Func_Msgboard: Operating Systems Thread

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Operating Systems Thread

Posted by stevenaaus [121.222.254.49] on 2009/04/26 05:26:33
Vista is Microsoft force feeding us shit. Linux - for jobless geeks only. Macs might get you laid, but you'll have to pay and pay. XP has a colour scheme for autistics, but is destined to live forever....

Desktop Linux ?
#1 posted by stevenaaus [121.222.254.49] on 2009/04/26 05:28:22
is a joke sometimes. Trying out Fedora 10 last night... it installed ok but I couldn't log in. Not from the GUI login screen or the console. Not as root or user.
F-ing unbelievable.
So i rebooted into runlevel 1 via grub, disabled SE Linux, rebooted again and could now log in as user. As you do.
Everything i tried was broke anyway. Kde-4.1 is still a pre-alpha disgrace (stick with 3.5), Kolf (mini golf) is now broke, no mp3 or video playback despite having multiple players installed, Gnome icon theme wouldn't resize, chess program glChess (gnome-games-2.24) is crap, and it screwed my system clock too.
#2 posted by stevenaaus [121.222.254.49] on 2009/04/26 05:29:45
Ricky, I had a look in my bios for a PnPlay item. The Bios is a bit shit actually.. there is a PCIPnP menu, but the only options are for PCI Latency timer and PCI IDE Busmaster, not the usual "PnP operating system"... So no win98 :(
Want It That The AGP Didnt Work?
#3 posted by RickyT23 [82.27.237.220] on 2009/04/26 06:30:44
I mean if you have an agp gfx card then look for AGP settings in bios, not PCIe
im no expert
Want = Wasnt
#4 posted by RickyT23 [82.27.237.220] on 2009/04/26 06:30:55
Windows 7
#5 posted by Zwiffle [97.87.57.94] on 2009/04/26 06:48:02
Already making it unsafe to store your personal data! Buy Windows 7 now!
http://www.techspot.com/news/34436...
Oh Noes...
#6 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/04/26 06:56:36
now i have to worry about people breaking into my house to install malware?
Currently
#7 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/04/27 14:57:07
Dual-booting a really cut-down optimised version of XP, and Ubuntu 8. Works for me, think it's pretty unlikely I'll switch to Windows 9.
Anyone tried Ubuntu 9 yet?
Yes
#8 posted by rudl [84.112.184.94] on 2009/04/27 19:38:37
no problems so far.
boots really fast. Very cool indicator applet. New nvidia driver with opengl 3.0 8)
What I don't like is that they removed some partitioning features from the installer. Had to create the partition with gparted. Still using ext3 though.
And Its
#9 posted by rudl [84.112.184.94] on 2009/04/27 19:44:40
8.04
8.10
9.04 -> April 2009
not 8. 9.
Ah Yes
#10 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/04/27 21:33:13
the bi-annual naming convention. Was running 8.10 before, and obviously its April now. Might be worth the reinstall from what I've seen. Tempted to try kubuntu 9.04, never ran KDE before but it always looks sexy as hell.
BeOS MOTHER FUCKERS
#11 posted by Scampie [96.61.118.34] on 2009/04/27 21:46:53
Boosh.
No Fucking Way
#12 posted by Mr Fribbles [59.167.199.179] on 2009/04/28 04:22:01
That Amiga OS that Aardappel was working on and then wasn't, and we never heard about again. THAT'S THE SHIT.
#13 posted by mwh [118.93.32.37] on 2009/04/28 05:52:18
9.04 is fine for me. Suffering a bit from the "intel graphics are slow" problem.
Also FF3 seems to have a fetish for eating all the RAM in the machine, but that was going on with Intrepid too.
9.04
#14 posted by megaman [94.221.107.113] on 2009/04/28 12:01:58
the new kernel doesn't work on my Dell Latitude c400. Nor does a custom compiled one.
i run it fine with the 7.04 kernel though. the 8.10 one doesn't resume from standby...
Not that i noticed any difference besides new less annoying pop up bubbles... just that there's now more of them .
Stop Complaining About Vista
#15 posted by Jago [194.86.38.38] on 2009/04/28 13:25:28
Repeating what you hear on fuckwit anti-MS websites and posting experiences of running Vista on "brand" PCs loaded up the wazoo with useless bloatware won't make it true.
Vista is fine, on machines with 1GB ram, its as fast as XP, on machines with more, its faster.
I Have Vista On This PC Here At Work
#16 posted by RickyT23 [86.140.189.106] on 2009/04/28 13:52:47
I like it. Its great! Runs like a dream, boots fast, everything works, even got an old demo of Carmageddon 2 to work on it fine, Quake, everything. USB peripherals load faster (noticably).
Asus N10j NETBOOK running Vista Business - on an Atom processor:
Runs fine, no complaints there. OCed the Atom from 1.6Ghz to 2.01Ghz and despite what it says on the GamesRadar website Fallout3 runs fine.
4Gb and 2Gb RAM respectively.
Yeah
#17 posted by ijed [216.241.20.2] on 2009/04/28 16:38:40
Seems like most of the complaints about it hinge on the fact that people are scared of change.
I've got a new setup arriving with Vista.
I'm one of the windows lazy.
#18 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2009/04/28 17:08:41
Vista is alright but damn is it slow doing some basic things. My work machine takes no less than 10 minutes to get from from power up to "ready to work" state. And most of that time is spent after I log into Vista.
#19 posted by rudl [84.112.184.94] on 2009/04/28 17:31:37
Well Vista runs on my machine like a dream just a few seconds boot time, Linux too and I guess XP would also run well.
But thats not really the point, it does not mean that I have to like it.
Multiple Replies
#20 posted by Lardarse [62.31.165.111] on 2009/04/28 18:14:35
Jago: You are a braver man than I...
Vista is fine, on machines with 1GB ram
I would still not want to try with anything lower than 2GB. Good thing this computer I have now has 4GB...
ijed: I switched about a month ago. Some things will piss you off in how they've changed from XP. UAC has high "marmite factor", but I would definitely try with it on first before turning it off.
I'll Give It A Try
#21 posted by ijed [216.241.20.2] on 2009/04/28 20:45:44
It's alot faster than my old machine in any case. Downside is it's capable of playing games after 1997.
Its
#22 posted by ijed [190.20.70.147] on 2009/04/29 06:05:16
Very quick, but don't know if thats the machine or OS.
Desktop Linux
#23 posted by rudl [84.112.184.94] on 2009/04/29 14:40:41
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img...
Just Installed Windows 7
#24 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/05/01 19:21:33
Meh, pretty good. Very similar to Vista in a lot of ways, but generally seems more polished and less annoying. Doesn't seem like a huge leap right now, but maybe it isn't supposed to be. I like some of the new desktop backgrounds, for what that's worth :)
Still can't stand the Aero theme though, it's just way too busy and it takes up way too much space. Unfortunately, as with Vista, they haven't taken much care with windows classic mode, looks a bit buggy and crap.
I'm curious, what do people here go for, the full pazazz of the modern OS themes, or something clean and simple?
Currently I'm using a custom theme which is very close to windows classic, with the Vista font, and Icons from the tango project ( http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango... ). Very happy with this at the moment, about as clean and inoffensive as it gets.
#25 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2009/05/01 19:43:27
As a Mac nerd, I feel the OS should deliver nice aesthetics without slowing to a crawl or causing crashes.
Hmm
#26 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2009/05/01 20:06:19
I am a big fan of OS X.
As soon as they finish letting the HackBook people write drivers for everything that's not standard apple hardware I'll switch to the universal release (it'll happen, trust).
Re: #25
#27 posted by metlslime [173.11.92.50] on 2009/05/02 01:11:00
I agree except replace "nice aesthetics" with "clean, non-offensive, functional aesthetics" and I think OSX and XP's "windows classic" skin both provide this. OSX is probably a little more "nice" but in both cases, you can get used to the visual appearance and it doesn't get in your way with attempts to be flashy.
Well Yeah
#28 posted by ijed [201.214.248.46] on 2009/05/02 02:17:09
Functionality is first consideration.
One thing I have a semi-irrational dislike of is when buttons have a circular image but sqaure contact area - why fucking bother?
Form should always follow function. <rant>
#29 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/02 07:54:36
Yes, and form following function is exactly what OSX does IMO. It does many nice looking effects but none of them get in the way of using the OS. The OS responds as if those effects weren't there.
Oh Yes
#30 posted by megaman [94.221.121.198] on 2009/05/02 16:20:06
window wobbling streching fucktarding does so follow function. As do coloured balls. Oh, and reflections. Didn't some mac app practically DEFINE those? Ah, and slideshows that use all the mac mambo jambo 3d rotating cube effects, i love how the Mac designers hit the form follows function concept spot on with those. :P
#31 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/03 11:47:48
None of those things interfere with the function they are supporting. I'm not sure what the "mac mambo jambo 3D rotating cube effects" are but the rest of them are innocuous.
By "window wobbling streching fucktarding" I assuming you mean the genie effect when you minimize and restore windows. Non issue.
By "coloured balls" you either mean the buttons on the top left of the window or the busy cursor. Non issue.
"Reflections" is pretty clear as to the meaning but ... how is that a problem and how does it interfere with the function? The dock has reflections on it. It looks good and doesn't get in the way at all.
Is this just irrational Mac hating or do you have an actual issue here?
Hmm
#32 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2009/05/03 13:05:17
I think he was disputing the form following from function rather than being merely (possibly ott) fx for the sake of fx.
tbh I go with It looks good and doesn't get in the way at all
And there are so many entirely rational reasons to hate on Macs that I fail to see the need for irrational hating...
#33 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/05/03 13:10:30
to be honest, the colored ball thing is legit -- the fact that the icons aren't visible all the time can't have any functional purpose, they hid it just to look more sleek at the cost of reinforcing user expectations.
Now, i do think it's pretty nice the way unsaved documents have a modified "close" icon, though. Better than the silly windows "put an asterisk after the document name in the title bar" hack.
#34 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/03 13:43:25
"to be honest, the colored ball thing is legit -- the fact that the icons aren't visible all the time can't have any functional purpose, they hid it just to look more sleek at the cost of reinforcing user expectations. "
How do you mean? The only thing I can see is when a window loses focus, the 3 balls turn grey. I've never seen them disappear entirely.
Oh Apple Users And Their Coloured Balls...
#35 posted by Spirit [213.39.156.49] on 2009/05/03 13:51:58
Do The Balls Touch?
#36 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/05/03 13:56:34
GUI Comparison
#37 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/05/03 14:33:00
Out of interest, I thought I'd do a quick comparison of Windows 7 Aero against classic mode. I think all I really proved is that Internet Explorer looks absolutely shocking.
Windows 7 Aero
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205...
Windows 7 Classic
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369...
XP Classic (ish)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/3...
Windows Aero?
#38 posted by RickyT23 [86.0.96.75] on 2009/05/03 14:47:14
Do you mean the translucent frams that the windows are in?
Whats wrong with that? Looks good, works fine on my missuses Atom processor, whats the problem with that?
#39 posted by RickyT23 [86.0.96.75] on 2009/05/03 14:47:35
frams = frames
Aero Is The Theme In General
#40 posted by starbuck [94.193.240.185] on 2009/05/03 15:00:31
includes transparancy etc. I think it's a bit visually noisy and generally gash personally. Does seem more refined and clean than in Vista though, for what that's worth.
Transparancy isn't always bad though, I've seen it looking sexy in KDE, e.g. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__CMac9X5...
Hmm
#41 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2009/05/03 17:08:16
Does Windows 7 force that giant taskbar on you?
Part of the reason I rate OS X is the effecient use of screenspace. 10% of my screen as a bar is hardly maximal usage...
Lol Starbuck
#42 posted by ijed [190.20.100.27] on 2009/05/03 18:03:25
#43 posted by necros [99.227.133.158] on 2009/05/03 22:05:25
my only problem with the 'coloured balls' on the mac ui is that there isn't a maximize button. at all.
i mean... why? i have to manually drag a frame into the top left corner, then drag the botton right corner all the way to the edge.
with Spaces, it makes working with maximized frames completely viable, but there's no way to actually maximize anything quickly.
besides that, my only other gripe is with the fucked up mouse acceleration that requires me to get 3rd party software to make the mouse useable. i don't really know what the big deal that everyone is making about the graphical effects. you can turn off most (or all?) of them if you want and they don't cause crashing or visual anomalies. the integration of the effects is done well.
Willem:
#44 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/05/03 22:36:27
the balls stay visible, and keep their color, but the icons inside them ( x - + ) are only visible when you mouseover them.
Metl & Nonentity Thanks
#45 posted by megaman [94.221.106.11] on 2009/05/03 23:30:30
for explaining this ;-)
Yeah
#46 posted by SleepwalkR [85.179.2.152] on 2009/05/04 00:31:52
I can see how this is not "form-follows-function", but isn't that splitting hairs? It's not a big deal or usability disaster, in my opinion. There are far worse things than that, like for example the mouse accel curve that necros mentioned (although I believe they changed it in Leopard).
I for one prefer Mac OS over Windows because there are a lot of small things that make my life easier and allow me to work more productively. The two systems are pretty similar anyway, since they both use similar metaphors, but to me, working with the Mac OS feels more natural and simply quicker than working with Windows. Two examples of very useful features in the Mac OS are Spotlight (search function) and Expose (application switching).
Btw, I hear the no-maximize-button complaint frequently from Windows users and switchers, but personally I never missed that function. I hardly use maximized windows, and those programs that I feel make sense to have maximized windows do actually use the entire screen when you press that button (XCode and the Eclipse IDE for example).
#47 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/05/04 02:48:14
sleepy: i didn't bring it up, but it is something that i've noticed, so i was just clarifying the point someone else made. I don't consider it a big problem.
For me the main complaint with osx is that everything seems designed for a desktop full of overlapping, non-maximized windows, and it's not easy to do my preferred organization, which is every window maximized and alt-tab between them. First, apps like photoshop don't have a container window for documents on mac, so you either hide all other apps or you have a visual clutter of background apps. Second, the inability to easily maximize windows in some apps. Third, alt-tab (apple-tab in mac) only selects apps, not windows, and the dock likewise doesn't show multiple windows in the way that the windows taskbar does. (this is why tabbed browsing is actually pretty awesome; it's less of a big deal in windows.) Fourth, the fact that the menu bar is not attached to windows is especially problematic on dual monitors, if you have the app window on the second monitor, but still have to go to the other monitor to use the menus.
I'm not a mac hater, there are a lot of little things that mac gets right and windows fucks up. For example, mousewheel functionality should always affect the window/control that is directly under the mouse cursor, not the one that currently has focus, that's the whole point of having it physically on the mouse. Mac does this right, windows doesn't (though windows firefox seems to hack it to work correctly.) Also, filename editing in save dialogs defaults to not selecting the file extension, which is nice. The little dot in the close button when a file has unsaved changes. The F11 "show desktop" feature is toggleable, unlike in windows where it's an irreversible "minimize all" feature. The F9 windows selector is nice, and actually does a lot to help find document windows considering the problems i mentioned above. I use it instead of apple-tab most of the time because of this. The only issue with it is it relies on each window having a distincive appearance even when shrunk down, which is not always true (some apps are just white boxes with faint text and light grey toolbars, not very recognizable. Adding a watermark of the app icon might help with this.) The security approach where you have to enter a password to install software or change certain control panel settings is nice, it seems like a good balance of security and user ease-of-use.
Other things to complain about on macs? I am always dissatisfied with the "finder" window. Windows explorer makes it much easier to keep track of multiple locations in the file hierarchy, and move files between cousins rather than just ancestors and descendants. The mouse thing has been covered, there are paid apps available to tinker with acceleration to the point where it's not a big problem, though it sucks that I haven't found a free one. Also, you can't customize the dock very much. For example, it seems you can't put a shortcut to a file or folder on there. Hmm, the fact that modal dialogs appear attached to the parent window's title bar is kind of nice, but I have seen this backfire when the modal dialog is too big to see something important on the document itself, and even when the modal dialog is too long to see the bottom of it. And, there's no easy way to lock your workstation, other than turning on screensaver or putting it to sleep. Oh, and open/save dialogs disable most of the features of a folder view, so you can't delete or rename documents from inside those dialogs. It's too bad because that's a pretty convenient way to do some clean-up work in windows without actually re-navigating to the same folder in explorer.
So there's my quasi-rant on OSX. I think it's still got fewer things wrong with it than windows, but both OSes have problems and I wish they would just make some uber-OS that did everthing right.
Metlslime
#48 posted by SleepwalkR [85.179.27.34] on 2009/05/04 09:48:20
I agree with some of your points, esp. menu bar + multiple monitors, the finder (although I think that the column view is a great feature), sheets (modal dialogs attached to the window (it has some advantages though; you always see which window the dialog belongs to and it's much more clear why an application is currently blocked than with floating dialogs), locking (this is really idiotic).
Other things you mention don't bother me so much because I have a different workflow than you have.
Btw, you can get Windows-like Alt-Tab behaviour using witch:
http://www.manytricks.com/witch/
Hm
#49 posted by megaman [94.221.109.12] on 2009/05/04 10:30:44
those things i mentioned might not be big usability hurdles, but it shows that the mac designers aren't what every other mac fan thinks they are.
It's interesting how different user experiences seem to be:
On my (slow) linux laptop, i seldom use anything besides emacs/console/opera, so all the mac features would be lost on me. tab switching with 1/2 in opera and alt + number in a terminal is essential though. Also, i really like my mouse enabling the window it moves over without bringing it to front, very handy with a small resolution. All visual effects disabled.
On my main rig (windows), i also use maximised apps like ps, gtkr, modeling. For navigating the fs i use the norton commander style total commander, as the shell/terminal in windows sucks so much (and totalcmd really has loads of useful features). I can't stand using explorer, it feels so goddamn slow compared to shell/totalcmd ;). I seldom use the startmenu, mostly it's the quickstart and another quickstart toolbar in totalcmd. My task bar is on the left of the left screen as small as it gets, so it only displays icons. Mouse wheel not scrolling window it's over is annoying. Windows classic skin, most visual effects disabled besides cursor shadow.
I've always been a very alt-tab based user.
Follow-up:
#50 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/05/04 10:51:54
technically the windows "show desktop" feature is togglable. I was using windows-M, which is literally "minimize all" and not reversible, but windows-D does toggle the way you want, like mac's F11.
#51 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/04 11:26:45
You know, once you get used to it, you sort of stop maximizing applications as you are used to doing in Windows.
It's an application specific thing -- ToeTag, for example, will maximize to fill the entire screen because as a level editor that's the right choice. As does Photoshop. But text editors don't really need to take the entire screen up, nor do web browsers. They just need to get "as large as the application needs them to be" which is what that button does.
It's not a real issue once you start using it day-to-day.
You start to navigate differently after awhile. F11 to show/hide the desktop (which actually works correctly in OSX - in Windows it minimizes all the apps which is dumb), F9 to see all the running apps in Expose, F10 to see all documents open in the current app, etc.
ALT+TAB is the same as CMD+TAB in OSX so I'm not sure what people are going on about there.
Don't get me started on Spaces - SO nice.
And a quick note about the colored ball buttons ... there are 3 of them there and they are colored. It's not hard to remember what does what.
As always, this conversation is pretty controversial and will be plagued with flames and trolling as well as ultimately being pointless. The best you can hope for here is clearing up a few misconceptions people may have but nobody is going to be convinced to switch operating systems because of it.
And megaman ... you're trapped in a time warp. They don't design operating systems for people like you anymore. Walk into the light.
#52 posted by metlslime [24.130.223.174] on 2009/05/04 11:41:14
well, i've only been using it 8 hours a day for 16 months, so maybe i shouldn't be so quick to form judgements. :)
apple-tab isn't identical to alt-tab (doesn't show multiple windows for the same app) but F9 is a pretty reasonable alternative.
photoshop doesn't fill the screen for me, but i'm using CS3 so maybe your version does.
the colored balls are fine, but take the point that hiding the icons (which are somewhat informative) and only showing colors (which have no inherent meaning to a new user) has no functional justification. It merely looks nice.
Anyway, you may be tired of OS talk, but I find it useful as a software/game design type person to examine software/game design and clarify why things work or don't work. Getting into the details about it also helps clear up misconceptions, as you say.
#53 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/04 11:52:47
well, i've only been using it 8 hours a day for 16 months, so maybe i shouldn't be so quick to form judgements. :)
As I said, nobody is going to change their minds. If you don't like it, you don't it. Nothing said here will change that. The only reason I really post in these threads is maybe learn something and hopefully clear up misconceptions that other people might have.
photoshop doesn't fill the screen for me, but i'm using CS3 so maybe your version does.
You might be right there. I can't remember clearly. At any rate, it's an application specific thing. In OSX that button means, "get as large as you need to" not "fill the screen".
the colored balls are fine, but take the point that hiding the icons (which are somewhat informative) and only showing colors (which have no inherent meaning to a new user) has no functional justification. It merely looks nice.
Arguably, it fits into the overall aesthetic of OSX which is minimal UI and clutter. Removing those symbols cleans up the UI in a small way which is fine with me. I don't need those symbols there to remember what the buttons do - and if I do need to be reminded, I'll be shown when I move the mouse up there.
Anyway, you may be tired of OS talk, but I find it useful as a software/game design type person to examine software/game design and clarify why things work or don't work. Getting into the details about it also helps clear up misconceptions, as you say.
I tire of trolling and random flames and "my OS is better than yours" crap. I'm all for discussing pros and cons of design in a mature manner.
#54 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/04 11:55:11
Oh, and in OSX's defense, one thing that mitigates the need to mimic the Windows maximize behavior is that applications remember where they last were on the screen. I believe it's a magic feature that everyone gets for free. So once you size the app to where you like it, it will remember that position and size every time you open it.
Windows relies on the individual applications to write code to do this and they seldom do - so maximizing is a quick way to remove the issue.
#55 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/04 11:58:43
And to complete my posting hat trick, let me throw in a gripe about OSX that I don't like. I don't like having to use the bottom right corner to resize windows. I think Windows has a far better solution where it allows you to drag any edge or corner to resize a window.
So there's a point for Windows design IMO.
I guess it's arguable. In OSX you get a little more screen area for working since you don't need the thick border around the entire window and from a UI design point of view, it's very clear that when you see the ridged box that you can use that to resize something.
Still, I find it annoying many times.
Interesting Things With Windows 7
#56 posted by stevenaaus [203.55.33.245] on 2009/05/06 04:15:44
From what i've heard it's getting good feedback, and they may have finally straightened out some of vista's bugs. But the real news is they're giving away licensed copies of XP (running under Virtual PC), with expensive versions of Win 7.
http://community.winsupersite.com/...
At first i thought "well... they know it's shit, and are giving away what people want [XP]. What a joke", but the bigger issue is this, and it's positive. The Windows code base is a ponderous mess because they've always offered backwards compatability. By including a virtual box for legacy programs (especially business apps) they can cut that shit out of the new operating system, and finally move forward. Security, bugs, performance and UI consistency should all benefit.
To what degree they can achieve this is debatable however. Obvious problems i can see are
1. Gamers are still in the cold as virtualisation is of negative
benefit to them, and gamers made microsoft imho.
2. Windows still has UI-design and strategy issues that are unresolved, which are huge issues the company has
never had to properly address before, unlike Apple.
3. Removing legacy functionality from the core OS ~will~ hurt people, and do they have the will to really do it ?
Metl
#57 posted by stevenaaus [203.55.33.245] on 2009/05/06 04:17:04
> technically the windows "show desktop" feature is
> togglable. I was using windows-M, which is literally
> "minimize all"
Doesn't shift-windows-M un-minimize them ?
Wow
#58 posted by Lardarse [62.31.165.111] on 2009/05/06 04:25:48
I've just learnt something...
That's very useful. Thanks!
I'm
#59 posted by ijed [190.20.75.9] on 2009/05/06 05:52:31
Always behind whichever the curve is, but this sounds like its worth it.
#60 posted by Spirit [213.39.223.182] on 2009/05/09 14:56:11
I'm going to ditch Windows and install Archlinux now instead. See you next week!
Willem
#61 posted by Jago [84.249.95.211] on 2009/05/13 02:09:16
Vista is alright but damn is it slow doing some basic things. My work machine takes no less than 10 minutes to get from from power up to "ready to work" state. And most of that time is spent after I log into Vista.
Only possible explanation for this is that you have a really silly amount of software set to launch upon logon and this would slow down the boot process of any OS to a crawl.
My home desktop (which is well average by today's standards: E6600 2,4 Ghz, 4 GB ram) goes from cold boot to a usable Vista desktop in under a minute. Even the retarded Fujitsu testbed machines we have at work with 1-2 gb ram launch in under 1,5 minutes and this is with Antivirus and all the regular crap.
Wondering ...
#62 posted by Baker [75.118.7.231] on 2009/05/13 02:30:40
My nearly 7 old Windows desktop is 2 Ghz.
You'd think in the last 7 years that the CPU speed would have evolved more.
Baker:
#63 posted by metlslime [173.11.92.50] on 2009/05/13 02:31:42
i think there are some design limits that single CPUs have hit in recent years, that's why everything is switching to multi-core.
#64 posted by Willem [24.163.61.78] on 2009/05/13 12:30:43
Only possible explanation for this is that you have a really silly amount of software set to launch upon logon and this would slow down the boot process of any OS to a crawl.
Not really. It's a work machine. We have a virus scanner and a messenger app and that's about it. There's nothing in the task tray that would explain 10 minutes of disk thrashing every reboot.
This is AFTER you've logged in, mind you. You've entered your password and you're now at the desktop. However, the machine won't be usable for another 5-10 minutes.
Hmm
#65 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2009/05/13 13:26:08
Willem used quote tags!
Have a beer ;)
Antivirus
#66 posted by ijed [190.20.69.216] on 2009/05/13 13:56:30
We use a similar one.
Btw
#67 posted by Spirit [213.39.196.107] on 2009/05/13 14:03:48
Archlinux was easy to setup and runs so very nice.
And thanks to Linux I could transfer all my settings by simple copying files over.
Tuz Logo
#68 posted by stevenaaus [203.55.33.219] on 2009/05/16 03:35:52
Archlinux was easy to setup and runs so very nice
What's good about it ?
Check out the new console bootup logo (for linux-2.6.29.x only)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E2tJnrV_...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stibb...
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.co...
Took a little effort to set up since i'm not actually using a 2.6.29.x kernel
(enable vesa framebuffer support, copy logo_linux_clut224.ppm to [kernel_source]/drivers/video/log , "make bzImage" and install new kernel adding this to grub "fb vga=0x315 video=vesafb:pmipal" )
but i now have a graphics enabled console and a cute tuz (tux tasmanian devil) logo.
#69 posted by Spirit [213.39.169.129] on 2009/05/16 10:19:30
Archlinux is very minimal and does (mostly) only what you tell it to. That means I have a lightweight system that does everything I need without bloat. It needs 15 seconds to boot and is fast and snappy (using XFCE as desktop).
Installation and setup was actually easier than Debian (ok, that was some time ago and I am more experienced now). Things like the sound (OSS) or CPU frequeny scaling worked immediately.
The only drawback is that pacman is very inferior to aptitude (no menu for example), there are much fewer packages and using the user-repository ("AUR") requires using a different tool plus packages seem to be often broken or outdated. On the other hand the AUR contains a lot of proprietary software and other things (games) that now are easier to install than on other distros.
Bwahaha
#70 posted by megaman [94.221.105.1] on 2009/06/05 20:41:14
apple owns http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/adv...
#71 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2009/06/05 20:49:18
Fixed. :)
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3549
Linux Local Privilege Escalation
#72 posted by stevenaaus [203.55.33.245] on 2009/08/17 02:30:52
http://blog.cr0.org/2009/08/linux-...
I havent read it up
Since it leads to the kernel executing code at NULL, the vulnerability is as trivial as it can get to exploit: an attacker can just put code in the first page that will get executed with kernel privileges
....
On x86/x86_64, this issue could be mitigated by three things:
* the recent mmap_min_addr feature. Note that this feature has known issues until at least 2.6.30.2. See also this LWN article.
* on IA32 with PaX/GrSecurity, the KERNEXEC feature (x86 only)
* not implementing affected protocols (a.k.a., reducing your attack surface by disabling what you don't need): PF_APPLETALK, PF_IPX, PF_IRDA, PF_X25, PF_AX25, PF_BLUETOOTH, PF_IUCV, IPPROTO_SCTP/PF_INET6, PF_PPPOX, PF_ISDN, but there may be more. (Update: See RedHat's mitigation)
Welcome To
#73 posted by inertia [71.67.135.194] on 2009/08/17 04:01:01
at least three days ago :(
WIn7 Vs Vista
#74 posted by rudl [78.104.4.5] on 2009/08/17 13:05:27
Imho there is absolutely NO reason to switch to win7 when you have vista that runs without problems. I won't spend M$ tax two times for more or less the same.
Gfx perfomance seems to be identical.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/wind...
Win7/Vista/XP
#75 posted by Mike woodham [86.177.190.92] on 2009/08/17 20:24:03
Willem: it's not the OS (unless it is bad configuration) more likely the network or the machine. I use Vista on a 2Gig Pentium 4 and I am up and running in just over 2 minutes, and I have loads of unnecessary things on startup.
rudl: I agree. The same was true of XP over Vista. But I will say that I have been running Win7 on my laptop for about 4 months and have had no issues at all. Admitedly, I don't use it for games but I do use it for mapping (and FQ for testing) and Photoshop.
#76 posted by rudl [78.104.6.69] on 2009/08/18 11:59:49
Not really vista/win7 is more like W2K/XP
not like Xp/Vista
Xp lacks of DirectX10 and DirectX11 is supposed to run with Vista aswell.
And there is really no reason to use windows at all if not for games and cad stuff^^
Does
#77 posted by megaman [94.221.108.21] on 2009/08/18 12:40:14
win 7 have all the drm stuff vista has?
#78 posted by [78.104.6.69] on 2009/08/18 12:49:03
google it, seems to be worse than vista
DRM
#79 posted by Jago [84.249.95.211] on 2009/08/18 14:18:26
The people whining about DRM seem to be really confused regarding what having DRM support in an Operating System actually MEANS.
If you are using content that does not involve DRM, it does not, in any way, shape or form matter if your Operating System supports DRM or not, you are just playing back non-DRM content and thats all there is to it.
It's really simple really: if your OS has DRM support, you can use content that requires DRM support to be present. If your OS does not have DRM support, you cannot use that content. An example of this is BLURAY playback.
Note, that I am not an advocate of having content shipped with DRM built-in, I am absoluitely against it. However, you absolutely DO want your OS to support various existing DRM methods, because the other option it to simply not have any way to use DRM'ed content that requires it.
True
#80 posted by rudl [78.104.6.69] on 2009/08/18 15:04:56
well nobody here is whining about it, but that does not mean that i have to like it.
Windows 7 For 63,99£ On Amazon
#81 posted by Jago [84.249.95.211] on 2009/08/21 18:46:05
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-...
Laugh
#82 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.38.79] on 2009/10/25 00:50:38
http://picasaweb.google.com/cschla...
Shit stirrer
Win 7 Is Really Just A Vista Martini.
#83 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.38.79] on 2009/10/25 01:03:47
Everyone and his dog is sucking up to windows 7. Here's a dissenter.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,28...
Welp
#84 posted by Vigil [89.27.18.174] on 2009/10/25 10:25:01
Fact of life: [your OS] is shit, [my OS]is so much better in every way.
Also
#85 posted by SleepwalkR [85.179.4.163] on 2009/10/25 10:44:09
your mom says hi.
Sleepy
#86 posted by Vigil [89.27.18.174] on 2009/10/25 10:56:19
Oh, say hi to her for me! I hope she's enjoying Germany.
#87 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.5.191] on 2009/10/25 10:56:54
Fact of life: [your OS] is shit, [my OS]is so much better in every way.
Umm, no. Linux and Windows are both shitty in too many ways to bother listing.
And Macs ~still~ don't have a decent file system. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/...
Your Title Says No
#88 posted by Vigil [89.27.18.174] on 2009/10/25 12:34:34
But your post agrees with mine.
MY OS Is Good!
#89 posted by RickyT23 [82.12.238.142] on 2009/10/25 13:50:58
Its a far cry from Digital Operating System.
None of us can complain.
My freind installed some Windows updates the other week, restarted his computer, and was getting a fatal BSOD when the Windows loading screen came on. It would restart his computer.
BUT
Thankyou Microsoft - the "repair this installation of Windows" feature on the installation disc actualy worked!!! Didnt lose any of his files either!
Hmm
#90 posted by nonentity [86.175.201.81] on 2009/10/25 19:36:08
Quick and Dirty surely (rather than Digital)?
And 3.11 here... (honest ;)
Non....
#91 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.19.183] on 2009/10/25 21:21:07
Are you saying you're using windows 3.11?
I'm so sorry.
Hmm
#92 posted by nonentity [86.175.201.81] on 2009/10/26 14:34:20
It runs Quake and a browser, what more do I need?
So Your Using A Pentium Processor
#93 posted by RickyT23 [86.151.228.238] on 2009/10/26 14:35:31
with 16Mb RAM and a 1.25Gb HDD?
(that Was High Spec In Them Days)
#94 posted by RickyT23 [86.151.228.238] on 2009/10/26 14:36:04
Hmm
#95 posted by nonentity [86.175.201.81] on 2009/10/26 18:52:20
That was actually my specs when Q1 was released, god bless my father using CAD. Except I don't think I had that much HDD space. I remember always trying to remember the word 'pentium' and having to explain it was like a 586 to my friends
Hah
#96 posted by ijed [216.241.20.2] on 2009/10/26 19:27:02
Yeah, back when 486 was the mutts nutts.
I remember making stuff in LogoWriter back then, up until the school had the program removed because too many kids were just playing games all lunchtime.
Hm, LogoWriter doesn't even show up on Wikipedia. Was that turtle drawing a line thing, but could be scripted to do games.
BBC Basic!!!!
#97 posted by RickyT23 [82.12.238.142] on 2009/10/26 19:43:38
Yeah!!!!
#98 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.36.75] on 2009/10/26 21:07:56
It runs Quake and a browser, what more do I need?
Yeah, these are two of the big three. Myself, i also need a programming environment, which now-a-days is Linux/Tcl/C/Shell, but back when i used to use my sister's 486/Win-3.1 was the pretty awesome GWBasic and NDos.
But Windows-3.1 still sucks big ones. Win95/98se with it's file manager, plug and play and USB is a huge improvement.
Does Win 7 Get Along With Older Games?
#99 posted by Scragbait [65.92.67.49] on 2009/10/27 00:49:05
Like Quake (FitzQuake) and Quake 2
Unreal
Diablo I & II
Half-Life
System Shock 2
..and you get the jist.
...as well as popular FPS titles made since?
I have an 8 year old PC with WinME (I am the worst here, I bet) and have been getting closer and closer to an eventual gaming upgrade. I have a stack of purchased games that don't run on my Pentium 1.3GHz and I'd like to know that I will be able to run them on a new machine and OS.
Avoid Vista And ATI
#100 posted by ijed [190.20.101.119] on 2009/10/27 00:54:26
Games tend to run but editors and the like don't.
Yeah
#101 posted by RickyT23 [82.12.238.142] on 2009/10/27 01:58:03
I aint buying anything for my PC (except for a possible new case) until the next gen NVidia cards come out. The market should shift, everything get a bit cheaper etc. Then it will be worth getting a DirectX 11 card.
Must admit though, the new Radeon 5870 does look mighty decent.
I have been flirting with the idea of getting a new GPU for a while now, but it really wouldnt be worth it. But I really wouldnt like to have anything worse than about an NVidia 7800 at the moment. My 8800GTS 512Mb is pretty much exactly the same as a 9800GTX. And I cant really justify upgrading it until new cards get a bit faster and cheaper.
But I will be wanting a DX11 card for the tesselation and better anti-ailiasing stuff. And more power. NEED MORE POWERRRRRRRR!!!
Ricky, You Might Be Waiting For A While
#102 posted by grahf [75.183.0.100] on 2009/10/29 16:10:34
Nvidia completely droppped the ball on getting their next-gen (gt300) parts released on time. I'd expect a paper launch and no actual silicon to be seen until early next year.
But, DX11 will be very important... once a majority of gamers have cards that support the features. We're entering the era of fully-generalized GPU computing, which will mean not just better graphics, but things like physics and AI offloaded to our gpus. It's exciting, but I worry that it won't catch on in a big way until the next generation of consoles. PC games are stuck for now at the lowest common cross-platform denominator.
It's
#103 posted by ijed [216.241.20.2] on 2009/10/29 16:46:25
Always the way, taking alot of time to move to the next jump.
Yeah
#104 posted by RickyT23 [86.151.228.238] on 2009/10/29 17:10:16
I know! Theres been a lot of talk and rumour about NVidia's <2% yeilds of the new chips and what have you. Some people are saying it will be March next year before we see their next load of cards. And the new ATI/AMD cards (5870/5850) are mighty fine looking cards. But at the moment ATI/AMD have the market cornered. The 11.5 inch long 5870X2 will surface soon also.
The new NVidia cards will be faster than the ATI ones when they finaly do come out, which will force the market into another price war (yay!) and that is when I will reconsider buying a new card. My current card runs most new titles with pretty high settings at 1920*1080, so it doesst make sense to replace it yet. I can live without 8xAntiAliasing and DirectX10/11 shaders for a few more months I think ;)
Now Is Just A Bad Time To Be An Nvidia Fanboy
#105 posted by grahf [74.127.72.57] on 2009/11/07 23:37:03
#106 posted by stevenaaus [110.20.4.21] on 2009/11/19 08:05:24
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffp...
Linux UT3 Officially Dead
#107 posted by stevenaaus [114.72.211.49] on 2010/10/03 06:07:40
It's a little bit old, but news to me.
Also over at phoronix, they've been harping on about Steam for Linux is a cert for ages now... but i'll believe it when i see it.
My Comp
#108 posted by ranger [210.0.178.216] on 2010/10/07 08:26:35
3.5 GB RAM
125 GB HD
XP Media Center
Creative X-Fi
Nvidia 8600 GTS
Dual Core
best of all, it was only $1200!!!
Also
#109 posted by ranger [210.0.178.216] on 2010/10/07 08:35:05
XP's far from perfect but is the best OS MS ever made - vista's a memory hog to say the least, and 7 is a compatability problem filled nightmare (and memory hog)
Eh?
#110 posted by Bal [82.124.158.184] on 2010/10/07 10:27:26
When did you buy that computer? $1200 sounds expensive for that nowadays.
Hell
#111 posted by Vigil [89.27.42.215] on 2010/10/07 12:14:00
$1200 sounds expensive even if it's three years old.
#112 posted by Trinca [194.65.24.228] on 2010/10/07 12:25:35
best OS is W7, since I have it no problems at all...
more then 12 month with same (no format and reinstall) OS and is something new to me!
no blue screens, don't crash don't get stuck...
finally Windows is almost like Linux!
#113 posted by negke [88.70.67.196] on 2010/10/07 12:27:19
finally Windows is almost like Linux!
FUCKING LOL
TBF Windows 7 Seems Good To Me
#114 posted by RickyT23 [86.142.195.34] on 2010/10/07 12:31:20
But I've never used Linux (except for things which use Linux like Jukeboxes, Aeroplane TV's etc) or OSX to compare it to.
Best Windows yet though. And Windows XP takes some beating.
Bought It 5.5 Years Ago
#115 posted by ranger [219.77.98.217] on 2010/10/07 12:32:21
#116 posted by Trinca [194.65.24.228] on 2010/10/07 12:33:10
LOL why?
talking about problems... not look...
linux don't give much problems and windows use to.. That was what I meant.
FUCKING LOL NOOB :P
XP
#117 posted by RickyT23 [86.142.195.34] on 2010/10/07 12:35:24
Looks like a person laughing with their tongue out :)-|-<
They should have called it "Windows HaHaNaNaNaNaNaaaa-Na!"
Ive Alwas Thought The Same Thing
#118 posted by meTch [99.33.192.153] on 2010/10/07 17:08:11
accept it was lip music
XP:BBBBURRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIP

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.