Michael had something to do with this survey : )

To avoid people choosing the last survey choice, the link for the file being discussed is listed as my "Webpage" in this post. You can also search for "Wacky Number Generator" in the Search section of ticalc.org. The file is in the DOS section of the site : )

Tune in next week for Round II: Wacky Number Generator OS vs. UNIX - Which one is really superior?

Wacky Number Generator OS--anything's better than UNIX.

Nothing beats Wacky Numbar Generator! Of course, I did have to pick "No, I like Windows too much" because the WinXP colors are just too much to let go of. However, I heard a rumor that Microsoft might release their own OS soon called "Microsoft Wacky Numbar Generator XP" so you better copyright it quickly! (Even though they could steal it anyway) Speaking of stealing, I was too lazy to download Wacky Numbar Generator OS, so I got a warez version. Is that okay with you guys? ;-)

Heck no! Linux rocks!

He probably can't reply, as someone has probably already hacked into (cracked into if you want) his machine and installed wacky fun random numbar generator over his nice spiffy XP install...

Uh oh... they caught on to me! *runs*

One correction: I typed "Number" when it's supposed to be "Numbar." Thanks Michael!

"No, I like Windows too much" Do you?
WAIT!!! Before you answer this! You will be labelled a "hypocrite" if you answer "No" whilst using Windows and having used it for the majority of your life as to other OS'

i'm going to have to say i'm scared of it; i have no idea what any of this is about

It's too late--I first chose the last survey option, and saw your post saying "the link for the file being discussed is listed as my 'Webpage' in this post" AFTER I voted.

So that didn't "avoid" me from choosing the last option at all. :)

Some of us use Macs!

I was using "Windows" for irony...somehow.

Yeah, *no one* likes Windows too much to replace it with anything, even this OS!!! :-) (Except win2000 and 98, which are good).

I would take 98 anyday over xp, but your correct, I coundl't see anyone liking windows too much to replace it with anything.

HUH?
Have you ever used XP? XP = reliable, fast, 98 = slow, and has a tendancy to crash all the time.
Heh, I use XPSP2 :-)

Win98 does have its advantages over WinXP though, it isn't left open to be raped by hackers (if you'll excuse the expression).

Where'd you get SP2? It hasn't been released yet!

Yes, it has.

Yep, I even ordered a SP2 CD for myself. Go download the network edition, which is 266 MB. I think Automatic Updates has already started releasing it to customers--you can see that by the changed frontpage on Microsoft's website.

yes, I've used XP for about a year, and I've used 98SE for over 4 years.
I use XP a lot, and yes 98SE is slower, but I like it a little better (I haven't tried XPSP2 yet, but it probably is better than XP professional).

Yep, it is. It comes with a built in pop-up blocker for IE. Finally.

IE is still ages behind any other browser, though.

thats what makes it great, its not riddled with useless searches and keyword things, its streamline and simple

Um, have you even used Win98 or WinXP? Windows XP doesn't crash at ALL compared to Win98. The only thing is... I miss the BSOD! :'( On my Win98, sometimes, I'd get the BSOD just for fun. Besides, who can resist the default color theme of Windows XP?

yea... i miss the BSOD also... it's so fun, just type b:\ then mash buttons... but that's fixed in command32... i miss getting out of writing a paper!!! :'(

Maybe XP doesn't "crash", but it still hangs for stupid reasons.

Take reason 1: trying to read a CD. XP hangs for as long as it's trying to read a CD when it's inserted. If the CD is nearly unreadable, you'll have to waaaaiiitt.

Reason 2: I don't know the reason, but sometimes when I log out of my user account, the login screen never comes back up. The screen stays black, and the three-finger salute does nothing. The mouse pointer is not even visible either.

Reason 3: Explorer (technically just part of XP, but it's still made by Microsoft) hangs when trying to read from a network share. It even takes it like a minute or so to unblock and find anything in the share. Sure, you can say "the share isn't set up correctly" or something (I doubt that, as there isn't much user control over it those little settings, and it does find the share...eventually), but the point is that Explorer should not completely *hang* on anything like it does. Samba (almost) never hangs, especially consistently like Explorer does, and SMB filesharing is a *Microsoft* protocol. They can't even get their own standards to work well!

I've got other instances, but these should suffice. Note that these (and other problems) are merely symptoms of deeply-rooted problems in the operating system. The symptoms can be treated, but the problems cannot be fully fixed because of some very poor decisions Microsoft made and still makes.

There are many, many, many, *many* more serious and inherent problems with Windows than I can fit here, and I'm tired now, so I won't even try.

Well, it's better than having to restart your computer every five minutes! 5d

I haven't noticed "Reason 1" or "Reason 2" with mine... "Reason 3" has happened a couple times, but I don't take advantage of the networking as much as I should, so I don't see it very often at all.

Compare these two situations:

You try to run a 92+ AMS on Voyage 200

You try to run Windows XP that came with your Dell 4600 on a Dell XPS

Which one works?

I don't know, probably the AMS?

You are probably violating the EULA to transfer XP to a different computer, you pirate!

The AMS wouldn't even load, and if it did, it wouldn't know what to do with the extra memory.

Windows XP would work on different hardware. BTW, it wouldn't be transferred, it would be read off the provided backup CD.

By "transferring" I mean installing it a different computer from the one it came on (assuming XP came with the computer instead of being bought separately).

What was the point of the question anyway? It's like comparing apples to lemons.

The point is that it is SO INCREDIBLY HARD to write compatible software that it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to EVEN APPROXIMATE the compatibility achieved by the software that you think is SO BAD. The same executable runs on computers with different amounts of memory, different CPUs, different installed expandable devices, different speakers, different monitor resolutions and, even more impressive, different monitor aspect ratios, etc. AMS, written for a much simpler system with only one difference in computing hardware-flash memory size-won't work cross-platform. A TI-calculator version of Windows XP would not only work on the 92+/V200, but would certainly work on the TI-89/Ti and probably even on the Apple IIe. It's simply amazing. I challenge all of those who are badmouthing the hard work and diligence of the talented professionals at Microsoft to make PedroM for 92+ run on the 89Ti.

It's not like comparing XT and AT, either. That would be like comparing ASM on TI-81 (impossible, I know) and TI-84 Plus SE, and nobody expects compatibility between those (being so radically different).

P.S.: I say this even though my WinXP SP2 (IE6) Dell 8250 hung three times while I was typing this.

As I've said before, I *would* accept bugs and instability as normal and OK, considering that Windows has to run on all kinds of different systems, EXCEPT that Linux has demonstrated that OSs can be more stable, etc.

Except that Windows has more features (in the ordinary user sense) that the command-line-based Linux.

I would say the "command-line-based" Linux has many more features the DOS-based Windows.

A user need not use a command line to use Linux for normal tasks (even system maintainence). The same is true of Windows only because it lacks good CLI tools (a severe deficit:

" * Programs will not be designed to cooperate with each other in unexpected ways — because they can't be. Outputs aren't usable as inputs.

* Remote system administration will be sparsely supported, more difficult to use, and more network-intensive.

* Even simple noninteractive programs will incur the overhead of a GUI or elaborate scripting interface.

* Servers, daemons, and background processes will probably be impossible or at least rather difficult, to program in any graceful way." ("The Art of Unix Programming", Chapter 3 (see URL))

No good CLI is as bad as or worse than no GUI. Linux has a good CLI and a good GUI (see www.kde.org if you still don't believe me), one which is comparable to the Windows environment to an "average" user.

You even seem to believe that having "an incoherent pile of ad-hoc features" (from TAOUP), as Windows does, is better than having a simple, unifying idea or metaphor upon which features are created, as Unix does.

You still have failed to point out how Linux is more difficult to use than Windows (and you claim the absence of a GUI as a reason, which is absurd), especially when you told of how your dad had trouble using *Windows*; apparently you assume that Windows is easier to use by a beginner computer user than Linux is. Given that a new user would not have learned bad habits from using Windows, Linux would actually be *easier* to use than Windows (plus it gives users more room for growth than Windows, if they choose to grow at all).

Yes, features are better than a plan for creating them, because people simply can't use plans.

>>Remote system administration will be sparsely supported, more difficult to use, and more network-intensive.

Tell me why, again, people hacking into your system is better?

You don't mention, however, any features that people can actually use. Users are not interested in having to type soffice.exe [ENTER] after setting 15 different 'properties' that only programmers can decipher. They don't want to know about servers and processes and remote access. They want to click on an icon and get a virtual piece of paper to type on after which they can click 'Print' and see it on paper. Then, they surf the net on a browser that doesn't tell it incomprehensible volumes on TCP/IP and ports and things. They don't know what DSL stands for, much less even what a taskbar is or how to use advanced email options. Thye just want to get stuff done. They don't like computers and want as little to do with them as possible. You seem to want to revert to the days before Apple brought the computer to everyone by making it more of an appliance and less of a mysterious piece of black-box scientific equipment.

You use Straw Man arguments, but I will still refute them.

How many "features" in Windows are redundant? Can they be used together? A screwdriver or hammer can be used in many ways yet are only two "features". Does that reduce their usefulness? Do you like a large complex tool with many "features" which, sadly, cannot be used together? ("tools" are not limited to CLI programs. Many GUI's are designed with this way too).

Remote system admin is not "people hacking [sic] into your system"; you should know that. Making it difficult does not make cracking your box more difficult. Almost none of many exploits for Windows use holes in remote admin facilities. This is a straw man argument.

Why would you have to type in "soffice.exe" (Unix doesn't use '.exe' for executables) to run a word processor? They could click on an icon on the desktop. This is another straw man argument.

>> You seem to want to revert to the days before Apple brought the computer to everyone....

I don't want to revert to those days. In fact, I want a computer system which is streamlined and is very obvious and intuitive to use. I also want it not to arbitrarily restrict me from doing something only because it may be "bad". It's obvious what is "bad" and what isn't (that's part of "intuititve"). Restricting "bad" uses also restricts clever uses. Most users don't want Fisher-Price(tm) operating systems, just as they wouldn't want a chain saw with an unremovable guard around the whole chain.

Linux and Free software are heading in that direction very quickly whether you realise it or not.

Using straw man arguments does not help your case but exposes you as a Microsoft and proprietary-software apologist.

What's grammatically incorrect with the word 'hacking?'

Anyway, I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I got sick and tired of MS Office 10 and started using OpenOffice 1.1.2.

Proprietary software: people need to make a living. Some programmers actually need to eat and pay rent. If you undercut them and make them lose their jobs, you will end up in their position yourself, sooner or later.

You are a very good programmer. However, you're not my mom or dad. You know, intuitively, how to use a computer and they don't. They will occasionally do things that may seem stupid to you. However, these people are your market. I know you could care less, but people need an idiot-proof and usable computer. That is most certainly not Linux, or DOS, or Unix, or and other weird OSs that make absolutely no sense to the average user. This is not a straw-man argument. This is a huge concern if you are programming something-to make the program usable, error-free, and idiot-proof. Ever try one of my relatively complicated BASIC programs? Every single error that could possibly be thrown, from not turning alpha-lock off to pressing [ESC], is trapped. I worked hard on debugging them, and they work. Just because they don't assume that the user already knows everything doesn't mean that they are toys. You are not an idiot, and the computer does not need to be protected from your mistakes (you probably don't make many). However, the vast majority of people are and do need their computers shielded from their lack of skill.

This is why Microsoft has 95% of the market share in PC OSs. If the people who make Linux would form a Microsoft-like effort, charge for the software to protect their colleagues, keep it proprietary to protect their jobs, and actually solicit ideas from non-programmers, as we at OAHAT do with Morvlon, it would get really popular really fast.

That Linux is Free (in the free speech sense) is exactly the reason it is getting more and more popular and is also the reason Microsoft cannot destroy it as it can destroy a single entity who makes proprietary software. This is why Microsoft is afraid. Making Linux proprietary would be impossible to do (read the licenses, especially the GNU GPL), but if it were done Microsoft would be able to kill it.

Many people who distribute Linux and other Free software DO charge for it. They sell it. It's a good and encouraged activity, even by the ones who say that all software should be Free (e.g., Richard Stallman). Free software actually creates jobs (programming and otherwise) too. It's good for the economy and society as a whole. Sure, programmers will lose their jobs here and there (this already happens), but overall jobs will be created for them. The arguments put forth by the proprietary-software advocates rely on the Broken Window fallacy, that charging a lot for non-free software (and reinventing the wheel to write the software) creates jobs and is good for society. It's easy to see through such arguments. Much of the wheel-reinvention counts toward the national GDP/GNP, but much of that is waste and is not real progress.

BTW, "hacking" is a good activity in the definition that is accepted by and was invented by hackers. The definition with a negative connotation is deprecated and should not be used in that way. "Cracking" is what you mean and should use.

I really wonder if you read everything I've written, because I addressed most of your "concerns" and refuted most of you claims in previous posts already.

[in reply to the part about people who are scared of their computers and only use them for virtual pieces of paper and the web.]

Why should people with such simple needs have to pay hundreds of dollars, when free software will fill that void just as well, if not better?

Have you been keeping up with what is happening in GNU/Linux the past few years? Ease of use has been a hot topic these days.

MWM

They shouldn't pay hundreds of dollars. THey sshould pay $25.00 for Morvlon 3.00 at www.oahat.org when it goes up, and in the meantime, use Windows.

Or buy a Commodore 64 with many programs on floppy disks at a garage sale for $10. :)

That's our hard work.

[In reply to how amazing it is that Windows runs on so much hardware.]

You are right; it is amazing. But, do you want to see something more amazing.

Take Windows XP, and try installing it on a Mac.

Take GNU/Linux, and try installing it on a Mac.

Which one works?

To be honest, I think that Window's ability to run on any x86 based machine pales in comparison to the number of machines GNU/Linux runs on. Very few personal computer makers dare to make a computer that doesn't run windows. Considering that very few make an effort to support GNU/Linux, it is AMAZING how much it runs on!

MWM

you know that win 98 can only do 128MB of RAM every thing else just sits there

If you just aren't used to the XP style, it can be customized almost EXACTLY like 98...

Considering that Windows 95 will fit on 3 floppy disks, & it is slightly more useful than this OS, I would have to choose it. (Actually, DOS 6.2 with DOS Shell fits on 1 disk...but it has no crash protection!)

3? My set is over 20 floppies

My set has 13 floppies

My set has 1 CD. ;)

I don't think 95B (which introduced USB support) ever came on floppies.

I know, but enough of Windows 95 to boot into GUI mode & run DOS programs (or Windows programs not requiring any special DLL's) can be modified to fit on 3 floppys.

Tom's Root Boot Linux distro fits "The most GNU/Linux on 1 floppy disk."

If I had to use an OS which fits on one floppy, that's what I'd pick (or possibly GEOS for my C=64 :P ).

tomsrtbt actually stands for "Tom's floppy which has a root filesystem and is also bootable", not Tom's Root Boot. Whatever.

It's amazing what you could do with that little 8-bit running GEOS! I'd still be playing around with it, if my big box o'5-1/4 floppies hadn't been washed out in a flood :(

Ya know, the C128's secondary CPU was a Z80 ... I wonder if anybody ever tried porting some TI86/83+ software for it...

I have a couple of C64's (my parents do, actually) and a C128. The main CPU is a 6510 to run the Commodore OS and the other is a Z80 to run CP/M.

CP/M is supposed to run only if a CP/M boot disk is inserted, but I managed somehow to boot it by hacking around with the monitor program. It complained about not finding a disk or something, so I couldn't do anything with it. :(

I'm kind of trying to learn 6510 assembly so I can write programs for it, but I can't find (or I'm too lazy to find) any good "hands on" tutorial for it. It looks a little more difficult to use than Z80, as it has very few general-purpose registers and fewer addressing modes. Or I could get a good C compiler for the 6510. That would be cool. :)

Windows is buggy but at least it runs. It is simply amazing what it can do, if you consider what it has to put up with.

Linux puts up with the same stuff and isn't buggy. Of course, the software for it is.

Exactly. I wouldn't expect OS's in general to be stable and bug-free, except that LINUX IS. Sort of sad that a whole team of paid programmers can't produce software as well as a bunch of guys writing source code in their basements after work or something like that...

It's all about motives. Microsoft programmers write code to make money. Linux programmers write code to either have fame or actually help people, but you can't get fame if you aren't better than somebody else (namely, Microsoft), and you can't help people if your product isn't better than somebody else's.

To the average user, though, it doesn't do anything. You boot, get to the command line, and then what? Run programs? How do you do that? Most people can use Windows, though, because the interface makes sense.

The average user would end up buying Linux through a distrobution like RedHat or SuSE... which in that case, you would have a GUI. But the GUI SUCKS! I hate KDE, I hate GNOME, the only moderately good desktop environment is XFCE4, which I like because of simplicity. Of course, most people would argue that the Windows XP GUI sucks, and I agree.

The average user wouldn't buy Linux because they can't use it.

Why would the average user not be able to use Linux? I would consider my brother to be an "average" user, and he really likes it. Do you think he would like it if he couldn't use it?

Please, put these kinds of comments/arguments to rest once and for all. It was true for most of the 90's (and for distro's which are not aimed at the average user), but for the most part it's not now. Keep in mind that Free software develops quite rapidly compared to non-Free software.

The average user can't find a program if it isn't on the desktop or on the first part of the Start menu. Believe me, I put up with them all the time (Dad:"How do you get Solitaire?" Me: "Start-Search-In the side now, 'All files and programs'-" Dad: "Wait. Right or left click?")

Sounds like my mom...she's just so incredibly f%#$ing stupid with computers!!!!!!!! (I don't mean your dad is stupid or anything). Actually, that might be the "low end" of users. Just about everyone I know around my age and a lot of adults I know are better than that...

I know very few adults who are much better than that with computers. In fact, I know only 1 or 2 who can figure out a component without asking someone who knows or consulting a manual.

BTW, development speed is related to the size of the developer, internal coordination, and responsiveness to public opinion, not price.

Free software is not tied to a price. That would be freeware, which is completely different from Free software. It's Free as in free speech, not free beer (I'm sure you've probably heard that before, but you don't seem to understand it).

I bought some Free software (Slackware Linux 8.1) from Fry's Electronics for 20 USD, and I could sell (and have sold) it to someone else to make a little money off of it.

You actually pointed out some of the strengths of Free software in general: size of the developer, coordination, and responsiveness to public opinion.

The size of the developer base usually is proportional to the size of the user base (more users = more developers).

The coordination (not necessarily internal) usually is pretty high, but the development is usually more flexible by not being bound or restricted to such "coordination" (such as if public opinion differs from the coordination).

The responsiveness to public opinion is great, too, because the developers typically are also users of the software. This also means development "listens" to the most informed users and not to the most ignorant users (as Microsoft seems to do too often).

No, I was trying to point out that:
-The best software is usually written by small businesses using smart management practices.
-That software is usually proprietary.
-There are so many versions of Linux that even informed people have a hard time finding a good version of it that does something.
-The least informed users comprise about 75-80 percent of the user base. I know only a few people (mainly in the computers division of the nonprofit I work for) who could wite a single line of code and lot of people who need step-by-step instructions to access the internet.
-As a final note, look at this place. There is practically zilch coordination in this fairly small community (52,000 informed people).

Agreed. Least-informed people should not be making decisions for how an OS should be designed. (Marketing should also not decide how an OS is designed either, but Microsoft's marketing team does. Windows has a marketing-driven design).

The least-informed people still can use Free software like Linux, though, because it doesn't *require* any programming skills to use, as you seemingly tried to argue. Free software just *allows* anyone with programming skills (or none, for stuff like bug reporting) to improve the software, and that is why Free software generally has a faster development speed than proprietary software. There's really no arguing anyone can do that can change that fact (many studies and empirical evidence very strongly support it, at least).

I've discovered that the best software (that which does its job well and gives the user much freedom in how she can use it) is Free software. Whether it's made by several individuals in their spare time or by a business (large or small) is irrelevant. That you haven't looked much, if at all, for good Free software doesn't change this fact (one easy example is Firefox, which is much better than most any other web browser, especially MS IE).

Besides, why did you point out earlier that development speed is not related to price when I never argued anything regarding price in the first place?

Also, what does this small community (most of which I would not called informed), which has relatively few "group" projects, have to do with this discussion? A Free software project does not grow out of the existence of a community; rather it's the other way around.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Least-informed people should be involved in making decisions about the layout of an OS because an elitist system is only targeted to 20-25% of the market. This is where wizards, desktops, menus, etc., came from-people not knowing how to do something and having the UI clarified. I have another point to make: my Edgar Allan Poe argument.

Edgar Allan Poe was a classic American writer who ended up working side jobs for his entire Gothic existence, and dying drunk in a ditch in Baltimore (for you non-Americans). Why didn't he have any money? Copyrights didn't protect him and his work, so he was unable to prevent people from plagiarizing his work. From his most famous works he got an average of $12 each, and people learned quickly that "free literature" was a very good abstraction but simply made geniuses poor. Why should the same thing happen to programmers? If this concept ends up in charge of the software market, talented individuals won't be able to market their skills because it would be uncompetitive (Oh, it's great, but Linux is free, so I'll get that. Here's a quarter for your tuba case.). This sounds great to you until you need to market your skills. When you need to sell your programming to put food on the table and pay rent, you'll see what I (and Poe) mean.

Your "Edgar Allan Poe" argument doesn't fit in this case. Free software is protected by copyright, so it's illegal to "plagiarise" it. You also seem to have forgotten the difference between libre and gratis already, or you didn't understand it in the first place. A prisoner can be "free", and a cheeseburger can be "free" (TANSTAAFL applies though), but they're not the same "free". Free software uses the first usage. (If you look up "free" in a dictionary, you'll find most of the definitions are related to liberty).

Programming skills are and will be in demand, for who else will program? Programmers at Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Novell, etc. seem to have no problem paying rent and putting food on the table, because they sell Free software and services to go with it.

Programming jobs may very well move away software-as-a-product companies like Microsoft, but is that really a bad thing? Relatively few programming jobs are actually at places like that, and those are the jobs which are likely to be affected at all.

See the URL for a better and more thorough explanation. In fact, read the other FAQ's on that site too. They might clear up some of your misconceptions of Free software. I should've pointed you to it earlier. Silly me.

These aren't misconceptions. This is the result of presenting a better product (Morvlon) to companies and people and having them say that, essentially, our $25.00 is too high.

I see: you want a Linux monopoly! You want everybody to program for Linux, having no capability to make something better and have a return on it. You want everybody who needs to feed their family to volunteer their skills while working 3 side jobs at KFC!

Maybe this wasn't clear: Everybody had free access to Poe's work and didn't need to buy it. So he got his $12 and no royalties. Nobody needed to reward him with a paycheck because everything was very idealistic and free and communist in the market of ideas (not the economy-don't flame). You thought that I was talking about the theft of ideas. I wasn't. I was talking about the theft of his product that he was powerless to stop because of the lack of copyrights. Nobody stole his lines, but a lot of people copied and distributed his work. If the same thing happens to programming because high-school freshmen who don't need to support family put competitive programs out there at an unfair price, the profession of computer software production and maintenance will die and be handed over to hackers.

Theft is not a marketing concept.

A "Linux monopoly"? Don't be ridiculous. Lock-in strategies are not used in Free software (they would be self-defeating) as used in non-Free software like Windows. Even if there were a Linux "monopoly" (where most computers run Linux -- not the real definition of monopoly), how would this be a bad thing? Surely is couldn't be any worse than the current situation where Microsoft has a monopoly.

"You want everybody to program for Linux, having no capability to make something better and have a return on it."

You're living in some weird fantasy world if you STILL believe that programming Free software or for Linux removes any capability to make something better or have a return on it. Free software tends to be of higher quality than non-Free software, and you have completely ignored the many people who make a return on it. Just take a look at Red Hat, Mandrake, Novell, SuSE, IBM, etc.

People CAN work for free, but those that do CHOOSE to work for free (most of those people that work for "free" have jobs and write software as a hobby). Is volunteer work a bad thing? Are you going to condemn volunteers now? Authors of freeware also work on the software for free (also because they CHOOSE to), but they don't give the end-users as much freedom as Free software does. Should we vilify freeware too? Will freeware cause the software industry to fail catastrophically as you claim that Free software will?

Anyway, you should do some research on the subject of Free software before you make all of these uninformed and baseless arguments against it. A good source of information on the subject is at the URL I provide above. I suggest you read through the FAQ's to help clear any twisted ideas you have of Free software.

WOULD YOU LISTEN?!!

You want to put professional programmers out on the street because they can't make any money competing with free stuff.

Sure, professional programmers can compete with free stuff if they make their stuff free also (it's their choice to make it non-Free, of course, though probably a bad one in the long run). Then they're just as free (no pun intended) to sell their free stuff at whatever the market will bear, with exactly the same market forces in effect with proprietary software.

I put my grandmother on SUSE Linux, and she rarely has a problem with it. (and when she does, it is hardly a problem that she would not have on windows...)
Once it is installed/configured, I could argue that Linux can be easier to use than windows.

MWM

It's called a GUI (like KDE). It looks exactly like Windows, except it has more features.

Win 98 is the most staple windows OS, but it still can be a load of crap.

Win98?
Stable?
Win9X is absolute rubbish. Sorry. WindowsNT is great, especially XP. 2000 is also good but has the odd glitch in explorer (like locking media files), but runs really well on low-end hardware.

Download SP4 for Win2000 and it'll fix that.

Pardon my bad typing.

Win98 is certainly very stable. Exspecialy compared to 2000.

I had Win98se. It was more stable than Win95, yeah, but it still crashed a lot. XP hasn't crashed on me once, and I think I'm harder on it. Never used Win2k, though. I thought it was supposed to be more stable than 98.

98 has never crashed for me. Ever.

Lucky. That's a one in a million chance, given the stability of Win98.

98 has crashed more than XP for me.

But NT is still the most stable operating system.

s/operating system/version of Windows/

Change "operating system" to "version of Windows".

HAHAHAH! Sorry, but Windows 98 is NOT the most stable OS.

I said 'WINDOWS OS'.
We all know windows sucks.

Still, I think XP is a heck of a lot more stable.

...and NT is a heck of a lot more stable.

It doesn't really matter how "stable" a system is if it still sucks, now does it?

I mean, XP still uses the stupid notion of mandatory (and automatic, mind you) file locks. Windows "locks" a file when it's openned so that no other program can do anything with it. This means if I open a file in a program, and that program keeps the file open (at the low level, not just in a buffer for viewing and editing), then no other program can open it (or rename or delete or copy or...). This may be just a user-level problem (existing in Explorer, command.com/cmd.exe, and the various programs that come with Windows), but there seems to be no way around it.

Worse, if the program dies while it still has the file open, you can't open it at all until you reboot (at least this happens in Win98SE).

This has bitten me in my arse with VTI. Apparently, VTI doesn't fclose ROM files when it's not using them. This means I can't overwrite a ROM file with a different one (for testing a new version of a ROM, for example). I can do it with VTI under Wine in Knoppix, of course, because GNU/Linux doesn't foolishly support mandatory and automatic file locks.

That's enough MS hatred (all deserved, though) for now.

Well that's because Windows is idiot-proof. If you edit a file while a program is reading from it, that could be bad. It's to prevent that. Besides, deleting a program while it's running doesn't make much sense to me at all. That's why there's locks.
However, you didn't say it couldn't copy... that surprised me, because I thought you could copy a file while it was locked. That would make sense, anyway. The rest don't make sense at all (renaming, deleting, etc.). I'll have to test that.
Umm, and I've never had any problems with VTI when I ran it on Win98. Never tried it on XP, but that's because I didn't know if it was compatible with XP or not.

File locking is a poor substitute for proper idiot-proofing.

I didn't say anything about deleting the program file, only deleting files which the program has open. Since you brought it up, though, locking a program file is also a bad idea. How exactly do you replace a program file while it's running? In Windows, you can't. That's probably why you still need to reboot after installing updates (even many non-system updates).

"If you edit a file while a program is reading from it, that could be bad"

This is the kind of thinking that gave us ridiculous laws like the DMCA: something *could* be used for something bad, so we should outlaw it. That's like outlawing crowbars because one *could* be used to break into someone's house.

Besides, there are many times I would like to view the contents of a file, but I can't even do that when the file is locked. WordPad and Notepad tell me the file is in use, and so they don't let me view it.

The OS should let me do what I want/need to do and not get in the way as Windows does, and arbitrary and silly restrictions like file locking just get in my way.

"How exactly do you replace a program file while it's running?"

Stop the process, replace it, and start the new process. Is it really so hard?

And if you were to edit a file while a program was reading from it, it would be very _easy_ to crash your system. (EOF could be moved... file might keep on reading, never hitting an EOF. It could be a lot worse if you were writing/appending. That's how it works, right?) I'd rather not do that. I don't see why it's such a big deal.

By the way, I tried copying a locked file and it seemed to have worked. Copy the file, paste it, and read from the pasted one. Can't you just do that?

You can't stop every process/service to replace a DLL which is used by almost everything. You need to restart the OS and replace the file before anything which needs it runs. This happens when you update a Windows system. You wouldn't have to restart the OS just to update it if the OS didn't lock files, so it's a big deal.

How would it be easy, if even possible, to crash the system if you edit a file while a program was reading from it (unless you're trying to point out how robust Windows isn't)? Editting a file should not affect the system's integrity at all and doesn't in good systems like Unix. Plus, a program hits EOF when it tries to read past the end of the file, so it wouldn't read from it forever. I thought that would be obvious, but I guess it's not (did you think that a program would read whatever data appeared after it on the disk?).

Why is it such a big deal to let the user (or even a program) perform this common and useful task? It is very useful, but you can't know how useful it can be when you can't do it; it's one of those "you don't know what you're missing" kind of things.

When did it become a good idea to restrict something because of a few "bad" uses while ignoring the many good uses of it? Should we outlaw vehicles because they could be used to kill someone? Should we outlaw the Internet because it could be used to infringe on someone's copyrights? (Scarily, some groups like the MPAA and RIAA would like that to happen and are petitioing Congress with laws which may effectively cause that to happen).

I found out that XP does not prohibit *reading* an open file (and therefore copying one either), but it still foolishly restricts renaming, deleting, or writing to one. Windows may not give you enough rope to hang yourself, but it's also not enough rope to do anything else really useful either.

It works.

Hey! I like Windows! Oh wait... I'm a *no_one*. Never mind. ;-)

Everyone argues over Windows vs. Linux. I like them both. The reason I use Windows (XP usually) is because of its point&click-ish-ness. Sure, I could do all that stuff from a command line - but why was the GUI invented in the first place? It saves time, & when I need a command line, it is only 1 or 2 clicks away. I would rather spend my time writing my programs than coming up with command lines to get my programs to compile or install or whatever.

You guys don't count.

j/k ;-)

But most don't. Majority rules. Or at least that's how it USED to be... >:#