Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:40:18 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:48:48
> >"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> >> > > >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> >> > > >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
> >> > >
> >> > > You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> >> > > at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> >> > > some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> >> > > some such error.
> >> >
> >> > A lot of users are running as root.
> >> > In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to
damage
> >the
> >> > registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to
do.
> >>
> >> on the contrary, those who run their own unix-like system do not run
> >> as root most of the time. they run as a regular user and become
> >> super-user when they need to. in unix, su is quick and easy.
> >
> >So it is in windows.
> >runas for cli
> >Or shortcuts>"Run as another user" or shift right click for gui
> >
> >*Very* useful.
>
> But not quick and easy. This is the equivalent of an 'rexec' function,
> when su provides 'rsh', if you know what that means. Being able to run
> a command as root is OK, but *being* root (almost), is better. Or at
> least quicker and easier for most actual purposes.
Runas /user:administrator cmd
Voila, you are admin
Here is another one:
Create a shortcut to explorer.exe, check the "run as another user"
Double click it, explorer will open, you are now, within this windows and
within any windows or applications that you launch from this widnows, an
admin.
> >> a lot of people run as admin in nt because of the lack of "su" type
> >> facility. logging off and logging back in as admin is a large
> >> annoyance; most people don't want the bother.
> >
> >See above.
>
> Notice it didn't appear until W2K, an OS which most people still aren't
> using. BTW, is it included with the main product, or do you have to
> install it separately or get it from a resource kit or something?
In 2000, it's part of the OS.
For NT, I *think* that it's in NT resource kit.
> >> there are always plenty of ignorant users to go around, my money is on
> >> more people (both absolute and proportional to user base) always
> >> running nt with admin privileges than linux people living as root.
> >
> >NT usually being mainly a bussiness OS, I don't think so.
> >But the numbers are higher for both absolute and proportional because NT
has
> >a *lot* more ignorant users than unix.
>
> No, its just not as easy to know what you're doing. You mistake running
> as admin with having admin privileges, as well. A much larger
> proportion of people than you think have admin privileges on their
> account because they need it to get certain software to work. Still not
> as many, I'd bet, as people who run Linux as root, particularly outside
> a business setting.
Adaptec Easy CD Creator require me to run as admin in order for it to burn.
I run it using Runas, problem solved.
CorelLinux 1.2 acts like a single user OS, if you don't take extra steps in
order to make sure it wouldn't.
The only acount defined is root, and you've *no way* of defining the root
password during the install.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:43:03 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vr68p$5g8i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vqtuv$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> >> >> >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> >> >> >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> >> >> at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> >> >> some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> >> >> some such error.
> >> >
> >> >A lot of users are running as root.
> >>
> >> Which users are these? I'm not aware of any.
> >
> >Those who are new to unix, mostly. Or are ignorant or don't care.
> >Dito for those who run as admin in NT.
>
> But you said it happened to *you*. Not someone new to it,
> or so you claim, anyway.
*Sign*
I said it happened to me, I never said when, or how, or whatever.
> I really don't know why I'm bothing here, no doubt you'll
> add some new piece of information in order to justify this.
Like timing? Like my knowledge at the time?
> Let me try to guess it for you... ah, how about:
>
> No, this was *another* user, I was asked to help out fix
> the machine after they'd done this. But I don't really
> work there, otherwise I'd have prevented them having the
> root password, I was just passing by, or it was one of
> the other admins that gave them the password, or or
> or or or.
No, it was me, running as root, deleting the FS.
It was some time ago.
And, like any person on this planet, I didn't suddenly gained holly
knowledge of the working of linux just by installing it for the first time.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:50:25 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v0eU5.25024$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vqtv1$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Personal conclustion.
> > I've several cases of ext2 dying on me.
> > I've never had a case of FAT or NTFS dying on me, and I have seen people
> > abuse it to the full extent of the word.
> > File getting corrupted, yes, but never the entire FS.
>
> This must be from very limited experience. I've had 2 NTFS's become
> corrupt to the point where chkdsk would not fix them, and no e2fs's
> that e2fsck wouldn't fix if you run it manually. I've never trusted
> FAT much, so every time chkdsk mentions cross-linked chains or
> the like, I just assume it is hopeless and reformat. DOS is just too
> dumb to know or care if the FS is corrupt.
What options did you use on chkdsk?
What do you lose when you run e2fsck manually?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:54:42 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:46:57
> [...]
> >User & Admin mistakes, faulty programs, ignorance, power failures, hard
> >drive failures... the list is endless.
>
> Precisely. Any rational and reasonable person, when presented with a
> system in which the list of problem causes is endless, recognize that
> the system is a piece of crap.
This list apply to every computer in the world.
Therefor, by your own words, every computer in a piece of crap?
> >> The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
> >> windows.
> >
> >It takes a *lot* to corrupt the registery, usually a hard drive failure.
>
> Only for the single specific instances of "corruption" which you are
> trying to limit the discussion to. The fact is, the list of problems
> with the registry is, as you have already indicated, endless. The files
> might not get corrupted often, according to your criteria, but the
> database which the files contain is, in many respects, the cause of many
> Windows problems, which are indeed routine and frequent in many
> implementations.
>
> >Currupting the data *inside* the registry is another matter, and can
cause
> >system instability, just like putting invalid data in the files in the
/etc
> >dir.
>
> And thus we come full circle to the point Mark was making, and you were
> furiously trying to avoid. Windows system instability is routine,
> regardless of whether you believe this to be so or it matches your
> personal experience. The data "inside" the registry becomes 'corrupted'
> or otherwise disfunctional regularly, to an extent which cannot be
> adequately identified. The files in the /etc directory, on the other
> hand, practically never have any problems whatsoever. You tried to
> equate having a "corrupted /etc directory" with losing the disk or
> partition that /etc is on. That is much greater of a leap, even, then
> shifting from "corrupted data" to "corrupted registry files" in your
> response.
What happens if I put bad data in /etc?
Kernel Panic!
I've had a computer on which the kernel paniced so much that I'd to sent it
to a shrink :)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:07:52 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:11:36
> [...remarking on W2K compatibility, I believe...]
> >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
> >There are ways to make them work, but I usually dump those that force me
to
> >mess around with the registery security settings.
>
> And I'll bet it never occurs to you to blame Microsoft for all that time
> you have to spend sorting this out.
Because of this particular thing? No. Why would I? Because of other things,
yes.
Do I *want* an unsecure system? No.
Do I have to suffer because idiots assume that I've an unsecure system? No.
> >NT supplies a quick & easy way for programs to be multi users, very few
> >non-MS programs take advantage of this.
>
> Hmmm. I wonder why that is? I guess Microsoft just managed to hire all
> the good programmers, eh? Three cheers for capitalizm. Or perhaps it
> isn't as quick and easy as you pretend.
No, because apperantly they use the HKLM to store information that is user
spesific.
There isn't much difference between accessing HKLM & HKCU
> >Maybe because it's slightly easier to do this than walk into the
registery
> >and do things the right way.
>
> And maybe because it isn't at all easy to do things the way Microsoft
> does, lacking proprietary knowledge of the OS and the registry and all.
No, it has nothing to do with the proprietary knowledge.
This behaviour it quite well documented.
It's slightly more convinent to store all the information in the HKLM than
in the HKLM & HKCU.
> >Adaptec Easy CD Creator require me to run it as Admin before it would
burn
> >CDs, and my dialer require write access to HKLM, frex.
>
> In comparison to some other Windows than Microsoft's product, this might
> be an indication that your CD software or dialer have problems. As it
> is, all I can see is that Windows sucks, and you'd rather blame anyone
> but Microsoft for the problems it has.
T. Max, no offence meant, but you see "Windows sucks" in everything.
The CD software *might* need to read/write some parts of the registry that
are inaccessible to normal users, that I can understand.
But that the dialer uses it?
The *only* thing that it uses the registry for is to store it settings,
which are quite user spesific.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:19:11 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:52:54
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vmhss$50m41$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Sigvaldi Eggertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8vmffj$crq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vlgh0$4tt57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need
an
> >> >> OS in
> >> >> > their own language, and they'll pay for it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their
own
> >> >> > language, btw.
> >> >> >
> >> >> We,here in Iceland, know English (at least some) but what happened
was
> >> >> that we got Windows 98 in Icelandic a couple of years back.
> >> >
> >> >IIRC, there was a problem with that (it may be with win95, I'm not
sure)
> >> >that MS didn't want to localize windows because large part of the
> >population
> >> >had a good control in english.
> >>
> >> The actions of a monopoly
> >
> >No, the actions of a company whose interest is in profit.
>
> But I would suspect that, since this was reported on, it involved many
> more users than some of the other languages that Windows supports. So
> is it profit (the cost of production versus the potential market) or is
> it monopolization (the greatest number of users locked in) which
> determined whether Icelandic, or something like, say, Bali, was
> supported?
No.
IIRC, Iceland is roughly 500K.
Most of them speak english quite well.
There was no *need* for localize version.
Localise version would sell, but it wouldn't sell enough to return the
invesment.
MS would get X money from selling the english version on windows in iceland.
It would've to invest Y money in order localise windows.
Z is the expected profit from the localise version which wouldn't go to the
english verison.
As long as z<y, you don't localize.
> >It wasn't worth it to localize Windows, because most of the people could
use
> >the english version.
>
> What difference at all does that make? Does a producer base its
> decision on what to invest in on whether it will increase their sales,
> or whether it will "cover" a particular victim/consumer? Wouldn't
> whether Icelanders would buy a non-english version be the question,
> rather than whether they can use an english version? Is MS trying to
> increase their sales, or are they trying to monopolize the market? You
> tell me.
See above.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:20:40 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating
system sends
> > banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation
through
> > Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ
et. al. If
> > you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an who
you are
> > data extends to geographic data for best routing and your handle and
fullname if
> > you provided it. Again much like the IMs. I don't hear anything about
this
> > behavior in the IMs yet when it's MS the standards and reactions are
much
> > different.
>
> You're damn right the reactions are different. When an application sends
> data sneakily to the net, I can stop using that app. When the OS does it
> (or even possibly does it... I certainly have no proof) what are we meant
> to do?
> Of course I can stop using the OS, but it's not quite that easy when you
> have to keep your job...
Get a packet sniffer, and check the network traffic.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:22:36 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AheU5.25028$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vqvra$5f036$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
> > > for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy,
something
> > > not implemented, but usable).
> > > You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
> > > must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
> >
> > Probably, but after the disappotment 4 was, I'm not sure if I'll try it
> > until it's tested thourghfully.
>
> My windows version of Netscape 6 (release) has never run. It always
> crashes with a DLL error message. Based on experience with other
> programs under windows, I interpret this as a windows problem, not
> something Netscape-specific.
How can it be a windows problem?
If Netscape crashes, it's Netscape problem.
And, for what it worth, MS didn't release anything lately that can break
Netscape, so this arguement is pointless.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:23:40 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hxdU5.25015$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vqs63$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
> > And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop
> machine.
>
> You have a strange idea of flying. My 32MB machine crawls if you
> open more than a couple of windows.
What are you doing on it?
What windows? What services run on the background?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:26:12 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PXdU5.25022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vratq$5edhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows exists
only
> > > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product, and
> > > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
> >
> > Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market rules.
>
> What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> without paying for a copy of windows?
What version of Mac could run on an Intel based PC?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:30:51 +0200
I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the new OS
(the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft, destined to
finally eliminated the 9x line.
Here is my biased review.
I'm going to limit myself to comments about the new GUI and features of the
OS, as this a Beta1, it's not yet appropriate to talk about performace and
stability yet.
Starting with the install, you stick the cd in the drive, set the BIOS to
boot from the CD, and you are done.
Strangely enough, I have the system up and running without returning to the
BIOS to change the settings, and it's still working.
The installation itself is pretty similar to Windows 2000, blue screen in
text mode, and afterward the familiar wizard style.
The main difference is that it's now uses the "simpler start menu" as a
background.
Installation took little longer than an hour, most of the time to format a
NTFS HD.
After the text mode, which require some little knowledge in the computer's
HD, the installer required very little input from the user, and did all the
configuration on its on.
The computer is win2k HCLed, btw.
As a note:
For some reason, it thinks that I've multiply monitors, likely because I've
a TV-Out card. This doesn't seem to cause any problems whatsoever, so I
don't think I would bother to fiddle with it in the near future.
The new startup screen is cool, but I like the win2k one better, the win2k
one provide some (limited, but real) information on how much progress the OS
had in loading itself.
Whistler's startup screen provide no such information, in that, it's very
much like the win9x startup screens.
The system finished loading, and you get a pretty wizard like interface
which explained you how to use the computer (can't report much about this, I
quited this part when it started explaining how to you the mouse.), ask you
whatever you want to register at Microsoft.com, and help you setup a dial up
account.
Then you create users, You can create up to six users in this screen.
I don't like this way very much, all the accounts you create this way are
admins, with no passwords set on them, and you get *no* warning about this.
The user interface itself, for that matter, isn't very good comparing to NT
or 2000.
You can enter a user's name, and a picture, if you like, but that is about
it.
Accounts are created without passwords by default, another thing I don't
like.
And when you login, all the accounts on the computer are presented to you,
which is another mistake.
I can see the reasons behind this, of course, as the whistler I'm using is
supposed to go to home users, where you rarely need such security measures,
and there are probably ways to fix those things, which I'm currently
clueless about.
The biggest problem I've with this (all accounts being displayed) can
apperantly turned off quite easily (I've not tested it yet, though)
Strangely enough, by default, the desktop don't display the "My Computer"
and "My Documents" icon folders.
With those icons being probably the most important in handling windows, I'm
quite sure it's a bug.
Another bug I found is in the control panel>mouse>pointer options, where the
"Show location" option doesn't warp, so the "y." (at least I assume that it
what it's supposed to be) cannot be seen.
The icons problem was fixed by right clicking the desktop, active
desktop>customise my desktop, btw.
I also recommend to use the "Proffessional" image as background to the
desktop, totally cool.
The entire GUI is cool, for that matter.
It feel like a game or a flash applet.
The login screen, for example, is in pastel colors, and you've a list of
users, with pictures near each name, and when your mouse is over a username,
all the other usernames fade out.
If you click a username, and it has no password, it moved to the center of
the upper half of the screen, and it would tell you what it's doing (3 - 4
seconds process) while it loads your settings.
If it has a password, it opens (open like a drawer, really cool) a box that
ask you to enter the password.
On NT & 2000, you needed a *long* password to feel the password box, in
whistler, it takes very few characters for the password box to be full on
the black circles, so you've no indication whatever you are still typing.
It makes sense, I assume, as it obscure password length to onlookers, and
it's no worse than unix no showing what you type at all.
I like the "simpler start menu", for now, at least.
It would take some getting used to, I suppose. But I suspect it can also
drive a person crazy, very easily. One thing that I already find annoying in
this is that you can't logoff without using the mouse.
And logging off is something that I think that I'll have to do quite often
in Whistler, at least in the first period.
You can revert back to the normal windows way, of course.
Alt+Ctrl+Delete behave quite unlike what you expect.
In 9x, it brings you a list of running application, which allows you
(hopefully) to close them.
In NT/2000, it brings a list of options, which I find more practical than
the 9x one.
In whistler, you get "Task Manager", which NT/2000 users should be familiar
with.
You can do everything you used to be abled to do with the NT ctrl+alt+del,
except change your password, which must be done throught the user settings
in the control panel.
One of the coolest features in in Whistler is the ability to logoff and
leave all your current applications working.
User A log on, do some work, and has to go. He log off, and go away for some
time. User B comes along, log on, do his stuff until he is done, and then he
log off.
User A return, he log on, all his applications are intact, for those of you
who are familiar with NT/2000, it's similar to computer lock.
Infact, in Whistler, Locking the computer is very similar to Switch user.
One thing, though, if you play a cd and lock the computer, and log as
another user, you still hear the cd. I've to test it for other sound
programs, but I believe it's a CD related issue.
You can also log off completely, thus releasing the resources that you took.
Those of you who are familiar with linux, it's similar to Alt+F#, only in
GUI.
It's a little more cumbersome to move between users, because you has to
logon to do so, but it's working.
Unfortantely, there are no virutal desktops, such as there is in Gnome &
KDe, which can be very useful.
There is something which is called "Clean up notification area" which may
provide similar ability. (The main reason for virtual desktop is to keep the
taskbar or whatever you call it from cluttering, this should solve this,
apperantly.)
Whistler currently comes with IE & OE 5.6, which doesn't seem to offer any
big improvement over IE 5.5, at least on the surface.
To my joy, the wide languague support from 2000 remained on Whistler. (Which
wasn't the case on ME, which really pissed me off)
Trying to change different settings proved quite easy, although tooltips are
too widely used, IMHO. But I can understand why they are neccesary, and they
proved to be handy.
Another problem is in the task bar, in normal winodws mode, the application
on focus has its tab in the spacebar pressed, which make it easy to detect
it.
On Whistler (professional skin), the tabs on the applications are
highlighted, which takes getting used to. In the meantime, I get a lot of
windows minimized when I don't want them to because of this.
It's also hard to tell where one application tab is ending, and where
another begin.
And the scroll bars aren't a great idea either, white on pale gray is nice
if you bother to actually *look* at it, but who looks at a scroll bar
anyway? You want something that is easy for the eye to see.
I like the skinning idea, but at the moment, I only have two (pro &
classic), anybody knows whatever there are more out there?
The Explorer has been changed quite dramatically. Now you can call it
pretty.
And the help system has been given a face lift as well. The Win95 help got
the "Interface Hall Of Shame" award, I think that whistler's help system is
at least a runner up for "Interface Hall of Face" award.
The entire GUI is very good, although I get a chuckle out of "Comments?" on
top of everything.
I wouldn't call Windows9x/NT pretty.
Useful, yes, and the 2000 GUI is much nicer then those before it, but
Whistler *is* pretty.
>From the overall easiness of working with the system, I've to say that MS
took a long hard look at the iMac success, which was largely based on its
look and "just plug it in" slogan.
And decided that they can do it better.
I would refrain from commenting whatever they actually succeeded in that,
because it's still a beta, and because I don't have that much experiance on
Macs.
And practically none at all on an iMac or an iBook.
However, in its current state, I have to say that Whistler is pretty awesome
UI-wise. I'll have to study it much more to find out if it can serve as more
than a toy.
Right now, I would rather use the beta than any win9x, including win98se.
It's based on NT kernel, which mean it *can't* be as bad as the 9x line.
At the very least, it's going to be a cool workstation.
For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as good
from win2k as win2k was from NT.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
