are approaching 1 year of uptime). I was so impressed with 2000's stability, that I installed it on my home PC and my girlfriend's laptop, which was experiencing the good old Win98 10-a-day reboot exercise.
So this article got me wondering if there was anything that XP would offer me in the future that just might coerce me to upgrade in the next year or so. So I found a link on MS's site that let me "Check my upgrade options" [microsoft.com]. I was shocked to see that the only upgrade path from Win 2000 is to the XP Professional Edition, which costs $100 more than the Home Edition.
Why is this the case? Isn't XP Professional is nothing more than the XP Home Edition with a few more add-ons? Anyone have any insight as to why MS restricts you from upgrading 2000 to XP Home Edition?
My money is on the fact that they figure only business and power users are using Windows 2000, so they just want to rape people for the extra $100. Upgrading my three Windows 2000 PCs to XP would cost me $600.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I shell out another $600 to MS.
Re:Ridiculous upgrade restrictions?.rape you 4 $$$ (Score:2)
Does anybody know the history of DOS/Windows pricing?
It seems hardware competition is fierce; greater functionality and lower prices to the point of putting memory manufacturers out of business.
I'd like to see a comparison between PC hardware and MS OS prices.
Does anybody know a link to this info?
What's the alternative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, ask anyone... Using Linux probably has never been easier. I, for the first time, installed Red Hat 7.1 a few weeks ago... Until then, I had been a diehard Windows user... Not because I wanted to be, mind you, but because I didn't think I could use Linux, or that it could replace my desktop.
So I yanked out my Windows HD, put in a clean one, and installed Red Hat. Hell, it astonishingly simple. The biggest problem I had was KDE or Gnome? But then I started using it...
I'm not a completely naive Windows user... I mean, I read Slashdot, right? But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal, and... Well, it's frustrating. Too frustrating.WindowsXP makes things easier for the average, not so bright computer user. People won't have to upgrade, they'll buy new PCs with XP already on it. And they won't even bother to ask "Can I get Red Hat, or Mandrake, or Slackware on that?" And the reason is simple. Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith, along with groupls like the MPAA and the RIAA and others who eat away at people's freedoms (to choose, to speak, whatever), they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice. And until someone designs a new operating system, one that can run Windows programs, and offers the ease of use that Windows does, you'll never have a real alternative to Windows.
I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.
I'm going to keep using Red Hat. Not full time, not even half time. But I'm going to try to learn to be proficient on something that isn't Windows, so I don't have to use Windows. But in the end, it's just a hobby, and I'll keep coming back to /dev/hda1, where I keep Windows.
-Josh
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way it will get on the desktop is a better interface - just as good is not enough for people to go through the hassle of learning.
I use Win2K. I haver played with Linux, but all my clients use win32, so that's what I develop to. I wish I could move enough to Linux to move to an alternative (and the authorization thing in winXP makes me run it down every chance I get). However, they won't, and if I don't supply win32 apps to them, I don't eat.
Some of you developers out there that are better than me (and there are lots, and many, many more worse than me), build the desktop that will bring them in. Not just a pretty desktop, but you need *compelling* money saving (making?) features that will make businesses move. Instant messaging - awesome business tool. Some kind of video conferencing - awesome tool. Icons that pop out (a la osX) - eye candy but useless. Bunches of rabid supporters that cannot conceive of somebody using an alternative without launching a personal attack - worse than useless. All the linux users out there have to remember that *they* are the alternative users.
Last bit is a rant - I have been flamed mightly for using Windows. But it is my fucking job, and I hate when people think I should give up work, let my family starve, etc, so I can go to the One True Operating System. (Hey, let's rename Linux OT/OS - heh)
DB
Usability testing (Score:2)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
If the only means you have to keep your family from starving is to write windows apps then by all means go ahead. I guess I am one of those lucky people who can do more then one thing. I know many languages, know many operating systems, and know quite a bit about networking (a bit about project mangement too). I can pick and choose what I want to do. Thanks for remind me that there are a lot of people in this world who are basically one trick ponies. I will try to make that fact a competitive advantage in the future.
You better hope MS survives the next round of legal wrangling intact and also survives the sates and the european union inquiry too. It seems like you have put all your eggs in this basket. Good luck to you.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
In Linix, the /dev/hd* files represent the hard drives. /dev/hda is the first drive, /dev/hdb is the second drive, and so on. The number at the end is the partition, for example /dev/hda1 is the first partition of the first hard drive and /dev/hdb3 is the 3rd partition of the 2nd hard drive.
I agree that the way Linux accesses devices is outdated and unintuitive. This is something devfs [csiro.au] is working on.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
The 'h' in "/dev/hda1" is a bit weird, but beyond that it makes totally sense and isn't arbitrary at all: All devices are in "/dev/". "hd" means IDE hard drive -- SCSI hard drives are "sd". It's "a" because it's the first device of this type -- "hd0" would have been reasonable too. And "1" because it's the first partition on that drive. So it's actually a fairly reasonable hierarchical naming scheme. It may not be "intuitive", but few things in computers really are: it's just a matter of what you're used to.
The situation on Unix seems better than the one on DOS/Windows, where hard drives and partitions are given letters in basically random order, with CDROM and other devices thrown into the mix -- and since the second floppy drive (what power user would buy a system with only one floppy drive, right?) is "B", hard drives always start at C. Now *that's* arbitrary and unintuitive.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
What are you doing that you need to use the
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got to agree with the previous poster - Unix is in no shape to be used by mere mortals. However, I don't really think that it can be saved.
This isn't to say that I'm a big fan of anything else currently on the market - everything sucks. But it is far far better to develop a system where usability is a core concern from day one than to keep trying to add a facade onto Unix, or worse yet, just giving to people as is. The former option, if solidly built, if designed to have a compatability layer through which it can still run Unix software, strikes me as being a far far better option.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Now compile the kernel with DEVFS - and explain it to him
Linux isn't the alternative, it's the standard (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM, Compaq, and HP have reasons to dislike Microsoft, they make up probably nearly half of the manufactured computers, throw in companies like gateway, who would do it just to make an extra $100 (windows is expencive), and you leave people having to get a specialist to install windows for them, or have one custom built! Linux could work on the desktop through that route, or by apealing to the gamers (convince id software to no longer support windows). Of course other game companies would follow.
Why would that help? think about windows 3.1 vs dos... 3.1 had better office stuff, better internet capability, and it was easier to use. Yet, Dos was still the major setup, until windows 95 came along, and supported games, well. Which is still the only thing that windows9x/me does better than anyone else.
I Got Your Alternative Standing, Boy! (Score:2)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this same statement all the time, and while I generally agree with it, just yesterday it finally occured to me why I find it so bothersome. That reason is simply:
They can't really use Microsoft Windows either.
These masses of "average joe" users who will never be able to use linux really don't know how to use windows either. Almost everything about the computer is "too hard" for them... except playing a couple simple games, reading email and surfing the web, and sometimes struggling through a word processor.
In all of these cases where the "can" use windows, they are blissfully unaware of 95% of the features that the software offers them. They save their files whereever the "save as" dialog defaults, and later if someone asks them to copy the file onto a floppy, they have no idea how to do it or even where they put the file on their drive. These are the masses that constantly need someone to "fix the computer". I could go on and on (but not today).
The point is that saying "linux is too hard" is usually meant to imply that "but windows is easy". The sad truth is that the vast majority of the population can't really use ANY operating system, linux, windows, macos, Be, whatever. Of course, the vast majority of the driving population can't change their car's oil or probably even a tire, and they can't program their on-screen controls VCR, etc, etc.
Sure, windows is probably overall a bit easier, largely because of automated install programs and more commercial software (that has a lot of work put into reducing costly tech support queried).
For these mainstream novice users, the system they've invested hundreds of hours not really using in any signifcant way, but stumbling and strugging through to get the minimal "productivity" they manage is going to be easier than anything that is a change, not matter how much a change for the better it may happen to be.
Well, that's enough ranting for now. There's already hundreds of messages, so it's highly unlikely many people will read this... but I feel a bit better finally coming to terms why "people can't use linux" bothers me, when I generally agree with the statement.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
You spent years getting familiar with Windows. You can't expect to pick up Linux in a day. This says nothing about the relative quality or utility of the different OSes.
In fact, learning Linux probably is initially harder than learning Windows. On the other hand, learning Linux is probably a more valuable skill: you learn to use software that doesn't change every year. And once you understand the command line tools and scripting, you can do really amazing things very quickly.
The biggest problem I had was KDE or Gnome? But then I started using it...
I think the answer is: it doesn't matter. Learn to use LaTeX, Emacs, xterm, and the standard POSIX tools. Learn Python or Perl. And if you are an "economist in training", learn R (for data analysis).
Give me a break (Score:2)
I don't know what
But oh well. It's hip to bash linux here on
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
What are nuts? The man is marked +5 insighful (although I really looked for some insight in his post could not find any). The days of slashdot being a pro-linux environment are long gone. The MS astro turfers make sure any pro windows post immediately gets modded up to +5. This is prime proof of that.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Don't you just love those generic "It's too hard complaints"? Long on complains, low on details. This guy claims to know about Linux "because he reads SlashDot". Trust me, that's not enough. Do you have any idea how many people don't learn anything about Windows by reading ZDNet? Besides, I've read lots of books on playing chess, and I still suck, so trust me, reading isn't always enough.
Man, don't be such a jerk. The guy has a very valid point. If you want some examples, let me give you some.
1. Recompiling the kernel to get a sound card or network card working that didn't come w/the distro.
2. Getting 3D-accell video working so you can play quake 3.
3. Setting up internet sharing on anything but Linux Mandrake.
.. etc. etc. etc.
The windows world is one of 0 documentation, but the difference in Windows is you don't need it.
At work, home and office I have a Linux/Windows dual box combo for various tasks. For one box I have a STACK of books, the other.. not a single one.
I can't imagine setting up a production webserver on windows any more than I can imagine playing quake 3 on my Linux box. One is for work and one is for play
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Anyway, yeah... Installing a new sound card on a PC or upgrading a video card on your mac would be something an above-average person would try.. but I would be surprised if someone w/out 6-month to 1 year experience using linux and getting used to the in's and out's of the system could do such a thing.
Lets take moms and stupid co-workers out of the view for a few minutes. I have a younger brother who is a programmer. He has years and year of Windows experience. He knows how to use Linux, and even does all his text editing in VI. (I know, VI doesn't make the man..
He tried to install RedHat on his machine as he is learning C++ and wanted to use kdevelop. By the time I helped him get XWindows working correctly as his monitor he installed was different than the one he was really using, changing his network settings (Tried RedHat 7.1 lately?) get his strange network card working, (again this was after install he put it in..) and then readjust the frequency on the monitor from 75 hz which it seemed to be stuck at until I pointed him on how to edit the xconfig file.
Now me as a linux hobiest thrive on such challenges, but his mentality is not so tinkerish. This is not good, it's not bad.. it's just him. I would say that there are quite a few people out there like him too.
Anyway, the point is.. until these almost-trivial to technofile linux guru's are trivial to people that just don't have time to muck with it (ie. my brother)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2)
So older versions of Windows won't remain acceptable in the office environment. It's happening. My boss man thinks it's a good idea (really!). I think he's crazy, but I doubt he's the only one.
2600 (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not really in a position to boycott it since I have to write software for it. From what I've seen it's not too bad, and has some new features that W2k didn't have. Overall, I'm probably going to stick with W2k on my desktop for quite a while still.
One other fairly positive thing that I have to say about MS is their support for developers. Mac came out with OS X and then tried to give support to developers. Just try and find drivers for OS X and it's already been out for months! MS lets developers know a couple of years ahead of time that they are going to have a new OS come out. They give developers a bunch of Betas to work with, a bunch of release candidates, so that by the time they have the OS released, there actually are a good amount of drivers released for the OS. Apple released an OS which was basically a beta that people had to pay money for, and then didn't really give driver developers good support. Sure Windows XP isn't going to support every piece of hardware ever made, but I bet when it's finally released it will support a lot more than OS X does.
XP support for copyright 'protection' BAD (Score:5, Interesting)
SAP - Secure Audio Path, adds static to music if not 'authenticated.
WPA - Windows Product Activation - can deativate software if it thinks its running on the 'wrong' computer.
No Java, MS takes its toys home
Built in support for Passport - let the spam begin.
Before the Hard-drive manufactures came to their senses it was rumoured that XP would fully support the 'copyright' protection scheme IBM thought up for HDs. Anyone have info?
For more info see these fun loving fanatics:
XP and Privacy/Copyright [rajivshah.com]
Windows XP FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
- If you have a legal copy, WPA is no problem. You just click 'Next' , then 'Finish'.Done. And Microsoft can't use your PC spec info; it's a one-way hash code.(BTW, it's been cracked.)
- It's not bloated: It runs perfectly fine on my p250 128MB, with visual styles enabled. All the patronising features (simple file sharing and that puppy on the search bar) can be easily disabled.)
- It's stable.Mostly.
- It's got a pretty nice stealth firewall (grc.com's ShieldsUP says so, anyway.). And the built-in cd-writing's convenient too.
- It DOES run every one as administrator by default, for Win9x legacy reasons. Not hard to change that, but the default 'Limited User' profile has problems with older apps and games. The trick is to put the users in the predefined 'Power Users' group.
- It's still Windows. If you hate Windows, it probably won't change your mind, but nevertheless it's the best Windows to work with.
It's got lots of other features too, so if you have a question before you consider upgrading, I'm here for you(so nice of me isn't it)
And so it begins.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As one
XP is the product of the two biggest sins a corporation can commit: arrogance and contempt. It's arrogant in that it's overpriced, offers NOTHING new over WIndows 2000, and in fact, takes away from it.
The "Home" version strips you of network capability, unlike 98/95/ME/2000, it CANNOT be used as a client on anything but a peer-to-peer network. It won't allow you to log into a NT domain. I haven't tested it to see if Novell Client 32 will allow logins to a Netware server, but I'd suspect that it's broken as well. It has no support for SMP at all (though 9X didn't either), to get SMP requires the $200 "Professional" version upgrade. None of this is because XP can't do SMP or serve as a network client, it's because MS chose to deliberately CRIPPLE it, and yet sell it for a radically increased price over ME/98.
The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! (ME could be had for $50 to upgrade from 98). For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100? Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.
MS comits the sin of contempt with Product Activation, and it's spyware nature. XP "decides" how far to let you upgrade your hardware before requiring reactication. Which can lose you your data if there is but the SLIGHTEST glitch in this process. MS is better known for creating "unintended consequences" in it's "features" than it is in writing bug-free code. XP constantly monitors your hardware configuration,assigning it a "checksum" number via some formula, and if it gets too far from the "checksum" number originally generated when you installed it, it will CEASE to function.
I hope they have those support lines well staffed.
That's right, now on a XP system, the system owner does NOT have root access to the machine! This is something no MS OS has attempted to do before.
Even if XP didn't have the fatal flaws of arrogance and contempt, the fact that it's a 100%-200% increase in price over 9X alone would be enough to doom it. In this time of economic crisis, particularly in the tech sector, a 100+% increase in the "MS Tax" will do nothing but slow sales, ESPECIALLY when you expect MS to make licenses of ME, 98, and 2000 scarce quickly.
The "window" of opportunity for Linux is open.
Re:And so it begins.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the new hardware requirements are due to the new GUI, don't like it? It can easily be switched back to "classic" mode from the start panel. Thus XP will require similar hardware requirements as Win2k.
And as for the Home edition connectivity issues, Client for Netware is not included on the home edtion, but Client services for MS networks is. Beta versions of XP Home DO allow you to access resouces on a domain, just as 9.x clients. But they can't "join" the domain like win2k or XP pro clients...meaning no Group Policy, etc.
They had to give big business a reason to spend $ for the Pro version.
Re:And so it begins.... (Score:2)
XP is the product of the two biggest sins a corporation can commit: arrogance and contempt. It's arrogant in that it's overpriced, offers NOTHING new over WIndows 2000, and in fact, takes away from it.
Hmm... Bold statement. Do you have anything other than blind rage to back that up?
The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! (ME could be had for $50 to upgrade from 98). For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100? Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.
Hmm.... Isn't stability a pretty big thing for the home user?
As to what I have heard on the street, XP is has had almost flawless backward compatibility and various 'compatibility' switches to help you if you have compatibility problems.
If XP sucks so bad, people won't buy it.. (ie. ME).. As for me, I am quite happy with Windows 2000. (I also have a dual processor PIII system) and won't be upgrading to XP
Re:And so it begins.... (Score:2)
Re:And so it begins.... (Score:2)
98 can't join a domain or do SMP either. Neither can its equivalent, XP home. Ho hum.
The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! For what benefit? None that I can tell.
Well, asides from the stability, XP is specifically designed to be more legacy compatible than 2000 was. Oh, and multiple user GUI logins, and a nicer help and support, and Media Player 8, more readable text, and a newer, different version of Windows Explorer.
As one
hehe. Because MS allows you to uninstall all 300k of the Axtive X loading system known as IEXPLORE.EXE (and not the stacks of activex control it actually calls?). In case you haven't realized, Mozilla failed, spectacularly. Galeon's and Konq and Opera are usable on Linux, but Window users use IE because THEY PREFER IT.
The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000's stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100?
Not to me. And I'd bet not to many joe blows.
I'd bet otherwise. In fact, I bet you ten US dollars, redeemable on 20030101, that XP is not widely viewed upon as the downfall of MS. Something else might be, but not XPs lack of quality.
Unfortunately, many Linux users still don't get basic usability. Why do most Linux distributions sort their apsp by toolkit rather than function? When was the last time your parents on their Windows box asked for a MFC (as opposed to VCL or other) app...oh, and it can it be a web browser.
Better yet, read the modem HOWTO for a laugh.
Which can lose you your data if there is but the SLIGHTEST glitch in this proces
That is false. You will not lose you your data. If you perform certain upgrades, you your os might require you yourself to call MS within a few days and reactivate you your OS. Most people don't perform such upgrades so frequently. Even techies don't, and when you do, its only a phone call.
For the record, I use and adore Linux, and write books and articles that try and make things easier for people to do so. But I use Linux because its good and because I like Open Sourc,e not because of somerreligios anto MS zealotr, that prevents me from recognizing the good bits that are worth stealing. Oddly enough, I find Linux users that matter (i.e, not me) share the same view - the GNOME and KDE folk seem to be able to recognize that MS actually does some pretty good work, and works on taking elements of that into their various apps. In fact every major influential Linux person I've ever had the chance to meet - Alan Cox, Richard Gooch, John Hall, Marceij and George from Ximian, Raph Levine, etc. etc. has been a reasonable and clear headed person who can actually recognize that MS comes up with the odd good idea. Which is good - because we can copy them.
And that redeems my faith in Linux after listening to the Slashdot trolls condemn everything MS does, including the things it will be important to emulate if Linux is to have any chance of world domination.
prices from June 1990 (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 3.0 retail: $150
Price of a Dell 386 with color monitor and 40mb hard drive, 512K, 16MHz, a midrange system for running Windows: $2,399
Price of a 25MHz 486, a high-end system: $5,295
No conclusions but I thought maybe somebody would find this interesting!
Re:prices from June 1990 (Score:2)
The Pinnacle (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows is easier to use than Linux...or something (Score:3, Interesting)
To be sure, whenever Slashdot has a story that involves M$ products, everyone gets hot and rustled with the age old "Why the hell do people still use Windows" thread. Primarily I see two arguments that surface:
Windows has better/more software for my needs.
(I would argue with 'better', but point taken).
Windows is and will always be easier to use than Linux.
I am sick and tired of hearing that excuse. And before you mod me down for being a snobbish troll, consider my reasoning first.
Barring great paradigms such as Graphical vs. CL interfaces, I don't believe that there is such thing as a 'More intuitive than another' OS. Obviously Linux has got GUI covered. Face it people, you are good at what you know. The reason that windows users don't think that Linux is easy to learn is because it isn't Windows . When you have spent maybe 10 to 15 years using M$ operating systems, you have grown very used to the way things work there. eg., I want to know the filesize of this document, I rightclick, and select properties. Does anyone really think that a person who has never used a computer before (after learning what a mouse is and does) is going to think "Oh, I think I'll right click on that icon and select 'Properties!" ? Like C++, swimming and Italian cookery, using a particular operating system is a learned skill.
Case in point? I hear that the Macintosh is supposed to be the end-all be-all of OS simplicity and intuitive design. *Yeah Right.* Just ask any windows/other user that is inexperienced with MacOS, and they'll tell you that it is a bloody nightmare. I work in IT at a University and I see this all the time--we have a small enclave of Mac users who are unbelievably frightened of PCs and our PC users are afraid to touch the Macs in fear that they'll cause the dreaded 'OsError' Bomb to come destroy the machine in spite. Not to mention the 'Boop of Death'. (True script involving my friend Renee at the library)
Renee: Ok, I'll just click the...
Mac: 'Boop'
Renee: Ahh! Ok, how about...
Mac: 'Boop'
Renee: Aiee!! I'm trying to close you! Stop Booping!
Mac: 'Boop Boop Boop'
What I'm getting at (and there is a point I suppose), is that making any platform shift is shaky at first. Linux comes naturally for me now, but I spent a good long amount of time in confusion. If we want people to understand computers better and have the ability to make these kinds of migrations painlessly, then they need to be educated about the abstracts of how computers interact with humans, and not through a computer literacy course that deals strictly with an OS. Maybe then
I won't be watching the Win XP release (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'll be watching though, is the X-Box release. I'll be HELPING it become madly successful, and I hope all of you do the same. Go out, help out microsoft and BUY AN X-BOX! Why help the Other Side(tm)? Because if X-Box becomes the gaming platform of choice, above Windows, then there IS NO REASON TO USE WINDOWS ANYMORE. Yes, you've heard me right, why do any of us keep a spare windows partition? Yep, games. Windows XP won't affect me, weather I upgrade or not, but if X-Box becomes successful and everyone makes games for it, then i can finally fdisk my windows partition to hell, and so can the rest of you. I can finally convince all my friends to switch over to linux because they'll all be happily playing games on the X-Box.
So Windows XP? What the hell, the masses like it or don't like it I don't give a crap, but with X-Box, you betcherass that I'll be watching closely and helping the MS X-Box movement along ^_^
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2)
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:3, Interesting)
When I, as a home user, wanted an actual stable Windows OS, I went to Windows 2000, as did quite a few people I know. We did lose some legacy and DOS-based support but AFAIK Windows XP loses most if it as well (I understand that there is some kind of DOS compatability mode, but I don't know all of the details) and after getting used to Windows 2K, I don't see a need to switch just to get the little extra that XP offers. Also, XP Home Edition doesn't even have all of the features supported in Windoes 2000 (off the top of my head: advanced security features and SMP support) -- to get a 'true' replacement we would need to upgrade to Windows XP Professional. Again, why go to the expense and performance hit of an XP upgrade when we already have most, if not all, of what we want anyway.
.
One thing I do think about sometimes. A lot of linux distibutions come with various programs already on them that do things like cd burning and such. Now Windows comes along with new things built in.
Well...yes, but my understanding is that a number of third-party apps that people used to use for these purposes are crippled or non-functional. Apparently it's a 'bug' with the upgrades that XP has (and not an attempt for MS to force you to use their apps exclusively). Most of my friends with CD-R drives already have the software they need and they know how to use it -- it's pretty standard to get software with the drive. Maybe it's convenient for MS to offer seamless CD burning options integrated in the OS, but I could do without the overhead (and the crippling of my other choices).
XP Home is CRIPPLED. (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, with my W98SE box, I can login to my Windows 2000 Server box and join the domain I set up there. It's not the same support as my W2K Pro box, but the differences are technical minutiae.
You won't be able to do that with XP Home. The only networking XP Home will be able to do is peer-to-peer, NetBEUI over TCP/IP. XP Home will NOT be able to join a domain, period. They're doing this to force companies with 2K domains to buy Pro rather than Home.
One good thing: W2K Pro CDs will drop down in price at the computer fairs when XP arrives. It's faster and better than XP and it makes 9x feel like the toy OS it is. So far, no BSODs here at Catseye Labs with W2K.
One day, we will be able to stand back and see that 2K was the high-water mark for M$ operating systems. With all the unnecessary crap that M$ is loading into XP, the ugly interface, Product Activation, phoning home, etc. etc. etc, M$ is basically doing to itself what the DOJ couldn't do. Now is the time for Linux to get its act together and make a desktop experience that is easier, better and faster than XP. Shouldn't take much. Mandrake with KDE is almost there, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2, Interesting)
- Admin'ing Windows2000 is not for the average user.
- Software compatibility.
While Windows2000 (and likely XP) does retain important M$ legacy compatibility, the security model gets in the way. There are still a ton of apps out there (i.e. Turbotax) that require you to run as the Administrator user, or are not even coded to support multiple users (aka profiles).So in reality, Windows app compatibility remains a problem. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of custom and small 3rd-party apps out there designed for the Win3.x/9x (non)security model. These apps are a pain to integrate properly into WinNT/2000/XP. For a lot of them, you either have to run as Administrator, or loosen up filesystem permissions one by one. Pick your poison.
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:3, Insightful)
If people no longer need to get third-party software to burn cds, for example.... there is no longer a market for cd-software. Eventually, MS dictates the hardware interface to the manufacturers, seeing as how they are the only ones producing software, and pretty soon... you get the picture.
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2)
What exactly would be the point of Microsoft's eliminating CD-burning competition? The current strategy of simply licensing technology from someone with expertise such as Roxio makes much more sense.
When I hear complaints about Microsoft's bundling with Win9x and beyond, how come I never hear anyone complaining about the biggest victim of bundling: Trumpet Software's Trumpet Winsock [trumpet.com.au]. So had Trumpet been located in the US instead of Australia, would it have had a legitimate antitrust complaint versus Microsoft? Before Windows 95, Trumpet was quite often bundled with ISPs' installation software packages, and it was not considered a big deal that the customer would have to eventually purchase the product. How come no one complains on how "bundling" cost Trumpet Software untold billions in revenues?
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2)
BTW, did you know that XP Pro has native
Microsoft licensed Trumpet Winsock? Prove it (Score:2)
As O'Reilly states [oreilly.com], WinSock is more a specification, a set of APIs. Anyone could write an implementation. Several did. It just so happens that Peter Tattam wrote the best for Windows 3.1. Also he wrote a scriptable dialer which back in those days was what a lot of people needed to negotiate the hodgepodge of dial-in methods required by the much less consolidated ISP industry. And Tattam gave his package away as shareware so it could spread very fast.
It gets better though from the perspective of an argument against bundling. There were quite frequent warnings as you can see in the alt.winsock FAQ about having the "right" WINSOCK.DLL installed with all others removed. And with the change to Windows 95, I can remember the huge amount of hype over whether one should go "32-bit". Here's a sample [guide.net.nz] from back then which includes advice to simply remove Trumpet Winsock under certain circumstances.
Unfortunately for the opponents of bundling, the problem with this otherwise perfect example is that it is inconceivable that a modern consumer OS would lack either a TCP/IP stack or a dialer. Trumpet Software had the clear market leader. Microsoft in Windows 95 bundled both its own TCP/IP stack and a dialer DUN. This bundling introduced potential incompatibilities that even led for some to advise uninstalling Trumpet's product. So should the government have had the right to force Microsoft to stop invading this software niche? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't the head of a much larger company such as Netscape? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't American?
By the way, Trumpet Software is currently developing a new 32 bit OS PETROS [petros-project.com].
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2)
Of course, Apple doesn't hold a monopoly, so they can live by different rules than MS.
The funny thing is that some Mac users have told me the reason that it's okay for Apple to do this (when it's not for MS) is that the CD burner is an integrated part of the OS.
Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Roxio has a monopoly in CD recording software by way of CD Creator. Roxio dictates to manufacturers how to do the hardware interface. Roxio charges an extremely HIGH price to consumers to obtain this software.
I had to upgrade from CD Creator v3 to v4 for Win2k compatibility. Roxio wanted like $90 for this upgrade.
I was able to buy a brand new CD-RW drive with bundled CD Creator for $99. A new 10X drive which was faster than my old 4X Yamaha.
I would hardly say that Roxio by itself has been benefiting consumers.
Besides, all Microsoft has done is license the software from Roxio and include it in WinXP by default.
If anything this is an example of how bundling can benefit consumers.
Chances are, the Roxio software in WinXP is limited in some fashion. Obviously Roxio did this in order to leverage sales of their Deluxe product.
But since WinXP contains some rudimentary support for CD-R drives in some fashion we now have a standard! Hardware makers can write drivers that plug into the existing WinXP OS. Software makers of all sorts can leverage the existing CD-R handling and create more full featured writing programs.
I see this as increasing consumer well being, similar to the way Microsoft increased our ability to network when they integrated TCP/IP into Win95 and eliminated the need to buy third party products like LANtastic.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
Re:boycott XP? (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you missed it in the news, but Microsoft was recently tried in court for illegally abusing their monopoly position to retain dominance and unfairly squash competition. It was generally called the "Microsoft antitrust trial", and not only was Microsoft found guilty, but the appeals court upheld the guilty verdict. So Microsoft's success was ill-gained - this is not just arbitrary opinions of some people, its a fact that has been not only found in court but upheld by the appeals court (or do you think all the judges are also just jealous of Microsoft's success?).
The reason for the boycott is basically that all the illegal tactics that Microsoft used to gain dominance are still being used, they continue to break the law, and the lack of competition that results from this is harming customers [scorpioncity.com].
Did you really not notice this trial that was going on? It was very well publicised. Or did you just neglect to listen when the facts of the case were discussed in the media?
Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 (Score:2)
I predict that in 2401, retro CD-ROM coasters will be en vogue again.
Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 (Score:2)
That's just the release date M$ is predicting if they had to remove all the bugs and bloat, which they don't.
Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 (Score:2)
Re:WindowsXP in the year 2401 (Score:2)
And if... (Score:2, Informative)
-Elendale
Re:To bad for MS... (Score:2)
Re:viva xp (Score:2)
I know my own job, my own needs, my own cognittive style. I am not forced into having to use stuff from some a** named Bill who thinks he knows my job better than I do.
Re:This is perfect.. (Score:2)
I'm SO sick of all this "Windows improves productivity" crap. How the fsck does "rebooting and/or reinstalling every time there's a problem" mean productivity? Let's see, at my company sales/accounting work on a custom application running under Linux, client/server with the clients being diskless computers booting off the network. Time required for adding an extra workstation to the network / replacing a faulty one: 30 seconds. Probability of random isolated errors due to software: 0, because everyone uses the exact same copy of the master filesystem which resides on the server. Everyone else uses Linux stand-alone workstations running StarOffice for office work, and they are quite productive because they have been trained to use StarOffice. Developers' workstations run Linux as well, and being Linux programmers, they're quite productive too. There's only ONE admin who takes care of everything and he's also very productive, since he has an army of shell and Perl scripts helping him. True, he may make more than your average MCSE, but then again, he's way more competent and efficient then an MCSE. Software costs are WAY down, so we can afford more and better quality hardware, any licensing or BSA-induced hassle is totally out of the question, and the average uptime on *workstations* is 3 months. So what exactly are you talking about, when you mention negative effects on end users?
Congratulations! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are there open source alternatives? You bet. No, not quite the same bundle of functionality, but overall better: Maxima (symbolic math+functional programming), OCAML and Haskell (functional programming), R (graphics, interactive numerical programming), Python (graphics, 3D visualization, interactive numerical programming), and many others.