why do people hate win98 so much? win2k and linux suck so much more

[josphstalinator]

i have win98 and dont have any problems. im very careful to not let applications screw over my system. i unistal programs correctly and keep the registry clean. do i get an occasional bsod? sure, but mostly when i eject a cd while its being read or somethign like that.

ive installed win2k before but them my usb camera didnt work (no drivers), in addition none of my dos applications could work either, maybe if i used a boot disk. what a jip!

ive also installed linux (mandrake 8.0). horrible. ethernet card = not work. the instal even asked me what kind of internet connection i had (adsl and pppoe) and let me enter the dns server addresses and such. i dont think my ethernet card was working, even though i chose ne2000 compadible, which is the correct choice. many other devices didnt work either. my cdrom was detected twice (how g@y!) and the system was just basically slow as snot. i couldnt even drag a window across the screen w/out the animation looking gimpy as hell. and how do you configure dual monitors??? got the dual monitors to work by reinstalling linux, what a pain. i couldnt even configure each head independently. and when the dual monitor setup was "working" i constantly had video problems w/ one of the monitors (i have NO problems w/ this monitor under windows). i do agree that i know basically nothign about linux and that is probably the root of all my problems but i didnt know anything about windows before i started using that os, and the learning curve w/ windows was very steep. i cant figure out how to do anything w/ linux. i even downloaded step by step instruction on how to get my ethernet card to work, but the directory that contained the linux kernel was non existant. one more thing i couldnt instal linux w/ one of the cd drives, constant errors. switched to another drive and everything installed perfectly. linux = pure frustration

 

[RichieZ]

w98 sucks, is it w2k's fault that your camera manufature didn't write software for w2k? My Olymus C3000Z works just fine in w2k.

What about DOS apps? Why would u want to use antyhing so old? And if you install SP2 you can run stuff in w95 compatibility layer, mite work then. I have yet to get a BSOD in like 5 months of running w2k.

 

[randomlinh]

linux still isn't ready for the desktop market i don't think.. not for a majority of home users anyway. Win2k has it's stability, but it wasn't targeted at a home market, that's win98's job. That's where driver issues come in, companies will develop for who they're targeting.

And if you thought getting mandrake 8 was a pain.. heh.. try doing a slackware install

 

[Workin']

Been running Win2k for 7 months without a single hang or blue screen. Can't really say the same for Win98... All my odd and pathetic hardware and software work just fine under 2k.

 

[Kazi]

win 98se, best for gaming. win2k, server based stuff, FTP etc..

EDIT- Why would you let your system get out of date on security or so...7 months, you can risk it, i aint

 

[userpete]

what does BSOD mean anyway?

pete

 

[Kazi]

Blue Screen Of Death

 

[lucidguy]

Windows is easy to learn, clumsy and frustrating to use.

Linux is easy to use, once you've done the learning.

It initially seems like Windows gives you a time advantage, because getting up and running with Windows takes less time for a complete novice. However, in the long run, having to deal with obscure bugs that you cannot figure out, nor solve, nor pay anyone else to fix, takes away a lot of your time. Productivity goes down the toilet.

Linux initially takes more time than Windows to learn. However, even a rudimentary understanding of Linux gives a user much more control over their computer than Windows possibly can. Bugs are easily handled by looking into and fixing the source. If you cannot program, but are a corporate client, or a wealthy person, you can pay your support provider or an independent consultant to fix your problem immediately. Even if none of these apply to you, you can file a bugreport with the developers and you will be assured a thousand times more attention than Microsoft would ever give you.

After all, open source software developers concentrate on excellence and freedom. Microsoft on the other hand concentrates on milking the most people for the most money by shipping the lowest quality, the most bloated, the most insecure software that the market will bear.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< win 98se, best for gaming. win2k, server based stuff, FTP etc..

EDIT- Why would you let your system get out of date on security or so...7 months, you can risk it, i aint >>



I dont think he meant 7 months without a reboot. He said 7 months without a bsod or system hang. But, if he was really worried about security he would be using OpenBSD

 

[userpete]

&quot;Ok&quot;

Thx
Pete

 

[HansXP]

<< It initially seems like Windows gives you a time advantage, because getting up and running with Windows takes less time for a complete novice. However, in the long run, having to deal with obscure bugs that you cannot figure out, nor solve, nor pay anyone else to fix, takes away a lot of your time. Productivity goes down the toilet.

Linux initially takes more time than Windows to learn. However, even a rudimentary understanding of Linux gives a user much more control over their computer than Windows possibly can. >>



Have you even once tried using Windows 2000? I have all the control I need with it, and I'm VERY productive as well - it never crashes, and those &quot;bugs&quot; you seem to think it has aren't really there. Stop trolling.

 

[lucidguy]

<< those &quot;bugs&quot; you seem to think it has aren't really there. >>



Uh huh. Win2k is already at Service Pack 2, not because Win2k is riddled with bugs, but simply because Microsoft employees enjoy putting out Service Packs just for the hell of it.

 

[HansXP]

<< Win2k is riddled with bugs >>



Let's see...2 service packs in 1.5 years. How many Linux kernel patches have their been during that time? I'm not trying to diss Linux, but let's face it: no OS is perfect. The fact of the matter is, most of the bugs SP1 and SP2 fixed weren't even affecting the majority of users. So to say Win2K is riddled with bugs is simply a lie.

 

[Workin']

Yeah, I didn't mean I haven't shutt off my system for 7 months! Just that it has never hung while I was using it - which is something that can't be said for when the same machine was running Win 98 OR linux! Talk about riddled with bugs - unless you are running a bare command line, the software out there for linux is so full of bugs (if it is even developed to the point of being able to run at all) it is virtuallly unusable in the real world where people have to make money from the work they do, and interact with other businesses.

The original poster here obviously is taliking about a desktop OS - and you are very far out of touch with reality if you think linux is a viable desktop OS at this point! And BSD?? on the desktop?? You must be on drugs!

 

[Elledan]

Win2k works just fine. If hardware doesn't work with it, buy new hardware. Can't run DOS applications? No wonder since Win2k has only a DOS emulator (just like NT).

Linux is an excellent OS for programming/development, Internet (browsing etc.), office-apps and of course it works perfectly on a server.

I use both Win2k and Linux (SuSe 7.1, soon 7.2) and I must say that Linux is simple, fast, stable and tweakable to its kernel (literally), so you can totally adapt it to your wishes/hardware. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but one advantage of Linux over Windows is pretty obvious: networking. With ping-times at least 10% lower than in Win2k and Win98 (same site, same time, same connection) and a much more reliable data-transfer (sites load in NS and Mozilla within 1 second (cable connection)) Linux beats Windows here.

Windows has the advantage of a much better developed GUI, which doesn't drift upon the OS like other programs and is much more userfriendly, both in handling files and configuring hardware.

 

[lucidguy]

<< The fact of the matter is, most of the bugs SP1 and SP2 fixed weren't even affecting the majority of users. >>



This is the one correct statement that you made. Microsoft has managed to brainwash sheep like you to accept bluescreens, freezes, crashing programs and other unsightly things as &quot;a way of life&quot;. You just accept them as par for the course when you use a Microsoft operating system. Most users do not see these problems as anything out of the ordinary. They aren't &quot;affected&quot; by it, in the same way that one is not &quot;affected&quot; when one sees people on the street. It's so common you don't even think twice about it.

The Service Packs did, in fact, fix thousands of bugs. So &quot;riddled with bugs&quot; is actually an understatement. But I don't know any words that are stronger than that. Microsoft's incompetence taxes my powers of expression.

 

[HansXP]

<< This is the one correct statement that you made. Microsoft has managed to brainwash sheep like you to accept bluescreens, freezes, crashing programs and other unsightly things as &quot;a way of life&quot;. You just accept them as par for the course when you use a Microsoft operating system. Most users do not see these problems as anything out of the ordinary. They aren't &quot;affected&quot; by it, in the same way that one is not &quot;affected&quot; when one sees people on the street. It's so common you don't even think twice about it.

The Service Packs did, in fact, fix thousands of bugs. So &quot;riddled with bugs&quot; is actually an understatement. But I don't know any words that are stronger than that. Microsoft's incompetence taxes my powers of expression. >>



LOL, yes, Microsoft has brainwashed me...right... I've never seen a bluescreen, never had a freeze, and rarely had a program crash under Windows 2000. Your statements make it quite obvious you've NEVER used W2K.

Go ahead and read those bug lists...NONE of those bugs ever even affected me, nor did they affect the majority of W2K users.

And I noticed you didn't bother answering my question about the Linux kernel...must have just been an accident, right?

 

[lucidguy]

<< And I noticed you didn't bother answering my question about the Linux kernel...must have just been an accident, right? >>



Nope, it's not an accident. Linux does not operate on the same principles as Microsoft. The open source coding mantra is &quot;release early, release often&quot;. That's why you get such extensive version numbering, in the example of kernel 2.2.18, or 2.4.5.

In most cases, updates to Linux or other open source software is meant to add features, rather than fix bugs. With the kind of extensive peer review that open source software undergoes, all bugs get discovered very quickly, very often before releases. Most releases have few bugs if any. Right now, all over the Internet, you will find thousands of 2.2.x Linux servers (not 2.2.18) with uptimes of months, sometimes years. How can a kernel, not updated to the latest version, have an uptime of years? That must be a foreign concept to MS shills.

And with Linux, should you ever manage to find bugs in such a stable operating system, at least you have the luxury of fixing them on your on schedule, or paying someone to do so. With Windows, you are beholden to Microsoft. They won't fix bugs even if you pay them. They will tell you to wait for the next service pack six months later, and the bug will be fixed, if you are lucky. That is no way to treat a customer, in the software business, or for that matter, in any other business.

And you still manage to have respect for this company. You know, I just don't get it. I try really hard to comprehend how an MS shill could possibly justify respecting Microsoft, ethically and logically. How can one respect a company that produces inferior product, that submits fradulent evidence to a court of law, that uses its monopoly power in illegal ways, and that places customer satisfaction at the bottom of its priorities?

I try really hard, but I am unable to wrap my head around the mindset of the MS shill. Microsoft must have really done a number on you and on the likes of you.

 

[HansXP]

Your name calling does no one any good, and I'm not even going to bother arguing this. Believe what you want to believe, you're opinions are extremely one-sided.

 

[lucidguy]

I presented facts. Where did I name call? GIve examples of my name calling.

 

[Noriaki]

I dunno about Win2k being riddled with bugs.

The only thing that has ever caused my Win2k to crash are the stupid ass ATi beta drivers for my TV-Wonder, because ATi has their head too far up their ass to make retail drivers for a 2 year old OS.

And I've never ran SP1 or SP2. Just general release Win2k, it hasn't crashed on me at all except when I use my TV-Wonder, and that's ATi's fault not MS's. Since I stopped using that POS TV card Win2k hasn't crashed once.

 

[HansXP]

<< Where did I name call? GIve examples of my name calling. >>



All you seem to be able to call me is an &quot;MS shill&quot; I'm not, thanks.

 

[lucidguy]

That wasn't meant to be derogatory. It was meant to be descriptive. You really seem to enjoy sticking up for Microsoft whenever you open your mouth. You genuinely come across as a Microsoft shill. Why are you ashamed of being called a Microsoft shill, when you're obviously not ashamed of acting like one?

 

[Workin']

<< I try really hard, but I am unable to wrap my head around the mindset of the MS shill. Microsoft must have really done a number on you and on the likes of you. >>

Don't know what country you live in, but in the US statements like those amount to name calling, belittling, and are often times meant to humiliate an opponent you can't defeat using rational argument.

Lucidguy, I hope you are just having a bad day, usually you are pretty normal, but it seems as if your evil zealot side is showing. It frightens me when people get so wrapped up in (insert a belief here) that they can not see any validity to any conflicting information. MS may be a lot of things, but you wouldn't be running linux on a low-cost PC if it wasn't for them. Like it or not, they played a big part in the evolution of the PC. An linux is lots of things, but it is certainly not the be-all end-all that you are trying to convince everyone it is.

 

[HansXP]

Well, according to the dictionary, a shill is a self-interested promoter. I have nothing to gain by promoting MS' products, they don't pay me to do it. And if all of MS' products were genuinely flawed like you say so, then I wouldn't be backing them up. But the fact is, you're LYING. Windows 2000 is not filled with bugs, in fact it is their best OS, and IMHO, the best OS out there, period.