Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2522 mails)
|< Previous||Next >|
RE: [SLE] Fundamental differences
- From: bcomber@xxxxxxxxxx (Mike)
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:35:46 +0200
- Message-id: <00070807511200.28027@linux>
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000, you wrote:
> > Not at all. Most folks don't run NT or W2k. Win98 is still the dominant desktop
> > for home users. 98 isn't that stable. You are right about NT being more stable,
> > as long as you don't try to do too much with it at once. My job force me to
> Well, that will change next year - the next version of Windows for Home Users
> beyond Windows ME, eh I can't remember the name anymore, will be based on the
> NT/2k kernel.
True enough if folks really want it. And if M$ actually makes the date they say
they will.. But there are a lot of legacy programs that either don't run, or
run poorly on NT that the upgrade seems unlikely. We have several site licensed
programs for Win?? that took weeks to get running on NT. I really can't see
having to re-purchase all of these again.
> > What you say is true. But I am so darn tired of that putrid Windows background
> > color, and the startup music. We are not supposed to change this on the class
> > lab computers. So when 25 kids log in, the sound is horrid, and i usually leave
> > the room.. ;-))
> I would leave too, although even KDE's nice startup music would be annoying if
> 25 instances were going at the same time. ;-). Best thing to do is "accidentally"
> unplug the speakers to all the PCs.
Tried that. didn't work. Too many complaints..But we are going to do some work
on the systems this summer, and that I one of the things I'm definitely going
to turn off!!
> > > The "it runs on older hardware" is wearing thin too, at
> > > least on the desktop. Have you tried KDE or GNOME on a 486?
> > > We have the choice, which is a good thing, but in practise
> > > the low end window managers don't realistically compete with
> > > Windows.
> > While you say that trying to run KDE or Gnome on a 486 is bad, there are
> > alternatives. Some of the other Window managers run just fine. Icewm, Sawmill,
> > and Windowmaker come to mind. This is not true with NT or W2k. What you see is
> > what you get. You don't have a choice.
> As the original poster mentions though, they aren't really realistic
> replacements. KDE and GNOME are much more on par with Windows (not saying it would
> do well on a 486 either). For that kind of usage, something like the latest
> rendition of GeoWorks (now under a new name) is a better choice.
Hmmm. I'll have to look for it. I'm always good for something new to try.
> > > But no one can argue that the modularised and network
> > > transparent design of X is worse than the kernel level
> > > graphics of Windows and the horrific Terminal Server kludge,
> > > so that's one thing we can push. The ability to connect and
> > > disconnect both local and remote disks to your directory
> > > tree at will is another thing: no doubt that that's better
> > > than tying devices to C:, D:, etc
> > > I was pondering the question, and my responses dried up
> > > there. Hence the question.
> > >
> > > > Where is this question leading ?
> > I have no idea. But I'd much rather work with linux that Windows anything. I
> > like the freedom of choice. I guess that's why I started using it.
> I might as well add a few of my own reasons for an attempted switch:
> 1.) Stability - I use Windows 98, and it just doesn't cut the bill.
I have 98 on my wife's machine. every so often, it simply looses it connection
to my network. Now after the third install, it seems to be working most of the
time. But one of these days, I'll put linux on it, and not have to worry.. And
there is always the virus protection that linux offers..
> 2.) Speed - Linux is faster, better at preemptive multitasking, and I
have the > choice to recompile stuff for the 686/PII architecture
Definitely. I sometimes get so many different things going I forget some of
them. ;-) And then linux yells at me for not closing them before a shutdown.
> 3.) Price - twenty nine bucks for the latest copy of SuSE sure beats $89 for
> the latest Windows 9x or $189 for the latest NT/Windows Professional version
That that $89 is for the upgrade. Not the full blown version.
> 4.) Quality freeware (RMS will appreciate the "free" rather than open source
> terms here <g>) - Where else can you get the office suite, D.E., PIM, graphics
> software, web server, etc. Especially assembled on CD-ROM or DVD for just $29?
Nowhere that I know of.. It just makes sense to me to use linux.
for a great linux portal try http://www.freezer-burn.org
To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
|< Previous||Next >|