OT curt

Robert Heller spake thus:

My point was that there are *some* (not all, certainly) computers one can buy with Windows preinstalled that are really plug-and-play for

I think Apple, at least, strongly gives this (mis)impression, especially with their current ad campaign. My point is that they're *all* a pain in the ass to configure, and that configuration requires some expertise that the average user lacks, no matter what brand is on the front of the box.

Finally, an admission. A good start.

Bullshit. (And you meant "malware", not "maleware", right? I assume we're leaving gender out of this.)

You're saying that Unix-based systems (to cover OS/X as well) automatically do file system allocation cleanup? I'm not sure about this: is this true? It was my understanding that *all* file systems eventually need maintenance, simply because of the nature of what happens when files are deleted and space deallocated.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. Where I used to work, we had Windoze boxes that stayed up and running just as long as our Unix boxes (Linux and a Sun SPARC).

Ray Haddad spake thus:

Yeah, good old Novell: non-standard and proprietary, a pain in the ass to administer (, another entire manual of commands and stuff to learn). But reliable as all hell. Those Mormon boys done good.

No, didn't mean to imply that at all. Only meant that his mailer was probably "broadcasting some thing onto the internet to invite infection".

Paul

The former... why so many people default to Microsoft. Attempts to do better? Well, plenty out there some are already in some facets, but between MS marketing and user unfriendlyness or cost, I'm not surprised at why Microsoft is where it is. I'm OS neutral. All I care about is that it does what it is supposed to. I don't get any thrills on knowing operating system secrets or long convoluted tricks to make my system 99% bullet proof. Fact is with some common sense, some average security software, my machine works pretty good. I'd rather spend hours doing CAD drawings that I can share on the internet as opposed to figuring out how to use linux. Better or not. I bought the computer to do a job. Widows products are click, drag and drop, intuitive. If the 'computer geeks' behind linux had done the same, made something that was as user friendly, maybe it would do better? If they have made such an admin ui, then a) Microsoft has done a good job swamping them into oblivion or b) linux'ers have not made a very user friendly interface. I don't realy care how cool linux is, or how cool the Winows OS is. Does it run my CAD? Does it let me surf the internet? For the most part it's dead stupid easy to install windows onto a PC and get a machine that runs my spreadsheets and lets me connect to the internet.

I started on Macs, too expensive. Looked at OS2, too bloated. Looked at Linux, never finished the book. Started working in DOS systems, then Windows. Remember 3.0 ? ha ha ha hewww. Keeps improving though, junky as it may have started, Windows is not withering. A lot of Microsoft products started out weak and have just gotten stronger. WordPerfect / Word ... Lotus 1-2-3 / Excel ... Bbase3 / Access ... Java / ASP.Net 2.0 ... PS2 / XBox ... Oracle / MSSql ... Linux(Unix) / Windows For such a flawed, problem ridden bunch of products they sure do make a lot of money and headaches for the competition. This is not a taunt: I wonder how many Linux programmers would like to work for Microsoft if they thought they could improve their products. IBM ? When they were on top they were expensive.... Like all the others, except one... well maybe two, but one was in it for profit ;-) But I give UNIX, J2EE,Oracle etc etc their credit, and so do I to Microsoft.

Jb Mcsd(1999)

Would these users have been able to set up these Linux boxes without your help? Can they upgrade or change their systems without your help? ( excluding possiblity under either OS for an uneducated 'admin' to goof the system) Jb

How does this relate to model railroading? Well, here's where OS's rank in the importance of things..

In order of importance:

for me, fun drops off sharply at item 6. And Honestly? I'm not going to shell out the $$ for a UNIX system running Oracle and Java. For $500 I can buy a machine, get My SQL and VS express and it's done. To be fair I could probably get other free development environments and data management tools as well. It doesn't have to be Microsoft. I like the graphical development environment, in out quick. Problem solving, not code worship (ie read in business requirements. You could probably apply my criteria to any business and it would come out similar.). And at the end of the day I always shut down my machine anyway. What benefit does leaving my machine running for 400 days bring me? Energy savings? ... A solution without a problem...

Jb

I can tell you that on previous Linux systems I checked occasionally for fragmentation and never found more than 1 or 2 percent. I haven't even bothered to look on my current Linux system.

Larry Blanchard spake thus:

OK, so the OS reorganizes free space as files are deleted and new files allocated. Not surprising: on the Windows side, even though NTFS is an advance over the MS-DOS file system, it's still primitive by comparison to Unix, and the OS doesn't automagically do stuff that Unix apparently does implicitly. (Is this still true with Vista? Anyone know?)

Can most people who buy Windows boxes set them up without someone else doing it for them?

For applications it pretty straight forward:

cd / make install

Pretty straight forward. On rare occasion there may be a kernel update that might be slightly more complicated.

So it boils down to: do you want someone else to do it and probably pay them for it (those preinstalled M$ boxes have some installation cost factored in somewhere). Or do you want to spend some of your time and do it yourself? It's not that difficult.

I'm not suggesting that one of the *ixes is for everyone. If you are happy with M$ then you are happy, enjoy *8^) You are going to be investing time and/or money either way.

Paul

Paul Newhouse spake thus:

They don't need to. Nowadays, if one goes into a big-box store and plunks down money (or plastic) for a computer, it comes with Windows pre-installed and ready to go. NO CONFIGURATION NEEDED. Plug stuff in (connectors all have helpful little logos engraved on them), power up and there you are.

You may be thinking of the Bad Old Days, when users had to do a lot of tweaking even with supposedly "RTR" systems.

It probably applies to many MS-Windows machines which *never* get any hardware changes. The flip side is that *Linux* actually supports MORE hardware than either MacOSX OR MS-Windows, out of the box. Under MS-Windows much of the hardware beyond the bare basics (cpu, memory, and *standard* I/O devices (base IDE, serial/parallel ports, keyboard/mouse) requires a third-party driver installed. Linux often has the drivers included as part of the base system installation for these devices. This means that installing a new card just means installing the hardware and starting the machine. The new card will get detected during the boot up and will get configured, without needing to install ANY additional software (unless some additional applications or libraries are needed for some reason). MS-Windows detects the new hardware and then wants to install a new driver from some external media (CD-ROM).

About Macs: Macs for the most part come with all of the extra hardware goodies (like firewire, network, etc.) included and integrated (and set up at the factory). PCs tend not to include all of the goodies.

Generally yes -- ALL O/Ss are this way.

(Yes I meant malware.) And MS-Windows is the *only* system subject to viruses, adware, spyware, other malware. Really. There are no Linux viruses (outside a highly contrived laboratory ones). Yes there are various network attacks, but none are self replicating and none are in the form of E-Mail attachments or modified programs (i.e. they are not self-spreading). And adware / spyware just does not exist -- the Linux system protection model just won't support that sort of software.

Your understanding is wrong. UNIX file systems don't need 'maintenance', except in very special cases (such as a news spool where huge numbers of small files (news articles) are created and deleted). Under most normal operating conditions, the only thing you need to do is perform backups. 'Fragmentation' happens (and under UNIX is actually a good thing), but does not affect performance unless/until the file system becomes > 90% full. (If a file system grows to 90+% used (and there are not a significant amount of junk to be deleted), then the cure is a newer, biger file system.) In other words, the only 'maintenance' would be replacing old (small) disks with newer (bigger) ones as the disks begin to wear out. The only time I've had to reformat a disk was if I was cleaning off a Zip cart or doing a (major) O/S upgrade (it is quicker to reformat than to tediously delete every file and directory). And I've *never* bothered to defrag a UNIX file system.

What happens with the FAT file system (and to some extent NTFS) is different, particularly in light of how MS-Windows does disk I/O. The FAT (including VFAT and FAT32 -- they all use the same file allocation scheme) was *originally* intended for floppy disks. Fragmentation of a

UNIX systems, expect and depend on disk 'fragmentation' and performs disk I/O in a way that is optimal for a 'fragmentated' file system, so long as there is enough free space available. Unix is a true multi-user / multi-tasking operating system, designed from the ground up as such. In a multi-user / multi-tasking environment fragmentation is unavoidable, so UNIX file systems and disk I/O methods were developed to be optimal under such conditions. MS-Windows is designed as a single-user / single-tasking operating system and does its I/O in a way that is optimal for a non-fragmentated file system, and the file system formats are not designed to be optimal for a multi-user / multi-tasking operating system and are not tolerant of fragmentation. NT is meant to be multi-tasking and multi-user, but most of Microsoft's application base (eg MS Office, etc.) are designed around a single-user / single-tasking environment, so MS-Windows 2K (NT 5.0) and MS-Windows XP (NT 5.1) have be 'hacked' to continue the single-user / single-tasking O/S model of the DOS based systems (Win

Probably not.

They probably could not set up a MS-Windows machine either.

There is a substanial business consisting of companies that 'set up' MS-Windows machines for end users (have you looked at your yellow pages recently?). What I did is no different.

Probably not anything major. Some minor things, yes actually.

Most MS-Windows users take their box to one of the computer 'repair' shops to have upgrades done, by 'qualified' techs. Do you change your car's brakes? Muffler? Alignment? No, most people take it to Midas (etc.) or their dealer. I am like the lone VW mechanic (complete with metric tools) back in the 'old' days (when 'Detroit Iron' ruled the roads).

Nothing so 'clever'. UNIX does not bother to 'reorganize' anything. It does not need to. The file system developes some fragmentation, but generally nothing massive and the fragmentation that develops has no real impact on performance.

NTFS is NTFS. Unless Vista is using something like ext2 or jfs or riser or something like that, Vista probably has all of the same disk I/O problems / issues as XP.

Robert Heller spake thus:

wrote:

Sp Unix uses, what--scatter/gather-type disk I/O schemes? (I remember Adaptec used to support that method with their PC SCSI adapters.)

Didn't Dell sell pre-configured Linux boxes?

BUT, you missed the point, somebody set that M$ system up. You are paying someone to have done that. The cost gets amortized across a lot of machines so it's a fairly small cost per machine but, it's in the purchase price somewhere.

Somebody got the XP (or what ever) license and the software and installed it on that system.

Like last year when my wife decided to upgrade to XP. That was fun ... NOT! Well, OTOH, I did get a great upgrade to my unix systems. She got a new machine and I got her old one. It wasn't qualified for XP but, NetBSD runs great on it, thank you Microsoft! *8^>

Paul

Well, uh, my over two year old HP laptop has firewire and wireless networking, etc., and hte only part I had to set up was selecting passwords and channels for the WiFi. Not that I'm defending Gates, or Intel for that matter, as mine is an AMD-64. It also has a fantastically sharp and bright

wrote:

It is explained extremly well here:

Yes. I believe they still do (higher end workstations and some servers). Not that Dell did a particularly good job of it. While I was at UMass we bought some Dell boxes with Linux pre-installed and I ended up re-installing Linux on them anyway, mostly because we needed them set up with a different partitioning scheme.

Exactly.

Higher end laptops do tend to have the 'extras'. How many PC