No more linux for me...

[Tomas]

well, simply try to run windows 95 on a 486/66 and then run redhat 5 for example... scary uh? not scared yet? now load openoffice in linux and office in windows...

I had debian 3.0 running on my 133@200 p1 "overclocked", 64 megs of ram... It ran far better on debian than both win9x, win2k and winNT 4.0 did, i even had a bunch of servers running, web server, routing,  irc server and so on...

I am pretty sure you install the default package, which means there is loads of stuff installed that you usually have no need for... also redhat in itself seems to be slow, debian is by far faster on my systems  :-)  Also with such a low end system, it might be wise to recompile the kernel.

[cecilia]

whabang wrote:
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows! :-o

I have NO idea where you get that idea!
I have red hat and windows2000 installed on my laptop.
I only installed what i wanted and needed on the linux side. it works great and fast. yes, linux has wierd things about it, but it's more fun than windows.

i make my web pages in linux, and when i have an external modem i can go online easily.
it's not perfect and i had help ("nerd" friend. thank you!) installing it.

but, really, for BIG fun an amiga is always best!  :-D

[whabang]

Tomas wrote:
I still think the best OS for x86 pcs was BEOS... booted fast, no reboots, stable and VERY user friendly, without limiting the more experienced users.

Aye! That was an OS of my liking...

[Waccoon]

By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, unless you're talking about the PnP capabilities of Linux, and all the chipset bugfixes compiled right into the kernel (I don't need a patch for an Intel chipset in my kernel if I'm using nForce, dammit!)

So far, I've tried 8 distributions of Linux.  All of them I found unsuitable for my needs because they were slow and didn't detect my hardware correctly, and xFree86 is a joke when it comes to stability.  Still, all distros give you options on what to put on when you're installing.  You don't have to have the webserver installed.  I believe there's a few 50-100 Meg distros of Linux out there.  Of course, if all you do is browse the Internet, Windows will suit you fine... or even a Mac.

What I wish a lot more people realized is that "Linux" is just a kernel.  It's all the other stuff piled on top that leads to the bloat.  The GNU shell and utilities aren't bad for bloat, but are pretty poorly designed for ordinary people.  XFree86 isn't very nice, and whether it's easy to configure depends largely on what kind of hardware you're using.

It'd be nice to see a distro of Linux with an entirely new shell and GUI.  I like Linux as a kernel, but I hate the way the whole system is put together as a desktop, which is why I think Linux will never gain a foothold in the PC market.  Probably just as well.  Linux people like doing things their own way.

As for Windows, if you're sick of the bloat of XP, I hightly recommend Windows2000.  It's much smaller, and stability is top notch.  You just have to give up some of your older games.  So long as it runs Buggers, Dungeon Keeper, and Porsche Unleashed (with the ACT patch), I'm happy with it.   :-D

[Crumb]

Disable the eyecandy, the option of seeing directories as web-pages, animation in menus etc and you will see that it runs far better than linux.

Of course if your time has no value you can spend your life customizing and recompiling linux to make it run more or less decently.

Sadly linux apps and the OS itself sucks and openoffice crawls...

[alx]

For me, Linux just isn't as responsive as windoze :-o  Yes, I might be using KDE, but thats comparable to the windows shell.

I have very little experience of OS architecture, but to me, parts of a modern GNU/Linux distro seems to me to be a mishmash - yes, I've also been through dependency hell! :madashell:

Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows :roll:  For instance, I'm convinced that there are better ways to organise programs than a "Start" menu - KDE and Gnome devs had the chance to innovate, and decided to clone explorer instead :-(

[Waccoon]

Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows  For instance, I'm convinced that there are better ways to organise programs than a "Start" menu - KDE and Gnome devs had the chance to innovate, and decided to clone explorer instead

This is one of my biggest problems with Linux, and people who herald Linux as the OS that will destroy Windows.  Fact is, many of these people have no originality whatsoever.  They're cloning windows to make people think that is *IS* Windows, and maybe that will convince people to use their crummy desktops.  What we really need is a new set of utilities to make up for the deficiencies in the system.  Instead, we get... well, I'm still upset that RedHat 5 was basicly a PIXEL-PER-PIXEL COPY of Windows 95, right down to the shape, size, and colors of the window gadgets.  They even put "START" on the Start Menu!  I mean, COME ON.  The only thing that was different was the organization of Start Menu items, or rather, the lack of organization.  I actually got rid of RedHat 5 faster than any other distro because it left such a bad impression on me.

Even the AmigaDE mock-up screen shots look like some original thought went into them.  Linux people really don't seem to be very interested.  But, what do you expect from people doing stuff for free?  They do only what interests them, and not "customers", which is why I'm not a big fan of free software, anyway.

[mikeymike]

I basically use my computer for surfing and some simple web-design. I want a small, fast OS without web-servers, advanced backup utilities (I burn everything to CD), and three zillion other utilities that I have no use for.

I've never seen a Linux distro installer that you couldn't choose to install totally unnecessary stuff.

X however, is a valid target for "bloatware" criticisms.  How many typical Windows users need a GUI interface that can run over TCP/IP?

[Miffo]

I think Linux is good, especially for server. I love Gentoo, it is really optimal! :-)

[Tomas]

yeah, would be nice to see some alternative to xfree86 someday...

[Tomas]

but all they do is copy windows

It sure goes the completly other way too... Take for example the linux login managers, XP one is starting to really look like the ones on linux. Also the new start menu feature"that multiple opened programs/folders end up under same button" that is in XP, seems to have been stolen from KDE. KDE had this feature before XP. WinNT, 2k/xp has alot of bsd code underneat also.

[mikeymike]

@ alx

Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows

I think maybe you ought to read up on your GUI history.  In short, everyone has copied from everyone at some point.  And if you think Windows is the most innovative one, you're very much mistaken :-)

[Hammer]

But yes, some Linux dists. like Red Hat feels as bloated as Windows, well not really but almost. With Linux and a 2GB install you atleast get a few webbrowser, complete dev system and similiar but in Windows you get one crappy Web Browser, a crappy paint program, a crappy Media Player and not much more worth mentioning.

At least in MS Windows’s OLE (clip board objects) like services is unified…

a crappy Media Player

Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?

Is there a superior all-in-one media player for Linux or a collection shovel-ware?    

one crappy Web Browser

IF that was the case, 90 percent of world’s desktop users should select another browser.

[Tomas]

Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?

It cannot even play svcds in right aspect ratio, it also pretty slow. However i like Windows Media Player 6.4, the gui is small and plays nearly every format correctly as long as you have the codec.

Nothing beats xine and mplayer on linux though.

[Hammer]

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, unless you're talking about the PnP capabilities of Linux, and all the chipset bugfixes compiled right into the kernel (I don't need a patch for an Intel chipset in my kernel if I'm using nForce, dammit!)

I tried the "so-call" MS Windows XP buster “Lindows 4.0” on ASUS A7N8X Deluxe** (nForce II 400 Ultra) and I don’t get sound (so much for hype(sigh)).

**“ASUS A7N8X Deluxe” has both NVidia Sound Storm and Realtek ALC650 20bit audio solutions.  Realtek’s ALC650 sound chip  can be use as alternative audio solution (IF Sound Storm driver is not available).

PS I recall Linux may have a new driver model to be release in the future. It stated to be WDM like installation (i.e. load and run)…

[Hammer]

It cannot even play svcds in right aspect ratio, it also pretty slow.

In regards to speed, it's dependent on hardware and driver interactions (I have no speed problems running Mpeg 1 on following hardware;
1. Celeron 433Mhz, Intel 440ZX, NVidia TNT2, PC100 192MB RAM.
2. Athlon XP 3200+, nForce II 400 Ultra, NVidia Geforce 4 TI 4600 VIVO, PC3200 1GB RAM (also tested with 512Mb).
3. Athlon XP 1800+/2000+, VIAKT133A, NVidia Geforce 2 MX/400, PC133 640 MB  RAM.

I haven’t tested Mpeg 1 on following HW recently (but I know they work fine with Mpeg 1/VCDs).
1. Intel Pentium 4, i850, 1 GB PC800 RDRAM (main development server).
2. Intel Celeron 300A, SIS BX Pro, SIS6236, 128Mb RAM (unused box).

Usually, Video cards (boxed retail) includes PowerDVD OEM e.g. as in Leadtek products.

However i like Windows Media Player 6.4, the gui is small and plays nearly every format correctly as long as you have the codec.

One could type  "Mplayer2" on Start->Run mini-command-line (includes in XP)...