xp that much better and why?

==================================
To answer the question "Why would anyone use windows?" (paraphrased) I offer a few simple answers:

1) It's EASIER to use. Period.
==================================

This is a matter of opinion. I find the XP interface to be 'different', but not necessarily any more intuitive than the various Linux desktops available. I *do* however, like the idea of having a *choice* of windowed environments to use in Linux, which I don't have in windows.

==================================
2) WHy would ANY home user require more than basic security? (The only things I need are my Firewall and my login password.. That's it!)
==================================

I agree that 'basic' security is all that's really needed - I disagree with your definition of what that entails, though. Your firewall is not going to stop you from getting a virus attached to your email. If it's a NEW virus, a virus scanner won't get it either. This, to me, is pretty basic. Take away VB, there goes 99% of your viruses. As for firewalls, they've become so mindnumbingly stupid that some of them (BlackICE) aren't even really effective unless you really spend a lot of time configuring them for your environment or system (hmm... sounds like work to me). Also, if you're a typical home user, you don't even know what a firewall is supposed to really do, so you have to read a manual to figure it out, and then you're likely to get it wrong. In my eyes, if the OS is, by default, more secure (doors are closed until you open them - opposite of windows), then you can probably even forego the firewall - or at least not be as dependent on it for your security. Firewall DOES NOT EQUAL Security. They can be bypassed as well.

==================================
3) Software software software. If I didn't like to use GOOD software, I would think about switching back.. But for now, I like the software available for Windows.
==================================

Depends on what area of software you're considering I guess. In some ways, you're probably right. I love Dreamweaver, and it hasn't moved to Linux yet. That ****** me off Also, GAMES. There are some pretty cool games for 'doze that just don't exist for Linux yet (some do - Sims, Deus Ex, Railroad Tycoon, Quake), so I'll say 'games' is a "check" for windows fans. However, browsers on Linux kick butt. Windows doesn't have nearly the choices, and the browsers that exist for windows largely **** in comparison. This partly relates to security as well. People in Windows quite often find their machines running software they never downloaded or installed. Many times this is due to an 'accidental click-through'. This occurrs when a pop-up ad comes up right over the link you were about to hit. When you click - you accidentally click the pop-up instead of the link, and inadvertently give permission for something to be installed on your machine. In Linux, there is more than one browser that will allow you to disable popups. JavaScript will still work everywhere else, but it disables JavaScript's ability to create popups. There are other cool things like that too that I won't go into here.

==================================
4) Frankly, Windows FLYS in comparison to X. As I've stated in a previous post, I'm only running a 450MHz machine. And X c-r-a-w-l-s !! Painfully slow for me.. (And again..Very little software) -- Windows runs just fine.
==================================

I'll agree that Windows XP beats '98. However, I don't think it's fair to say it's faster than X. X is a protocol, not a window environment. You were probably using KDE, which is a Window environment, and it was very slow (up to 3.0 - it's gotten much faster). Also, GNOME with Nautilus functionality IS in my opinion, the slowest interface to a computer I've ever seen (funny, when I say 'nautilus', I think of snails). However, that's only 2 of about 25 different choices you have for window environments, and KDE 3 really is vastly improved, so you're really only talking about GNOME being slow these days, not KDE.

PS - 'X' being a protocol means that you can have netscape running on one machine, but have its display exported to another location if you want. Nice if you have a box at home and one at work - you can export the display of your quake session running at home to your office workstation and kill time at lunch!

==================================
I have no problem with people wanting to use Linux. I like it myself, because it's fun. For serious work though I have to stick with windows.
==================================

Again, define 'serious'. If 'serious work' means Excel, I guess you could stick with windows, but you don't have to. You can try StarOffice 6.0 (not to be confused with 5.2), or you can try openoffice, a free version of StarOffice. Both handle Word and Excel files quite well - in addition to PowerPoint files (I'm in the process of creating a powerpoint presentation in Linux now - it's going fine).

==================================
But please don't fall into that category of people who hate Microsoft and Bill Gates and Windows.... Just because it's there. (I am so tired of people bashing Microsoft, just to bash, without good information to back up the argument, ya know?)
==================================

Well, I can't say I like what Microsoft has been doing. I also can't say I like their marketing methods, or their 'spin doctoring'. I guess I don't really like M$, but I'm not bashing them because 'it's cool to bash M$' (which it is, if you haven't noticed). In fact, I'm not bashing them at all. I'm just comparing their product to one that I prefer. I like Coke and hate Pepsi as well, if anyone's interested

=================================
Frankly I like Bill Gates. I like Microsoft! (Here's a hint.. Microsoft being a software giant is OUR fault! I've been buying MS OS's since MS-DOS 2.11 !! -- So don't blame MS for it's success.. Blame the consumers who bought the OS's.)
=================================

Ummm... if the consumers had no choice but to buy that os, because vendors were strongarmed into selling it to the exclusion of any other OS, which causes developers to only develop to satisfy the demands of said consumers (thus only developing for the OS), thus creating even more demand for the OS, giving them more power to tell CompUSA what they can and cannot sell, then I blame M$ for that. I do agree that consumers are lemmings who do no research except to look at the media and marketing brochures, which are all **** - so I guess they're a part of the problem as well.

================================
Thanks for listening to my opinion ;-)
=================================
Same here...

 

Well -- Here's where that argument may or may not fall apart... When MS was just beginning, there were choices for IBM (or compatible) machines: Digital Research DOS, IBMDos, OS/2, and others (forgive me, it's been a LOOOONG time and I can't remember them all ;-) )

Also - There were MANY MANY different platforms to choose from back then too.. Granted, not all of them were necessarily GOOD platforms, but they still did exist, ie: TRS-80, Amiga, Macintosh, IBM, Commodore, etc. etc. etc. -- Remember, in the 80's every computer manufacturer was trying to come out with the next best thing... It just so happens that people eventually preferred IBM Compatibles.. When that happened, since IBM DOS and MS DOS were compatible, many "new" programmers jumped on it to get their programs out there...

And that grew and grew and grew until there was a mass of (good and bad) software that would run on IBM or compatible machines, running DR Dos, IBM DOS or MS DOS...

(Macintosh had troubles back then, because they charged sooo much more for their hardware and software than IBM folks did. So people went with the lower priced stuff .. (Remember, PC's were ALL expensive back then, so people tried getting a new 'puter for the lowest price they could.)

Strong-arm tacticts: I agree with you, I may not approve of that, but unfortunately that's the way ALL big business works. It's the nature of the beast to "fight to win" not "fight fairly" -- It's wrong, but that's just how it is. But keep in mind there was no "Free" OS's out there at that time (not that I can remember anyway) -- And certainly no Linux Unfortunately that came too late for me -- Hard to teach an old dog new tricks, ya know ;-)

But thank you for not being just "another MS, Bill Gates basher." LOL -- I'm on Linuxnewbie BBS as well, and frequently go in there to discuss Linux issues, and have forced myself to ignore the MS Flame wars --- Most of the people that bash MS on that board are 12 year old kids who are very knowledgable, but lack the historical perspective that people of my age have.

Thanks ;-)

 

The results are in....

You do have the time to mess around on the computer, Pepper Guy. And I think you're pretty savvy if not downright guruous.

I think it means Transfer Control Protocol & Internet Protocol, TCP/IP for short. And now that I think about it, it's the only protocol most of us will ever use. Maybe NetBEUI, a little.

The author I quoted wrote, with Bill Wagner, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Networking and he loves Linux. He has worked as a consultant for computer projects at AT&T, Caldera Systems and UNIX System Laboratories since 1984. He also wrote Using UNIX; The Red Hat Linux Bible, and the Calder OpenLinux Bible.

I value his opinion.

But mostly, I believe that the next wave of computing that goes to the masses is home networking. XP makes that so easy (unless you make the mistakes I did.) People who barely have time to read our remarks need the speed afforded by networking in a box. That and a good Bullletin Board and you've got a really powerful home system that looks like the one at work.

Moreover, those of us who look to Bill's Gate for salvation have a huge online Knowledge Base to access, product support from MS, the familiarity of a common jargon and the assurance that if you take your computer in for work, it's as familiar as a '57 Chevy.

One other thing: the book is $20, and worth every penny.

 

==================================
I think it means Transfer Control Protocol & Internet Protocol, TCP/IP for short. And now that I think about it, it's the only protocol most of us will ever use. Maybe NetBEUI, a little.
==================================

Umm... you got tcp/ip right. However, it's hardly the only protocol you'll ever use. See that 'http://' in your browser address bar? That stands for another very important protocol. You should look it up There are thousands of protocols, and even protocols to define other protocols!

==================================
The author I quoted wrote, with Bill Wagner, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Networking and he loves Linux. He has worked as a consultant for computer projects at AT&T, Caldera Systems and UNIX System Laboratories since 1984. He also wrote Using UNIX; The Red Hat Linux Bible, and the Calder OpenLinux Bible.
==================================

I think I might agree more with his opinion if it were limited to things like AIX or maybe Solaris (with it's default CDE configuration).

==================================
I value his opinion.
==================================

I'll respect your right to do so

==================================
But mostly, I believe that the next wave of computing that goes to the masses is home networking. XP makes that so easy (unless you make the mistakes I did.) People who barely have time to read our remarks need the speed afforded by networking in a box. That and a good Bullletin Board and you've got a really powerful home system that looks like the one at work.
==================================

??? Now I'm baffled. Are you unaware that there are distributions of Linux (Mandrake being the most popular 'newbeized' one) come preloaded with the most robust web server out there, along with an also preloaded and equally full featured bulletin board system? And all of this is free, and you can load it on as many systems as you want?


Also, since you haven't ever used Linux, you really have no clue how easy networking in Linux is. It's a joke. I lent a book (Linux Routing) to an architect friend of mine, and two days later he had NAT up and running! (his ISP would only give him one IP, and he had 2 computers).

==================================
Moreover, those of us who look to Bill's Gate for salvation have a huge online Knowledge Base to access, product support from MS, the familiarity of a common jargon and the assurance that if you take your computer in for work, it's as familiar as a '57 Chevy.
==================================

Us penguins have just as large a knowledgebase to consult, MS support is so ridiculous that I'm convinced they hire koala bears to answer the phones, the 'jargon' isn't any different in Linux, and working on a computer sounds like an OS-agnostic event. Please clarify 'work'. Also, remember that 90% of the 'work' that has to be done to maintain a windows os doesn't exist in Linux. There's no registry to mess with, no virus scanning, no defrag... What work? Windows is the only OS I know of that has these things.

I've always gotten better, faster answers from places like Linuxnewbie.org, Linuxjunior.org, and Linuxquestions.org than I ever got from any software company. I've rarely had a problem go unanswered for more than 24 hours. In cases where I did, it was because I was in unfamiliar territory and didn't supply enough information (in my infinite stupidity)

==================================
One other thing: the book is $20, and worth every penny.
==================================

Which book?

 

LOL - Okay, this will be the last post for me on this thread, as not only is it WAY off track (my apologies to the moderators) but the argument is circular and can't be won.

Erm.. Unless you're doing the MOST basic of networking, Linux is NOT easily configurable for someone who has never even seen a command prompt... Or for that matter, it's still not easy for people who HAVE had experience.. Unless you're just connecting it to the internet, and who can't do that?

SO - Since I *have* run Linux, there are PLENTY of "maintenance" issues to deal with in BOTH OS's. So that's a null argument. (Besides, can you say "Kernel Rebuild" anyone?

Also - While it took your friend 2 days to connect two computers to the internet using one ip, It took me 5 minutes to connect 3 computers using Windows -- Just plugged in the router, connected the cables and Windows did the rest... Very hard work indeed ;-)

---- But I digress.. The whole point I want to make to you is this: It's a matter of choice. I prefer Pepsi, pizza and Labatts. Others prefer Coke, Chinese food and Corona... I prefer Windows you prefer Linux. It's that simple... I've been involved in enough of these "OS War" arguments to know that you can't change anyone's mind.. Now I'll quietly step aside.

Thank you for yout time.

 

Fair enough.

Actually, this was refreshingly more similar to an open 'summit' than an OS 'war'.

It's been fun

 

Which book?

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Networking. It was reccommended to me. You can see why.

In fact this thread has generated a degree of interest, unless that 1300+ viewings are mostly Arie trying to figure out where this is going. The title from, Saphir, asked is 'XP that much better' than earlier versions of Windows.

Most people with experience seem to be saying, "Yes." But one of the main features is the networking. "User-friendly" pretty much is a buzzword for "For Dummies. "

If this really were a debate, I'd say Linux won. But when I say 'working' at a computer I mean using applications. There are those who like Fahrvergnuegen in a ride and those who are more comfortable under the hood -- going fast when they do, but going nowhere while wrenching.

I've done both. And I prefer the chicken's way out.

And, to Donniesito, it's Labatt. No 's' . Some things I am an expert with. You rock, man.

 

Interesting discourse..

Hey guys!

That was a nice discourse of civil disagreement and served the purpose of the thread in many ways. This thread may have wavered off the true path occasionally but it demonstrates wide attention nevertheless. I never argue with public opinion.

I remain with the XP operating system and and feel somewhat like the Maytag repairman. When is it going to fail? This may force me into another line of endevour in order to keep busy.

I have been running this XP for over a month now and even though I have GoBack installed for a precautionary measure, I have no need of it. This thing is solid as a rock so far!

I will mention in passing that GoBack dumps all its history cache when you choose to boot to Safe mode with Command prompt in XP. Just so you know. I brought that to the attention of Roxio and they hadn't been made aware of it yet.

I'm ever the one to try the outside of the envelope so if you are of the normal variety, you'll appreciate XP for it's user friendliness and stability.

Forget all those horror stories about none of your software or hardware working, mine are all over four years old and some of it goes back to 1994 but I have had no problems with any of it.

I'm still a little disappointed in the lack of an effective backup system for XP without going to third party software but I'm sure they'll get over that protectionism hang up in time.

 

"...another line of endevour." Now I am impressed with your self-claimed pretension! If nothing else an endevour it will keep one busy looking.

I have used System Restore a few times. This system feature may infringe on GoBack's popularity as a third-party provider for a restoration app; at least M/S recognizes its utility and will/should meet consumers' demand in that area. The future for GoBack may be bleak.

What are XP's shortcomings regarding an effective backup system? I haven't heard or read any complaints? Wouldn't any additional facility just be redundant? It would for me. Thanks

_______________

GoBack removes history cache: That wouldn't be inconsistent with an expected event as GoBack figuritively removes history by going back to an earlier date. But this happening exiting only in safe mode with the circumstances described is interesting.

 

KenKeith,

I don't know how adding a Backup method would be redundant since I can't find one available now.

I clicked START > HELP > and typed in Backup and here's the closest thing it offered (other than mentioning System Restore).

Then I went to Start > Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components and found nothing listed for BACKUP.

They seem to have thrown in the towel when it came to a Backup method. Likely due to their not wanting any copying of the system to some other media and risk having us use it improperly. You know how we are.

Yes, I'm sure the nails are being pounded in GoBacks coffin. The fact that it dumps its memory when the system is Safe Mode booted, which is usually meaning you have a problem and will likely need GoBack, is unfortunate indeed. It may not be the end of GoBack, but I think they can see it from here.

I still find it useful for undeleting files instantaneously and reverting the drive occasionally to UNINSTALL some poorly written software that leaves trash behind. I'll live with it's limitations and hope for a patch.

I'll continue to use my XXCOPY batch file to backup the entire drive incrementally to my secondary drive and wonder what everyone else does for personal data recovery.

ciao

 

I hope I haven't missed something. Are you using XP Home? Is this what you're looking for?

How to Use the Backup Utility to Back Up Files and Folders in Windows XP Home Edition (Q320820)

 

Hi Kevin,

Unfortunately some of us poor devils buy these one eyed monsters and later find out that we need an install cd to get the full layout of Accessories that XP has available thereon.

Since MS has chosen to allow their product to be sold without the vendor supplying such a disk, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm guessing that they may have a copy of Backup available for downloading to make up for this small oversight but if they do it's not common knowledge and I see no mention of it with a normal user level search.

I don't really need it but just wanted to mention it to see what others were doing. I had no idea it was rather secretly available. Thanks for the illumination. It seems to me that Backup should be a basic element that everybody needed and would be included automatically on any install of the system. I Guess not.

 

backup xp

Gosh Zephyr , now I see why your in an XP slump! My, winxpp, backup works great! You can backup to cd-r/w or another partition/drive without third party. I sorta hate ta say it but....xp ends the need for a lot of third party utes

 

Thanks a lot pal. Now why didn't they just mention something in the Help files about Backup being available?

They should say something like, "A full Backup program is available on the install CD but if you didn't get one of those, tough stuff. "


I didn't realize it was necessary to search the MSKB to find where some basic Accessories would be located. I should have know though since it was necessary to search for immediate patches when first booting the system.

I do love it so however. Works great so far.

 

Now here's some enlightenment...

http://bizforums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0x90d30bce6f33d6118fff0090279cd0f9,00.html

That makes me feel all better since they have explained that it's alright to not have Backup and it's actually a supplemental Program that they may or may not choose to make available to just everyone. Very well, I can live with that.

 

ain't that dumb

Good reading there Zephyr. Sure glad I built my own box. Some day maybe you will too.....Then look out, you will never be the same again. I wonder if the winxp home backup is the same as winxp pro?

 

I couldn't tell you since I don't have either and it sounds like I never will.

I don't remember seeing in the Help files that you should go looking for some person with a CD so you can get the parts we left off your edition. Very funny.

 

"...go looking for some person with a CD [to install XP feature]."

There may be a problem as M/S's software identifies and stores the original installation's hardware configuration and the software prevents reinstallation if there are significant hardware changes. That is my understanding from another thread on the subject.

 

Just so this thread contains what I wish it had when I was looking for the original answer, I have obtained and used NovaStor Instant Recovery so as to back up the XP drive to CD's (took 4) for recovery when needed.

I tested the Recovery function today and it works flawlessly. The only caviat is, you must restore to either the same drive that you backed up from or an equal sized or larger one. I tried it with a smaller drive (40 gig original vs. 8 gig target) and it just won't work that way. It may tolerate a reductions of less quantity but I can't comment since I have nothing like that to try.

Since the recovery didn't work to the 8 gig drive, I installed a (larger) 60 gig IBM unit. The recovery went smoothly as silk then and the new drive was automatically reformatted to look like the old drive. I subsequently ran FDISK and created another partition to use the remainder of the drive. To further clarify, I had previously formatted the drive on initial install to use the full capacity. Instant Restore reworked that configuration. Go figure.

I disconnected the primary drive that had it's jumper set to MASTER and without changing the jumper on the secondary drive (which was set to cable select) it booted up to the image copy without a problem.

I received no argument from XP as to the detection of change or possible piracy. Got 'em there! Poor boy makes good! The new image apparently looks good to XP and so long as the hardware is the same you're all set.

You just gotta know I'll try it with different hardware but I'm not meaning to encourage piracy, just trying to check the edge of the envelope to see where it's at, as is usual for those who enjoy coloring outside the lines.

Best regards to all.

 

Planned Obsolescence

Some programs won't run under ME, 98, or 95; you need XP, 2000, or NT. Who makes these programs? Microsoft, of course!

I swore that I wouldn't upgrade from ME for at least 5 years, but then I received Microsoft Visual Studio .Net Architect as a gift. Since this software is worth about $2500, I would be a **** fool not to use it. Then I find that it doesn't run under ME, so I had to shell out $89 for XP. That's how Microsoft got me.