Win2K -vs- linux -- WAS: [lug] no fun with the sun

[Harris, James A (Jim)]

-----Original Message-----
From: socket at peakpeak.com [mailto:socket at peakpeak.com]
Subject: Re: [lug] no fun with the sun

<snip>
The obligatory microsoft snub is here: I've read that Windows 2000
requires a minimum of 64 megs of real memory to run.
<snip>

Aye, I agree to Linux being extremely scalable.  I'm in the process of
building a masquerading router with Slack 7 and have been amazed at how much
fat can be trimmed.  My two 1.2GB disks are looking very vacant for the
first time since NT 4.0 Server (more room for mp3s I guess.)  :)

I think the main argument is this:  Back in Slack 4 (I didn't use any other
distro till recently, so I can't parallel) you could do a full workstation
install with X, Star Office and a bunch of other cool additional stuff and
squeeze it into 600 MB or less.  I think the complaint here is not so much
how scalable it is, just how much the default bells and whistles are costing
you in drive space.  It amazes me that it can suck up so much, but then I
look at what that has done:  in my opinion, that (somewhat) unnecessary
stuff has brought more people to try Linux because it's got more options and
is friendlier, which is good.

So anywho, I have to agree that the distros are getting fat by default
installs, but have to agree that they are still a lot more scalable than
anything else out there.   I think it's just another tribute to how
amazingly useful Linux is.

Side note... since I've moved the thread subject to Windoze...  I'm
currently writing this from a 2000 Pro box Office 2000.  (I know... gag, but
primary function at work and all... ack.)  You're correct in the comment
that it takes a min of 64MB of physical RAM.  It runs OK on that!  I'm
currently running it on a 96MB system with a P166 MMX and an Ultra SCSI
controller in it and it's useful, but not impressive.  This same machine
with 64MB, a 133 and NT 4.0 ran faster.  The only thing I can give MS for
W2K is the stability, trimming of reboots (although not perfect yet) and
multitasking capabilities.  There's a noticeable improvement in the solidity
of the OS and it's memory management.  Too bad it eats 64 of it off the bat!
They've also got it so you don't have to reboot after installations and some
hardware changes, but it still has to be rebooted after network setting
changes.  (EGAD!!!  You'd think they would have figured it out by now, it's
freaking ridiculous to have to reboot for network changes... errrr!)  Oh
yeah, it also takes three weeks to boot.

Anywho, the repulsive part is the disk and RAM requirements.  It seems to me
that they've started to get the core of the OS working really well, they're
just so focused on making it so disgustingly GUI that they've turned what
could be a good system into a vile pig.  OH well, I guess that's not much
surprise and I'm sure it will continue to be a system for those who need it.

Just some of my thoughts since I'm sure there's <i>some</i> morbid interest
in how it's performing out there.  (BTW, this is the final, official,
non-stolen version... MS Select agreement can be useful occasionally.)

-Jim

Another something that I find very interesting... Windoze 2000's spell
checker recognizes Linux as a word now and corrects the capitalization if
you put linux in.  Apparently Linux is a real thing now in MSs eyes.  :)