My computer broke down

[Z!re]

*Adds Dark_Prevail to my kill list... *

*mutters* It's above every OS, it's..... Novix.... if there are god's among computer programs, Novix is THE GOD!





Btw.... All I have to say about Linux and Windows XP is: Mu!
(Look it up, it's an actuall word, can be found at dictionary.com)






(And if it's not absolutely obvious. I am JOKING!. Eat my shoe... well, Zap has to give it back first.)

[TheBigBasicQ]

Ohh, and btw, NOVIX IS TEH 3L3e7 OPERATING SYSTEM!!!!!1111 one one one,,,,,,,,, It rul3s y0 4llz!!!111..............

I think we all can ignore poor Z!re :roll:. He is.....um....errr.....ahem.....special?

Linux |2 |_| |_ 3 2

[whitetiger0990]

Btw.... All I have to say about Linux and Windows XP is: Mu!

lol hifty: dang it nothing else to say

*uses novix =P*

[CGI Joe]

Muwaahahahahahaaaa. Its so funny. My aunt just called *yesterday* complaining that her windows 2000 pc just broke down due to a virus infection. Her computer technician formatted it and reinstalled the whole system with Win98. It got infected again =P after the fact that she uses *updated* versions of McAffee and Norton Antivirus =) and a firewall. I feel so sorry for her =(.

And what makes you think her situation would be any different with Linux? If the virus checkers/firewalls failed to stop malicious code, that's the fault of McAfee isn't it? Or maybe your aunt authorised the execution of an email attachment. In that case, wouldn't she do the same in Linux? Yes there are fewer virii on Linux, but what's the installed user base again? :p

Linux bashing? I am still waiting for you to say anything which will point to the fact that Linux is inferior to Windows in any respect and I am not talking about the frills.

How about software and hardware compatibility? That's a biggie
I never had any form of Linux work with even 50% of my hardware, and I don't use weird or cheap parts. This is on many different set ups on many different versions of Linux.

Have you tried the latest 2.6.x kernel? Its really fast. My system becomes 'Ready and Usable' in approx. 20seconds while WinXP is slower much slower.....muwaahahahaa =). Its a gimmick - a resource hungry pathetically slow gimmick. It brings up the user screen within a few seconds of login but the services like background programs like NortonAV or any other taskbar program doesnt become usable until after 45seconds of the desktop appears.

I have the lastest version of Fedora (2.6.x kernel) installed. It takes about 5 minutes to boot. Clean minimal install (it runs on a 3GB drive - and required most of that. XP requires around 1.5GB). XP takes about 30 seconds to boot and yes waiting for the misc. services to load after logon is annoying but takes about another 15-20 seconds (and I have around 55 processes running on this box).

Edit: BTW about the part of Linux not being a gamers OS. I think you didnt get me correctly. Linux provides a better implementation of OpenGL and other stuff =P. So many of the games which have been ported to Linux perform much better in Linux than in their Microsoft counterpart :roll:

I don't know what you mean about a "better implementation", OpenGL is just a library. OpenGL is terribly out of date and a pain in the ass if you want to use the latest shader features (all that stuff you can find in DirectX 9.0). But that'll all be fixed in the new 2.0 version due soon-ish I think.

I can't confirm your claim about Linux games outperforming Windows versions, as I've never tried (frankly I don't have the time or the patience! ).

I should also mention that the mouse cursor randomly freezes until I press a key, Fedora's auto-update service has never run without crashing, and it takes about 5 minutes to shut down (there are probably more problems, I've never really used it for more than about 3 hours). But I really don't mind that, because it's free - and that's awesome. But what you can't do is rate it above Windows XP, that's just blind zealous optimism :p

But anyway, sorry if I come across as an ass, but your Linux claims are a little bit over the top. I'm glad it works for you, though, that's great .

[na_th_an]

CGI, remember that linux users are a sect and they are on drugs: linuxine. Whatever you say to tell them that linux is not that perfect will be futile.

To me, Linux is great for servers. Stop. For desktops, I prefer my WinXP that boots in 30 secs. My PC is almost 1 year old now, I installed WinXP when I bought it almost 1 year ago, and it still works like the first day. It's not Windows, it's the peopel who don't know how to work with the freakin' computer

[adosorken]

Linux zealots are the most annoying type of computer user. There's a damn good reason us Windows users stick with Windows...it has what we want, and Linux can't hold a candle. While Linux works great on my servers, I won't use it for my desktop computer until it can do everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, I can do in Windows, and better. Since that's not going to happen for a very long time, if ever at all, Linux can screw itself.

[na_th_an]

Good point.

Get me Photoshop, Thumbs Plus, Irfanview, Cool Edit Pro 2, Acid Pro, Vegas Video, Visual Basic, Poser, Modplug Tracker, Winamp, all my Tomb Raider games () and QB () for Linux and I'll switch. Otherwise I would have a mega leet and mega cool linux install which I could not work with, just stare at the nice KDE interface with nothing to do.

[Zack]

There is one thing I've gotta hand to Linux. It's daaaamn pretty. Prettier than XP, anyway, from the screenies I've seen of Redhat and Debian.

[adosorken]

There is one thing I've gotta hand to Linux. It's daaaamn pretty. Prettier than XP, anyway, from the screenies I've seen of Redhat and Debian.

Sure...if you have X running with a nice IDE like KDE or Gnome2. Of course...without X, it looks just as ugly as MSDOS. Except with a few extra colors when you ls.

[Fling-master]

Whatever you say to tell them that linux is not that perfect will be futile.

Exactly. Not to mention that it seems like a lot of people using Linux seem to think they're so cool for NOT using Windows.

Muwaahahahahahaaaa. Its so funny. My aunt just called *yesterday* complaining that her windows 2000 pc just broke down due to a virus infection. Her computer technician formatted it and reinstalled the whole system with Win98. It got infected again =P after the fact that she uses *updated* versions of McAffee and Norton Antivirus =) and a firewall. I feel so sorry for her =(.

As CGI Joe said, it's not the fault of Windows, it's the fault of the user. Though you're probably going to tell me I'm wrong anyway being the "Linux zealot" around here () I'd bet she doesn't have her firewall, and antivirus software configured properly in some way that is allowing these viruses to get through. Heh. If it is the fault of Windows 2000 then I would've had to format many times already. Yet, I haven't had to at all, and have never had any trouble with viruses (oh, I only use Norton Antivirus... so I didn't have the benefit of having two antivirus programs scanning for viruses). Hrmmmmm....

Linux bashing? I am still waiting for you to say anything which will point to the fact that Linux is inferior to Windows in any respect and I am not talking about the frills.

I'm not really trying to bash Linux as you are trying to bash Windows. I'm trying to tell you why I wouldn't ever use Linux.

But stop being a "Jehovas" and push your "beleifs" onto everyone.

I really wish you would listen to him.

Really, either one can be better then the other. It is largely dependant on the user and the user's needs (well I guess personal preference is also a factor).

For me, I both dislike Linux, and it doesn't meet my needs. Perhaps when it does I may switch over. At this point I wouldn't even think of it.