View Full Version : N00bish question about windoze/linux
Dribble Joy
30-09-03, 20:18
OK, utter n00bieness on my part here but here goes.
Linux is open source woohooo, yummy linux is t3h pwn.
Windoze is closed-source booo bill gates sucks donkey dick.
However I have heaard things about linux, and..
If windoze WAS open source, would linux still be better?
ONOZ!! blasphemy!!!
Windows is better anyway. So if it was open source it would still be better.
Just wondering what is so good about Linux? I never tried it before so im just asking, not being smart. So far I see Windows as a nice operating system. I havent had trouble except with a former copy of XP home which only worked on compaq computers/motherboards. Other then that the only troubles I have is its a bit slow on start up lately but I think thats probably cause it needs a defrag.
Dribble Joy
30-09-03, 20:34
Although I use a win box, I don't care either way.
GO RISC!!!!
Linux is superior to Windows for these reasons:
Its free
It is openly Developed, so new versions are always on the horizon, instead of waiting years for a new version of Windows, you wait days for a new kernel/gui.
Its stable
Its secure (if you know how to set it up)
No virii
People that use Linux dont use 1337 speak
People that use Linux dont use AOL
You can compile a program specifically for your machine, making it run smoother
freshmeat.net
With emulators and the use of Wine(not an emulator, but a translator) you can run most Windows programs
No DirectX
Friendly community that is willing to help
--------------
Windows is superior to Linux for the following reasons:
Compatibility
Ease of use
Ease of configuration
--------------
Windows will NEVER, I repeat NEVER EVER FUCKING EVER be open source, Microsoft is a company out to
1) Control the market
2) Make money
and offering the source code would ruin both of these. Anyone could change a few lines of code, and make it call itself something else, and hey, goodbye Windows, hello Stevedows. It could be pirated much easier (as if its not that easy now) and would complicate the Windows world way too much in general... The system would be much easier to write virii for, too much easier to control remotely... Ill stop rambling on-- The question isnt will Windows ever go open-source, because it wont ever be open source. The question comes down to which suits you better.
At the moment I use Windows Xp, strictly because of Neocron. The FRE's are almost all directly related to DirectX, and if kk were to submit the game to a company to optimize and standardize its code with DX, it would not only be much more stable, it would be able to run with Linux's emulators.
Logan Tyrus
30-09-03, 21:48
Only real upshot is if your a geek then. Coz i know poo all about programming for my hardware OR security...
linux on the desktop right now is a thing i would recommend to a non geek, unless it's for a business. In businesses, linux is great because unless you have total access to the machine, there is no way people will be able to install all the usual office crap that they always install and run instead of working *cough icq*.
Linux as a server for providing services over a network however is great! Unix boxes in general are great for servers because of the way unix has been built.
Also, linux is awesoe because it doesn't mean having to upgrade your computer because you just scored the latest copy of the OS. A lot of IT infrastructures use it to recycle old PCs and giving them a new life.
the hole open source thing is great, if something isnt working right, you can recode it (if you know what your doing of course) yourself and make it work, and its this which make linux so stable. The community linux has is great and filled with people who know what they are doing, so yuou hardley ever have to wait for a fix, cause someone probably already has made one themselves.
Windows being on a closed platform obviously dosent work that way, If you notice a bug, you have to report the bug, then microsoft has to get enough bug reports to consider it as a true "bug" then they make a patch for it, which useually take months, so by the time they introduce a fix for it, they probably have already released their newest OS. Then they convince everyone who dosent know better that if they dont upgrade they will fall behind, which is just a lie, look at windows 98 its 5-6 years old and it is still compatible with most of today's software(but not for long, once all the 64 bit stuff comes out, you can wave bye bye to all dos based stuff)
nonamebrandeggs
30-09-03, 22:35
@Divide why is no directX a thing that makes Linux better than Windows?
Guess mainly it depends what ur running the box for, iif you run linux your going to get bad compatabilty if ur jsut using it for gaming and writting docs for work or sommin, run 2.
Main one runs XP prof, used most things and is a top(kinda ish sorta) of the range box.
Second machine runes Redhat 9 and is used for learning mainly + for running IRCD/FTP but its at home and i dont use it a lot.
I assume he was reffering to the fact that his NC doesn't crash? Erm...that's just a random guess don't quote me on it eggs :p
Originally posted by nonamebrandeggs
@Divide why is no directX a thing that makes Linux better than Windows?
A very good question.
Also, these are untrue :
"No virii
People that use Linux dont use 1337 speak
People that use Linux dont use AOL"
These apply to Windows as much as to Linux :
"Its stable
Its secure (if you know how to set it up)
Friendly community that is willing to help"
And these are irrelevant to most people :
"Its free
It is openly Developed, so new versions are always on the horizon, instead of waiting years for a new version of Windows, you wait days for a new kernel/gui.
You can compile a program specifically for your machine, making it run smoother"
I've got extensive experience of both and while I agree Linux has it's place in things like servers, embedded systems and academia it is still at it's core a hobby OS. Yes "hobby" as in it's like a train set in the attic - strange beardy men get far too excited about it and most sane people are at least a little baffled where the attraction lies.
One of the best IT quotes I've heard is : "Berkely is famous for two things, Unix and LSD. This is NOT a coincidence".
OK, weenies - flame away. :D
Hi,
Linux ... its more or less like a UNIX os. You work on command prompts mostly and if you understood how this works you can make much more and faster than with Windows. You really think you can handle the pc.
Windows is really good for 90% of the users who are playing games, want to use Internet and work with applications like Office.
I would like to have a Linux, which can run the same applications like Windows can, but at the moment most apps are only developed for Windows.
Ah, and there is also Apple, BeOS and OS/2 still etc. :eek:
Dont forget, for most people Computers are only a tool at the end, and discussing about the right operating system is ... waste of time.
Nobody (except engineers and mechanics) needs to fully understand how a car is repaired, its enough to be able to drive it without causing accidents.
Originally posted by Divide
People that use Linux dont use AOL
The best reason out there that justifys getting a linux box.
I've recently set up a Redhat 9.0 system and now i'm looking for a lite distro to install on an old laptop that wont boot from CD. Anyone suggest something for a 100-150mhz laptop system?
Dribble Joy
01-10-03, 00:29
Anyone using AOL regardless of platform should be shot on site.
Hmmm... cost is completely irrelevent despite the fact that it's usually one of the reasons quoted for switching to Linux by businesses.
Anyway, the way I see it, at this point in time there are 3 reasons why Linux isn't a good home desktop OS (imo it makes a good business / school OS because of its security and networking):
1) Lack of games.
2) Ease of use issues. Despite efforts to make much of the interface easier to use, it still uses a lot of geeky terms in places. Especially things like network configuration.
3) Lack of support. Think up of a problem, phone up your ISP and start explaining the problem, making sure you mention the word 'linux'. The support technician will most likely say 'I'm sorry but we don't suport linux' and put the phone down'.
I run a linux based firewall which means when I have to call up my ISP for support I have to sit there pretending it's a Windows machine. I even hash a tracert output to look like the DOS output once because they wouldn't accept the linux output (despite the fact that I was reporting a DNS problem - the tech support guy I was speaking with obviously used linux to some extent if he knew what the ping output was, but because he was a lazy git and it was company policy he just said 'I'm sorry you're using Linux, we don't support that').
Aside: Then of course there's the compelte hipocracy that the same company recommends you use a firewall on your broadband connection but if there is any hint of a firewall in your problem reports (tracert output gonig through 192.168.1.1) they won't give you the time of day in the same way.
I do still have good hopes for Linux on the desktop. It will get there eventually.
Athon Solo
Originally posted by athon
Hmmm... cost is completely irrelevent despite the fact that it's usually one of the reasons quoted for switching to Linux by businesses.
Anyway, the way I see it, at this point in time there are 3 reasons why Linux isn't a good home desktop OS (imo it makes a good business / school OS because of its security and networking):
1) Lack of games.
2) Ease of use issues. Despite efforts to make much of the interface easier to use, it still uses a lot of geeky terms in places. Especially things like network configuration.
3) Lack of support. Think up of a problem, phone up your ISP and start explaining the problem, making sure you mention the word 'linux'. The support technician will most likely say 'I'm sorry but we don't suport linux' and put the phone down'.
I run a linux based firewall which means when I have to call up my ISP for support I have to sit there pretending it's a Windows machine. I even hash a tracert output to look like the DOS output once because they wouldn't accept the linux output (despite the fact that I was reporting a DNS problem - the tech support guy I was speaking with obviously used linux to some extent if he knew what the ping output was, but because he was a lazy git and it was company policy he just said 'I'm sorry you're using Linux, we don't support that').
Aside: Then of course there's the compelte hipocracy that the same company recommends you use a firewall on your broadband connection but if there is any hint of a firewall in your problem reports (tracert output gonig through 192.168.1.1) they won't give you the time of day in the same way.
I do still have good hopes for Linux on the desktop. It will get there eventually.
Athon Solo
Lazy tech support. I've phoned blueyonder and explained my LAN to them the guy did quote company policy but was quite happy to work on the problem with me.
Most tech support personnel are reading a script from the screen, anything not their scares the crap out of them and they start to babble rubbish.
Originally posted by Legoias
Most tech support personnel are reading a script from the screen, anything not their scares the crap out of them and they start to babble rubbish.
Tell me about it - I spent most of today dealing with Nildram's barely-trained chimp farm.:mad: :(
A distro to install on a laptop..
Slackware, always Slackware. Or if you are somewhat experienced linux user do an LFS (Linux from scratch, you compile the whole system yourself) installation, you wont find alot of os'es that will run as fast and smooth as one of thoose.
As for ppl not being able to install icq and whatever on a linux desktop machine is only true to the retardness of the user that uses it. if you have a compiler available and knows how to specify prefixes for installations you can compile whatever program to be installed in your own homedirectory. Or just use binary releases of programs and put them in yer home dir.
Wheter Windows would be or not be better than linux now or if it would be opensource.. well linux users would get their hands on source to be able to play the games better under linux thats for sure.
I do hate I mean I really hate Windows operating systems (I have my reasons and dont feel any need whatsoever to specify a billion line post about it).
Only reason for me to use them is to be able to play some of the games that are released, other than that Bill and his company could just crawl up under a tree and just fucking die for all I care.
But Windows has it place on the market. Users or "normal" ppl dont have the time or interest in learning shit. thats where windows comes in. It has compability only cause it's the biggest user os and it works fairly well for that purpouse. But then again to much userfriendliness leads to not so great stuff. So its not only good that it is userfriendly.
Yes Linux/*nix and the Windows community have both friendly and not so friendly users that will help out if they can, cant argue against that. But Im almost certain that the *nix community have alot more experience and "skills" than alot of the windows community.
Nowdays if Adobe will make the rumors true and go and release adobe photoshop and other famous programs for the linux market, again one less argument for ppl not to run linux if they want to. Linux on the desktop without playing all games arround is exellent. The biggest problem Linux is facing aswell as the BSD unixes is ppl are just to fucking used to the programs they use and are so darn stupid in my oppinion to try alternatives out for the programs they usually use.
@nonamebrandeggs
No DirectX means that (in general) OpenGL is the forced API, OpenGL has had a history of being much more compatible with ALL hardware, and requires less CPU load. Many of the effects that are being added to DX now are completely new, so in order to take advantage of these effects, you either need to wait for a next gen video card, or put the computations on the processor. It is also entirely possible to program DX to be almost COMPLETELY dependant on the processor (hence why Neocron varies very slightly between different resolutions). OpenGL is exactly that-- open. There are different variations for it in every game and driver, so these new effects are added with driver updates and advanced calls in a program which are much more frequent than an entire API update.
@jernau
I want you to do some research on the no virii thing-- and post back on this thread when you find a name, and info of ANY form of linux virus... Ill await this answer for the next few months.
Windows as stable as Linux?? When my machine was Linux only, it had an uptime of 6 months and 23 days at the most-- this was ended by a powersurge, this was achieved without memory sinks, without having to reload the gui, without having to purge memory, and ALSO includes driver updates, changes in the network settings that normally require Windows to reboot (yes even NT/2k/XP) reconfiguration of just about EVERYTHING with active changes-- no restart necissary.
Ok, you got me on the 1337 speak thing, people who use Linux do also do 1337, but hardly at the rate of Windows users-- people who use Linux in general are less likely to brag about their knowledge of computers, despite the fact that generally they know more about their machines than most Windows users who pretend to be 1337 h4x0rs. Using Sub7 IS NOT LEET sub7 does the (however slight) hack for you-- it is a trojan, not a fucking hacking utility... hacking is the act, not the final result, which so many 1337 speakers seem to believe. It doesnt take any skill to send someone a file that is called happybear and have them run it, thus infecting their system with an invisible service that broadcasts to all users of the sub7 client.
Linux comes, fresh from the install, much more secure overall than Windows-- yes there are still exploits, yes there are still holes, but to do and real damage to a system you must have the root password, which is much more secure due to the higher encryption schemes that Linux uses to secure its passwords... You cant shove a bootdisk with a Windows kernel into the A drive of a Linux machine, and have it retrieve, and print out every single password that machine has ever seen, whereas you can do that to every version of Windows that I have ever had the joy of experimenting with ( this includes Win 3.11, NT3, NT4, 2k, 2k server, Xp home/pro, Xp server, 2k3 server). Who cares if someone uses an exploit to gain access to your system if they break into a user with absolutely no privaledges, which is usually the start of a hack-- It will take the hacker another 30 minutes to an hour to be able to fanagle that system enough to give him access to anything important, where as with Windows you can spend 15 minutes, and have full control of the machine.
Weather or not the idea of constant updates are irrelevant to most people is not the question, it was WHY is Linux better... and despite how some people may not care, it is a tried and true reason.
And lastly, about AOL-- lets not make a petty bickering point, yes an extremely small few use AOL on their Linux machine, but it doesnt dominate the ISP market for Linux, and I doubt you will ever find an AOL lamer that is using anything but Windows.
Originally posted by Divide
I want you to do some research on the no virii thing-- and post back on this thread when you find a name, and info of ANY form of linux virus...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/18/insecurities.html
Why don't you do some research - yourself - first.
For more, similar fun visit this link too: http://packetstorm.linuxsecurity.com/exploits20.shtml
Originally posted by Divide
Windows as stable as Linux?? When my machine was Linux only, it had an uptime of 6 months and 23 days at the most
No, but it can be decently stable if configured correctly. There are a good deal Windows servers with uptimes measured in years.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/01/22/windows_2000_site_goes_over_two_years_without_a_reboot.html
Besides, if it's insane stability you're after, you don't want Linux either. BSD is the undisputed king of uptimes.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.last.html
The points jernau made are all valid.
There is no unanimous agreement that Linux is better than Windows or vice versa. It has been argued a thousand times in much more educated communities than this. Go search around on google if you're really interested.
As for the original question, I think Windows would be much worse if it were open source. Being a closed, standardized, user-friendly environment is one of the strongest things Windows has going for it.
Originally posted by ino
A distro to install on a laptop..
Slackware, always Slackware. Or if you are somewhat experienced linux user do an LFS (Linux from scratch, you compile the whole system yourself) installation, you wont find alot of os'es that will run as fast and smooth as one of thoose.
Yeah. Lets recommend users start with a command line distro. No. The best distro's to start with are the more graphical ones. Redhat, Mandrake, etc.
Originally posted by ino
As for ppl not being able to install icq and whatever on a linux desktop machine is only true to the retardness of the user that uses it. if you have a compiler available and knows how to specify prefixes for installations you can compile whatever program to be installed in your own homedirectory. Or just use binary releases of programs and put them in yer home dir.
I believe this coversation so far has been in the context of 'normal users' most of whome wouldn't know what a compiler is or does. This is another downfall of a lot of linux programs, ease of installation. The other problem is the range of packaging systems used. It's not that uncommon to see sites (that bother do repackage stuff for different distros) list 5+ different packages which are the same program just packaged differently.
Choice is nice but it can also be a hinderance too.
Originally posted by ino
Wheter Windows would be or not be better than linux now or if it would be opensource.. well linux users would get their hands on source to be able to play the games better under linux thats for sure.
The only problem with linux gaming is that many developers don't bother with it. I applaud the efforts of Digital Extremes and the many other publishers who now develop clients (not just servers) of their games for linux.
Originally posted by ino
I do hate I mean I really hate Windows operating systems (I have my reasons and dont feel any need whatsoever to specify a billion line post about it).
Only reason for me to use them is to be able to play some of the games that are released, other than that Bill and his company could just crawl up under a tree and just fucking die for all I care.
But Windows has it place on the market. Users or "normal" ppl dont have the time or interest in learning shit. thats where windows comes in. It has compability only cause it's the biggest user os and it works fairly well for that purpouse. But then again to much userfriendliness leads to not so great stuff. So its not only good that it is userfriendly.
Yes Linux/*nix and the Windows community have both friendly and not so friendly users that will help out if they can, cant argue against that. But Im almost certain that the *nix community have alot more experience and "skills" than alot of the windows community.
That would be because, mostly, Geeks with skills use Linux, thus the seemingly more knowledgeable community. I'm sure there are many 'Windows Geeks' who have just as much useful information about Windows stored in their heads as the Linux Geeks.
Originally posted by ino
Nowdays if Adobe will make the rumors true and go and release adobe photoshop and other famous programs for the linux market, again one less argument for ppl not to run linux if they want to. Linux on the desktop without playing all games arround is exellent. The biggest problem Linux is facing aswell as the BSD unixes is ppl are just to fucking used to the programs they use and are so darn stupid in my oppinion to try alternatives out for the programs they usually use.
It's not that they are too stupid, it's that they see no need. Why should they have to learn an entire new office suite if Microsoft Office does the job they need it to?
Athon Solo
Divide, you had some credability, at least for a little while, but uhm, I'm sorry to inform you, there was never an XP server. It went from 2k right to 2k3.
Secondly, in the 2 years I've been at my job, the win2k sever has come down ONCE, to apply a service pack.
Stability is really a state of what you're making the machine do, the machine I'm posting from now might never go down if programs didn't take it, or changes to the system required it. I've watched linux come down with Quake lockups (does redhat still come with the demo of that? I know it used to, but that was back a few versions).
Remember, before you become fanatically devoted to an OS, learn the others so you can keep your credability.
And yes, there are viruses for Linux. if you want, you can give me an account on your server, and I'll compile one just for it.
Sorry didn't read the whole thread but here's my 2 NC's ;-)
Linux = Free (open source)
That means you can fuck around with the source code till your hearts content, so long as you don't try to sell it after!
Game support is wanky for Linux, but then again it's not really designed for that.
For server side apps (like apache web server for example) it rocks the socks of any M$ shite!
It's not a particualy intuitive OS and the learning curve is very steep! But ultimately it's good to have the skills.
Windows (all flavours) = Proprietry (closed source)
The source code for Windows OS's is not supposed to be available to the public (however it's been stolen a few times) and you are not alowed to touch it.
It has more games than *any* other platform and is the most commonly used OS by a very wide margin and it fairly intuative.
Personaly I use both at home and at work. It's horses for courses as far as I'm concerned ;-)
DjSkum
PS just seen the virus for linux thing. Basicaly if your always logged in as root and someones written something then your fucked. However Linux viri don't really exist. With a user and permissions based OS if you had root access you can have a whole lot more fun with the box anyway! Another rooted zombie for your collection ;-)
Ohh a Linux thread, yey.
Ok, back a few, can be ass'd to quote. The "when 64 bit comes out, it makes no difference, we cant use dos so Linux = win" is wrong, when 64 bit comes out (mainstread, there has been a 64 Bit version of Win out for a while, along with 64bit CPU's) you cant use anything except 64 bit programmes (most old programmes, the setup wrappers tend to be 16 bit, even NC's is a 16bit wrapper), so Neocron wont run on a 64bit system, except for AMD's new one, that can do 64 & 32 bit.
Virii for Linux (dammit, say virus's, makes you seem less posh) are not as heavy as on Windows, but they are out there, however, its supply and demand, there is a huge supply of Windows systems, so, you are going to go for a virii which causes most disruption, which tends to be.... Windows, though the recent blaster worm (which the exploit was fixed long before the bug) caused major problems for Linux/Mac and Windows. There are also major bugs out there for Linux, which allow you to crack the system as root, these bugs are in normal standard programmes that are installed with Linux, so need updates to fix them. If Linux ever becomes mainstream in the home, then there will be the problem of users with no knowledge, getting their systems trashed.
Which one to install on a Laptop... I went for Mandrake, though you can do RedHat, just copy the ISO's to your laptop, make a boot disc, boot it from the disc, select the ISO's and your away.
Games for Linux, sure, there are a couple, Simcity 4 (rar), even GL Quake, but I like the "point click install finish" thing.
Uptime, again, not a problem, with my old laptop (I miss my baby) I stuck on 2003 server, purely as a software router for my ADSL, no noise, so I could leave it on over night, or forever, without it going down for anything, with Linux, I couldnt do that because my old USB modem wasnt supported, at all, and my new one, is PCI, till i can be assed to go get a proper router, though I might just get a new mobo/cpu/ram combo instead.
On this box, I have a triple boot, Windows XP for games, Windows XP for work, RedHat 9 for taking up hard drive space because I cant be bothered to use it :p
Windows r0x0rs my b0x0rs :p
Original monk
01-10-03, 14:37
Originally posted by jernau
"Berkely is famous for two things, Unix and LSD. This is NOT a coincidence".
i wonna come on vacation to berkely, it yust cant be bad over there :P
Originally posted by Lexxuk
Windows, though the recent blaster worm (which the exploit was fixed long before the bug) caused major problems for Linux/Mac and Windows.
Only true in the sence that it increased internet and network trafic causing major slowdowns. The Blaster virus (and variants) is excecuted via an .exe. This as I'm sure you know does not run on either a Mac or a *nix system. Also the method of infection uses specificaly Windows M$ email client and rapes it's address book for recipient addresses and also to spoof the sender address.
I was getting bounce messages on my Mac tho, but it was because someone with my address on there machine had become infected.
Anyway nuff O' this old bollox!
DjSKum
Well to the quoter. I said binary releases aswell.. You dont have to know alot to be able to put a binary packed in to a tar.gz file in yer home dir.
Question is why shouldnt they try new stuff?.. It's the mentality of thoose users that really annoys me. I ran windows from the beginning, and I felt like trying as much new stuff as possible. You know there might be better programs or programs that does the same job as the ones they are used to and better/easier. Both for windows and *nix alike. So just why should they aint an argument..
It looked like the guy who wanted a small fast distro to their laptop had some knowladge?. he had redhat or something so I just recomended try slackware.
As for the games.. Yee you can say they dont bother or they do stupid stuff. They should just make a binary for linux/bsd and the required libraries and put them on the standard cd everyone buy's. And not sell whole linux versions of the game on cd. And alot of games uses platform indipendant files.. or most likly most games. So the "only" thing that has to be done is the linking and the binary for linux.. Easier said than done maby.
And yes there are virus versions/exploitsholes and the likes for every os in existance. You can set up a windows machine to be very secure aswell no doubt about it. Viruses exploit either holes in os'es or "stupidity" of the users. If you run a windows machine without the use of local administrative rights im pretty sure you wont be able to infect the whole system by just clicking on an attached file. But the biggest problem for windows is.. If you would stop using Outlook from hell and internet explorer ALOT of the Windows virus problems for normal users would go away.. aswell as not using office. They work well for their purpose but you have to understand they are real security risks and are always targeted. And why are they targeted?.. cause probably there are always some flaws there to exploit, wheter or not you update the systems all the time or not. Sure there are programs like this for the *nix world aswell you either fix them or dont run them.
But in my oppinoin the bsd and linux machines I've set up runs extremely smooth, especially servers who I've taken the time to do LFS's on. No Windows machine will EVER come close to the smoothness and speed of one of those until the day you can optimize the compiled source code for the machine your self.
As for windows running smooth.. If you buy a server from lets say Compaq made to run Windows 2000 server for instance. That machine and the hardware in that machine is windows compliance assured or something like that. And thoose machines will run very well. But you can acuire that smoothness and stability with a i386 *nix on a p 200 mmx with mediokre hardware.
I've set up an linux qmail server and an dns server for a company and the uptimes on those are since the last time i rebooted them after installation was done 3 years ago.
No problems whatsoever. The mail server is an p3 733 512 ram and 1000 mail accounts so its pretty loaded at times.
And the dns is an 200 mmx
So in the end it all comes up to the taste and choice of the users who runs the systems. I prefer Linux and bsd for everything but for some games, when I have to run Windows. I like to be in control of what the hell is going on. It's my own computer when it all comes arround. Sure there are somewhat control to be gaind in Windows aswell. But it's nowhere near the control you can have with an *nix system.
Originally posted by Lexxuk
Ohh a Linux thread, yey.
Ok, back a few, can be ass'd to quote. The "when 64 bit comes out, it makes no difference, we cant use dos so Linux = win" is wrong, when 64 bit comes out (mainstread, there has been a 64 Bit version of Win out for a while, along with 64bit CPU's) you cant use anything except 64 bit programmes (most old programmes, the setup wrappers tend to be 16 bit, even NC's is a 16bit wrapper), so Neocron wont run on a 64bit system, except for AMD's new one, that can do 64 & 32 bit.
were you trying to quote my thread or another one, because i didnt really say that, i just meant that 98 was dos based and still a working platform in alot of todays systems, and said when 64 bit hit mainstream dos based OS's will go bye bye. As of right now only one 64 bit processor will be backward compatible with 32 bit apps which as you mentioned is the ahlon 64. Itel has a chip in the works but it wont support 32 bit apps and last i heard they werent making any effort to try (makes me think they got a deal with M$ to market XP 64 and the new 64 bit office programs) also the new intel processors will feature a "locked" core, witch means no more overclocking. but that dosent really matter, anyone who knows enough to overclock a processor knows not to buy Intel :)
[edit] please note when i talk about this 64 bit stuff im talking about it in reference to desktop machines, there have been 64 bit server OS's and processor for a little bit now.
Yah, thats probably the one I quoted, but dont quote me on that, I'm half asleep still, really gotta get more sleep, blergh. anyway, Intel's offerin is the Xeon, its just 64bit for a reason, that is the market they are after, they know people wont chuck away their old 32 bit stuff for pure 64, so they make the 64, for people who require that thing. amd's offering, for 32/64, well, i guess, though they have 3, 32, 32/64 and 64.
@ DJ - thats what I meant, the blaster worm caused massive bounces and disruption to email clients on all OS's, but, one of the nicest spam based exploits around, is to try to find a sendmail/formmail.pl and exploit badly written/configured ones, and they are usualy the domain of Linux/Apache servers, its why one place has banned verizon cause they wouldnt stop someone who kept tryin to hax the formmail.
LOL pwned ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:p
Edit: AWWWW bah what ever started a newpage grr...
Originally posted by Seezur001
As of right now only one 64 bit processor will be backward compatible with 32 bit apps which as you mentioned is the ahlon 64. Itel has a chip in the works but it wont support 32 bit apps and last i heard they werent making any effort to try (makes me think they got a deal with M$ to market XP 64 and the new 64 bit office programs)
Don't bet on it.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781
MS are forcing Intel to use AMD's instruction set.
Damn good thing too as Intel have totally dropped the ball recently and deserve to be humiliated.
Originally posted by jernau
Don't bet on it.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781
MS are forcing Intel to use AMD's instruction set.
Damn good thing too as Intel have totally dropped the ball recently and deserve to be humiliated.
good news, thanks for the info :D
but i do know that what ever processor Intel produces next, it WILL NOT be overclockable as to force people needing more speed to buy the faster processor.
shady bastards:mad:
[Edit]
Yah, thats probably the one I quoted, but dont quote me on that, I'm half asleep still, really gotta get more sleep, blergh. anyway, Intel's offerin is the Xeon, its just 64bit for a reason, that is the market they are after, they know people wont chuck away their old 32 bit stuff for pure 64, so they make the 64, for people who require that thing. amd's offering, for 32/64, well, i guess, though they have 3, 32, 32/64 and 64.
well the Xeon is Intel server processor, although you can use it in a desktop its not really ment for that, intel has a 64 bit desktop processor coming out soon...thats what i ment. As far as AMD goes, the athlon 64 will be the desktop chip while i belive they make the Opteron server chip(which i think is 64 bit, im just not sure :( )
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.