Windows Linux or Mac?

POSTED BY: Haze
UPDATED: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:42
VIEWED: 42858
PAGE 4 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CAITLYN

Friday, March 10, 2006 10:54 PM

There is no amount of money or cool software in the world that could get me to run the bug laden, bloated, often broken, and horribly insecure mess that is Windows. I run Linux exclusively and have since 1998. I have nothing against Mac OSX (FreeBSD with a very pretty GUI) but I prefer using inexpensive hardware.

Oh, to those who say there isn't sufficient software for Linux, when did you last look at what is really available? You're in for a surprise.

Gamers, OTOH, who insist on specific games, are mostly stuck.

"Yes, sir, Captain Tightpants!"

FLETCH2

Friday, March 10, 2006 11:22 PM

Mac is now where Linux is going. Unix core, a single stable and pretty windows manager capable of running decent GUI applications. Mac OSX lets you run GUI apps just as nicely as windows does without worrying about X windows and the like and if needed, bang a fully functional Unix command line is right there.

In addition the software tools to make new applications are right there amongst the disks you get, ie like Linux there are free development tools for GUI applications. Gotta love it.

RUE

Friday, March 10, 2006 11:37 PM

My workplace uses windoze (). For compatibility I need windoze, so a dual boot system works best.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

HAZE

Friday, March 10, 2006 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Would respectfully ask ANYONE how the dickens do I get XP to run Photoshop LE??? The "compatibility" option of XP does not work. I have LOTS of RAM, 640 Meg, (max possible is 750), but suspect -- SUSPECT -- the 32-bit setup causes the RAM to be managed in a way that forces Photoshop LE to be dumped entirely into it, and hence the computer can't do it.

Anyone have any suggestions? Fixes?

I could reinstall XP (6th time) with only 2 gig of room for its own partition, which doesn't force the 32-bit installation, and also leaves me more of the hard drive open for music, pix, etc.

Or I could buy more RAM, but won't spend another dime until I'm sure it'll get this stuff to work.

ANYONE?? HELP!!

If you cannot get it running on your PC my I recommend The Gimp http://www.gimp.org/ its not quite as good as photoshop but you cant beat it on price.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

FLETCH2

Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:03 AM

Ruxton,
You're stuffed I'm afraid. Unlike 95/98 XP is based on a similar design to NT, Micro$oft knew when they launched it that some apps wouldn't work even in compatability mode. Other than dual booting the only suggestion I can think of is Paintshop Pro or Photoshop Elements.

PURPLEBELLY

Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:09 AM

If you would like to try the Gimp experience, then one way of doing this without distrupting your present installation is to burn a live-CD from Grafpup -- a graphic design oriented puplet from the litter of PuppyLinux derived distros
http://grafpup.com/

RUXTON

Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:35 AM

HAZE and FLETCH2,

Thanks for your kind and informed words. Fletch2, you hit it on the head, i.e., I'm stuffed. I spent two hours today on the phone with a Microsoft tech, and he even took a break to research the problem. Bottom line, Photoshop LE does NOT run on Windows XP. Fletch2, you even hit the solution we (tech and I) came to: Photoshop Elements, which at this minute I'm downloading (373 MB, well over three hours so far on DSL).

BTW, the tech fielded, and effectively skirted, the question of W98SE having the memory drain I mentioned above, which is the main reason I went to XP.

Purplebelly, thanks for the tip. I may have to check back to see what actually DOES run on Linux. But I'll give this op sys (XP) a chance, inasmuch as it's already installed and I know most of the stuff I need works perfectly.

[I just realized GIMP works on XP. May give it a try.]

Thanks again, and happy computing to all.

SNEAKER98

Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Caitlyn:
There is no amount of money or cool software in the world that could get me to run the bug laden, bloated, often broken, and horribly insecure mess that is Windows. I run Linux exclusively and have since 1998.

I hate to play the devils advocate on ya, but if you've run Linux exclusively since 1998; how do you know what state Windows is in, hmm?

I'm not about to trash an operating system if I don't have experience on it. (For future ref, I've used windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, 2k, XP, as well as OS9, SuSe, Redhat, and am currently dual-booting with Solaris and WinXP)

*Sighs* Way too many folks call it Windoze and don't actually know why.

"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds

CAITLYN

Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:27 PM

I should have said I run Windows exclusively at home. I still had to support it at work to some extent until two years ago. I still provide technical help to family members who run it. I still have to work with UNIX/Windows and Linux/Windows interoperability issues. So... I do have experience with every version of Windows out there. (Yes, I am an IT professional.)

Windows is horrible on pretty much every level. Stability is better than it once was, especially in Server 2003, but it's still terrible. Memory leakage problems still abound. Virii, trojans, worms, and spyware, oh my! Microsoft's attitude towards security is still cavalier at best.

The new features that Microsoft has been touting for their next release have been available to Linux and Mac users for years. The Apple Aqua (Mac OSX) desktop and KDE in the Linux world are both far superior and far more customizable UIs than what Windows offers.

Need I go on? I can, you know.

CAITLYN

Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:32 PM

Fletch, your comment was certainly accurate a few years ago. I'm not sure that it is today. Since most major distributions migrated from XFree86 to X.org you don't have to "worry" about X windows. It's just there, the infrastructure behind the UI, but it's not something most people have to configure or interact with directly.

In terms of the desktop, again, Apple's is simply fantastic but I'd say that KDE has come awfully close. KDE or even Gnome are light years ahead of where Microsoft is with XP. A friend of mine who recently installed Ubuntu for the first time commented how similar it is to a Mac interface. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Certainly anyone who has a recent vintage Mac has an excellent hardware and software platform and really has no reason to look elsewhere. Someone who has a PC can migrate to Linux and get to an excellent working environment without buying new hardware so that choice makes more sense, particularly now that new Macs are Intel based.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE