Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for only $39.99!

[PanterHZ]

Funny, but I don' find that much difference between 98 and ME, except that ME has more drivers built in and requires the CD less often when adding hardware.

Then again, people gave Vista a bad rap, and it might deserve it more in that it is more crash prone then its predecessor (ME is not, in fact its pretty much a polished version of '98).

I've been using Windows since version 3.0 and each time a new version comes out there's always some part of the market that dislikes the new version. Then, eventually, enough people adopt it (or wait) that it becomes a hit (or a miss).

A lot of software for Windows 9x (especially games) simply refused to work with ME, while the same software could be made to work with XP by configuring the compatibility settings. All of this left ME stuck in the middle, where it's usefulness got seriously limited.

What I find funny is how quickly some people forget the past. Because what happened when Vista was launched, is exactly what happened when XP was launched as well. As a matter of fact, the issues with no longer working drivers was much worse with the switch from 98 to XP.

[stefcep2]

@Spiranto and commodorejohn.

Both of you have articulated my thoughts and experiences with Linux.  Its a frustrating system to use and maintain.

 I wanted to like it, I really did, and I gave it a go for 5 FRICKEN YEARS, far too much of which I simply WASTED, on doing what SHOULD  be simple things, things that should work out of the box-like mounting a cd image for example.

[runequester]

Since what version does windows support mounting an ISO ? Without downloading an external app like demontools

[PanterHZ]

If you aren't pirating it, you get the one that came on your purchase disk?  That may not be current or service packed.

EDIT: Iggy beat me to it

Personally I install Windows XP on pc's by using a XP CD with SP3 included, and even though I downloaded it from a torrent site, I don't consider this to be piracy since I still need genuine license keys for installing.

[TheBilgeRat]

Since what version does windows support mounting an ISO ? Without downloading an external app like demontools

Windows 8 finally has it.

Also, how hard is:

mkdir /media/myISO

(sudo) mount -t iso9660 myISO.iso -o loop

[TheBilgeRat]

Personally I install Windows XP on pc's by using a XP CD with SP3 included, and even though I downloaded it from a torrent site, I don't consider this to be piracy since I still need genuine license keys for installing.

I have done that as well, however I worry that those isos are rootkitted.

[commodorejohn]

Also, how hard is:

mkdir /media/myISO

(sudo) mount -t iso9660 myISO.iso -o loop

Harder than installing Daemon Tools, that's for certain.

Edit: or was that sarcasm?

[PanterHZ]

I have done that as well, however I worry that those isos are rootkitted.

Yes it is always a good idea to be a bit careful with stuff like this. The iso I use does not include any kind of cracks, and it was only downloaded after reading all comments that it got on the site where I found it.

[stefcep2]

Since what version does windows support mounting an ISO ? Without downloading an external app like demontools

Windows doesn't claim that it supports mounting of images, Linux does.  

But it didn't, for me.

With Windows I download whatever CD mounting software I want, click install, it works.  Under 2 minutes.

In Ubuntu, it was download this library because synaptic didn't have it, go to some obscure author's site, COMPILE it, but wait, my OS is too new, so the old library the mount software needs conflicts with something else in my OS.

The fact that there is STILL this level of "robust" discussion about Linux's short comings says it all really.

I get that it works for people out there, and good luck to them.

Me? I'll pay the MS tax, because my time is worth something.

[stefcep2]

Windows 8 finally has it.

Also, how hard is:

mkdir /media/myISO

(sudo) mount -t iso9660 myISO.iso -o loop

In theory its probably a mid level user task.  BUT it DID NOT work on Ubuntu 9.10, for me.  Why I don't know.

[stefcep2]

Um, yeah, IF you're using a current version.
AND btw, even WinXP SP2 isn't current enough for Windows update to work with correctly.
As I've mentioned before, in order to use a 2005 copy of Win XP Media Center I had to manually install SP3, then let the system install 119 software patches, then install Java, Flash, a PDF reader and a bunch of audio and video codecs (so that I could play DVDs and work with video and audio files).
 
So no gentleman, it doesn't "just work".
 
I can install Ubuntu just about as easily as Win7 and get similar functionality.
 
But like ANY OS, if I want to do something that isn't mainstream I'm going to have to work on it.
BFD.

try ubuntu 5.04 and see how far you get...

[runequester]

Windows doesn't claim that it supports mounting of images, Linux does.  

But it didn't, for me.

With Windows I download whatever CD mounting software I want, click install, it works.  Under 2 minutes.

In Ubuntu, it was download this library because synaptic didn't have it, go to some obscure author's site, COMPILE it, but wait, my OS is too new, so the old library the mount software needs conflicts with something else in my OS.

The fact that there is STILL this level of "robust" discussion about Linux's short comings says it all really.

I get that it works for people out there, and good luck to them.

Me? I'll pay the MS tax, because my time is worth something.

Linux sucks because you failed to do something that you can't do in windows either?

Sure, pay your tax. You're the kind of person who needs to pay it.
The rest of us spent 2 minutes installing acetone from synaptic and mounting ISO's using a simple GUI.

This is like me bitching that windows is ****, because it doesn't toast bread, and thus, I am buying a Mac.

[stefcep2]

Linux sucks because you failed to do something that you can't do in windows either?

Sure, pay your tax. You're the kind of person who needs to pay it.

LOL.  Typical Linux zealot attitude.

Yep, its ALWAYS someone else's fault that Linux sucks, never the system itself..

And what sort exactly do you think I am?

r didn't I give it enough time ?  Was FIVE YEARS not long enough?

The rest of us spent 2 minutes installing acetone from synaptic and mounting ISO's using a simple GUI.

Oh I tried acetone.  DID NO WORK, get it?

And no this wasn't the only reason..

This is like me bitching that windows is ****, because it doesn't toast bread, and thus, I am buying a Mac.

No, not at all, but hey I've seen enough Linux zealots to see one here..

[kedawa]

Oh please.  Using a different install disc is not piracy.  It's convenience.  You're using the same software license and ending up with the same install.  The only difference is that you're saving yourself time and saving you and MS some bandwidth.

[TheBilgeRat]

Harder than installing Daemon Tools, that's for certain.

Edit: or was that sarcasm?

Maybe a little.  I happen to love the command line.  Some people hate it.  I also happen to love windows powershell, although it is a crap imitation of zsh.... unless you know how to access all the dotnet goodies.

[TheBilgeRat]

LOL.  Typical Linux zealot attitude.

Aww, cmon.  If the shoe fits... Who cares?  You run windows.  Pay the tax.  If you run mac, you are getting the benefit of vetted hardware the same as if you bought a Dell laptop made for Ubuntu.  If you manage to F*** up an install where the hardware is all supported, it certainly isn't the software's fault.  I have had machines that I could not get linux running satisfactory on before, or rather I should say that certain chipsets did not work right or were not supported at all.  Granted, that was in the late 90s and pre-kernel 2.4.  Truth is I haven't had to compile a kernel by hand since my 400Mhz AMD was my brand new badass machine.  All of you windows lovers forget there was a learning curve for it as well, you just put the time in ages ago and are not being honest with how long it took you to get up to speed.

Yep, its ALWAYS someone else's fault that Linux sucks, never the system itself..

Yes, sometimes that is exactly true.  Othertimes it is not.  This is why in big person land we don't work in tautologies unless we are doing truth tables.

And what sort exactly do you think I am?

Bubble sort?  Quicksort?  Selection sort?  I give up.

r didn't I give it enough time ?  Was FIVE YEARS not long enough?

Yes.  Five years was long enough.  Although I find this sort of comment hard to believe.  Does this mean that you stuck with the same computer and linux OS for Five years and were completely unable to get it running?  That nowhere in that five year span did you learn to use a terminal shell?  That you couldn't bother to read a man file?  That sounds like an awful time.

I think more realistically that every once in a while, lets say every 6 months or so (or every release cycle of a new flavor) you burned a live ISO, slapped it on an available partition, spent the time getting dual boot going, booted into it once or twice to mess about, got frustrated with the fact that there is a learning curve involved and wiped it off again.

Oh I tried acetone.  DID NO WORK, get it?

And no this wasn't the only reason..

Well, thank goodness virtualclonedrive works great under windows!  Variety is the spice of life as they say.

No, not at all, but hey I've seen enough Linux zealots to see one here..

Really?  Come on, now.  A zealot?