Posted on 02/08/2009 3:45:31 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I’m trying to be nice too, some of these guys might not have any other option than free software handouts ya know.
But I do have this Sun software running on the openSuSE I installed on the system: Virtual Box, that runs Win2K just fine. So on the rare occasion I need to run a windows app, I don't have to dual boot. Just click and open a window for windows. And the nice thing is, it's sandboxed. The way windows should be run.
But hey, the article is about HP and the UK. HP has a lot to make up for from the Carly years, and the UK, land of my ancestors, went all Orwellian about the time their native son said they would. So independence, is not of their strong suits.
If people want to waste their time reinstalling Windows every year, they can be my guest.
I’ve used Linux primarily for 12 years, and am satisfied with my choice.
Enjoy them while you can, Sun and Novell, two companies who are dying trying to make money off giving their software away. But since the utopian vision is everyone running the same free crap it won't really matter I suppose.
Huh? If anything requires constant new version upgrades it's Linux. As another poster mentioned SuSE, despite being much younger product it's already up to version 11 while version 7 of Windows isn't even out yet.
Linux Netbooks have a return rate that is 4x higher than XP netbooks. That simply goes beyond hard drive size, that means people saw it, purchased and decided they prefer XP over Linux.
Oh no!, the penguin is the next victim of gloBULL warming!
/sarc
Uh, the Linux guy looks like he’s heading for a gay day parade in SF. Is the whole porky guy in spandex with the camel-toe thing really the best Linux image?
Meant to say 10, versions are changing so fast it's hard to keep up (plus watching a good replay of CSI Miami).
Sometimes stereotypes exist for good reason!
Otay! I use Macs, and I think I’m probably closer to the slacker than the other two, so...
Hi GE, good to see you again.
Really, though, you DO know that "Windows 7" is just a marketing name, no different from "Windows Foo", right? Allow me to pick a nit for a moment here and ask you what you meant.
There have been well over a dozen released versions of Windows. Not seven as you state.
OTOH if you want to look at the internal "NT codebase version" (I'm sure you know what that is), you find that Vista is "6.0" and Win7 is "6.1". So you're wrong on that angle too, should have said 6.
Except that even THAT is just a marketing name, since NT started at "3.1" to align with the current DOS-based version. There was no NT1 or NT2. You can't "count" the number of Windows versions based on the names.
So I assume you're just joshing around, tongue planted firmly in cheek, about there being seven versions of Windows because the one coming out is called "Windows 7". Right?
I’m using Debian 4.0 on most of my machines. Your silly argument fails.
Also, please note that I did not mention upgrades. I was referring to the unfortunate feature of Windows which results in having to occasionally reinstall it to get it to run right again.
I didn't realize that, thanks. As for NT 3, it was named that because it's desktop O/S equivalent was still Windows 3, 95 wasn't out yet.
SuSE still has had significantly more version upgrades (only been out since 1994) than Windows which was the point. Actually according to Wikipedia version 11 is already out too, so while I was wrong about that (when I retracted it) my main point that there are many more version upgrades of SuSE remains correct, does it not?
That’s the way I see it.
You should have stated that then, since few if anyone actually uses that. Most popular versions of Linux upgrade their versions faster than Windows, and significanty faster than Debian which is more of a core O/S.
This is also a testament to Windows marketing. When 75-85% or what-have-you have never had anything but a Windows OS, they'll see this weird interface they don't understand. Rather than learn it, they return it.
Another point, Windows machines outsell Linux machines, but no one can ever say how many are intentionally purchased to replace Windows. If I purchase one of these machines, the purchasing decision will be based on hardware, not operating system. I know what'll happen with it when it's in my house. Consequently, I'd most likely buy a Windows version, because it'll have the better hardware. If it'll run Vista, it'll scream Linux.
> I didn't realize that, thanks.
No prob. I was actually rather disappointed to see that the original Win7 development (which would have been codebase 7.0, meaning a significant re-write), was being scrapped in favor of a mere bunch of "fixes" to Vista to salvage it. The project codename "Windows 7" had been out for a while, but Microsoft must have had some interesting meetings figuring out how to come out with a name for this update to Vista.
Likewise, I wonder if the next Windows ("Windows 8") will have codebase 7.0 under the hood? *sigh*
> As for NT 3, it was named that because it's desktop O/S equivalent was still Windows 3, 95 wasn't out yet.
Correct (that's what I meant by saying it was to align with the DOS-based version at that time).
> SuSE still has had significantly more version upgrades (only been out since 1994) than Windows which was the point.
Well-l-l-l.....
> Actually according to Wikipedia version 11 is already out too, so while I was wrong about that (when I retracted it) my main point that there are many more version upgrades of SuSE remains correct, does it not?
Depends on how you want to break up the Windows versions. According to Wikipedia's List of Microsoft Windows versions, we have seen at least than a dozen. Here's my own take, as a Windows user of every version from 2.x onward.
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.11WfW (very different from 3.0)
Windows NT 3.1 (first NT release)
Windows NT 3.5 (first stable NT release)
Windows 4.0 (Win95)
Windows 4.1 (Win98)
Windows 4.9 (WinME)
Windows NT 4
Windows NT 5 (Win2000 Workstation)
Windows NT 5 (Win2000 Server)
Windows NT 5.1 (WinXP)
Windows NT 5.? (Win2003 Server)
Windows NT 6.0 (WinVista)
Windows NT 6.? (Win2008 Server)
Windows NT 6.1 (Win7)
That's 17 versions, the way I count versions. Even if you argue that 2000 server and 2000 workstation should be considered a single version, that's still 16. Like I said, it's arguable depending on your view of what constitutes a "version". My view is to ignore the marketing and concentrate on significant release changes to functionality and codebase. Which as one who has worked on, with, or used Windows for nearly 20 years, I think I get to do.
That said, Windows had a few years headstart on SuSE.
No one ever migrated through all those dissimilar verions, you're getting farther and farther off point. What we had was a (now admitted) Debian user complaining about all the versions that Windows users had to migrate through, which really isn't that many when compared to SuSE Linux another poster had already specificaly mentioned. If the Debian user wants to complain about multiple versions that users have to migrate through, the SuSE user would have been the appropriate target, not Windows users none of which have been migrated through 11 versions since 94. If you can't see that I can't help you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.