Author Topic: Windows 64 will be free (Read 1433 times)

SlapShot · « **Reply #60 on:** March 13, 2005, 07:32:45 AM »

I still have BRAND new copies of OS/2 Warp Connect and OS/2 Warp Server. The server copy is still in the shrink wrap.

Wishfull thinking on my part ... hehe.

Mini D · « **Reply #61 on:** March 13, 2005, 09:53:26 AM »

I have a dual Nocona 3.4 GHz system. It doesn't seem to miss a beat. There might be faster systems out there, but not much faster.

I've always checked out new OSs... especially ones geared towards server aplications.

I did OS2 Warp when I ran a 3 line BBS. 3 modems on that OS required a 3rd party communications driver. Man that OS was crap.

I did NT4 from beta all the way through until NT5 beta was released. That was run on my Dual P2 Xeon 400 system. I even had a website called "www.nt40games.com" that listed game compatibility. I was exceeding my 50 meg download limit each day with no images. I even got an MS VP to stop by on a regular basis to respond to questions in the forums. Another Microsoft engineer made a patch for WB 1.11r2 that allowed the graphics to actually load on a beta NT4 machine. I think that one pissed HT off just a bit (He also found a DirectDraw bug in the game). Oooo... and the joystick.dll updated driver in NT4sp3 or something like that was because of me too. I actually pioneered gaming on NT machines to the point that I was in a eurotrash PC-Gamer magazine. I'm so cool.

I played with LINUX on the other dual xeon system for a couple of years. I liked the support structure, but never liked that the instructions for most things were pretty unreadable for the entry level user. I'd always have to surf for hours trying to find a step by step method.

I settled on Win2k a few years back and just left it for 4 years. That was by far the most stable OS I'd ever ran.

With the new Noconas, I've gone to XP-pro (which I've been running on my personal computer). I tried the 64bit beta, but couldn't host the FDB bbs because of issues with the Access database drivers so I had to remove it. I also had problems finding the right drivers for virtually everything I was doing. I'm hoping alot of that gets fixed soon.

Oh well... unless the people with the hardware are willing to experiment, things don't advance. The one constant I've seen over the last 10 years is that developers are incapable of identifying problems, needs and overall compatibility on their own. The work and pains of the adventurous souls paved the way for the increadible things you take for granted today.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #62 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:33:12 AM »

There is not a Windows OS that is as stable as a good UNIX distro. Sorry, but that will never happen. UNIX has way to many years of development under its belt and it continues and will continue.

As far as in the MS family of OS"s, I agree W2K is the most stable for many things server related.

You and I have different perspectives on things related to computer advancement Mini, and we have discussed them ad nauseum, so I will not go there.

As far as ease of use goes, it all depends on your experience and knowledge. I find MS OS's to be a pain in the butt to setup and configure for many things.
A good UNIX is easy to setup and configure for me. My little box at home took me about two hours to install and setup. It's running all the router chores, firewall, SMTP, POP3, Apache, PHP, MySQL, bulletin board and has been up for almost two years now.
I challenge the most knowledgable Windows expert to get all the above up and running from in that time, including the OS installation. Even if you do, it will need a periodic rebooting.
Oh, and my little server is a 600Mhz P3, with 128MB of ram.

I am all for advancements, but the path we are headed down is a dangerous one as far as I am concerned. I see the day when we turn on our computer and it tells us we have used up our allotted time and it will be busy being used by someone else, so go mow the yard. MS would poop themselves if they could make it happen sooner than later.
Ignorance will allow the above to happen. Most people, even many so-called 'experts', have no idea what is going on the background of the computers running an MS OS. But when you address that point to them, they gladly smile and retort, "That is what makes it so nice to work with, I do not have to know about that stuff."
Scary.

Mini D · « **Reply #63 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:08:33 AM »

I put a CD in the drive and booted for a Win2k Adv Server installation. I came back 1 hour later and it was done. I know you didn't do that skuzzy. The only time that system was turned off was for power outages. It ran 24x7 for 4 years. That's pretty damn stable. As for the installation of any of the bbs software and so forth... it's simply a matter of experience. I did a 2 hour up and running install of an OS, website and BBS (actually, 90 minutes) with WinXP-Pro. The computer has been running solid since I did it two weeks ago. I have no complaints.

Unix is a great OS. And it is stable. But we're discussing the difference between a PC that is actually used and a server. The two are completely different. You build servers that do specific functions. Most want computers that do anything asked of them. That is one thing you cannot brag on either LINUX or UNIX about. Both OS's have their strong points... diversity is not amongst them.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #64 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:28:27 AM »

I agree with the sentiment, but most users have no clue what to ask a computer to do. Email and WEB browsing? Any OS can handle that these days. The choice of an OS for that particular scenario is up to the user's experience level.

But, I also agree UNIX (any variant) is not for the casual user. It requires some knowledge to setup properly and even more knowledge to use it.
I also find it quite entertaining when people say, "Windows is intutitive and UNIX is not". There is nothing 'intuitive' about using a computer.
And if Windows was so easy to use and configure, I would not get over 100 emails a day asking for configuration help. Many of the issues in configuring Windows can be quite difficult.
In this are UNIC simply blows Windows away. It is actually too easy to get at all the configuration options. Makes it a dangerous OS for the novice.

Side by side, the basic design philosophy between UNIX and Windows could not be farther apart. MS/Windows does its best to hide everything from you related to the OS needs. UNIX does everything it can to expose you to all of the underlying nuts and bolts (this scares the poop out of people for some reason).
My personal opinion as it would apply to most people is UNIX is better for servers, Windows is better for applications.

For me, I am fortunate enough to have the knowledge to use the right OS for the job and be able to tell which is the right OS for the job.

eagl · « **Reply #65 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:50:51 AM »

Skuzzy,

As for "variants of unix" being ready for the casual user, I was pleasantly suprised by the latest public (free) release of Xandros. I decided to set up an install of it as a normal user would, with the only concession made as a geek being that in advance I had selected hardware components known to work in most linux distros.

It worked like a friggen champ, easier than my first win98 install. CDs went in, an hour later I was booted to an xandros x-windows desktop that looked an awful lot like winxp and behaved very similiarly. Everything worked, from seeing my workgroup shares to printing on my shared HP deskjet 952C on another computer. The desktop was responsive and predictable. Clicking on the intarweb icons got me a web browser, clicking on the little hard drive or folder icon got me views equivalent to "my computer" and "my documents", etc.

I admit I cheated and used a custom partitioning scheme to keep the installer from auto-nuking my winxp partition, but the other defaults worked great. The only hardware I had that didn't work was my d-link wireless nic, however that brand wlan controller has a specific note of hatred in the supported hardware list, so it just didn't suprise me that much.

It's better suited for aunt minnie than win95 was, IMHO. Sure it'll probably require minor maintenance from some kid in the family to keep it running, but it has an office suite, email, web browsing, printing, multimedia, cd burning, video playback, etc. all right out of the box. And that's just the free version. The for-sale version also includes (IIRC) crossover office so you can run MS office, plus it also has other windows emulators so you can run many of your favorite windows programs.

Anyhow, I guess my point is that linux today is in some cases just as user friendly for the casual user as win95 was back in 1995. It's just that microsoft and apple have done such a good job pushing each other that our expectations have soared. What we'd consider perfect for aunt minnie back in 1995 wouldn't even be considered usable nowadays.

Just IMHO.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #66 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:58:04 AM »

Quote

The only hardware I had that didn't work was my d-link wireless nic,

You mean you got one working on windows?

Not so long ago I talked with a hardware retailer who showed me 3 feet high stack of D-link wireless gear that had been returned for warranty and change. He said the chain dropped the brand completely after getting so many returns.

Before this we tried 4 different D-link configurations at the office and they wouldn't work. Finally we gave up.

Mini D · « **Reply #67 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:58:23 AM »

Actually, that's a bit of an ironic observation eagl. The main gripe in regards to Windows (by skuzzy et al) is the unknown overhead. I have a SuSe LINUX pro distribution sitting here that is some 5 CDs worth of installation. I'd be willing to bet that what you installed was at least 2 CDs worth of installation.

xNIX has a ways to go to reach the average consumer for reasons the novice would care about (compatibility) and reasons the experts would care about (overhead).

I'm not really knocking the UNIX variants, just saying that when they try to be like an MS OS, they totally stray from every one of their strengths. But then, they won't get anywhere unless they try.

wetrat · « **Reply #68 on:** March 13, 2005, 12:34:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Hey guys it's called beta testing.

The day microsoft has an operating system that I wouldn't consider "beta" is the day I consider using a PC (instead of a mac) for something other than gaming and downloading porn.

Nilsen · « **Reply #69 on:** March 13, 2005, 12:41:58 PM »

I have fallen in love with OSX, and find it rock solid (abit mem hungry tho). It has a UNIX core and a very good gui. I also love my powerbook, but i would be a very happy man if they released OSX for other computers than apple. Rumors are that there is a finished version of OSX that is running on a P4 machine at apple HQ but its just rumors.

OSX + AMD64 homebuildt + AH2 (or3) would be a dream come true for me.

Vulcan · « **Reply #70 on:** March 13, 2005, 02:07:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
I have fallen in love with OSX, and find it rock solid (abit mem hungry tho). It has a UNIX core and a very good gui. I also love my powerbook, but i would be a very happy man if they released OSX for other computers than apple. Rumors are that there is a finished version of OSX that is running on a P4 machine at apple HQ but its just rumors.

OSX + AMD64 homebuildt + AH2 (or3) would be a dream come true for me.

Sorry, OS-X is basically Unix, with an Apple GUI slapped on top. Apple have improved a few odds and ends but overall its lacking. And whenever something doesn't work right Apple blame it on the underlying Unix core. Its also the noisiest POS on a network I've ever seen - you think Netbios is bad? You ain't see nuthing til you see an Apple network with MDNS, Rendevouz and other crap creating broadcast storms.

Its also not "rock solid", Apple has their BSOD - its called the Brown Screen of Death (I've seen it many times). And the OS-X servers often need complete rebuilds to make minor changes (unless you're a Unix expert and do it from the commandline).

Sure Windows ain't great, but man there is a crapload of "myth" surrounding Apples and OS-X.

Nilsen · « **Reply #71 on:** March 13, 2005, 03:18:41 PM »

Ok.

I have never had a problem with it tho. Windows otoh ...sheesh

Vulcan · « **Reply #72 on:** March 13, 2005, 04:08:47 PM »

Well, our office is 50/50 Mac/PC's. Its a confrontational area. Especially the firewall, which I manage, everytime something on the Mac doesn't work they blame the firewall. Despite the fact I can point to technical issues in OS X (like using pptp for VPNing, and their stupid iChat Video chat application that resembles Netmeeting V1).