Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Ok, so Windows XP does look VERY similar to Mac OS, but after reading about what XP is supposedly going to offer, can Linux compete with this new operating system?
Don't ge me wrong, I love Linux and would never think of getting rid of my multiple Linux boxes, but it seems as though Windows will allow for VERY easy network integration and permissions granting on a granular level.
Basically, I am just interested in what others think about the new Window$ incarnation and if they think it will give Linux a run for the money.
If MicroSh*t actually tries to release that software pack with their current ideas in mind, then it will fall flat on its face just like ME and 2000.
Plus, it does not offer that many more capabilites. it is simply a pretty 2000 box. Most people will probably stick with 98 or ME for a while, because they dont like the licensing fees nor the restrictions. They are really cutting their own throat with their demands, and everyone I know said no way.
Every time Microsoft releases a new OS they tell the world how great it is and how better it is , more stable than any previous platform. Also that it is the OS of the century...Windows 98 Wrong..Windows 2000 Wrong... Windows ME wrong, I have not seen XP yet, but I bet it is another Big Wrong, I will bet my money on it. They are using the 64bit processor sceme on that one. The best thing Microsoft ever did was releasing Windows 3.1 to replace hard to use DOS, again they stoled that from Apple...hahahaha. Let's face it, if you wanna use Microsoft product and get same functioality as what Linux offers for free and stability that exceeds all Microsoft products, then it will cost you an arm and leg for something called Advanced or database server that must run on the fastest machine ever....No thanks I will just continue to download free Linux and run it on any machine that I have.
From what I have read, this new OS will probably be a royal feast for crackers of all kinds. I can't see how they are going to secure this thing while allowing users to do all the 'friendly' things they hope it will do.
As far as actually seeing and using the OS, I installed a beta of it at work and must admit, it looks like something a little child would like to see staring them in the face; not something a professional user would appreciate.
As far as keeping Linux just becuase it is free; I would (and do) gladly pay money for an operating system that is stable.
Aren't they also trying to make it so you have to be connected to the Internet for the OS to run as well. Or am I hearing rumors. All I know is this, if I have to be connected for my OS to run on the internet, forget that, that is about the stupidest thing you can think of. What happened to just having that standalone machine you want to boot up to and play some game or type up a letter or something without getting on the net.
oh well..... anyone else hear anything about this.
If you are utilizing their new 'dashboard' capability, it allows you to share files and directories from your computer and have others access those files and directories by traveling through a central website (one you create regarding your internal shares) and upload / download files from you an to you. You dont have to be online simpy to run the OS. According to how you set up your access permissions on your system, you can have people 'subscribe' to your shares and be alerted when changes are made to your files.
Supposedly, you can even access another persons computer and run their system remotely through the internet. This includes updating drivers, installing software, etc.
Sounds swell, but it will probably be very buggy and a nightmare to secure.
I read a story on News.com this week that M$ plans to spend 1 BILLION dollars on marketing XP.
Like it or not, thats a lot of marketing money. I'd be curious to see how much they spent on Win2K and ME. I'm guessing it was a drop in the bucket compared to the budget for XP.
XP is the first big upgrade that may jump up business computer buying too. It needs a lot of horses under the hood.
Originally posted by GonzoJohn I read a story on News.com this week that M$ plans to spend 1 BILLION dollars on marketing XP.
Like it or not, thats a lot of marketing money. I'd be curious to see how much they spent on Win2K and ME. I'm guessing it was a drop in the bucket compared to the budget for XP.
XP is the first big upgrade that may jump up business computer buying too. It needs a lot of horses under the hood.
The funny part is that so far they have TOTALLY confused most consumers. I have been asked several times this month if I can build a box with WindowsXP. They have seen the ads for OfficeXP and can't seem to tell the difference.
Notice the theme song for the ad - 'Lunatic Fringe'?
Face it. The only reason most people upgrade is when they get a new machine and they CAN'T BUY Win9x/ME whatever. It's a hard pill to swallow as they usually have to upgrade their Winfax, Scanner software (and hardware). In my EXperince it would apear that the total cost of an OS upgrade usually runs about 3 to four times the cost of the OS. (Including initial installation support)
Originally posted by trickykid oh well..... anyone else hear anything about this.
I believe that a connection is needed in order to register the product after the install. During install XP will take an account of all your hardware in the machine, then send it to Microsoft (fingerprint). If you change your hardware different then what you had when you installed (do fingerprint doesn't match anymore) you may need to call Microsoft support to allow you to use your machine again. They are trying to catch people installing a copy on several machines. I also believe their is a timeout on the number of times you can install the software.
Not to fear though, I have heard most of these features have been cracked already and patches are available, if they are not yet, they will be in due time .
I am sure I will be trying XP soon, and it will probably work ok for me. That has been my experience with the latest M$ releases. Me, 2000.
If more people knew how to keep windows working right they would not have so many problems.
All you have to do is have the install disk within arms reach and know how to use fdisk.
As far as easier to configure Networking, I really believe it's mostly due to the limited potential of the os. Sure it's easy to turn check marks on or off, and setup ports.
I think Linux being more configurable is the reason for it's complexity.
If you want a windows server to replace linux you better steal it or have very deep pockets.
i am currently running win2k and i think it is stable enough and does enough that i have no reason to upgrade and see no reason as to why i would want to. The only reason i use it now is so i can play all my games. (dont flame me saying that there are plenty of games for linux) Linux just doesn't have CS, Tribes, Age of Empires ect. Other that than, i could just use linux instead.
MS attempt and getting everyone to upgrade to XP is going to be a disaster. Office XP sales are dropping like mad (not that they were ever high to start with). There is no reason to upgrade.
I think MS is cutting their throats with XP. To wit:
Smart links in the browser - a step too far - any web page would have links added by the browser that supercede the existing links and take the user to sites that pay Microsoft for the privilege.
"Leasing" instead of buying. If you choose not to register with M$ your OS dies after a couple months.
"Leasing" applications - pay not once for the office software applications you want, but instead lease them and pay an ongoing subscription, or the software dies.
"Screw thy neighbor" - according to today's WSJ, they worked with Kodak to develop a new standard for digital camera integration, then took that and will redirect the user of a Kodak camera to a MS sponsored site rather than Kodak's - no matter what Kodak does with the software to try to intervene.
XP has unrealistic hardware requirements - last I heard was a minimum of a Pentium III manufactured THIS YEAR.
XP may end up being the biggest boon to Linux for the technically savvy, and to the Mac for the non-technical.
I installed Windows XP Saturday on a Celeron 400MHz bench pig we have in the shop. The install went fine, but once the OS was loaded and started for the first time, I saw a file browser that looked EXACTLY like Nautilus (although without many of the bells and whistles) and nearly fell over.
I think Mircro$oft$ arrogance is REALLY starting to show now that they are imitating Open Source work. They know they are in trouble and have started copying (yet again) the pioneers of operating system development.
All the techs I have showed this abomination to said there was no way they would use XP (especially with the 'Big Brother' attitude M$ is taking towards limited installs).
For those of us who tweak our systems more than twice a week, XP is going to make computer enthusiasts SPRINT towards Linux.
Originally posted by DavidPhillips
If more people knew how to keep windows working right they would not have so many problems.
All you have to do is have the install disk within arms reach and know how to use fdisk.
That doesn't really sound like a way to keep windows working right. It's a way to get it working right by blowing the old install away. Given, I periodically format my hard drive to reinstall windows, because that seems to be the only way to get it running good. I keep my computer format friendly by only having windows on the primary partition and installing all programs on a second partitions. Unfortunately this just isn't a reasonable answer for most people.
In theory, an operating system should stay the same once you install it, but windows always seems to get buggy and crashy a couple months after you install it. Windows 2000 was much more reliable and i could run it for a couple weeks without rebooting but even its level of entropy went up after a while and had things crash and force a reboot. That is why linux is so great. It actually does stay the same, and can be kept running for months at a time.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.