On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
wrote:
>class_a_******* wrote:
>
>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>> Windoze version.
>
>You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>against both common sense and experience.
>
>You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Mac Cool wrote:
>>> class_a:
>>>
>>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>>> already have with XP?
>>>> You're kidding, right?
>>> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more
>>> functionality and compatibility than any linux distro.
>> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS. I use XP in
>> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be
>> rebooted once or twice a week due to various problems that
>> constantly crop up and which never give enough information in the
>> error messages to fix. OTOH, I use linux at home (heavily,
>> running more apps than the XP boxes in work) and I have had
>> uptimes in the 100+days range, which would have been longer only I
>> did a kernel upgrade that necessitated a reboot.
>>
>>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>> That I don't buy at all.
>
> Of course you don't, troll.
Nice to see you back "John". Have you come up with an answer yet how an
E6850 can possibly be faster than an overclocked Q6600 when both are
running at 3GHz, both have Conroe cores, both have 9x multipliers but
the Q6600 has twice as many processing cores? _How_ can the E6850
possibly be faster? Your lack of an answer on this shows that _YOU_ are
the troll.
Michael Cecil wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>
>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>> Windoze version.
>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>> against both common sense and experience.
>>
>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>
> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
John Doe wrote:
> Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote:
>
>> class_a:
>>
>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>>>> have with XP?
>
> I leave my XP computer on for days at a time, doing some computer
> gymnastics that cannot be done with Linux.
Such as?
>> And when I said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid
>> the sun and their neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
>
> Some probably do enjoy living in a closet.
Were you hiding in the closet instead of finding out how an E6850 can
possibly be faster than an overclocked Q6600 when both run at 3GHz, both
have 9x multipliers, both run Conroe cores, but the Q6600 has twice as
many cores?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:12 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>Michael Cecil wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>>> Windoze version.
>>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>>> against both common sense and experience.
>>>
>>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>>
>> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
>
>If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
"Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
FREE linux alternative"
Mac Cool wrote:
> Your entire post is full of tired myths and worn out cliches that linux
> users have been spreading for over a decade.
>
> class_a:
>
>> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS.
>
> False. Maybe your computer is infected with spyware or maybe you didn't
> do your research and have a driver conflict or maybe you just used a
> cheap PSU.
100% true and I don't use cheap components in my computer. It was not
infected with spyware as it was swept regularly (it had to be due to the
M$ security model). It could have been a driver issue, are you saying
driver support for Windows is flaky?
>> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be rebooted
>> once or twice a week due to various problems that constantly crop up
>
> Maybe you aren't managing the machines very well, more likely your users
> are mucking around where they shouldn't. Replace XP with linux then.
Nope, these are off-the-shelf Core2 Dell machines running XP with a
standard set of applications installed. They have to be rebooted once
or twice a week to keep them running smoothly.
>> boxes in work) and I have had uptimes in the 100+days range, which
>> would have been longer only I did a kernel upgrade that necessitated
>> a reboot.
>
> Look, the no reboot thing on linux is a myth (as you just admitted) and
> second, rebooting once in a blue moon is not big deal. I shut down XP
> about twice a month otherwise it runs 24/7 and I only need to reboot if
> I upgrade drivers (maybe once a year) or the occasional MS update may
> require a reboot (not as often as you try to make it out to be). 100
> days should be no problem even for linux, on XP it would be
If you don't do kernel updates in linux, you don't need to reboot at
all. I have seen linux boxes that act in a server role (with all
security patches applied) that have uptimes measured in years. I
believe the reason Windoze needs to be rebooted almost every time an
update is applied is because of the changes made to the stupid registry.
Don't get me started on why the registry is another major flaw in the
OS design in addition to the pathetic security model it uses.
>>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>> That I don't buy at all.
>
> But other people do. Whether you buy it or not doesn't negate the fact.
I can't help it if other people are out of touch with reality....
> Sourceforge is great, the opensource movement is awesome but the problem
> with linux is that the effort is so fractured. A new distro comes out
> every other day and each year you read some media article about the
> newest hottest distro that will unseat Windows then it just fades away.
Linux is about choice, something you don't get with Windows! All the
new distros don't worry me as I've been using the same distro for years.
I found one I like and which suited my needs and that is what I use.
However, if I did want a different style of linux distro, the choice is
there. With Windows, everyone is forced to use the same thing. Square
peg, round hole?
> The condition is worsened by overzealous users such as yourself that
> grossly exaggerate linux' capabilities.
What have I "grossly exagerated"?
>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find
>> a FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>> Windoze version.
>
> Usenet binary application. Professional level vector graphics program.
The first example that springs instantly to mind for Usenet binaries is
Pan (http://freshmeat.net/projects/pan/). There are lots of others.
I don't work with vector graphics so don't know any off the top of my
head or what you need, but a search for "vector graphics" gives hits on
72 projects on Freshmeat and 91 hits for projects on Sourceforge. See,
choice.
>>> it has better hardware compatibility,
>> Really? Have you tried some older hardware on XP? Some of it
>> doesn't work (due to a lack of XP drivers), but does in the latest
>> linux distro as it is supported at kernel level!
>
> So linux supports obsolete hardware. Have you considered that the
> hardware is obsolete because no one wants to use it.
The reason hardware gets obsoleted so quickly is because every release
of a Microsoft OS is more bloated than the last which forces users to
upgrade perfectly good hardware just to be able to run the new
bloatware. How many computers that run XP comfortably today would be
able to do the same with Vista if only the OS was changed? Owners are
being forced to upgrade hardware when they don't need to.
I could go down the road of saying this adds to the burden on the worlds
resources as new hardware is being produced that doesn't really need to
be if an efficient OS was used, from which you could imply that Vista is
less 'green'
> And yet linux was years behind MS supporting such commonplace items as
> usb mice, wireless mice, some popular graphics cards and firewire
> external drives, just to name a few off the top of my head. linux will
> no doubt continue to be behind the curve going forward.
That was years ago..... try naming me something that is not supported in
the latest linux distros today! USB mice? Wireless mice? graphics
cards? firewire? Yup, yup, yup and yup. Linux had native S-ATA
support on their install discs before Microsoft had!!
>>> requires less work to make work
>> Now I know you are kidding (or a troll). XP needs a HUGE amount more
>> work to keep running when compared to linux.
>
> Anyone who installs linux will know you for a liar within the hour. Go
> ahead and cry troll, because that and your myths are all you have.
Oh give me a break. I built this new compute a few weeks ago and made a
fresh install of linux with lots of applications (Office suite, a couple
of browsers, newsreaders, mp3 players etc) along with all the available
online updates. It took a little over an hour to complete. Try
installing XP or Vista from scratch, install all the updates, an Office
suite etc..... you'll be there for hours and will be tired watching it
reboot!
>>> and has better support by huge margin.
>> Again, don't make me laugh.
>
> You should laugh at the pathetic support linux has. If you have a
> problem it will involve visiting half a dozen forums or newsgroups while
> a few people give you half clues and the rest reply RTFM. Not to mention
> the next to worthless documentation.
And the extra support Microsoft has???..... oh yeah, PAY Microsoft or
someone with a Microsoft "qualification" to fix their broken product.
If you don't want to do that, I can state categorically that the support
you will receive for linux on newsgroups and forums is much more
accurate and detailed than that provided on Windows groups, provided you
ask a sensible question with enough detail to enable others to
troubleshoot. Those that ask "my computer is broken, what is wrong with
it?" get the response they deserve.... maybe that is what happened to you?
>> Linux? It's usually patched the same day the flaw is discovered.
>
> Sure and the check is in the mail.
And you have evidence to the contrary?
>> Tell me, do you run anti-virus software? Yes? Why is that? I don't
>> because I don't need to.
>
> Why would you need to, almost all the spyware, viruses and whatnot are
> written by linux nerds when they're not busy fixing linux.
And you have evidence to support the ridiculous accusation that "almost
all the spyware, viruses and whatnot are written by linux nerds"? You
are a Microsoft fanboy and I claim my $5.
>> riddled with viruses due to a major flaw in the security structure of
>> the OS at the most basic level.
>
> And yet, the only people I know who get infections are clueless users
> who do stupid things. It's true, most windows users are clueless about
> computers and especially security, this is not MS fault.
Yes it is. There are clueless users on linux as well and they don't get
infected. The problem is not the users, it is the pathetic security
model that Microsoft use in their OSes. Most uses don't even know their
Windows boxes are infected due to them clicking on a link that installed
some malware without their knowledge due to the pathetic security model
in Windows. These boxes then go on to infect other Windows boxes etc.
If Microsoft had used a sensible security model from the start then
malware like this wouldn't be able to spread like wildfire and it
wouldn't matter how clueless the users were.
>> Because my linux box is more stable
>
> Perhaps you should write a post and we can help diagnose your problem,
> most likely spyware, a driver conflict or cheap psu.
As I said further up, I don't use cheap hardware and when I did use
Windows the machine was swept regularly for 'nasties' (which is
additional support time that is not required for linux).
>> and thus requires less work
>
> We can probably help fix that.
So, you want to break linux so it acts up like Windows? Here's a tip,
linux is NOT Windows. This is worth a read for all the Windows zealots
who have tried linux and thought it was too 'different' from Windows. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
>> and is faster(!)
>
> Probably can fix that too.
You'd install Vista on my hardware to make it slower? Don't even try to
run Vista in less than 1Gb RAM (preferably 2Gb) unless you have a lot of
spare time on your hands to wait on it. My boss bought a new computer
(XP4400+, 2Gb RAM etc) that had Vista pre-installed. It CRAWLED! He
installed XP instead and it flew in comparison to Vista, on the
identical hardware. This goes right back to my bloatware comments above.
>> due to a more efficient OS
>
> LOL
The latest distros of linux will run on a Pentium-1, will Vista? Nope,
because Microsoft state you need a MINIMUM 800MHz processor and a
minimum of 512Mb RAM and a minimum DirectX9 capable graphics card.
However, as everyone knows, don't even attempt to use hardware that is
at the MS stated minimum as it will be so slow as to be almost unusable.
If you want the 'Premium' version the minimum specs are 1GHz, 1Gb, DX9
with 128Mb, so in reality you need much faster than that. Vista is
HUGELY inefficient in comparison to current linux distros which will run
on a P-I with 256Mb RAM.
>> I have MORE time to get out in the sun and to meet my neighbors.
>
> As if.
Michael Cecil wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:12 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Cecil wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>>>> Windoze version.
>>>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>>>> against both common sense and experience.
>>>>
>>>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>>> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
>> If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
>
> "Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
> FREE linux alternative"
>
> Oops. Making unsupportable claims must be a Linux user feature, eh?
Not able to find an application that doesn't have a free linux
equivalent so your resort to abuse?
Xp gets rebooted here when there is a software change or hardware change. 24/7 operation
for months at a time. XP , is MS's last great OS. Its ridiculous to blame the OS when
very high percentage of users use it flawlessly, while few will say its 'unstable'. I
could see many other adjectives used but 'unstable' is 'linux geek talk'. BTW what OS did
you recommend to the OP?
> John Doe wrote:
>> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mac Cool wrote:
>>>> class_a:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>>>> already have with XP?
>>>>> You're kidding, right?
>>>> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more
>>>> functionality and compatibility than any linux distro.
>>> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS. I use XP in
>>> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be
>>> rebooted once or twice a week due to various problems that
>>> constantly crop up and which never give enough information in the
>>> error messages to fix. OTOH, I use linux at home (heavily,
>>> running more apps than the XP boxes in work) and I have had
>>> uptimes in the 100+days range, which would have been longer only I
>>> did a kernel upgrade that necessitated a reboot.
>>>
>>>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>>> That I don't buy at all.
>>
>> Of course you don't, troll.
>
> Nice to see you back "John".
I've been in this group for a very long time talking about personal
computer related issues. I'm not just a troll like you hanging
around to promote Linux.
>
>
> Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com! nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!nx02.iad01.newsho sting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH! border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!lo cal02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news. comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 07:17:46 -0500
> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:19:34 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine?
> References: <Xns9A9EC1B2B2C4MacCool 130.133.1.4> <482b959a$0$3395$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <Xns9A9EE8D73BFD7MacCool 130.133.1.4> <m9SdnRwhQ8-hkrHVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d comcast.com> <Xns9A9F62E5ED9CDMacCool 130.133.1.4> <U9udnSGXk-fcPLHVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com> <Rb6Xj.911$qH4.736 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
> In-Reply-To: <Rb6Xj.911$qH4.736 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <U9udnVyXk-f35rDVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 31
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-Gk3abyQmp2IQIHyLQ3AkGjA/YBo01QI9ebPViFX9c1pfNc+joglzudBAwsZMjLPK0sZ2v6jewt 7pfRH!A30O4B0Q/YbglLUEBtW24pUMQJf7qDnWvsXB9cJCJmnWLCP8zgN2vjIImOj aCT1uLfwFDK2qNm/g!LXX3VnQPkg7l8y8JYNCzZ9uwSNVw
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.38
> Bytes: 2878
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506413
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:17:49 EDT (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
>
> Michael Cecil wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:12 -0400, class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Cecil wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>>>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>>>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>>>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>>>>> Windoze version.
>>>>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>>>>> against both common sense and experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>>>> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
>>> If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
>>
>> "Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>> FREE linux alternative"
>>
>> Oops. Making unsupportable claims must be a Linux user feature, eh?
>
> Not able to find an application that doesn't have a free linux
> equivalent so your resort to abuse?
If anything, you deserve abuse, troll.
>
>
> Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com! nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTE D!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:28:51 -0500
> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:30:40 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine?
> References: <Xns9A9EC1B2B2C4MacCool 130.133.1.4> <482b959a$0$3395$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <Xns9A9EE8D73BFD7MacCool 130.133.1.4> <m9SdnRwhQ8-hkrHVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d comcast.com> <Xns9A9F62E5ED9CDMacCool 130.133.1.4> <U9udnSGXk-fcPLHVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com> <pw9Xj.331$gi1.217 fe107.usenetserver.com> <endq249p0hj7eivajtf4ta0sb6urupviam 4ax.com> <U9udnV-Xk-dR5rDVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com> <ad0r245dm5i03jhsbl0fjq8599rg3n852o 4ax.com>
> In-Reply-To: <ad0r245dm5i03jhsbl0fjq8599rg3n852o 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <PO-dnRlItaq-B7DVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 28
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-k1J5zLAwt6lRlCFFRAk8NVSc26vH+LZ3RhDYlTUAgGXKewHbcG mmkPiJALZBZsYwcVpZq+aDHprC4B7!MxLJh2hi6rKgxN4949L3 FzarlP9Gihm5QfmjC7GDm6OHa9jQSy0GaXHC+6leWOH74l9UMk vWv8o0!wDwtPElotDx+91Qf6fKxPGGs6Mwq
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 2869
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506418
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:28:51 EDT (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
>
Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine? 
Linear Mode
