R
Rock
Dave said:
There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
D
Dave C.
OK, I just reviewed the top ten reasons to upgrade to SP2. Of the top ten
reasons, EIGHT of those reasons can be done better by other software, most
(all?) of it freeware. You don't need SP2. The only improvement I see
there in the TOP TEN reasons is the improved wireless support. But my
wireless connections are working great now. Basically, it looks like ~200MB
of nothing. -Dave
D
David Maynard
ToolPackinMama said:
No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.
D
David Maynard
Dave said:
The typical user tends to take the O.S. 'as is' and, in that case, having a
built in firewall is a distinct improvement (and so is something as simple
as defaulting it to 'on'). SP2 also 'prods' (or nags, depending on your
point of view) the typical user about various security risks.
Given enough time, knowledge, and resources one can always do just about
'anything' with just about any computer but that isn't the issue. The
'advantage' is that nothing else 'need' be done in those particular areas
or rather that, for the typical user who normally does nothing else, it
improves security.
D
David Maynard
Dave said:
Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.
D
Dave C.
Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
operate.
It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.
That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows. The
problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.
THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
linux.
I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
even gonna think about it. -Dave
operate.
It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.
That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows. The
problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.
THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
linux.
I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
even gonna think about it. -Dave
D
David Maynard
Dave said:
Not hardly.
Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.
That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.
But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
you're using.
And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I wonder
where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often enough.
You forget to install the version filters?
Now you're catching on.
Now, Debian has probably one of the easiest installers around with the
least pain for a typical user but there's also some other exciting
development going on in that area too.
-Dave
D
Dave C.
The last time I installed a linux distro, the
Yes, I know there are ways to tweak the open source apps. to match a
particular version of Office. But without a working PC *RUNNING* Microsoft
Office, you have no way of knowing if the software is working correctly
until it's too late. If you need to run Microsoft Office anyway, what's the
point of trying to coax linux to emulate it? Besides which, the typical
computer user wouldn't bother to even try, and therein lies the real
problem.
But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
operate. Note that's if their particular distro comes with all the software
they want pre-packaged. (I know there's still some software installation
headaches that need to be addressed).
OH, and it doesn't matter what GUI you want to use with linux. Last I
checked, there were only two major choices of GUI for linux (and some others
that the real geeks play around with). Of the two major ones, they both
operate identically, and they run each other's software seamlessly. From
memory, I believe the last major distribution I installed actually installed
BOTH GUI's by default, and then asked you to choose one to use at login. I
could bounce back and forth between the two if I wanted, but the one I used
(gnome) worked fine, so I stuck with that. And yes, I was running some KDE
apps. on that, no problems at all.
Before someone gets the wrong impression, I'm not a linux fanatic. I LIKE
linux, but I run Windows XP. Even if I wasn't "required" to run Windows for
telecommuting, I'd still run Windows XP. Eventually I'll be running linux
again. It might not happen until I retire, but it'll happen. Linux is just
too good to ignore indefinitely. And yes, I was dual booting linux and
windows for a while. I finally figured out that was a waste of time, as I
HAD to run windows but didn't have to run linux. Bouncing back and forth
constantly drove me nuts and Windows XP really isn't too evil, so I'm
running that exclusively now. -Dave
Yes, I know there are ways to tweak the open source apps. to match a
particular version of Office. But without a working PC *RUNNING* Microsoft
Office, you have no way of knowing if the software is working correctly
until it's too late. If you need to run Microsoft Office anyway, what's the
point of trying to coax linux to emulate it? Besides which, the typical
computer user wouldn't bother to even try, and therein lies the real
problem.
But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
operate. Note that's if their particular distro comes with all the software
they want pre-packaged. (I know there's still some software installation
headaches that need to be addressed).
OH, and it doesn't matter what GUI you want to use with linux. Last I
checked, there were only two major choices of GUI for linux (and some others
that the real geeks play around with). Of the two major ones, they both
operate identically, and they run each other's software seamlessly. From
memory, I believe the last major distribution I installed actually installed
BOTH GUI's by default, and then asked you to choose one to use at login. I
could bounce back and forth between the two if I wanted, but the one I used
(gnome) worked fine, so I stuck with that. And yes, I was running some KDE
apps. on that, no problems at all.
Before someone gets the wrong impression, I'm not a linux fanatic. I LIKE
linux, but I run Windows XP. Even if I wasn't "required" to run Windows for
telecommuting, I'd still run Windows XP. Eventually I'll be running linux
again. It might not happen until I retire, but it'll happen. Linux is just
too good to ignore indefinitely. And yes, I was dual booting linux and
windows for a while. I finally figured out that was a waste of time, as I
HAD to run windows but didn't have to run linux. Bouncing back and forth
constantly drove me nuts and Windows XP really isn't too evil, so I'm
running that exclusively now. -Dave
T
ToolPackinMama
Jupiter Jones said:
How ya figure? The patches etc. ARE for the OS alone.
T
ToolPackinMama
Dave C. said:
True.
T
ToolPackinMama
Dave C. said:
Well said.
T
ToolPackinMama
David said:
Does that include the full OS?
Even so, it wouldn't equal a Linux CD with hundreds of applications,
including a full office suite, and GIMP. Especially not at the same
price. Linux ~with~ all the extras is a fraction of the cost of Windows
XP alone, without extras.
T
ToolPackinMama
David said:
It's easy enough for the typical user who only wants to browse the web,
enjoy porn/music and send/recieve email, right now. Those who use an OS
to easily create/view image/text documents of various flavors also have
everything they need, right now.
It's the game-players that have problems (IMHO).
T
ToolPackinMama
Dave C. said:
For web-browsing and email, yes, it's there now. FWIW, most newbie home
users only use their computers and internet for web-browsing and email
(in my experience). They _can_ do this with Linux as easily as with
Windows.
T
ToolPackinMama
Dave C. said:
I agree.
Well, try saving it as "text only".
That, IMHO, is the one thing holding Linux back.
T
ToolPackinMama
Dave C. said:
I agree.
I agree.
T
ToolPackinMama
Diogenes said:
What nonsense.
T
ToolPackinMama
Diogenes said:
That's pure nonsense.
T
ToolPackinMama
Jupiter Jones said:
Yes, for the OS alone...
The Linux CD's aren't for the OS alone. One CD is enough to hold the
Linux OS alone. The Linux CDs include hundreds (thousands?) of
utilities and applications, including a full office suite (Open Office)
and a Photoshop-type image manipulation program (GIMP). Therefore,
several Linux CDs is not the same as one XP CD, especially not at that
price. A Linux distro of several CDs worth of OS and apps and add-ons
costs a tiny fraction of what it costs for the XP OS alone.
That's a fact.
D
Dave C.
Don't forget telecommuters who need to run Microsoft Office, not some
imitation that works "OK" if other people send you files. -Dave