New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: Jules Richardson on 17 Mar 2010 19:43 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:06:33 +0000, Andy Champ wrote: > I've only really messed with Linux on the kind of marginal hardware that > doesn't really run Windoze well. Ubuntu usually. And it doesn't run > any better. I tried ubuntu briefly, but really didn't like it - far too bloated. I went back to slackware (which is what I've typically run for as long as it's existed), but unfortunately the latest incarnation of KDE that comes with v13 seems to drag it down just as much as Gnome was doing on ubuntu... "progress" I think they call it... cheers Jules
From: The Natural Philosopher on 17 Mar 2010 20:25
Andy Champ wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote: >> If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say >> that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98. >> >> However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that: >> >> 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98 >> 2. Windows 7 is better than XP >> > > > Mmm.... not sure... > > Win 3.x was bad, and '95 was based on it. And on MS-DOS, under the > hood. 95 was developed into '98, which was.... OK, for a crude, > unprotected, not properly multi-tasking OS. ME was a pile of ****. > > The other side of the tree - Windows NT was solid as anything, No, it was about 10% as solid as Unix, but 5 times solider than 98.. and got > better from 3.1 to 3.5 to 3.51. Then Win2000 put the '9x-family GUI on > the top, and wrecked the stability. XP took a lot of the bugs out, and > isn't too bad. Vista was all bells and whistles, and trying to protect > you, and I find just gets in my way. Not too badly, and to be fair it's > _way_ better that 2000, never mind ME. Though bear in mind I'm running > it on a machine with two quad-core Xeons and 8gigs, so it ought to feel > OK. But I've seen no real reason to go with Vista - it's just what the > box came with. > > Win7 I've only tried on a laptop. It feels pretty good - less of the > silly prompt stuff than Vista, and seems to work better than XP. > Certainly the wireless behaves better. > > I've only really messed with Linux on the kind of marginal hardware that > doesn't really run Windoze well. Ubuntu usually. And it doesn't run > any better. > Doesn't run any better? Christ how on earth do you manage to make it crash every day? The LONGEST I have had windows running is about 2 days. My Linux is dictated generally by the time between kernel upgrades, or a power cut, whichever is the sooner. That's the only time it ever gets rebooted. Unless I mess up its config and screw it beyond immediate redemption. And it has never messed up so bad it needed reinstallation, except with definite terminal hardware problems. Rssntalling windows is a two monthly exercise for most of my friends who use it as a desktop. > Andy |