Windows Linux or Mac?

POSTED BY: Haze
UPDATED: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:42
VIEWED: 42858
PAGE 14 of 20

Quote:

---

Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Won't even switch to Mac -don't need it. Already got a real OS

---

Um, pardon me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Once you learn how to manage a Linux box, the freedom and control you find are simply unmatched.

---

Why don't we say *nix instead of Linux. For instance, *BSD's give as much freedom of control as the Linux's.

Disclaimer:
The below contains some opinions, that are IMO only. It mainly gets into estetics of system configuration files and the resulting directory structure, not necessarily reflecting any functionality or lack thereof.


Some people (myself included) actually prefer the *BSD's and think that they are easier to configure (though there are Linux's with similar init script setup descibed below).

For instance, Redhat and it's derivatives with that run level crap. Don't like it at all.

What does rc.1 do again? Is it rc.4 or rc.5 scripts that are run if going directly into graphical login, while the other one isn't run? When I have to write my own script to up into whatever rc.? directory, what structure must it have? etc.

And all that rpm mess. *shutter*

That being said, I don't think that slackware has this problem. There are probably other distros that don't have this issue as well.


But OpenBSD with rc.conf (common deamons here), rc.securelevel (run before kernel goes into secure mode), rc.local (run after kernel goes into secure mode) and rc.shutdown (duh!). And that's it.

The docs even state, if in doubt, put it in rc.local.

Also, if you're addicted to the rc.? stuff, then you could just write your own sh scripts to implement it for OBSD. I've seen some people do this, though I have no idea why they would want to do that to there system.


FreeBSD can have a similar setup, though it is angling toward a similar rc.d init. FreeBSD could be described as the end-user BSD whereas OpenBSD is more of a server OS.

And both these guys have the wonders of the ports tree. *warm fuzzy feeling*

End disclaimer.


So, Tiger, if you are looking into Linux, I'd suggest that you also look into FreeBSD as well. It has a tonne of applications and if that app is in the ports tree, installing it is as easy as 'make install'.

MythTV has also been reported to work on FreeBSD.

http://mythtv.son.org/tiki-index.php

And your PVR-250 is listed as a card that works.


See:

http://www.freebsd.org/where.html

For iso's, and docs and:

http://www.freebsd.org/ports/

to search or browse the FreeBSD ports tree.



----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

The only time I've seen it is with uncompressed AVI's where the machine has to load each frame from the disk, but that wouldn't be it as wmvs and mpgs are always compressed (I think).

---

Avi and mpeg is just a container format (I believe). I also remember from reading the file format specs that they do have an option for no compression.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:

I have one *.mpg that's 1.1 meg that doesn't play, next to another *.mpg that's 1.7 meg and plays fine.

Both are on the computer. Just upgraded everything I could find from Microsoft website to no avail.

---

I would imagine that the mpg that doesn't play is the result of a missing (or corrupt) codec. M$ doesn't have all availible codec availible through that auto download in there media player. You have to go an manually download some.

To check out which codec (audio and video) an avi needs, you could use:

http://yaai.sourceforge.net/

Though there are many programs that do the same thing.

For mpegs, I found this page:

http://www.masterviews.com/2005/10/18/how_to_find_the_right.htm

Though this is only one possible problem, it is a something to check out. That is, if you haven't already.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

AVI is a file format (the RIFF) mpg (I believe) is a file format + codec, though there is a number of different versions of the mpeg codec.

AVI can be uncompressed, you just store the full frame information instead of using a codec. Not sure about Mpeg.

I'm assuming Ruxtons problem could be the Sound card since he said (unless I'm misreading) that the problem only occured after the Sound card was changed and he's using '95 drivers on a XP machine.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

I'm assuming Ruxtons problem could be the Sound card since he said (unless I'm misreading) that the problem only occured after the Sound card was changed and he's using '95 drivers on a XP machine.

---

That probably is the reason for the slow playing, I agree. But, if it still isn't resolved after the drivers are updated, then checking out the codecs would be prudent.

Plus, there is the issue that one of the files just won't play. So, I'm leaning toward codec problem on that one.

Just saying that there might (probably?) be two issues at work here.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Yea sure, I hadn't read the file not playing as not playing...

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Actually I misstated the problem above. All WMV and mpg and wav and mp3 files play, but some play VERY slowly. I never get error messages, just a deep, drawn-out bass sound, octaves below where it should be, and images that are usually slow motion, or somewhat jumpy. They are so slow, if they should take 20 seconds to play, they might take a minute or more.

Am about to remove the old sound card. May take awhile, but I'll update all you kind folk on the eventual solution -- or lack thereof -- shortly.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Steering this post back on topic:

I use Windows for almost everything. I use Windows for several reasons:
First its what I've always used (technically I started on DOS when I was very young).
Second I know that if walk into virtually any computer store and buy almost any piece of software it will work.
Third I can walk into almost any computer store buy almost any piece of hardware and expect it to work as well.
Fourth, Windows works, you can joke about it all you want but I can pop the CD in and (usually) have a running computer in less than an hour (I've had some bad experiences but the good vastly outweigh the bad).
Fifth, I am a gamer, I want to qualify this though, I spend a great deal of time doing basic video editing, sound editing and network stuff, I by no means play games exclusively on my computer but when I do play games I want to be able to play them without worrying about anything other than whether or not my hardware is up to the task.

I used Windows 98 for about 6 years, I didn't upgrade to 2k until recently because I was running older hardware, I upped to 2k about 2 years ago, and I upped to XP at the beginning of the week.

I would like to address some of the issues brought up by other posters:

Instability:
While Windows is certainly less stable than *nix or Mac there are very good reasons for it.
First off people who code for Windows have to be able to support every piece of hardware in existence, Mac programmers support a much smaller base of hardware to support and people who write for Linux tend to take much greater pride in their work (they do it because they want to not because they are paid).
Second, Microsoft has a history of trying to make things backwards compatible, when M$ made the jump to the NT kernel with 2k/XP, most of the old programs worked natively, when Mac went to OSX (im running off of memory here) they had to have an emulator to run older programs and everything had to be recompiled. Backwards compatibility doesn't lend itself to stability.
Third, M$ has to fight the end user, people who use Linux are generally much more tech-savvy than people who use Windows, they know what to do and what not to do.
Last, the majority of instability is the fault of the programs that people run. For instance, until a couple of months ago we used AOL at my house (my parents fault not mine). That caused more than a couple of problems that have been more or less recitified since its removal.
Finally, I would like to state that M$ has made great strides with the use of the NT kernel, my mom is currently dual-booting XP and 98 beacuse of her work, XP runs like a dream 98 doesn't, I will be interested to see what Vista holds.

Security:
First off almost all of the above reasons also factor into this discussion as well. End users install everything that comes their way, third-party programs have holes in them, and legacy code causes problems. While the number of security flaws certainly is excessive, if the number of people that are now running Windows ran *nix or Mac, there is little doubt in my mind that many holes would be uncovered in them as well. For Mac, having a closed platform helps them keep the problems to a minimum, for *nix, having millions of people across the globe working on every hole that comes up makes it a lot easier to keep secure than Windows which is just one company (albeit a very large company). With SP2 M$ has gotten serious about security, in Vista much fewer programs will have access to the Kernel layer, and IE 7 will NOT be integrated with the OS. These are small steps, and I wont argue with anyone who says that M$ has been ignoring security for a long time but they are moving in the right direction.

Flexibility:
As an earlier poster mentioned *nix is much more flexible than any other OS. But what if all I want is to be able to run my programs? For the most part the people that I know (including me) just want to be able to run their programs, they don't neccesarily care if they can customize everything. Somebody posted that Windows do

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

k, I don't have the time to proof this post, so the disclaimer is that if you read an aggressive tone or some such, it is not intended. It's just because I'm currently in a hurry and didn't have time to check and modify.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Instability:
While Windows is certainly less stable than *nix or Mac there are very good reasons for it.

---

Uh huh.

Let me just say that there are never any good reasons for it aside from user error. And oh do I have a number of stories about creating problems on windows myself (usually due to my learning about the registry ).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

First off people who code for Windows have to be able to support every piece of hardware in existence, Mac programmers support a much smaller base of hardware to support and people who write for Linux tend to take much greater pride in their work (they do it because they want to not because they are paid).

---

The hardware support issue is hardly isolated to just windows. Every OS has to support as much hardware out there as possible.

I'll also mention that although Mac has "less" hardware to deal with, there are now two different hardware architectures to be concerned about.

Also, when it comes to Linux or the *BSD's, they just don't run on PC's like windows. They run on a number of platforms.

For instance, OpenBSD runs on, alpha, amd64, cats, hp300, hppa, i386, luna88k, mac68k, macppc, mvme68k, mvme88k, sgi, sparc, sparc64, vax and zaurus. And that's just the official list. There are a three other porting efforts underway: hppa64, solbourne and romp.

http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html

Which would arguably include a list of supported hardware about or greater than windows.

Similarly for the other *nix's.


And you're going to have to tell me how the "I'm just getting paid and don't actually like it" is an excuse for creating shoddy code.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

when Mac went to OSX (im running off of memory here) they had to have an emulator to run older programs and everything had to be recompiled. Backwards compatibility doesn't lend itself to stability.

---

Yes, it is an emulation layer in the OS. But, how does that make OSX, not backward compatible? Old programs will still run.

When I click on a OS9 program, it starts up and runs. The programs do not need to be recompiled.

Backward compatibility does not necessarily screw the stability of the system. How it is done, and how it is coded will effect the stability of the system.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Third, M$ has to fight the end user, people who use Linux are generally much more tech-savvy than people who use Windows, they know what to do and what not to do.

---

In all seriousness, you're going to have to explain this one to me. I'm tech savy, and so are many of my friends. Yet we all have had, and continue to have (if still running windows), stability problems with windows.

Also, people who run OSX are arguably the same type of person that run windows. Yet OSX is not plagued with stability issues like windows is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Last, the majority of instability is the fault of the programs that people run. For instance, until a couple of months ago we used AOL at my house (my parents fault not mine). That caused more than a couple of problems that have been more or less recitified since its removal.

---

This "majority of instability is the fault of the programs that people run" has yet to be shown.

Sure, I have no doubt that 3rd party software is the cause of a chunk of stability issues on windows. But, I have never have even come close to believing that it is the majority.

Also, this would have mostly ended by M$ move to end the DLL hell. But, stability is still problematic on there OS.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

I will be interested to see what Vista ho

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME