Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ramiro Aceves writes:
Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens"
None that I'm aware of. Blue screens are more of a popular myth
invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality. I saw occasional
BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on
servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now.
There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens
frecuently in win95 and winMillenium. Now I am out of the winbugs world
since 2 years and I am very happy.
One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window
System on an old pentium 75MHz.
I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could
establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the
interface. It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why
I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI.
Sure X is the culprit.
Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV
card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of
bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying).
Notice that these both happen with GUIs. One reason is that GUIs put
hooks into the operating system that destabilize it. It's a very high
price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view.
I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software
requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many
people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs.
On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-)
Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of
Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user
errors.
I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird
things everyday.
Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means)
Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective
justification.
Thank you very much. I understand now.
I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes.
It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use. Each time
I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such
as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely
rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all.
Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop? I can choose a
windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that perform the same or
better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best of all, they are
*free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise. I do not need too
much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the desktop. A fluxbox
window manager is perfect for me. The important thing are the apps, not
the desktop.
If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for
most of us.
That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the
forseeable future.
It is a matter of time, the problem is that we will not be alive to see
it. :-(
Ramiro.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
