| Author |
Topic: Dan Tyack.... |
Rich Paton
From:
Santa Maria, CA.,
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 3:22 am |
|
Since you were at Microsoft, what's your take on 1)Linux, 2)Linux vs. Windows, and
3) Windows 2000?
>
I'm running W98SE with a service pack of some sort, and it's been virtually error-free
(knock on wood) since I finished building this machine on Sept 15th, and I let a more knowledgable fellow set up the new AGP / Smaart etc. type bios for me. Not one "Blue Screen of Death"!
What Gives? :>) |
|
|
|
Dan Tyack
From:
Olympia, WA USA
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 6:38 am
|
|
This probably should go to off topic......
But since you asked:
I have never installed Linux, but I worked for a number of years as a Unix system administrator, and later as a software developer working under various flavors of Unix (mostly Sun).
There isn't a ready answer for when you would want to use Linux. I loved Unix as an operating system for developing software. The ideal Linux user would be somebody who is the ultimate tinkerer. If the operating system doesn't have a feature you want, you just crank up your (free) C++ compiler and add the feature, or change the system any way you want (as long as you are a C programmer). Also, if you have a philosophical issue with paying for software, Linux is ideal, because there is a huge body of programmers out there writing and distributing free code.
Personally, I have found that free software is like free music: there are gems out there, but most of it is worth what you pay for it (is Linux the MP3.com of operating systems?).
I personally am completely agnostic in terms of operating systems, if it doesn't get in my way, and it runs the software I want to use, and doesn't crash, I am happy. I have had a similar experience with you in terms of Win98 on my home computers, and probably won't change operating systems. However, I will upgrade my work laptop to Windows 2000 as soon as I can, because it has a lot of features geared towards laptops (better power management and a 'standby mode' that actually works). Windows 2000 is a million times more stable for people running a complex set of applications, especially applications that aren't 'good citizens' (e.g. they have memory or other resource leaks).
------------------
www.tyacktunes.com |
|
|
|
Don Walters
From:
Saskatchewan Canada
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 7:05 am
|
|
If I may respond, since I do "use" Linux, here's my take on it: It's great as a server O/S depending upon what you use that server for. It's ideal as a web server. As a desktop O/S it has a long way to go, especially if you're used to Win version 95 or higher.
I have responsibility for 4 Linux servers (web servers) in various locations and in 3.5 years they have never crashed. But for desktop use, I'm a long way from switching away from Windows.
Actually I pretty much agree with Dan. Use what works for what you need to do.
I heard on TV this morning that Win 2000 isn't really for the home user. Dan, do you know anything about that?
P.S. Dan, Blackened Toast still gets heavy play in my CD player 
------------------
Don Walters
get "listed" at the World Wide Steel Guitarist Directory
www3.sk.sympatico.ca/waltd/
(aka On-Line Steel Guitarists of the World)
[This message was edited by Don Walters on 18 February 2000 at 07:09 AM.] [This message was edited by Don Walters on 18 February 2000 at 07:10 AM.] |
|
|
|
Dan Tyack
From:
Olympia, WA USA
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 8:23 am
|
|
Don,
Windows 2000 has been designed for corporate users in terms of the feature set (e.g. things like remote administration and configuration). It also doesn't have great support for 'legacy' games and such. Most DOS games and many Windows games simply won't run (they can't be run securely under NT/Win2000).
But the main reason they are positioning it as not a home OS is because MS is coming out with a new version of the Windows 98 code base (Windows Millenium??) with a bunch of whizzy consumer features and a simplified user interface. So in a lot of ways this is just market positioning (the marketing guys have to have some way to justify their salaries).
I personally think that Windows 2000 is better than Win98 as a home operating system as long as you don't run games, mainly because of the improvements in error messages. But not better enough for me to go through the hassle of upgrading.
------------------
www.tyacktunes.com |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 6:07 pm
|
|
The newest b0b.com server (which you're using right now) runs RedHat Linux. I'm very happy with it, actually. I would never install Linux on my home system, though. I lost the "joy of hacking" some years ago. Now I just want something that runs anything I buy at the store. I'm still on Windows '95, but thinking about '98.
For software development, I use NT 4. I don't have the confidence to install Windows 2000 just yet.
------------------
Bobby Lee  www.b0b.com/products
Sierra Session S-12 E9th, Speedy West D-10, Sierra S-8 Lap |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 19 Feb 2000 3:25 am
|
|
One big thing you have to be concerned with is device drivers. NT/WIN 2K, many times require drivers specifically for that operating system. The drivers, for example a Rockwell HCF Modem running under WIN95/98 will not work on NT and according to the Compaq support web, none are available.
There is also the system hardware issues. One article I read stated minimum for WIN2K was a PII (or equiv) at 350Mhz and 128 meg memory. Although most of the newer PC's meet these requirements there are still a lot of PC's around that do not.
As someone else stated, WIN2K is not a general home PC operating system, but is aimed at the Workstation/Server market. |
|
|
|
Rich Paton
From:
Santa Maria, CA.,
|
Posted 19 Feb 2000 7:59 pm
|
|
Thanks, for the great info. Windos it is!
The "Electronics" topic says "Computers" so I'd have to guess that it extends to software as well.
If I'd posted it in "Off Topic", I'd start foaming at the mouth, ranting senselessly, biting car tires, and punching holes in the drywall. :>) |
|
|
|
