Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:26 pm
by Jamers!
if its anything like longhorn was when i tested it then to hell with it, longhorn was the glitchyest most unreliable OS ive ever used.



JWF

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:34 pm
by camthepyro
Same thing, longhorn was just a code name, but anyway, it's alot more reliable then longhorn was. It's actually very stable for a beta (much more stable then ME), the only real problem with it is compatibility with some programs.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:43 pm
by Jamers!
camthepyro wrote:Same thing, longhorn was just a code name, but anyway, it's alot more reliable then longhorn was. It's actually very stable for a beta (much more stable then ME), the only real problem with it is compatibility with some programs.

ME sucked "O Ring" as a beta as a OS and in general


JWF

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:44 pm
by -Holiday
JWF505 wrote:

ME sucked "O Ring"


JWF
you shouldnt be so hard on yourself

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:25 pm
by MattL
Anything produced by microshaft has no use on any of my hard drives. That includes winblows.

A wise man once said "I don't need a girl friend! Windows goes down on me every day!"

Stop paying for trash. Grab you'reself some linux. :wink:

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:36 pm
by camthepyro
I've never paid for windows, so it doesn't hurt me there, as far as stability, unless you're a expert user (and I do consider myself one) linux isn't any better then windows. How much windows crashes is over-exaggerated. I haven't run linux a few times, on a few machines, but never liked it a whole lot, so I didn't keep it long. I have corporate versions of XP Pro, that don't require a key to install or activate, so I don't have to pay for it.

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:55 pm
by DieMonkeys
-Holiday wrote:
JWF505 wrote:

ME sucked "O Ring"


JWF
you shouldnt be so hard on yourself

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHA. HAHA. Ha. Heh.

Worst nerd joke EVAR!

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:25 am
by MattL
camthepyro wrote:I've never paid for windows, so it doesn't hurt me there, as far as stability, unless you're a expert user (and I do consider myself one) linux isn't any better then windows. How much windows crashes is over-exaggerated. I haven't run linux a few times, on a few machines, but never liked it a whole lot, so I didn't keep it long. I have corporate versions of XP Pro, that don't require a key to install or activate, so I don't have to pay for it.
Why do you say its not better? What distro? What window manager?

Windows litterally went down on me every day. With the latest updates. Linux has only gone down on me once to date which was my fault fawkin with the kernel.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:46 am
by desper
I have both a linux and a windows(xp) machine at work, and push them both pretty hard. I've had hundreds of crashes/lockups/glitches in the past four years on both. Linux may be a little more stable, but it really depends on your system configuration, and the difference is often negligable.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:28 am
by bok
alerts that 99% of users can't begin to understand, so they will simply get in the habit of clicking OK for everything.
this is S.O.P. currently which is why we have a lot of viruses and mal ware crap.

Linux vs. Windows...meh my windows box doesn't crash on me unless i do something really dumb. my Debian distro with gnome or fluxbox will just crap out on me every once in a while for no apparent reason, or i will lose my mouse inside of VMWare (attribute this to VMWare not linux). My Ubuntu home machine runs like a champ on an old 500Mhz compaq.

Windows is as easy for a total computer newb to use (and mess up) as linux with something like Gnome or KDE. the difference is that with Windows in the office and more exposure to it, people like my mom/dad/brother would never switch to linux, even with the better security. add to that the way that some linux folks preach about distros and "compiling your kernel" that turns off the people who need to be converted heh.