Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Is XP really that good?
mrainey:
Is XP really that good?
--- End quote ---
For me, it is. No major problems, great overall performance.
f0dder:
Linux is not well designed. Its a hodge podge of competing design philosophies with no coherent vision, no standardized API's on which other developers can build apps, and a new project starting every week which tries to fix the failed efforts of the previous ones. Note I am not talking of the kernel, which IS decent, but all the user level subsystems such as video, sound, the filesystem etc. -MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hear ye, hear ye!
It's a darn messy hodge-podge, and documentation sucks. When it works, all is good, but as soon as something breaks... *b00m*. Unless you're a hardcore developer or have some serious google-fu elitism, you're S-O-L.
Well, that is all very open to debate :P Having to fix endless XP machines of friends (registry errors, infections aplenty, horrible performance), having to recommend from the tidal wave of poor alternative software (more in number yes, not always in quality), I can't say it is better for users at all.-nontroppo (November 29, 2008, 08:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
That'd be the norm for any OS (of the currently available) if it was the dominating product. As soon as you get a zillion shit-for-brains people using something, it'll go horribly wrong :). Users mess around alot, and linux is more fragile than windows. Users will figure out how to run everything as root, and then they'll go wreck their system.
Yeah, the Windows API is pretty messy, and it's very clearly visible that it has legacy all the way back to win3x... but at least it is properly documented, covers more or less everything you need for core OS services (without requiring third-party libraries), etc. I wouldn't mind playing around with OS X, but why oh why did Apple choose Objective-C for Cocoa? :-s
faster or just as fast (KDE and Gnome are just as fat and bloated as Windows counterparts)-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, Windows has never run as fast on any system I've put them on. And Vista is infinitely slower than XP. If KDE and Gnome are just as bloated, then Windows must be inherently much slower.-Dormouse (November 29, 2008, 09:38 AM)
--- End quote ---
In my experience, linux has always felt slower than windows. Applications start slower, including second-time launches when everything is cached - and even if you do horrible hacks like statically binding libraries. The UI also feels less responsive than Windows, even if using the native nvidia drivers (probably has to do with the X11 protocol) - the OpenGL desktop acceleration stuff doesn't help much, but it sure does make your system unstable.
They find the whole repository system easier than anything for Windows - and it is only really possible for free software.
It's only familiarity that makes most people think it's easier.-Dormouse (November 29, 2008, 09:38 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh really?
*mumbles something about having to manually edit configuration files as soon as you want to do anything out of the ordinary... like getting a multiple monitor setup working*
Dormouse:
Users mess around alot, and linux is more fragile than windows. Users will figure out how to run everything as root, and then they'll go wreck their system.
...
*mumbles something about having to manually edit configuration files as soon as you want to do anything out of the ordinary... like getting a multiple monitor setup working*-f0dder (November 29, 2008, 06:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually most users don't do anything of the sort. They keep the system as it is (because they don't have enough interest to do anything different) and occasionally update (more often if automatic updates are switched on) and install new programs. They run everything on default settings and scream 'help' if something stops working. And they can't comprehend why anyone would want two monitors.
In this context, Linux is certainly good enough - and so is XP.
But the ones I know find it far easier to use the repository system than to search the net for Windows software.
zridling:
This sounds like one of those discussions where someone hasn't used Linux for more than ten minutes in the past year, but knows in detail how bad it is. In other words, it's not true to my experience.
As for XP, it works. Enough said. Praising documentation presumes people read it. "Normal" users tend not to go there.
______________
As for Linux,
— Renegade root users run amok?
Nah.
— Slow?
Not for me, but then I'm running it with lots of memory on a Quad-core.
— Normal users have little reason not to run Windows? Hmmm.... when compared directly with Windows, I can think of a few:
..........
- Viruses and Spyware (no need to buy any of that; and viruses are nil)
- Security and Stability (ahhh, it does what I want it to, when I want to do it. What a difference!)
- Package Management (software installation that doesn't hork your system or leave its trash behind)
- Features (Linux is often at the forefront of computer technology and innovation, and is scalable to any device of any size.)
- Compatibility (Linux runs on anything, old, really old, or new.)
- Free as in freedom (Linux is free open source software. This might not mean much to you if you are not a programmer but even if you are just an end user it means you can trust the software. Governments want to see -- and control -- the source code they use. You should have the same opportunity.)
- Free as in price, (and a treat in this tragic economy)
- Easy and Intuitive (a 15-min. installation sets everything up for you, including OpenOffice, codecs, PDF reader, multimedia, and utilities. Want more? Want to customize? Then it gets fun.)
- Choice and Control (Run what you want, how you want to, and customize until your eyes bleed. If I want to move to another distro, I'm free to without cost. I can legally set it up on as many machines as I want, no charge, no license, no activation, no validation schemes, no forced updates.)
- Community (Everyone using Linux does so because they choose to, not because it came on the machine. People develop Linux because they have a passion for it, not because they do it for money or market share.)
- Fun! (I haven't had this much fun on a computer since Win95.)
I could think of at least 20 more off the top of my head, but you get the point.
tomos:
I'm neutral here - esp as I've never run Linux!
As for XP, it works. Enough said. Praising documentation presumes people read it. "Normal" users tend not to go there.
-zridling (November 30, 2008, 03:23 AM)
--- End quote ---
Zaine,
I just wanted to point out that the documentation is never read until you need it - that's the way I, and prob many others work too ..
if it's not there when you really need it you're in trouble unless you have an expert on hand ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version