Survey posted 2002-08-07 16:45 by Magnus.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

For those who voted no need. do you have a serious brain problem. There are a lot of people who don't touch MS windows. So just because you 'don't care' it doesn't meen there is no need. Else there is no need to do the software for any platform other than mac. If you get my meaning.

I voted "Don't Care" because, at the moment, it wouldn't benefit me in any way. I want to try Linux but lack the time (and patience) to download, run, learn, etc. If I used Linux, then of course I would've voted "yes", but since I don't, well...

BYW, try the link. It's for 83/+/SE calcs.

Ya, just go ahead and download linux, its easier to use than XP or 98. Or, if you wanted the best and easyiest os, you could just buy a Mac.

OS-X? BSD kernel? Go Unix!

Normal Unix is not as easy as a Mac. Also, then you can't use cool Apple Harware, so whats the point?

Apple is the best hands down! Its easier to use my old Mac Quadra, then any Windows PC I've ever used.

Setting up linux from a distribution is easy.
Okay downloading the CD's is a bit long -but if you are going out in the morning you can quickly set up the download and leave it for the day.
Once installed linux may have one or two peculiarities - such as the file system being completely different from MS FAT (though I think ext2 is better then FAT anyway)
And the Redhat Package Manager (RPM) is really tedious - so I suggest using something like Debian / Suse / Mandrake - as I have heard these are slightly better (with Debian having the best package management system)
If you are wondering, the RPM like system is really great - it records all packages you have installed and makes updating very easy and clean. The draw back with the Redhat one is that it wont solve dependency problems.

Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. may be better than Red Hat, but Red Hat is supposed to be the easiest for people new to Linux to use. Also, Debian does not have the backing of a corporation like Red Hat, SuSE & Mandrake do, so there's no way to get support other than from fellow users.

True - but the problems with RPM dependencies can be EXTREMELY frustating. I have been told by a debian user that this is not the case for debian as dependencies are solved for you etc....

Let's just wait for LainOS to come out :-)... (see link)

I voted no need because there is no need. I haven't used TIGL/Connect since the native TiLP for Windows was released. TiLP is far superior to TI's programs, so what's the problem?

I didn't know about TiLP - oops.
I thought it was a bit awkward when the GTKTILINK link didn't work. That's what made me comment on it originally.

OK, so what are the benefits of Linux over Windows?

Linux is stable - until 2K windows was so unstable laying it down was the only way to keep it from falling down.
Linux is FREE
Linux supports programming - it is impossible to write a powerful system such as an OS in windows. - Where as in Unix / Linux you can write a system that is more powerful then its host.
Linux is FREE
Windows has very poor memory management - programming is a painful task when windows allows you to write data to currently used memory - thus causing system failure.
Linux is FREE.
Although admin-wise linux can be complex to set up, once set up linux is more user friendly for standard users.
The introduction of distributions such as Mandrake Suse and Debian etc. removes the problem in the above comment.
By FREE I mean you don't need to pay to legally use linux. And you are free to modify the code in any way you like.
In MS stuff modification of the code is actually breach of copyright - makeing writting your own - hardware specific patches very hard.
Linux is virtually virus free - there are, to my knowledge, no known cases of viruses harming a linux system.
And the reason that there are only a few games currently for Linux (though this is growing) that is no fault of the OS and we will see a drastic change in the future.

I'm not saying don't use windows - it does have the advantage of plug and pray though this too has been the bain of my life. - I'm just answering the above question.

In the name of Zarquon! My spelling sucks!

Well, I'm satisfied with Windows, even though i'm a bit curious to see what Linux, or whatever it is, is like, but that would probably clear my 5GB of stored stuff on my harddrive, which would make me sad. :( Windows doesn't really crash on me, like everyone says. What do you mean by crash?
If you mean, loss of memory, than never, I've only seen that in a computer lab once that little kids abused really badly.
If you mean, an immediate shut up/restart, then no, that never happens, unless a program screws up, but then it's the prog's fault, not Windows, I think.
If you mean, it locks up/freezes, then that happenes only rarely. That usually happens if a LOT of applications are open and they're all trying to do something.
I'm satisified with Windows. Any other reasons why Linux is better?

Oh yeah, what is Lunix? I've seen the u and the i switched before, and are they really different things, or is it just a typo?

Last first
LUnix seems to be a unix system for the C64 - I just looked in google, I never new this existed till you mentioned.

Windows crashing.
Loss of memory - I have never actually heard of this happening on any comp.
I have only had unexpected shutdowns/restarts when programming basic / qbasic under DOS. I assume that is poor mem management on DOSes behalf that cause a shutdown.
Freezing. When programs freeze you may find that some of this isn't actually the program but just poor memory management on MS behalf. It might just be me but I have never had trouble with a MS game. So they can program well 'cos some of the games are great. I assume that they know where the glitches are in MS windows so know how to avoid them.
Oh and the OS SHOULD be able to handle lots of programs at once - it is a multitasking system - it should multitask. "well there was a lot of programs running at the time of crash" is no excuse for the system to crash.

Okay, but still Windows really isn't all that bad.

Oh yeah, does Linux support more programming languages or something? Is that another reason why programmers like it?
When learning PERL they kept on talking about Unix commands like chmod, ls, and stuff. So, I guess that gives some credit to Unix that the majority of servers use it.

The main reason to use *nix is its power and stability. *nix kernels just don't crash. I have never known anyone to have a system crash, the worst I've had is a devel. version of XMMS (winamp clone) crash a devel. version of X (the window system).
Also there are no limits to the programs you can do in *nix. You can not write an OS in MS that is more 'powerful' then MS itself. - which is why even MS use unix for all but its secretaries (etc) machines.

yes that is true but, when all of the programs use alot of CPU Cycles all at once it can max out the capacity of the CPU depending on the system you have and the programs you are running. It is not fare to accuse MS of poor mulit-tasking. Its not there fault. The programmers of the program sometimes does thing the system and MS Windos(R) just arnt specalized to do.

In my opinion a program may crash as much as it wants to, but the system should stay up.

--
Eventually they'll figure everything consists out of one and zero particles

nothing exists - it's all in my imagination.

Then who's imagining things?

Me - I'm nothing.

I have to agree, Windows never crashes...I run weeks without rebooting, and it usually is a poorly designed program that requires a reboot to install that causes me to. There's really no reason to switch either, because what will Linux do for me? I'd like to see someone give me compelling reasons to switch to Linux. Windows is cheap, runs great, supports all of my software, and I have no problems.

Windows is not cheap.

Yes, it is. For only $99 I can upgrade to the latest version, and I have an upgrade chain leading back to Windows 95. Compare that to other OSes like Solaris or OpenVMS. Windows is low-cost, and has a wide range of hardware support.

hah! $99? I can get a better OS for $5

If windows is low cost... never mind. Just think "Free Speech" - It's not about price, it's about freedom.

$99 is NOT cheap! - you may have a lot of cash spare to waste but a lot of people have to work to a budget (and have to work around the cost of beer).

And some books that explain / support various flavours of linux often supply a copy for no extra cost.

and I have seen on more than once, boxed, fully supported, distributions for approx £5

It may not be cheap in the sense for your budget, but to purchase a professional operating environment with widespread hardware support and compatibility for $99 is an exceptional deal. Linux would be an even better deal at free, but it doesn't have the hardware and software compatiblity to make it more worthwhile.

"Professional operating environment"
I can't say I know of many professionals who would actually choose to use Windows. From a "professional" standpoint, there is absolutely no reason. As far as I can see, the only real reason to use Windows is that you like its GUI, but I have to say that it's the ugliest GUI available. Not that GUI has anything to do with "professional operating."

"with widespread hardware support and compatibility"
As I said in a previous post, I would argue that hardware is made compatible with Windows, since the Windows drivers are made by the hardware vendors, while the mindshare effect means that hackers, in general, have to write their own drivers. So it really isn't a fault in free software that people haven't reverse engineered X and Y bits of hardware.

"for $99 is an exceptional deal."
I won't point out that we're talking about speech, not beer. Instead, I'll just say that that's absolutely ridiculous - it's another metaphor thing - a CD in a box with some little bits of paper is under no circumstances worth $99, and the legal right to use Windows (if you care about such things) isn't worth it either. You would pay $99 for an OS like that?? You could buy a lot of beer with that money.

Not professional users, creators. I meant that a software company produced an operating system that passed compatiblity checks and such. Much like how Solaris, Mac OS X, OpenVMS, AIX, other stuff is. You seem to forget about the hundreds or thousands of programmers all earning $10 or something per hour (probably more) for months to make Windows. That's a huge investment, and that's where most of the $99 goes.

I fully agree with what you say about the cost of making the software. However, just because they are covering a lot of costs doesn't make the product cheap.

And cheap doesn't mean good

Expensive doesn't mean good either...

Oh no! That must be a real problem for a company that has Billions of dollars stocked up!

The whole point of companies and capitalism, what our economy is, is that you *won't* have billions of dollars floating around if you sell at a loss...so why would they sell Windows for no profit or a loss?

I think he is getting at MS not charging to cover costs, but to make ridiculous profits. - But then a lot of companies do, it isn't just MS.

Quite true. Companies exist to make money. I think the issue here is that Microsoft is making too much. Let me use another example. Microsoft Visual Studio. It came out at $600 (we got it for $30 in the education pack, and it is definatly worth >$30). Now VS is pretty nice software. I have to prefer MetroWorks for C++, but VS isn't that bad. The problem here is that people HAVE to pay $600, because some people do. If someone sends you a .doc file and you don't have Word (I know, I know: Works) you must either use 3rd party software that doesn't fully support all the useless features that M$ puts in (such as VB scripting in word documents); or pay $600 as well.
</rant>

um... I forgot what I meant to say

All the professional people don't use Windows. A/V and publishing is the Mac, Programming and servers are Unix/Linux.

I agree about the hardware kind of. the hardware support in linux is improving quiet rapidly, though you will always have the problem with old hardware. Which is a shame.

And, as I have said before the only software where there isn't a linux replacement is in the world of games. You name the MS application I am sure I can find a linux based one which will do the same; I definetly have for all the work I do.

"Professional Operating system", That is a new name for windows.

I hear that!

Windows is a "POS"? That's right!!

No free beer? You mean all I get is this lousy CD?

I went on this free edu. type course once held at a uni. It was aimed at first year 'A' level students (16-17yo in UK). There wasn't much free beer. But on the first night there, there was more than enough wine for one bottle each. Man that was one hell of a great course.
At and the BBQ at the end there was some more free booze of all sorts, and it was even topped up when it ran out.

And they aren't trying to encourage students to drink????

Ha! I have an upgrade chain leading all the way back to win 3.1 on a <66 mhz 80386!

I feel so incredably sorry for you. Having to live like that is bad.

The highest clock frequency of a 386 was 33Mhz.

No. the top end 386 did go much higher. I had an old one off a business a couple years ago. It was in the 60's MHz

Actually it was 40 MHz as the top speed, produced by AMD.

Strange, I wouldn't have though they went that high, but the chip wasan unbranded 386, nd it was diffenetly reported at 66Mhz, or about, and it wasn't much slower than a 100MHz machine.

Ever run for 49.71 days? Though I really shouldn't joke about that because time() is also running out...

Oh, click the link above if you thought Windows had bugs.

I ran for over 30 days once, and then I shut down my laptop because I didn't want it on anymore. Windows 2000 could have ran indefinitely. I find power outages and installing-a-new-application reboots are all I ever have to do.

NICE LINK. I want one.

MS held a large celebration once they had finally kept NT? (can't remember the version) up for more than 4 hours. This is an achievement? - it just goes to show that MS care more about have 'fancy new' features (that are usually as old as the hills, just with a new herd of sheep on top) then they are about actually good memory management - failure in uptime generally being caused by memory leaks.

Have you ever read up on the internals of the Windows NT (/2000/XP/.NET) memory manager? Didn't think so. It's every bit as good as what you normally see in a Unix/Linux system. In some ways it's better, in some ways worse, but in the end, they equal up pretty much.

The main reason for a NT based box to "go down" because of memory leaks are bad drivers developed by third parties that leak non-paged pool memory. Drivers run in kernel space and are *always* trusted to do the right thing. This is the same with Unix/Linux. The memory manager can shape and cut on the *userspace* programs without problems, but drivers run without that oversight. There are a *lot* of bad drivers out there. If you make sure you get a driver that's signed by the HC labs you stand a much better chance than if you download an unsigned driver off the vendors webpage.
Linux drivers are generally higher quality. Other Unixes (Solaris/AIX/etc/etc) generally don't support the hardware at all.

Now if you're talking about Wintendo (9x, ME etc), then you can stop comparing right away.Those are basically DOS without any protection, and certainly don't compete in the same market.

BTW, if you analyze any professional Windows based organisatino, you will see that memory leaks is *not* the primary cause of downtime. It's reboots due to installation of new software or software hotfixes. And the vendors sure have a lot to do in that department - reboots really should almost *never* be necessary. This goes for the MS fixes as well as third party vendors.


Now, I still use Linux whenever I can (and wish I could use it more), don't get me wrong... But put blame where it should be.


(And yes, that is a big achievment, because it was the first time the OS ran for more than a reboot or so. Have you ever written a driver for Linux *or* Windows? You'd sure celebrate when it stopped panic/BSOD:ing too)

Hell, I celebrate when any prog I write gets working. But I'm sorry the facts are there, MS does not write good memory protection into its code, *nix does. Unless the professionals lie, as I am just taking their words for this. And that is really the only problem I have with MS Admittedly I have only used 98 for programming and NT for work etc. And I am fully aware that < ME isn't an OS in anyway or form. I have been told that XP and 2K are much more stable, and I believe that. But it is the general layout of MS OSes that I don't like and the fact that you cannot whittle the system down to bare bones.

- after thought - the articles never mentioned which Windows, I assumed they were windows in general. Did I assume wrong?

And one question? I have never had luck with onboard sound / graphics - Is this the drivers or actual hardware that causes huge mess ups when playing games?

Again, your comments regarding memory protection holds for the Wintendo platform only - I assume the experts you've been talking to consider that one. But comparing that one to *nix is just plain wrong - they are not designed to do the same thing.

A barebones capable install would be very nice, I certainly agree to that. While it's pretty darn hard to get one of the modern Linux distributions down to small size if you want a GUI (I tried about a year ago, and ended up with RedHat, Mandrake and SuSE *all* using at least 30% *more* space than Windows - which is why I use slackware for everything now), that's no reason it shouldn't be possible.

About the onboard stuff - can't help you there. I know the client support guys where I work had some problems with that too in the beginning, and back then it was a driver problem. Then again, that wasn't for playing games :-)
Myself, I stick to the servers...

Ta abou that. The info was taken from net and mag articles - I didn't actually speak to anyone about it. Probabley just misinterpritation / poorly written articles.

I am thinking of moving away from RedHat - RPM's are killing me, I have 7.0 and am trying to get stuff running in it. Flying is easier.
Any suggestions? should I give slackware a try? I will mainly be using it for: work; programming; website mainainace; net access. Not really for games. (I'll stick with win for now for gaming)

I personally recommend slackware, especially for servers. It is a bit "harder", doesn't come with all the make-things-easy scripts that RedHat et al does, but it does put *you* in control. In my opinion, that's preferrable to the wizard style configs pioneered by Windows but picked up more and more by the major linux distros. But it certainly requires a bit more knowledge.

I take it then that someone who knows a good bit about linux (maintains some uni network / servers -all but one linux) would be able to help with slackware (he uses debian).

When I said failure in uptime I meant *failure* - I fully understand the need to reboot when installing certain software.

and do you know of any free mIRC's for windows as I can only access the net through 98 at the moment - and I wouldn't mind a trip to #ti?

try xchat see link. oh, and #ti sucks. it is a bunch of people who have somehow got OPed saying how 1337 they are and kicking all that disagree. if this message is deleted, it just shows how defensive you are and how you cannot argue. So there!

Ta for that

that link was distrubing

Then you don't run real applications (ex.: Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, ect.). Also the most stable form of Windows (2000 pro) still crashes atleast 1x a week

Windows!=cheap
Windows=Expensive
Linux=Free

If you get a blue screen it crased. If it froze its Windows' fault, it is in charge of memory.

...and KDE is slow as molasses.

Hey. Don't use KDE - I know I don't. Mind you one day I really will need to write my own front end for a laugh.

Nice joke about the laying down thing.

I am saying Don't use windows, why use it, when theres Linux and Mac OS X. Use OS's that don't crash. Because XP certainly isn't anywhere near as easy, stable, powerful, beautiful, and fast as OS X.

Huh, beautiful?

Anyway, there's more software for Windows. If you go to Wal•Mart or some store, and look at a software package or something, it ALWAYS will run on most Windows Systems (mostly Win98, that's why I have it), sometimes Mac, and I've never seen "works with Linux" on it.

That is down to the software producers not the system. Also most of the software for linux is on the net and not actually packaged.
The one draw back to linux is that ideally you need an internet connection to keep getting new stuff for it.

I have to agree on the beautiful thing. GUIs are getting uglier and uglier. Extra-Pee is hideous, and OS-X is nearly as bad.

But about software - any software company with half a brain can figure out that people who use free software are less likely to buy their newest program than guillible Windows users. Especially when 95% of the programs that people actually need have been written and released as free software for Unix-like platforms. And a lot of those programs come with your favorite Linux distro, unlike Windows where you actually have to go to Wal-Mart and buy more big cardboard boxes with their CDs and little bits of paper.

Speaking of big cardboard boxes, has anyone noticed that the size of the box is proportional to how valuable someone wants you to think the program is? It's like a moth that has big spots on its wings that look like eyes - they want you to think it's bigger than it really is. It used to be that they had to be so big so you could fit a few stacks of floppies and a manual inside, but now...

I have to agree on the beauty thing - what the hell is happening to GUI's?
And what has happened to Word Processors these days? You just can't get one - they are all just down graded DTP applications.
Anyway - it's a bit unfair on calling windows users gullible. I still use windows for gaming - you just can't get Hogs of War for Linux, or M&M.. either, bummer dude.
I do _all_ my work in linux though as some of the software is much nicer to use, and when wine is greatly improved I think I will move fully to linux as I don't intend to buy anymore games (except maybe Black & White).

I don't think Windows users are really gullible. It's not like I'm upgrading it constantly to the newest version just to see what the héll (the accent is so site blockers don't catch it) it's like. I'm sticking with Win98, cause it's the most stable.

I've been told 2K is much more stable. I have also been told that there are one heck of a lot of games that don't run under it - so if you are doing only work....

2000 was very stable, it never crashed, but you're right, the compatbility for games wasn't there. However, XP is just as stable as 2000 (maybe more?), and it has full compatiblity with all games as well.

Yeh, but it has a vile interface (IMNSHO).

I like it better, but anyway Microsoft makes it very easy to change anything...You can disable everything that changed and make it look like Windows 2000 if you want...or disable the fading pop-up menus and other stuff and make it look like 98...or 95...

Cool, never knew that, still don't encourage me to buy it though.
And, NONE of them (MS or Li..) have such a good interface as TOS - 100% idiot proof. Lets go back to basic and simple GUI - KISS

Yeah, I like the fact that you can really tweak the interface of Windows so much that it looks totally different, but that hard part is knowing how to do it. When I was a n00b to computers and all, I didn't have a clue, and it's still kind of hard.

Hey, you can completely write your own front end to X. okay you probably need to be really good with programming and it is purely a cosmetic thing and doesn't improve the system that much, but I thin kthat it is really cool.

Win98 is not at all stable.

Have you ever seen OSX. It is the best OS ever. It is also better looking than any other OS.

Okay, Beautiful is a little queer sounding, but OS X has the best looking interface out there. Except maybe Be OS, that isn't great looking, but it is cool looking.

Think Free like Free Speech, not like Free Beer.
See link.

MMMMmmmmmmmmmmm Beer!

You know, it's funny, I've never had beer--had wine a few times, it's okay.

Good quality beer is great. Unfortunately it's as rare as hen's teeth where I live. Fortunatley where I am at uni I know of at least 3 pubs (2 just 10mins away) that do a fine selection of real ale.

There are many things pitful about Linux, but I simply don't have the time to name them all:

-- Extremely Poor installation GUI
-- Installation fails over 50% of time
-- Each time installation is slightly different
-- A lot of programs are pointless (who gives about telling time in binary?!)
-- A lot of programs do not work (gee, I can't save..)
-- STABILITY? That's because you're are disabled from touching things that MS lets you modify
-- CANT CRASH LINUX USERS SAY: I can EASILY crash any linux system multiple times within a couple of minutes.
-- Poor programming methods...
-- JAVA SUPPORTERS: java itself is a poor programming language, due to its lack of vitals: such as pointers (OH NO, DID I JUST USE THAT WORD? JAVA USERS DONT LIKE IT)

You don't know much about linux.
Firstly it has NO installation GUI. Different distros have different GUI's - but that is the distro not Linux.
What do you mean fails over fifty percent of the time. Linux has only recently it the standard user market 'recently'. So there will be some incompatibility problems with hardware - that's a lack of driver support. And the only person I know to have trouble installing linux, was RH7 on a laptop - it didn't support it. RH 7.3 installed no trouble.
No each time installation isn't different. It only changes if you tell the system to install different software - just like windows.
SOME programs are pointless. Well give yourself a putty medal you are an observant child aren't you. But there are a lot of programs everywhere that are pointless - like games for calcs - we still enjoy them though don't we.
A lot of programs don't work - guess what - these are in development stage - and quite cleary state that they are not stable versions.
Linux blocks access - You have clearly never seen linux, let alone use it.
When people say that linux is extremely hard to crash they mean - linux, not GNU and not any devel. softare, of coarse underdeveloped software is easy to crash, so don't give yourself to much credit - you don't deserve it.
Poor programming methods????????? what do you mean.
And what the smeg has JAVA got to do with the general welfare of GNU and Linux.

You mean to say...
"I don't like linux"

BTW
Linux has Tux.
beats MS Windows any day.

Besides, I had to wash all of our windows a couple days ago :(

Tux?

The Linux penguin you asshole

WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE YOU F@RT! ;-)
Tux is a penguin, that's all that needs to be said.

"Ford, you're turning into a penguin, Stop it" -Arther Dent HHGTTG

I have to agree with what you say though. - But he isn't JUST A penguin.

Yeah, who know what special powers he has?

"If you think penguins are fat and waddle, you have never been attacked by one running at you in excess of 100mph." -- Linus

THE ATTACK OF THE PENGUINS! ;-)

MS needs a mascot, other than the famous window icon or the picture of the clouds that you need when shutting down/turning on the computer.

Yeh Bill Gates with a knife in his head.

(sorry but that is purely jealousy over his bank 'balance' - can you call it balanced? - anyway. It has nothing to do with windows and is a JOKE so don't all get upset)

I have to admit I laughed anyway :)

Regarding his billions of dollars of worth, he had the insight to capitalize on the market and sell effectively. Start an ad campaign for the TI series as "powerful portable gaming machines" with "free games from the internet", convince GameBoy resellers to carry the TI also, and you can make TI's president richer.

Seriously, though...
The real reason I use Linux isn't really anything that I can explain. I don't use it becuase it's more stable (which it *is*,) more secure (which it *certainly* is) or even because it's free (you don't think I'm scrupulous enough that I wouldn't rip better OS's if there were any, do you?) I suspect - and I mean no offense to anyone here - that most people who bash Unix have never really used it, never really gotten to know it. Because once you get to know Unix, and really understand it, and you can punch out an 80-character command line in less than a minute, you start to realize that something just feels right about it. You start to realize that this is the way a proper OS ought to be structured, and DOS has never, and will never, feel like that. You start to understand why it is that people will put so much effort into creating and maintaining software like GNU.

So... my advice to anyone who doesn't believe me? Install Cygwin (see link). Download some GNU software and play with it. Try writing some programs. And then come back and tell me you don't like Unix.

bash Unix? ha ha ha...
If you don't see why that isn't funny, you haven't used Unix nearly enough

So if someone goes back to using this system after a using MS for a bit are they .... Bourne again ....?

I'm not "bashing" Unix or anything--I haven't tried it, so I can't really say one is better than the other, but Windows does okay for me, and from what I've heard/seen, it has more software and stuff, so there's not really any need for me to change right now or at all. Besides, even if I did, my family would kill me, because they probably wouldn't know what to do (not saying that I would either).