enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.



Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.



Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.



I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:14:15 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
spake thusly:


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.



Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.



I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )

I know what you mean. Windows never crashes on me like many Linux
users claim it does. I tried several flavour's of Linux, the latest
being Kubuntu 8.04. There was just no value to it. It was less stable
than Windows XP. It was slower than Windows XP.

When you get right down to it, the only real problem with Windows is
that it's too popular. Like the Dead Kennedy's said, "The dumbest buy
the mostest". Lots of clueless people who make things difficult for
themselves then blame the OS. Also, many application providers write
some pretty crappy code, trying to cash in on Windows popularity.

--

(Jim, daddy to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?


Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.


Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.



I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )



That's strange. A lot of people use Linux for streaming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icecast

You need a distro that supports Synaptic; it finds and loads all
dependencies needed to effortlessly install an application.

www.ubuntu.com

"dave" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?


Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.


Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.



I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on
it, nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest
thing to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major
headache, telling me things like "you need this file in order to install
this other file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else
on our LAN (though it does pop right up onto the web... )



That's strange. A lot of people use Linux for streaming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icecast

You need a distro that supports Synaptic; it finds and loads all
dependencies needed to effortlessly install an application.

www.ubuntu.com

While it is true that many do use Linux builds for streaming, it is not true
that they use Linux builds to stream to Live365 (which, ATM, AFAIK, is the
only LEGAL streamer), because their system doesn't support Linux
applications (yet). I use a $600+ professional automation application which
has no peers for Linux or Mac. If it did, and they wouldn't charge me again
for the thing, I might consider going Linux. However, the stability of my XP
box (a Toughbook CF-29 laptop) has been nothing short of astounding. I don't
think I've rebooted the thing in nearly a year, and it's sitting there
happily running the automation software and creating two streams (one low
bitrate for dialups, one high bitrate for broadband) all this time, while
using only about 70% of it's available resources, and this mostly for the
audio processing software.

On May 20, 10:14 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?

Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.

Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )

The issue of having to load various programs to get a tarball to
compile is very true. A good program will have documentation
indicating what should be loaded for a successful compilation. But
this isn't the end of the world.

Suse linux is pretty bullet proof.

Brenda Ann wrote:
I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )

One of many possibilities to ease that pain is Gentoo.

--
Black candidate endorsed by former Exalted Cyclops and Grand Kleagle of the
KKK! Film not at 11 or any other time... you're not supposed to know this.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:23:32 GMT, D Peter Maus
spake thusly:

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.



Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

Your statement is eradicative since there is nothing that is more
demanding on a computer's resources than todays games.

--

(Jim, daddy to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:23:32 GMT, D Peter Maus
spake thusly:

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.



Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

(ack!!..my last post was screwed)

Your post is very dishonest and deceptive, since gaming is the most
demanding thing you can do to a computer.

--

(Jim, daddy to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

Opus- wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:23:32 GMT, D Peter Maus
spake thusly:

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?


Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.


Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

(ack!!..my last post was screwed)

Your post is very dishonest and deceptive, since gaming is the most
demanding thing you can do to a computer.

That's not true. It's mostly demanding of the display card, not the
whole box. The reason Windows is better at most games is because they
are written for the DirectX graphics library. 4 out of 5 supercomputers
run Linux. None run Windows.