Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I take it you're not a fan of the "stupid task view", as you put it.

No, because I knew the old method and now I don't know where anything's at and I know I'm not alone, I've seen lots of people click on something and then pause as they try to figure out where MS moved an icon.

I just switched it back to look at the new control panel layout again, and while I'm still not thrilled with it, there's actually a one-click button in the window to switch it to the old style. Unless they keep every aspect of the GUI identical forever, something is going to change, and I feel like the way they did it makes it pretty dang easy to switch it back if you don't like it.

I fail to see how keeping the same Explorer interface and tweaking a few layouts qualifies as having "very few things" in common with the previous version of the OS.

Because it confuses people for no good reason, people get used to doing things not by remembering what they are but how they do them. In Win2K and earlier "Find" could be reached by hitting Start then F, in XP they changed it to Search but left the F shortcut in place, why? Because otherwise it would confuse people and making S and F both work gave a transition period. Sadly most of the changes didn't have such a transition in place.

I would think that someone who's figured out that the "Find" command is on the Start menu could deal with them changing the name, but I agree there's no particularly good reason for that change.

It still doesn't make it have "very little in common" with Win98.

Seems pretty minor to me, and you can turn it off if it really bothers you.

It's not minor because now people don't have a guage to determine when they have too much crap because XP hides it from you. Before it was simple to look at someone's machine and go "wow, your system tray takes up half of your taskbar, wtf are you doing?".

And you can't click the little button to show the hidden icons if it's there?

Still a very minor change.

Which "tons" of options were moved and renamed?

I'm not going to come up with a comprehensive list, that would take way too much time.

Uh, okay. Could you point me towards a couple that you think impact a lot of people?

If the "most notable" other change was the name of a display in a view of Task Manager (which most users will probably never even see), how is this a "huge step backwards"?

I think the huge number of "why is my pagefile usage so high?" threads around here would contradict the comment about most people never seeing the label. Sure there's a lot that will never see it or never think about what PF stands for, but the fact that it has more people than ever trying to disable their pagefile seems like a pretty big step backwards. If they can't come up with a term that accurately describes what the number means, why put it there at all?

Well, it is actually accurate if you know about how the VM system in Windows works (all memory is "paged"), but it's certainly misleading if you don't. Still, annoying but hardly a "huge step backwards".

People have been screwing with virtual memory settings since Win95 came out. This change is not the cause of people trying to get rid of their pagefile.

<snip>

We can go back and forth on this. Your solution to computer management problems is to restrict users so they can't actually mange their computer. I don't feel this is an adequate solution, but this is more of a philosophical question.

 

[Nothinman]

I just switched it back to look at the new control panel layout again, and while I'm still not thrilled with it, there's actually a one-click button in the window to switch it to the old style. Unless they keep every aspect of the GUI identical forever, something is going to change, and I feel like the way they did it makes it pretty dang easy to switch it back if you don't like it.

But I don't see the point of changing it at all, it's not easier and it's more confusing if you already knew the old way. If you can't figure out what the control panel applets do by their name, you probably shouldn't be poking around in there anyway. They should be spending time on more important things.

Uh, okay. Could you point me towards a couple that you think impact a lot of people?

That would require me to have an XP machine, which I don't anymore.

Well, it is actually accurate if you know about how the VM system in Windows works (all memory is "paged"), but it's certainly misleading if you don't. Still, annoying but hardly a "huge step backwards".

But it's not accurate at all, memory being 'paged' doesn't usually have anything to do with the pagefile unless memory is tight. It was labeled commit charge because it's the amount of physical memory that would be necessary should all of the requested memory actually be needed. I assume they changed the name to PF Usage because everything needs a backing store so technically anything in physical memory that doesn't have a file to back it will be given a reservation in the pagefile and even that reservation counts against "PF Usage", so the number is artificially high and it makes people cry about nothing.

We can go back and forth on this. Your solution to computer management problems is to restrict users so they can't actually mange their computer. I don't feel this is an adequate solution, but this is more of a philosophical question.

Then what is adequate? Most users will never, ever take the time to understand how their computer works. They're content having an extremely limited UI to their car because they don't know how the engine works, why should their computer be any different? All I'm suggesting is that the hood be locked shut by default, they can still be given the key if they actually want to learn how to use what's under there.

 

[doornail]

How in the heck is Eiger available today? It's a vaporware with a codename. Someone told Gates that schools and libraries with shoestring budgets were switching to solutions like the http://k12ltsp.org/contents.html]Linux Terminal Server Project[/url] to get more life out of old hardare. So Microsoft "announces" a product to fill that niche. Someone's clueless boss reads it and says, 'hold off, we can just use Eiger instead of zealot attracting, no indeminity, patent infringing, yucky old Linux."

They done it a hundred times over to squash potential competitors. The difference here is Linux is not swayed by martket pressure and terminal services on old hardware is often an in-house project, so no one's going to sit around waiting for them to ship Eiger.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: nweaver
one thing i HATE about windows is the inabliity to mount a filesystem where I want. If I have 2 hard drives, I have to mount them as drive letters. In linux, if I want to mount it in my home directory, or in the middle of my web server, I can. Want to use network share space easily? easy, mount it where the app wants it, and you have it.

Link

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: nweaver
one thing i HATE about windows is the inabliity to mount a filesystem where I want. If I have 2 hard drives, I have to mount them as drive letters. In linux, if I want to mount it in my home directory, or in the middle of my web server, I can. Want to use network share space easily? easy, mount it where the app wants it, and you have it.

Link

great, now do that with ISO's, with network drives, and with your CD Rom drive. and that is easier then mount /path/to/shareordevice /mnt/path/here

yeah...someone ask billy for their button please..

 

[w00t]

i hate windows but i am a gamer what choice do i have?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: w00t
i hate windows but i am a gamer what choice do i have?

Not a whole lot.

But think about this..

You spend 100-300 dollars on operating system, you spend 200 dollars on a video card, you spend 100 dollars on harddrive, 100 dollars on a cpu, 50 bucks on a motherboard, 100 bucks on a case, 1000 bucks on a nice LCD, then more and more money on games.

Now is your PC gaming experiance that much more superior then something you can get out of a 100 dollar xbox or PS2?

Sure they are more visually better. Better graphics, higher resolutions, etc. But the game play itself isn't improved much if any.

There are a few types of games that work better much on a PC.. mostly because of the controls. First person shooters, big tactical games, maybe some simulators and stuff like that. Other types of games work out better, generally, on a console; racing games and sports games for instance.

And they are much cheaper...

And future gaming consoles are much more compelling. PS3 will have 7 specialized cpu cores in a Cell configuration running at over 3ghz and will have Nvidia's next generation GPU core to back that up, to get that for your PC the vid card alone would probably cost as much as the entire PS3 setup. Similar thing with the Xbox 360 and whatever nintendo comes up with.

For PC games it's not like they don't run in Linux. It's just more of a hassle sometimes. You have to fudge around with sub-par drivers for ATI, and restrictive (legally) drivers for Nvidia. Many windows games that will run in Linux require Cedega's Win32/DirectX api stuff that costs money. Others are aviable natively.. mostly FPS. Lots of indie game makers support Linux as well. It's kinda interesting.

As a gamer Windows is pretty much it if you want to have the maximum amount of games aviable at maximum performance working with the maximum amount of hardware. However Linux is fine for non-hardcore gamer computer geek who is familar with Linux already or has other compeling reasons to use it.

Linux for gaming? Nope.
Linux for other reasons with gaming on the side? Sure. Depends what you want.. Linux isn't for everybody (yet). All the time the situation is improving.

Google around for 'linux gaming' or linux gamers or linux games and you'll find lots of stuff. Free-software Freindly distros like Ubuntu and Fedora Core with healthy forums and other types of help are lowering the bar for Linux desktop, too.

 

[Nothinman]

i hate windows but i am a gamer what choice do i have?

Stick to console games.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: drag
You spend 100-300 dollars on operating system, you spend 200 dollars on a video card, you spend 100 dollars on harddrive, 100 dollars on a cpu, 50 bucks on a motherboard, 100 bucks on a case, 1000 bucks on a nice LCD, then more and more money on games.

Those are some seriously messed up priorities $50 motherboard? $100 case? $1000 LCD?

$50 motherboard? Talk about cheap

$100 case? Spending more on the aesthetics than the components? Come on!

$1000 LCD? Come on, the Dell 200xFPs are only around $400.

Now is your PC gaming experiance that much more superior then something you can get out of a 100 dollar xbox or PS2?

Yes, and on top of that it can browse the web, read email, play music, be a file server, play a wider variety of games, use different types of controllers, print out reports, etc.

Sure they are more visually better. Better graphics, higher resolutions, etc. But the game play itself isn't improved much if any.

Depends on the game. Not the platform.

And future gaming consoles are much more compelling. PS3 will have 7 specialized cpu cores in a Cell configuration running at over 3ghz and will have Nvidia's next generation GPU core to back that up, to get that for your PC the vid card alone would probably cost as much as the entire PS3 setup. Similar thing with the Xbox 360 and whatever nintendo comes up with.

That goes with the assumption that PC technology won't advance any further. Which is patently false. The console of tommorow will be faster than PC of today. The PC of tommorow will also be faster than the PC of today.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, and on top of that it can browse the web, read email, play music, be a file server, play a wider variety of games, use different types of controllers, print out reports, etc.

You can do most of that with a PS2 as well, there was/is a Linux dev kit tha comes with all full distribution.

That goes with the assumption that PC technology won't advance any further. Which is patently false. The console of tommorow will be faster than PC of today. The PC of tommorow will also be faster than the PC of today.

And the games will still be rehashes of older games on both platforms.