Tim Wunder wrote: > Lee wrote: > > > implement was go back to using 7.1. I think Mandrake, like Caldera and Red Hat > > have adopted the M$ new distro development model. After releasing a really good > > distro (Win 95, COL 2.2, Mandrake 7.1) follow it with one not quite so good and > > degrade the overall quality with each new release toward the ultimate crapzoid > > of XP. > > > > Huh!? Are you REALLY saying that Win95 was better than Win98SE? Are you > REALLY saying that COL 2.2 was better than 2.4? > Speaking as someone who's used all of the above, I would have to say > that my experience sharply contrasts yours. Win98SE was definately a > better product than the original Win95, which in light of the hype > surrounding it is a much better candidate for "ultimate crapzoid" than > XP is.
>Yes, that's what I'm saying. I use my computer for desktop work nothing exotic like calculation the value of pie to the last decimal place, just gp stuff. Also I run a small computer business on the side. Most of my work has been installing OSs on client's boxes in their own home. In four years I've had two Win95s come back. One was blasted when a squirrel shorted out the electric transformer on the pole and the system was on line. The other when an idiot decided to make space on his hd by removing "unused" files. 98 (either FE or Se) usually runs for about a year to a year and a half before I see it again. Too many bells and whistles and not enough OS engine. It's easy enough to understand why. When 95 was being developed Gates and crapany still had competition for the desktop market. OS/2 was still around and Win had to prove that was better. When 98 came out it was either Win or a blank screen. So M$ could taylor it to the same market that demands new chrome strips on this year's model car. But, as I said 98 was slightly worse than 95. Many of the 95 bugs were fixed, but 98 compensated by adding in its own. > > > And it was the quality of eDesktop 2.4 that finally pushed me over the > edge to using linux full time at home. Further, once you get past some > of the installation issues with COL 3.1, it's a fine product in itself. > I'm very pleased with both of my 3.1 installs at home. Neither of the > Mandrake releases I've installed (7.1, 8.0) are as good, in my experience. > I came to Linux from COL1.3 bought at flea market to COL 2.2 to 2.4 to 3.1. Mandrake wise from 6.2 to 7.1 to 8.0 and 8.1. The COL 2.2 that I installed on my dual boot (Win95/COL 2.2) ran for almost 3 years with little trouble. I should note that I am not of those who continually recompile their OSs for the latest updated thing-a-ma-giggy. Not critizing, Linux is different things for different folks. 2.2 did everything I needed, I was satisfied. Then one day in the middle of a net surf my monitor screen went black (not lost power just shut down) On reboot there was nothing there. Neither Boot Magic nor the Linux boot disk could find Linux on the hd. So, I upgraded to 2.4. Was ok. Netscape color was better, but it took longer to load. It did have one bad habit however. Sometimes, when I accessed the "Get Message" function on Netscape Communicator the Netscape window would shutdown when I entered my password. Two months after install, I got an error message telling me that one of the components was recycling too fast and boot would be shut down for five minutes. It never came back and wouldn't reboot even with a boot disk. Sooo. I installed 3.1. Pure turkey. The icons for floppy and cdrom or even terminal wouldn't access. Got message that the file /dev/floppy /dev/fd0/ /mnt/floppy/ /auto /floppy (take your pick) couldn't be found. That was strange in that the properties listing of the floppy icon listed the iso95660 driver as being loaded . Cdrom the same. Gave up in disgust and installed Mandrake 7.1. What an OS! On install it found and installed my cdrom, cd burner, zip drive and floppy. The system was fast and easy to use. Problems? Only two. The Scripting on Netscape could be better and the printer base is rather limited. But, like one of the chrome strip crowd I installed Mandrake 8.0 over it and later 8.1. Two turkeys. Same problem with the floppy and cdrom as 3.1 only not instead of can't find file it was you don't have permission to access the device, even as root. Also 8.0 and 8.1 have a nasty tendency of switching Xservers after install. Finally let common sense prevail and reinstalled Mandrake 7.1. Much happy again. > > > I've also been using Win2K SP1 at work since March with very few > problems. It is, by far, a better product than any of the Win9x > releases. If not for my philosophical difference with how MS goes about > doing business, I wouldn't mind using Win2K at home. And I really must > question your opinion of XP being an "ultimate crapzoid". Although I > have no experience with using XP, I've read that the primay issues with > the O/S are over licensing, not quality. >Most of my work lately has been installing Junk 2000 on computers, because the only licensed 2000 tech in the county refuses to touch it. 2000 (desktop) is only a boiled version of NT4 with bugs installed. It gets its so-called stability and speed by reducing the number of irqs generated and reducing the number of comm ports to comm 1 and comm2. Try to install a comm port 3 or 4 to accommodate jumpered hardware and you're out of luck. The OS will first tell you that that isn't a good idea and may cause damage. If you insist, it demands to know the specifications for the new port. Good luck hardware designers. On Win 95 just tell it to install a new port and you get a new port. Then there's hardware. If your hardware uses a comm port above 2 and isn't supported by NT4 and pnp it doesn't install. This kind of limits your hardware. As does the lack of irq 12 and above. Then there's the viri and worms. Lately, the hackers have developed a fondness for 2000. In the last two months I've had to do reinstalls on three boxes because of Code Red and other nasty things from the net. > >As for XP the extent of the complimentry write up is directly proportional to the > extent that the writer gets free software from MS. XP dictates (if Gates gets his > way) what type of box you will run and the hardware you will run. It takes about a > gig and ahalf of hd space to accomadate all the bells and whistles and chrome > strips. Each of these is a potential bug and slows the box down. Which is why > Gates wants it to be only run on boxes with 233mhz cpu and 128 meg memory. > Because of this and the license issue some writers have been recommending to > businesses that they look elsewhere for their OSs. > > Unfortunately, if MS hadn't stifled every viable competitor over the > last 10 years, a product of the quality of Win2K would've been released > in 1997 and the computing industry would be light years ahead of where > it is now. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-users mailing list > Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
