Windows XP



  • Our company is just now moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  Am I wrong to think that there's something wrong with this?



  • I suspect they're moving because of "Windows 2000: Extended Support until 13 July 2010"



  • @Thief^ said:

    I suspect they're moving because of "Windows 2000: Extended Support until 13 July 2010"

    I have nothing to add, other than: that is HILARIOUS. "Oh shit, guys, we have a month before our support ends! We better get started doing those upgrades we were talking about in 2004."



  • @redtiger said:

    Our company is just now moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  Am I wrong to think that there's something wrong with this?

    It's better than staying with Windows 2000.  So there's that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I have nothing to add, other than: that is HILARIOUS. "Oh shit, guys, we have a month before our support ends! We better get started doing those upgrades we were talking about in 2004."
     

    Lol!  Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks it's crazy to *up*grade to Windows XP in 2010.



  • @dhromed said:

    RUN
     



  • @redtiger said:

    Our company is just now moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP

    Wow fancy, just imagine, in 2020 you'll get you awesome new Win 7 box



  •  Windows XP has become a very stable product over the years. Vista is, as we all know, the next Windows ME so that's not an option at all. Windows 7 is still fairly new so there might still be bugs with it. Obviously sticking with 2000 is the second worst option (after Vista). I think it's reasonable to switch to XP now.

    Although I personally would prefer Windows XP, maybe you company uses some applications that are unable to run on 7? Or there are still some bugs in 7 with some services (like LDAP) which are crucial to your company?

     In my opinion this is not a WTF unless we know more about the company, etc.



  • @pbean said:

    Vista is, as we all know, the next Windows ME so that's not an option at all.

    Don't get all your opinions from Slashdot. Vista's fine, it's just not designed for wimpier systems.



  • Well, of course. You can't just skip two whole operating systems. You computer needs you to step it up gradually.



  • @toth said:

    Well, of course. You can't just skip two whole operating systems. You computer needs you to step it up gradually.
     

     No?  I went from Windows 95 to Me without the intermediate step of 98, and then from Me to XP without going thru 2000.

    And there I'm content to stay.  I'd still be happy with Me if I hadn't run out of IRQs.



  • @da Doctah said:

    I'd still be happy with Me
    I'm pretty sure they're adding this to the DSM-V as a sign of psychosis.



  • @bstorer said:

    @redtiger said:

    Our company is just now moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  Am I wrong to think that there's something wrong with this?

    It's better than staying with Windows 2000.  So there's that.
    If I remember correctly Win 2K was the last Windows system that didn't require authorization from MS. I used to keep a W2K disk around for that very reason



  • @redtiger said:

    Our company is just now moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  Am I wrong to think that there's something wrong with this?

     

     Well we looked at the various hassles involved  and the total "life costs"  and decided that Linu/Ubuntu was a much better solution!

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under  Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant limits.

    Ubuntu Positive factors:

    NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!

    VERY easy install of any additional software (Ubuntu Software Center)

    MUCH fater bug fixes for critical items.

    "Enterprise" level security and backup capability

    VERY active user community

    NO limits on copying software, applications, or "neat stuff" that users create!

    Ubuntu Negatives:

    UNIX/Text based system - unfamiliar to many IT staff.

    Typical "steep learning curve" of *NIX systems

    Linux/Ubuntyu is the "little guy" and we just don't support that tiny part of the total PC market (typically they ONLY support IE 6 too!)

     

    A very few applications require a WIn XX OS due to DRM considerations.

    So far the only one with NO FOSS equivalent has been Intuit's Quickbooks. We run it in a WIn 2K "virtual machine".

    Turns out that a virtual machine (of any sort) makes a hacker/virus writer's job 1000X harder due to the "unknown" host OS!

    In addition you can configure a virtual machine to ONLY talk to your banks or vendors - NO ONE else exists on the VM!

    We use Oracle's "VirtualBox" which intalls with one click on Ubuntu

     

    [mandatory fanboi bait] What's a computer virus anyway? Why haven't we ever seen one? LOL



  • @pearl298 said:

    Well we looked at the various hassles involved  and the total "life costs"  and decided that Linu/Ubuntu was a much better solution!

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under  Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant limits.

    Ubuntu Positive factors:

    NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!

    VERY easy install of any additional software (Ubuntu Software Center)

    MUCH fater bug fixes for critical items.

    "Enterprise" level security and backup capability

    VERY active user community

    NO limits on copying software, applications, or "neat stuff" that users create!

    Ubuntu Negatives:

    UNIX/Text based system - unfamiliar to many IT staff.

    Typical "steep learning curve" of *NIX systems

    Linux/Ubuntyu is the "little guy" and we just don't support that tiny part of the total PC market (typically they ONLY support IE 6 too!)

     

    A very few applications require a WIn XX OS due to DRM considerations.

    So far the only one with NO FOSS equivalent has been Intuit's Quickbooks. We run it in a WIn 2K "virtual machine".

    Turns out that a virtual machine (of any sort) makes a hacker/virus writer's job 1000X harder due to the "unknown" host OS!

    In addition you can configure a virtual machine to ONLY talk to your banks or vendors - NO ONE else exists on the VM!

    We use Oracle's "VirtualBox" which intalls with one click on Ubuntu

     

    [mandatory fanboi bait] What's a computer virus anyway? Why haven't we ever seen one? LOL

    This is a spoof, right? It's... it's got to be a spoof...



  • @pearl298 said:

    Well we looked at the various hassles involved  and the total "life costs"  and decided that Linu/Ubuntu was a much better solution!

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under  Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant limits.

    This ain't Slashdot, son.  I'm looking forward to the savage beating you're going to get.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    This is a spoof, right? It's... it's got to be a spoof...
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
    explained by stupidity.



  • @bstorer said:

    @pearl298 said:

    Well we looked at the various hassles involved  and the total "life costs"  and decided that Linu/Ubuntu was a much better solution!

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under  Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant limits.

    This ain't Slashdot, son.  I'm looking forward to the savage beating you're going to get.

     

     There are none so blind as those who refuse to see the light when it shines in their eyes!

     Whether the fanbois like it or not Linux/Ubuntu does a fine job for millions of people.

     OH yes I do have two Win 7 and one Vista machine left, they just are not too useful.



  • We were really (and still are) in the same boat. 

    WinXP is just about old enough now to be considered 'stable'.

    Windows Vista was the biggest practical joke by Microsoft. 

    Windows 7 is still awaiting its first service pack.


    On top of that, we have an app which is licensed at £10,000 per user. It's not Windows 7 compatible (it just crashes, but to be honest, it doesn't work much better on XP, but at least it doesn't crash). Management say we they can't afford the training or licensing costs to move people to another app. So we have to stick with XP until the vendor releases something that works.



  • @Mole said:

    We were really (and still are) in the same boat. 

    [snip]

    On top of that, we have an app which is licensed at £10,000 per user. It's not Windows 7 compatible (it just crashes, but to be honest, it doesn't work much better on XP, but at least it doesn't crash). Management say we they can't afford the training or licensing costs to move people to another app. So we have to stick with XP until the vendor releases something that works.

     

     I seem to be cast in the role of heretic here so I will suggerst that if it works  under XP there are pretty good odds that it will also work under Linux/Wine!

    Even if it doesn't do all you wand there is professional (paid) support foe WIne who seem to be able to get most anything working for a price.

    Who knows, you may even find a free Linux app that does the same job.  £10,000 per user pays for a LOT of training and support! Linux "support" folks get their only revenuse from making things work for the customer so they tend to do a pretty good job ... 

    http://linuxappfinder.com/all



  • @pearl298 said:

     I seem to be cast in the role of heretic here so I will suggerst that if it works  under XP there are pretty good odds that it will also work under Linux/Wine!

    Even if it doesn't do all you wand there is professional (paid) support foe WIne who seem to be able to get most anything working for a price.

    Who knows, you may even find a free Linux app that does the same job.  £10,000 per user pays for a LOT of training and support! Linux "support" folks get their only revenuse from making things work for the customer so they tend to do a pretty good job ... 

    http://linuxappfinder.com/all

    There's also Windows 7's XP-mode, which is significantly more likely to run the app successfully, and also runs on an OS that doesn't suck ass.



  • @pearl298 said:

    I seem to be cast in the role of heretic here
     

    It seems that is what you are trying to do. I'm not sure why.

    Remember this is not a Windows or Microsoft forum; many members of this forum have experience in a wider range of OSses than you seem to imagine, including various Unix/Linux flavours. It's just that when you start spouting nonsense like @pearl298 said:

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under 
    Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant
    limits.
    nobody takes you very serious anymore.



  • @pearl298 said:

    NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!

    Wrong. There are plenty of rootkits, hence the need for chkrootkit.
    @pearl298 said:
    MUCH fater bug fixes for critical items.

    I'm not entirely sure why having fater bug fixes is actually a benefit. Certainly they'd eat up your bandwidth, no?
    @pearl298 said:
    "Enterprise" level security and backup capability

    PROTIP: Windows does this shit too.



    This isn't Slashdot, suggesting that someone invest huge amounts of money for trainning to switch to Linux is not a good suggestion. The best way for Linux to be setup as the desktop environment in a corperate setting is from the get-go. Also, most of the people here already understand the pros and cons of running Linux/UNIX/Mac OS better than what you've demonstrated.



  • Windows 7 XP-Mode is a bit of klude though really isn't it? It's touted as a magical "Make Windows 7 compatible with all WinXP apps" where in effect its just the equivalent of running VMWare on your desktop. 

    I don't know if the newer version is any better, but the version I used didn't share memory with it's host so when I setup XP mode to use 2GB of RAM for an app, it swallowed exactly that regardless of how much memory the applications running underneath it was using. Secondly, I heard it doesn't play nice with multi-threaded applications. Sure, they run, but they don't actually use more than one physical core of the CPU. 



  • @b_redeker said:

    @pearl298 said:

    I seem to be cast in the role of heretic here
     

    It seems that is what you are trying to do. I'm not sure why.

    Remember this is not a Windows or Microsoft forum; many members of this forum have experience in a wider range of OSses than you seem to imagine, including various Unix/Linux flavours. It's just that when you start spouting nonsense like @pearl298 said:

    90% of the apps that worked just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under 
    Vista or Win 7! Mostly due to strange DRM schemes and their inherant
    limits.
    nobody takes you very serious anymore.

     

    Gee could it be remarks like:


    bstorer:

    pearl298:
    Well we looked at the various
    hassles involved  and the total "life costs"  and decided that
    Linu/Ubuntu was a much better solution!

    90% of the apps that worked
    just fine under WIn 2K would NOT work under  Vista or Win 7! Mostly due
    to strange DRM schemes and their inherant limits.

    This ain't Slashdot, son.  I'm looking forward to the savage beating you're going to get.

     I wonder where I could POSSIBLY get the idea that this was a WIndows fanboi hangout?

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Windows 7's XP-mode, which is significantly more likely to run the app successfully, and also runs on an OS that doesn't suck ass.
     

    That works fine unless your app has some soer of wierd DRM!

     "OS that doesn't suck ass." - HMMM no halfitted fanbois here you say????



  • @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    "Enterprise" level security and backup capability

    PROTIP: Windows does this shit too.

    Hell, Windows defines "Enterprise-class". "Enterprise" basically translates to, "it does what Microsoft does." (At least in most fields... I guess in databases, Oracle is probably still the "Enterprise"-definer.)



  • @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!

    Wrong. There are plenty of rootkits, hence the need for chkrootkit.

    As I recall the most dangerous of these infected (WOW!) 800 machines!

    How many machines did (Windows ONLY) Conflicker virus infect today?

    @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    MUCH faster bug fixes for critical items.

    I'm not entirely sure why having fater bug fixes is actually a benefit. Certainly they'd eat up your bandwidth, no?

    That is how security holes get fixed - 2 years to fix a major security hole really doesn't cut it! Firefox AVERAGES 9 DAYS!

    @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    "Enterprise" level security and backup capability

    PROTIP: Windows does this shit too.

    Kinda sorta - strange that THIS website seems to be running Linux/Apache though.

    From what I read almost every "hacked" website wuns Win XXX of some sort though.

    @Lingerance said:

    This isn't Slashdot,

    That same perjoritive again - is this a really Windows fanboi site in disguise?

    @Lingerance said:

    suggesting that someone invest huge amounts of money for trainning to switch to Linux is not a good suggestion. The best way for Linux to be setup as the desktop environment in a corperate setting is from the get-go.

    Spending a HUGE amounht of money (GBP10,000/user) on license fees for
    something that barely works is hardly a great use of capital! Somehow
    spending that on training MY staff seems like it might pay a whole ot of
    dividends.

    @Lingerance said:

    Also, most of the people here already understand the pros and cons of running Linux/UNIX/Mac OS better than what you've demonstrated.
     

    I am not really sure just what this is supposed ot mean apart from the usual fanboi rant (ho hum). So is YOUR old man!  ROTFLMAO!



  • @Mole said:

    Windows 7 XP-Mode is a bit of klude though really isn't it?

    Yah. But any solution is, short of actually running XP, yes?

    @Mole said:

    It's touted as a magical "Make Windows 7 compatible with all WinXP apps" where in effect its just the equivalent of running VMWare on your desktop. 

    Well, two things:

    1) It's actually Virtual PC, not VMWare. This is good because it is able to fully emulate the x86 CPU if needed to, for example, run 16-bit apps in 64-bit OSes. (Note: I have no idea if it actually supports that, but Virtual PC is one of the few tools that can support it in theory.) It is also capable of running in a virtualization layer, which is probably what Microsoft is actually doing, since emulating x86 on x86 is surprisingly extremely slow.

    2) It's slightly more high-level than a normal virtualization environment. This is nice because it allows it to communicate with the outside OS so that things like, say, Copy&Paste work correctly. The emulated windows can appear in the same desktop as the native windows, so you don't need to do the window-within-a-window thing.

    I mean, nobody's going to claim it's perfect, but it's actually pretty good and it's free so you might as well give it a try at least.

    @Mole said:

    I don't know if the newer version is any better, but the version I used didn't share memory with it's host so when I setup XP mode to use 2GB of RAM for an app, it swallowed exactly that regardless of how much memory the applications running underneath it was using

    That suggests it might be running as an emulator, not a virtualization layer. Like I said, I'm not sure what it does exactly.

    In any case, the really, really good pagefile handling in Windows 7 should make this pretty much moot anyway, right? At worst it'll reduce the amount of cache Windows 7 uses.

    @Mole said:

    Secondly, I heard it doesn't play nice with multi-threaded applications. Sure, they run, but they don't actually use more than one physical core of the CPU. 

    The point is compatibility, not performance. Plus, I'm guessing Microsoft was thinking, "well the program was written in freakin' 2001, a single core of a modern CPU is three times faster than the fastest CPU then available..." Which is a pretty compelling argument.



  • @pearl298 said:

    I wonder where I could POSSIBLY get the idea that this was a WIndows fanboi hangout?
    Hint: At least two of the regulars deal with mostly Linux systems for pay. I really suggest you stop digging.



  • @pearl298 said:

    @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!

    Wrong. There are plenty of rootkits, hence the need for chkrootkit.

    As I recall the most dangerous of these infected (WOW!) 800 machines!

    How many machines did - Windows ONLY - Conflicker infect today?

    Logic fail. First off you made an absolute statement, I proved that wrong. Secondly, doesn't matter what number of machines were infected as much as the percentage of them.
    @pearl298 said:


    @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    MUCH faster bug fixes for critical items.

    I'm not entirely sure why having fater bug fixes is actually a benefit. Certainly they'd eat up your bandwidth, no?

    That is how security holes get fixed - 2 years to fix a major security hole really doesn't cut it! Firefox AVERAGES 9 DAYS!

    First: whoosh. Second: I agree with you here. MS' track record for security related issues is disgusting.
    @pearl298 said:
    That same perjoritive again - is this a really Windows fanboi site in disguise?

    No it isn't, hence this:
    @pearl298 said:

    @Lingerance said:

    Also, most of the people here already understand the pros and cons of running Linux/UNIX/Mac OS better than what you've demonstrated.
     

    I am not really sure just what this is supposed ot mean apart from the usual (ho hum) fanboi rant. So is YOUR old man so there! ...


    Also, I have no clue what my father has to do with any of this.
    @pearl298 said:

    @Lingerance said:

    suggesting that someone invest huge amounts of money for trainning to switch to Linux is not a good suggestion. The best way for Linux to be setup as the desktop environment in a corperate setting is from the get-go.

    Spending a HUGE amounht of money (GBP10,000/user) on license fees for
    somehtign that barely works is hardly a great use of capital! Somehow
    spending that on training MY staff seems like it might pay a whole ot of
    dividends.

    Holy shit, whoever is selling you Windows is really ripping you off. In the first world Windows licenses are only ~$280CDN. I suggest switching retaillers.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:
    I wonder where I could POSSIBLY get the idea that this was a WIndows fanboi hangout?
    Hint: At least two of the regulars deal with mostly Linux systems for pay. I really suggest you stop digging.
     

    As I pointed out in the original post - I calls them as I sees them. I can only go by what people say here.

    BTW Thank you all for your kind and respectful acceptance of a new user wiht a slightly different experience.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @pearl298 said:

    @Lingerance said:
    @pearl298 said:
    MUCH fater bug fixes for critical items.

    I'm not entirely sure why having fater bug fixes is actually a benefit. Certainly they'd eat up your bandwidth, no?


    That is how security holes get fixed - 2 years to fix a major security hole really doesn't cut it! Firefox AVERAGES 9 DAYS!


    Correcting the typo in the quote of a quote does nothing to educate us in your ability to acknowledge that someone is taking the piss out of you. Or, then again, may be it does.



    (Typo re-inserted above.)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lingerance said:

    Hint: At least two of the regulars deal with mostly Linux systems for pay.
    Am I one of them? <ponders...> (Linux at work, Windows(ish) at home.)



  • @blakeyrat said:


    1) It's actually Virtual PC, not VMWare. This is good because it is able to fully emulate the x86 CPU if needed to, for example, run 16-bit apps in 64-bit OSes. (Note: I have no idea if it actually supports that, but Virtual PC is one of the few tools that can support it in theory.) It is also capable of running in a virtualization layer, which is probably what Microsoft is actually doing, since emulating x86 on x86 is surprisingly extremely slow.

    2) It's slightly more high-level than a normal virtualization environment. This is nice because it allows it to communicate with the outside OS so that things like, say, Copy&Paste work correctly. The emulated windows can appear in the same desktop as the native windows, so you don't need to do the window-within-a-window thing.

    I mean, nobody's going to claim it's perfect, but it's actually pretty good and it's free so you might as well give it a try at least.

    There are at least a dozen credible virtual machines out there! I happen to like Sun/Oracle's VirtualBox just because they don't try ot force any hidden tricks on you!

    At least VMWare and VirtualBox handle cut and paste invisibly as well.

    The only thing they all seem to share though is a very laggy/draggy mouse interface! Trying to do a graphicla interface with a VM is a true pain!

    I hope someone can show me that I am wrong and I can stop dual booting - a VM is MUCH more convenient.



  • @PJH said:

    @Lingerance said:
    Hint: At least two of the regulars deal with mostly Linux systems for pay.
    Am I one of them? <ponders...> (Linux at work, Windows(ish) at home.)
    No, I was actually only aware of Morbs and myself, although Morbs has since then changed jobs so I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate anymore. Personally it's Ubuntu (I don't consider that shithole excuse for an OS as Linux)+BSD at work and Linux at home.



  • @PJH said:

    @pearl298 said:
    @Lingerance said:
    @pearl298 said:
    MUCH fater bug fixes for critical items.

    I'm not entirely sure why having fater bug fixes is actually a benefit. Certainly they'd eat up your bandwidth, no?

    That is how security holes get fixed - 2 years to fix a major security hole really doesn't cut it! Firefox AVERAGES 9 DAYS!

    Correcting the typo in the quote of a quote does nothing to educate us in your ability to acknowledge that someone is taking the piss out of you. Or, then again, may be it does.



    (Typo re-inserted above.)
     

    I refuse to apologize for fumble fingers LOL

    I learned to type in an IBM 026 key punch sonny :-)



  • @pearl298 said:

    That is how security holes get fixed - 2 years to fix a major security hole really doesn't cut it! Firefox AVERAGES 9 DAYS!

    Firefox is one of the few open source projects I respect. It's still full of idiocy, but they're good about fixing it when you put in bugs. (Most open source projects utterly ignore bugs.)

    Note that I don't look for security bugs, so I can't speak on that, I'm just talking about "implementing DOM completely wrong" bugs. Despite Firefox's almost holy aura of getting web standards right, they get a hell of a lot of web standards completely wrong. (Here's a recent example of one of these "did you actually *read* the standards, idiots?" bugs.)

    On the other hand, they use Bugzilla, which indicates a certain level of misanthropy on its own.

    @pearl298 said:

    Kinda sorta - strange that THIS website seems to be running Linux/Apache though.

    Wow, it's running Community Server, and that's the only thing strange about it you notice? Hah.

    @pearl298 said:

    That same perjoritive again - is this a really Windows fanboi site in disguise?

    I've used every OS under the sun. Including Mac Classic (for years), Linux (both indirectly as a server admin, and briefly as a desktop), BeOS 4, every Windows, every OS X, a little OS/2 and fucking OS400. Yes, the mainframe OS. Believe me, I'm not a Windows "fanboi." I use Windows 7 because it best meets my needs at the moment.

    As for Linux specifically, let's go through my History of Linux. Note that all of these Linux installs (except the first two) were the result of fanbois telling me how awesome it is as a desktop OS.

    1) Corel Linux 1.0. This was supposed to be the second-coming of consumer-friendly OSes. Didn't even install.

    2) RedHat 6.2. Fine; maybe Corel was just a bad choice, let's try this. Installed after much struggling. Sound card didn't work. Checked the "supported hardware" list, it lists SoundBlaster 128s, but hey guess what? It lied. About 3 hours of back-and-forth on my (working) Mac with friends over the internet before I got a fucking network connection on a bog-standard DHCP configuration.

    3) Ubuntu 2006.something. Installed it on a iBook, power management didn't work. At all. I mean, I understand power management not working on PCs build from a random collection of dirt-cheap Chinese shit. But Apple has like... 4 models of laptop, not even that many, and nobody bothered to get power management working before they said "eh, it's good enough, let's ship it?" Ugh.

    (Somewhere in here I actually began using Windows as a server and realized, hey, it's pretty fucking good. Only continue to use Linux servers because they're cheap to rent.)

    4) SUSE 7? I think? Installed it because someone recommended it would be good for making a PVR using MythTV. The Hauppauge card in the computer was on the Ubuntu supported hardware list, but, guess what? It don't fucking work. Liars. As a bonus: power management *still doesn't fucking work*.

    5) Ubuntu 9. This bug prevented me from using it.

    Anyway, the point here is I've used the shit out of Linux. I've never been more disappointed by a desktop OS. Sure, it's fine on a server, but... guess what? So is Windows, and Windows is actually *easy to configure*. Linux fans, however, range from deluded to straight-out liars. The number of times I've been told it's "easy" and "just works" and then it doesn't? Christ. (It doesn't help that the Linux definition of "just works" is only the most literal reading. It doesn't include "is easy to set up or use" or "default configuration makes sense" or "application doesn't look like shit".)

    I've done the Linux thing. I've also participated in a lot of open source projects, most of which gave me the same sense of disappointment. (Why do you ask the public to submit bugs if you never bother to read or fix them? Just admit: "we don't give a shit if you come across bugs." Be honest, developers.)

    In short, if I'm a fanboi of anything, it's MacOS Classic and BeOS.

    @pearl298 said:

    Spending a HUGE amounht of money (GBP10,000/user) on license fees for
    something that barely works is hardly a great use of capital! Somehow
    spending that on training MY staff seems like it might pay a whole ot of
    dividends.

    You need to train them because Linux usability sucks shit. If you were using usable software in the first place, your training fund would be near-empty.

    Also: when you're recycling arguments from Lotus Notes fanbois, it doesn't endear me to you.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @pearl298 said:

    Spending a HUGE amounht of money (GBP10,000/user) on license fees for
    somehtign that barely works is hardly a great use of capital! Somehow
    spending that on training MY staff seems like it might pay a whole ot of
    dividends.

    Holy shit, whoever is selling you Windows is really ripping you off. In the first world Windows licenses are only ~$280CDN. I suggest switching retaillers.


    Mole:

    We were really (and still are) in
    the same boat. 

    [snip]

    On top of that, we have an app
    which is licensed at £10,000 per user. It's not Windows 7 compatible (it
    just crashes, but to be honest, it doesn't work much better on XP, but
    at least it doesn't crash). Management say we they can't afford the
    training or licensing costs to move people to another app. So we have to
    stick with XP until the vendor releases something that works.

     

    Old age is hell - the SECOND thing to go is the memory and I just can't rememeber what the FIRST thing was ...

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    5) Ubuntu 9. This bug prevented me from using it.

    Forgot to mention, Power Management still didn't work.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lingerance said:

    @PJH said:
    @Lingerance said:
    Hint: At least two of the regulars deal with mostly Linux systems for pay.
    Am I one of them? <ponders...> (Linux at work, Windows(ish) at home.)
    No, I was actually only aware of Morbs and myself, although Morbs has since then changed jobs so I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate anymore. Personally it's Ubuntu (I don't consider that shithole excuse for an OS as Linux)+BSD at work and Linux at home.
    'Desktop' OS is PCLinuxOS (complete and utter twats for sorting out problems, I highly do not recommend them if you're after a Linux distro) only due to the fact it is (to date) the most compatible with the embedded version of Linux we use (essentially 'Linux from Scratch'). Basically I can compile stuff on my laptop and 99 times out of 100 (might be a bit more) it's binary compatible with the stuff we produce, without having to go though the bollocks that is cross-compilation.



  • @PJH said:

    'Desktop' OS is PCLinuxOS (complete and utter twats for sorting out problems, I highly do not recommend them if you're after a Linux distro) only due to the fact it is (to date) the most compatible with the embedded version of Linux we use (essentially 'Linux from Scratch'). Basically I can compile stuff on my laptop and 99 times out of 100 (might be a bit more) it's binary compatible with the stuff we produce, without having to go though the bollocks that is cross-compilation.
    I've read this five times now, and I can't figure out what it has to do with the context. Also, you don't recommend it because it'll compile things that are binary-compatible with an LFS-like for embedded systems?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I've used every OS under the sun. Including Mac Classic (for years), Linux (both indirectly as a server admin, and briefly as a desktop), BeOS 4, every Windows, every OS X, a little OS/2 and fucking OS400. Yes, the mainframe OS. Believe me, I'm not a Windows "fanboi." I use Windows 7 because it best meets my needs at the moment.

     

    HMM we get out the rulers and drop our pants for the traditional 13 year old boy's ritual ...

    Errr lets see - IBM $IBSYS, VAX VMS, UNIX SysV, Univac  ShareSys, IBM OS360/370, Amiga, Commodore 64, and a bunch of others.

    Oh yes the MOD 8 ca 1974 - I WROTE that one, bad puns in the comments and all (see York University museum - T.O.)

    Sigh.



  • Re: Windows XP (OFF TOPIC!)

     Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers.

    - unknown

    As one who has met and comiserated with (now) 11 victims of that abuse I complement you on your sig line.

    The real tragety is that NOT one of those victims feels that they can come forward publicly. :-(


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lingerance said:

    @PJH said:
    'Desktop' OS is PCLinuxOS (complete and utter twats for sorting out problems, I highly do not recommend them if you're after a Linux distro) only due to the fact it is (to date) the most compatible with the embedded version of Linux we use (essentially 'Linux from Scratch'). Basically I can compile stuff on my laptop and 99 times out of 100 (might be a bit more) it's binary compatible with the stuff we produce, without having to go though the bollocks that is cross-compilation.
    I've read this five times now, and I can't figure out what it has to do with the context. Also, you don't recommend it because it'll compile things that are binary-compatible with an LFS-like for embedded systems?
    Erm.. Quite. Thank you for telling me I'm shit at explaining stuff. I am.



    I don't recommend them because I have issues with things like, erm, them pulling 2009 repositories for updates, because 2010 is, apparently, 'now'. If you're 'running 2007' for example (or 2009,) you're either fucked for updates or you continue to run 2007 (or '9). Or if there is a problem with the new stuff they've shoved into the repositories (frequent occurance), they ignore them.




  • @PJH said:

    I don't recommend them because I have issues with things like, erm, them pulling 2009 repositories for updates, because 2010 is, apparently, 'now'. If you're 'running 2007' for example (or 2009,) you're either fucked for updates or you continue to run 2007 (or '9). Or if there is a problem with the new stuff they've shoved into the repositories (frequent occurance), they ignore them.
    So they nuke the repositories for older versions they no longer support?
    @PJH said:
    Erm.. Quite. Thank you for telling me I'm shit at explaining stuff. I am.
    Same boat friend.



  • @pearl298 said:

    Oh yes the MOD 8 ca 1974 - I WROTE that one
     

    Citation needed.



  • @b_redeker said:

    @pearl298 said:

    Oh yes the MOD 8 ca 1974 - I WROTE that one
     

    Citation needed.

    Ask and thou might recieve:

    http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/mod8/index.htm

    The "Early Applications Manual" was written my me as team leader.

    Management could not belive that there was any interest in "home computers" so the whole thing was marketed as a kit of chips with the manual having complete build instructions.

    The Intel/MIL 8008 preceeded the 8080 and the now famous (Intel ONLY!) 8086



  • @pearl298 said:

    HMM we get out the rulers and drop our pants for the traditional 13 year old boy's ritual ...

    What the fuck is wrong with you?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @pearl298 said:
    Kinda sorta - strange that THIS website seems to be running Linux/Apache though.

    Wow, it's running Community Server, and that's the only thing strange about it you notice?

    Not to mention it's clearly not running on Linux/Apache.  If he were even remotely capable of checking the HTTP headers, he'd see it's running on IIS.  Not that this is surprising, seeing as CS is .NET/SQL Server only.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.