Which OS?

[gnome]

Quote from Lobster:

XP gets my vote. Although it is far from commercially acceptable, it is the first MSFT product since DOS that deserves to be called an O/S. Well, part of it anyways. A huge chunk of it is obviously graphics and public relations BS.

But before you believe what they say: XP (like all other MSFT operating systems) is NOT suitable for more than one user per computer, running without a reboot for more than 24 hours, even slightly advanced networking, or decent multi-tasking.

If you want any of those, you will have to spend the money to get Linux.

Please explain...
1. "NOT suitable for more than one use per computer" ??
2. "running without reboot for more than 24 hrs"?
3. "slightly advanced networking"
4. "decent multitasking"

Up to a year ago, I know Schwab was running on Win2000 (they may still be, I just haven't seen their terminals lately). Lots of networkng there... and my W2K PC runs a dozen applications at once without a hitch. Isn't that multitasking?

I've got W2K on one machine and XP on another. Operationally, I find them both about the same (though I do miss "msconfig" that's not on W2K). I prefer the interface of W2K.

 

[gnome]

Recent article in newspaper here suggested that one could copy the msconfig.exe file from XP and copy it into System 32 directory in Win2K and run it. Article says you'll get some error messages, but to ignore them, as it' won't do any harm and msconfig will be effective in Win2K.. You know anything about this?? TIA

PS in your post above, "Resources in this case do equal Ram", wouldn't there be an "out of memory" error message rather than a "low resources" if the problem were low Ram? I don't know on this, just curious.

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from Lobster:

But before you believe what they say: XP (like all other MSFT operating systems) is NOT suitable for more than one user per computer, running without a reboot for more than 24 hours, even slightly advanced networking, or decent multi-tasking.

If you want any of those, you will have to spend the money to get Linux.

Too large of a blanket statement. I have an extensive office network but also a solid home network that defies this comment. The smaller of the two (home) is a six machine setup. One server (Win2000 Server) and five workstations which include two hot docked laptops. All of the workstations have multiple user setups and I have not had a problem with them.

But let's also be clear that they are different copies of the OS and not one copy placed on different machines as many folks like to do. Doing so can cause annoying crashes and so-called unexplainable lockups sometimes.

Understand this point too, Windows is not a network OS. It is an OS that CAN do some networking. Now with that said, there is a network product at Microsoft. WindowsNT and Windows 2000 Server are network platforms for running Windows. But Win2000 and WinXP (especially the Home version) are not for real, dedicated, true use networking. They can, and usually do, fall short in the user satisfaction category in that regard!

 

[Lobster]

Quote from gnome:



Please explain...
1. "NOT suitable for more than one use per computer" ??
2. "running without reboot for more than 24 hrs"?
3. "slightly advanced networking"
4. "decent multitasking"

OK, it's true if you don't know a real O/S you might think MSFT has all these capabilities. Let me elaborate:

1. You will not be able to: Configure simple essential preferences like display resolution individually for each user. Have a file on your hard drive that can be accessed (in any or every way) by one user but not by another, let alone separate rwx rights. So yes, you can have multiple people using the same machine, but you might as well have them all using the same user account, since the only thing that's really individually configurable is BS like the desktop background picture, and security is virtually non-existent. If you have user (or even guest) access to a computer, you can view all files and change any file that any regular user can change on that machine.

2. If you let it run for more than 24 hours (and probably if you also use several different applications throughout the day; I have never actually let it run without starting any applications), your performance decreases by about 60% to 80% for things that require a few megabytes of memory, like a spreadsheet, Internet browser etc.

3. Just consider this simple fact: You probably won't find one person on this forum who uses more than 1 computer to access the internet through the same line and doesn't have some form of router or switch (or access point etc., anything other than a DSL or cable modem, a SIMPLE hub, or a NIC). Unless one of their computers is not running Windows. If, however, you have one little P90 running Linux, you can easily configure it to serve as a "router", with firewalling, NAT and all the good stuff, plus (if you think it's useful) a completely transparent http proxy and a lot more. Under Windows, you are really lucky if you get their "network connection sharing" or whatever they call that poor excuse for real networking capabilities to work.

4. Multi tasking is not really a clearly defined term. What I meant was:

a. The ability to run several calculations in the background without crippling the machine for the duration of those calculations, even if one of them should hang or almost hang due to a programming mistake.

b. Some sort of virtual desktop which would be larger than your physical screen(s), or even the ability to SUPPORT such a utility.

The reason why I recommended XP is that 4. a. has been slightly improved.

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from gnome:

Recent article in newspaper here suggested that one could copy the msconfig.exe file from XP and copy it into System 32 directory in Win2K and run it. Article says you'll get some error messages, but to ignore them, as it' won't do any harm and msconfig will be effective in Win2K.. You know anything about this?? TIA

PS in your post above, "Resources in this case do equal Ram", wouldn't there be an "out of memory" error message rather than a "low resources" if the problem were low Ram? I don't know on this, just curious.

(Giggle) Yes, you can copy that file although I don't advise it. Error messages are telling you something there. What? We can only guess at this point but it can't be good. And while it may not be a problem now, there is that one setup in the future that you'll add that will send the whole thing to hell in a hand basket. Why take the chance?

As for the RAM issue. The system is "low on RAM" not "out of memory." Two different statements about two different conditions. In one case, you are about to get to the overload point and are being warned. In the other, you've not only passed it, you're beyond the virtual RAM expansion coverage area.

If you're using Win98, the latter condition might even take the posture of closing out your program for you and giving you a nasty warning box about your recent inexcusable behavior. Nothing worse than your computer attempting to spank you. Both of these conditions clearly address the need for more RAM though.

 

[gnome]

Quote from canyonman00:



(Giggle) Yes, you can copy that file although I don't advise it. Error messages are telling you something there. What? We can only guess at this point but it can't be good. And while it may not be a problem now, there is that one setup in the future that you'll add that will send the whole thing to hell in a hand basket. Why take the chance?

As for the RAM issue. The system is "low on RAM" not "out of memory." Two different statements about two different conditions. In one case, you are about to get to the overload point and are being warned. In the other, you've not only passed it, you're beyond the virtual RAM expansion coverage area.

If you're using Win98, the latter condition might even take the posture of closing out your program for you and giving you a nasty warning box about your recent inexcusable behavior. Nothing worse than your computer attempting to spank you. Both of these conditions clearly address the need for more RAM though.

I would think that if MSFT were going to include msconfig in W2K they would have added it in a service pack... guess it wouldn't do much good to drop that one in the suggestion box??

I might try the "copy msconfig" trick next time I back-up my HD. (I make 2 back-up copies of my HD every couple of months) I really hate it when applications automatically put themselves in the start-up routine without asking, then I don't know to turn them off. (I even had a case with Nero CD Burning software that glitched up and forced me to reinstall the OS because I could neither delete it with add/remove software, nor prevent it from loading at startup. It not only drove me crazy, it pissed me off!)

 

[chisel]

Quote from gnome:

Recent article in newspaper here suggested that one could copy the msconfig.exe file from XP and copy it into System 32 directory in Win2K and run it. Article says you'll get some error messages, but to ignore them, as it' won't do any harm and msconfig will be effective in Win2K.. You know anything about this??

I didn't get my copy of msconfig from XP, but search on Google and it's easy to find. Works great too!

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from gnome:

I would think that if MSFT were going to include msconfig in W2K they would have added it in a service pack... guess it wouldn't do much good to drop that one in the suggestion box??

I might try the "copy msconfig" trick next time I back-up my HD. (I make 2 back-up copies of my HD every couple of months) I really hate it when applications automatically put themselves in the start-up routine without asking, then I don't know to turn them off. (I even had a case with Nero CD Burning software that glitched up and forced me to reinstall the OS because I could neither delete it with add/remove software, nor prevent it from loading at startup. It not only drove me crazy, it pissed me off!)

Naw, pass on the suggestion box. They already ripped the public for the few hundred million with that product and they are letting it fade into the abyss at its own pace. They'd even tell you that to play the "copy msconfig" is possible while they told you they don't condone it. Here's a no-brainer though, isn't that a hole that can be exploited by say, some stinkin' clown who feels the need to attack/play with your system? Watch for this one in the future huh? Makes ya' go, Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!!

And Nero, while fairly good, is notorious for putting itself where it thinks it needs to be whether you choose it to or not.

 

[gnome]

Quote from canyonman00:



Naw, pass on the suggestion box. They already ripped the public for the few hundred million with that product and they are letting it fade into the abyss at its own pace. They'd even tell you that to play the "copy msconfig" is possible while they told you they don't condone it. Here's a no-brainer though, isn't that a hole that can be exploited by say, some stinkin' clown who feels the need to attack/play with your system? Watch for this one in the future huh? Makes ya' go, Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!!

And Nero, while fairly good, is notorious for putting itself where it thinks it needs to be whether you choose it to or not.

Did you mean Win2000 when you said "ripped the public..."? I rather like it (not needing all the gizmos added to XP), and it's a big improvement over the W95+ line.

As far as the "... clown...attack/play with your system" thing, it was a Tech Talk column in the Denver Post. I wouldn't think there would be a motive to get a giggle from messing up all the readers who got sucked in... then again, you never know.

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from gnome:



Did you mean Win2000 when you said "ripped the public..."? I rather like it (not needing all the gizmos added to XP), and it's a big improvement over the W95+ line.

Naw, I meant "ripped the public" as in the cost of the product. As Windows goes, it was one of the better versions going back over the history of MS. They (MS) were in the middle of the what version game at the time. The WinME, Win2000 (in Chicago we were still waiting for our version), WinXP Home version coming shortly thing. As a tech, I was fighting the client reigns for, "Upgrades NOW please, we're getting behind!"

Many forced the change sooner than they needed, pre-patches. So then there was the add the patch game. Made me a ton of money, but wasn't really cost effective for them. Now they sit and scratch their heads and wonder aloud, "Why change to XP? Our P3's are running fine, as you said they would. Plenty of hard drive space and RAM as you had suggested. The old office P2's make for great backup/data warehouse machines. Glad you suggested rack mounts for the server farm. Swap outs and upgrades are a snap. Now, we need this XP crap for what again?"

Hmm, isn't there a bunch of speculation in the tech sector about the upcoming upgrade needs of the business community? I must be in error here. I just bought four new rack mounted Compaq servers at a deep discount on eBay for a client. I wonder am I the reason the market hasn't taken off?

As for the attack thing, many folks who mean harm learn how to from the strangest places, like the public domain!