Windows Gayness

[megawhompertoo]

Re: Windows Gayness

service packs are meant to be cumulative. therefore, you should be able to install xp from an original disk download sp3, and install it, regardless whether you're on xp, xp sp1, sp2 or what. if you're already running any version of xp, you should be able to download sp3 and directly install it, no matter your version.

an even better way to do it, though, is to slipstream a disk and then reinstall. you can google "slipstream xp" for a link to paul therott's excellent how-to for making it work so that you're updated as soon as you install windows...but that's only really, really useful if you find yourself reinstalling windows often, which i like to do when i get new hardware or a new service pack comes out.

[=98=]

Re: Windows Gayness

I was planning to slipstream SP1 onto my 64bit Vista Business disk. Is this scene as a legitimate thing to do my Microsoft?

[megawhompertoo]

Re: Windows Gayness

microsoft implemented the ability to slipstream with w2k and xp and has carried it forward into vista afaik, but you already know i'm no vista guru :P they did it specifically to help with enterprise deployments, but consumers enjoy the same rights as far as fair use.

after all, you paid for the license, and the key is still unique to your licensed copy, so it's not like you can hand out copies to your friends (that ended after the volume licensing program/pirate fiasco with the original XP pro, which never required validation and never phoned home, but has been extremely convenient as far as reinstalling xp whenever i want to).

[=98=]

Re: Windows Gayness

Well, technically i'm a Microsoft Business partner

All of the Microsoft software i have was bought through their Software Assurance Program for companies.

[Hellsent 2.0]

Re: Windows Gayness

I really hope my college has that^^

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows Gayness

I use Windows so little these days that I CBA to install it.

so what do you use instead ?

Ubuntu.

If you ask me, you can't really use Ubuntu, or any other Linux distribution as a replacement for windows, but that all comes down to what you use it for. If you're a gamer, you're probably going to want Windows, since WINE isn't exactly a picture of perfection, and some people use programs that are only available on Windows and have no/few suitable open source replacements.

[megawhompertoo]

Re: Windows Gayness

If you ask me, you can't really use Ubuntu, or any other Linux distribution as a replacement for windows, but that all comes down to what you use it for. If you're a gamer, you're probably going to want Windows, since WINE isn't exactly a picture of perfection, and some people use programs that are only available on Windows and have no/few suitable open source replacements.

it depends--if you're doing stuff for yourself, i.e., reports, spreadsheets, presentations, exporting to .pdf, crunching data (especially scientific analyses) then Ubuntu/ooo is arguably better (faster, more responsive, more stable, more secure) imho, than windoze+ms office. i used it (dapper drake release) on an older p4 M laptop with a gig of ram, and only uninstalled it because i had to go to fly to a meeting where Powerpoint ruled the roost. i was genuinely impressed. it was a great little operating system, and everything on my n610c worked just like it was supposed to.

if you're required to email ~complex~ (because ubuntu does fine at exporting standard documents to formats word will natively read) word documents to your boss/professor, then obviously you have to buy into the m.s. empire to move along your career path :P

the uber IT folks i know are grudgingly migrating to apple macbooks with core2 processors and big hard drives. why apple? because they can boot into apple's OS, xp, or unix. i don't think i'll ever own an apple, but there's something to be said for being able to run basically any program on the planet on your lappy :)

[Flt. Sgt. Powderhound]

Re: Windows Gayness

The reason that I haven't needed Windows much is that I've hardly had any time for gaming and therefore have just been using my PC for web access, which Ubuntu excels at.

[=98=]

Re: Windows Gayness

Meh, Ubuntu is good, but it's not as flexible as it's built up to be. I wanted to create a simple static IP so i could port forward, but it was painful in Linux. With Windows i just clicked "options" and wrote in my IP and DNS servers in...

With Linux i had to "sudo" my way into the root and then manually edit the text in the interfaces text file. The "ifconfig" command is also about as useful as a chocolate fireguard...

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows Gayness

it depends--if you're doing stuff for yourself, i.e., reports, spreadsheets, presentations, exporting to .pdf, crunching data (especially scientific analyses) then Ubuntu/ooo is arguably better (faster, more responsive, more stable, more secure) imho, than windoze+ms office. i used it (dapper drake release) on an older p4 M laptop with a gig of ram, and only uninstalled it because i had to go to fly to a meeting where Powerpoint ruled the roost. i was genuinely impressed. it was a great little operating system, and everything on my n610c worked just like it was supposed to.

The point of Linux being more responsive and faster than Windows isn't really a concrete one you can argue with. Ubuntu isn't any faster than Windows, in my experience, and if you have the hardware to power it, Vista is one of the fastest operating systems I've used. Some minimalist-type Linux configurations with highly modular and optimized distributions like Gentoo or Arch Linux can be more responsive than Windows, but when it comes down to running very demanding applications, that application isn't really going to run a whole lot faster on either platform.

The reason that I haven't needed Windows much is that I've hardly had any time for gaming and therefore have just been using my PC for web access, which Ubuntu excels at.

That really comes down to your preference of user interface more than anything else. If you're used to and prefer the Windows GUI, then Ubuntu is not going to excel at those tasks, because you'll be slowed down by the user interface. However, if you take preference to GNOME, you'd probably be better using Ubuntu.

The "ifconfig" command is also about as useful as a chocolate fireguard...

Well, if you don't wanna die hungry....

[=98=]

Re: Windows Gayness

The point of Linux being more responsive and faster than Windows isn't really a concrete one you can argue with. Ubuntu isn't any faster than Windows, in my experience, and if you have the hardware to power it, Vista is one of the fastest operating systems I've used. Some minimalist-type Linux configurations with highly modular and optimized distributions like Gentoo or Arch Linux can be more responsive than Windows, but when it comes down to running very demanding applications, that application isn't really going to run a whole lot faster on either platform.

That's not true, Ubuntu is certainly more responsive than Vista. It takes 2 seconds from login to be ready to use whereas windows can take up to 30 seconds.

The only time Vista may be faster is when an application is pre-loaded into the RAM via Superfetch, even then, performance gains are minimal.

It is true Linux is a lot faster than Vista, but obviously, it's not as user friendly.

[Flt. Sgt. Powderhound]

Re: Windows Gayness

I must say, that Gnome is far more intuitive than the Windows GUI; I mean having the panel at the top just works for me, and I found myself instinctively going to the top right hand corner whenever I wanted to open MSN in Vista yesterday.

[megawhompertoo]

Re: Windows Gayness

and if you have the hardware to power it, Vista is one of the fastest operating systems I've used.

i'd just point out that there are not inconsequential costs (i.e. an $800 computer) associated with making $300 vista pro home premium 64-bit deluxe ++ retail version run fast enough to be "more responsive" than, say, a 4 year old $150 laptop running a free copy of ubuntu (mine is a n610c w/a p4m 2.0/1gb/ati mobility 7000)

as had been stated, ubuntu isn't for everyone, definitely not for high-powered DX10 gaming (oh, don't forget to add another $400) but the idea that Vista can compete with Ubuntu for responsiveness for office apps/web surfing ignores the fact that some folks don't need to dump $1500-$1600 to get a pc that works, and works fast. i realize this is a gaming forum, but misconceptions and mystery about linux might cost someone reading this thread more than they would otherwise spend (i.e., on a PC for work/travel/church/charity) if they assumed that buying a new computer with more transistors is the only way to get a computer working comfortably fast...

...so i just had to qualify your statement for you. :P

[=98=]

Re: Windows Gayness

I'd never install Linux Ubuntu on my main gaming system. For power users, Windows will always be king.

But, for efficiency and quick use, Ubuntu really is excellent. I can arrive at a project meeting at uni, fire up my lappy in roughly 30 seconds and be ready whereas my Vista laptop counterparts are still loading 2 minutes later.

For speed, Linux really does own.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows Gayness

That's not true, Ubuntu is certainly more responsive than Vista. It takes 2 seconds from login to be ready to use whereas windows can take up to 30 seconds.

My experience with Ubuntu did not yield the same results. For one thing, compared to a lot of linux distros, Ubuntu runs like cold molasses during an Antarctica snowstorm. Ubuntu is VERY slow as far as linux distributions go. Ubuntu wasn't ready to use any quicker or any more responsive than Windows XP on the two PCs I did a side by side comparison on. (1200Mhz AMD Duron with 512mb of PC133 memory and an FX 5200 for the Ubuntu box vs 1200Mhz Intel Celeron Coppermine with 512mb of PC133 memory and an FX 5200 for the Windows XP box). Other distributions I've tried, such as Gentoo and Arch Linux were notably more responsive than both Windows XP and Ubuntu, however demanding applications such as games didn't show much difference. UT2004's demo ran better on the Windows XP box, but I'm not convinced that the CPU in that PC isn't faster than the one in the Linux box.

I've recently embarked on compiling my own Linux operating system from scratch following the "Linux From Scratch" book, and I'm interested to see how that will compare to the distributions I've tried. (Assuming it actually comes together)

The only time Vista may be faster is when an application is pre-loaded into the RAM via Superfetch, even then, performance gains are minimal.

It is true Linux is a lot faster than Vista, but obviously, it's not as user friendly.

I wouldn't say one is significantly faster than the other.

i'd just point out that there are not inconsequential costs (i.e. an $800 computer) associated with making $300 vista pro home premium 64-bit deluxe ++ retail version run fast enough to be "more responsive" than, say, a 4 year old $150 laptop running a free copy of ubuntu (mine is a n610c w/a p4m 2.0/1gb/ati mobility 7000)

Of course Ubuntu is going to be faster than Vista on a dated system.(In which case you'd use Windows XP) However, if you have a modern, high end PC Vista is very fast and very good at making use of hardware resources. It's much more aggressive in that regard than previous Windows versions, and for me and a lot of people I've heard from Vista outperforms Windows XP significantly. I'm much more satisfied using Vista on my high end PC than I was when I was using Ubuntu waiting for my Vista Home Premium 64-Bit OEM to arrive. People really tend to under-rate Vista and pass it off as slow, when in actuality it is a very well put together operating system.

as had been stated, ubuntu isn't for everyone, definitely not for high-powered DX10 gaming (oh, don't forget to add another $400) but the idea that Vista can compete with Ubuntu for responsiveness for office apps/web surfing ignores the fact that some folks don't need to dump $1500-$1600 to get a pc that works, and works fast. i realize this is a gaming forum, but misconceptions and mystery about linux might cost someone reading this thread more than they would otherwise spend (i.e., on a PC for work/travel/church/charity) if they assumed that buying a new computer with more transistors is the only way to get a computer working comfortably fast...

But given any moderately fast PC, Vista CAN compete with Ubuntu, and infact does so very well. Both operating systems are very efficient given the proper hardware resources to function, and since neither OS is going to make your program load off your hard drive faster, it more matters what hardware is in the PC than what OS you're using, so long as the PC is capable of running Vista smoothly.(Which contrary to popular belief does not take a $1,500 PC)

Lets remember that Vista does use Superfetch and Readyboost to cache your programs in faster means of storage (RAM and removable flash memory respectively) than just loading the program off your hard drive, which can allow your programs to open much quicker which may infact give it the edge in office work over Linux. Linux doesn't have any such features. Regardless, in the end the amount of time you'd save going with whichever OS is faster is not a tangible enough gain to go out of your way to get said OS. Personal preference, in this instance, takes more importance than an office program opening a minuscule unit of time quicker.

In summary, an operating system won't make your hardware ANY faster, it's entirely up to how your operating system uses your hardware to achieve a fast performing system, and though Windows doesn't run as well as Linux on low end/dated systems, it does make as much use as possible out of your hardware on high end systems and does a very good job of keeping up with other operating systems out there on high end PCs despite it's high hardware requirements.