Which Operating system are you using? (poll)

Post #1by **selden** » 03.03.2003, 15:58

Which operating system do you run Celestia under most of the time?

I'm trying to submit this as a poll so a summary is readily available.

Unfortunately, the Poll won't let me add enough separate options, so I've been forced to combine a couple I'd rather were individual. grump.

Darkmiss · Post #2by **Darkmiss** » 03.03.2003, 21:55

Windows XP Proffesional, Service Pack 1.
best ive ever used.

billybob884 · Post #3by **billybob884** » 04.03.2003, 00:52

Can't stand XP, the way the start bar is set up, the way it puts all the items on the start bar into one catagory, how you have to log in every time it goes into screen saver, how it doesn't use dos, ME is for me. (sorry about the pun

)

Paul · Post #4by **Paul** » 04.03.2003, 01:08

Whoa! For such a minority group, those Linux users sure are vocal, aren't they! :wink:

Post #5by **selden** » 04.03.2003, 02:36

Mike,

Just so you know: all the things you complain about are optional. But setting things up just the way you want does take a while.

Tadeu · Post #6by **Tadeu** » 04.03.2003, 10:40

XP Pro Service Pack 1 and Celestia runs fine.
Tried Linux in a dual boot system but got a lot of problems
XP Pro is a real good OS but I still miss NT4

Don. Edwards · Post #7by **Don. Edwards** » 04.03.2003, 12:37

Ah billybob884,
I have never heard such a line of dribble in ages. All those features in XP can be turned off. All this is showing that you really know nothing about this version of Windows. As a profesional in the computer industry I find your choice of Windows ME laughable at best. Win ME is worst piece of software to come out of Microsoft in years. As for DOS, thats why we all have made the transition to the NT kernel operating system. Windows ME's still relies on DOS at its core, its just hidden and thats why it still has problems with crashes and data loss. Another thing you have to consider is that if you want to move to a multi-cpu computer system you are not going to get there using Win ME or any version of Win 9x.
And unless you are some old time DOS gamer there is no reason for anyone to be subject to DOS anymore. And I must correct you on one point. There is a DOS based part to XP and any NT kernel based OS. There is still a command line interface that can be used to manipulate files and directories. In the last year I can't even tell you how many upgrades Xp customers have asked for. But one thing I can tell you, more than half are from Windows ME. The other half are composed of Win98, Win98SE, WinNT 4, and Win2000 Pro.
So while you play with Windows ME and all of its problems I and the rest of us using Celestia on XP can run circles around you while you have to reboot again and again because of lockups and crashes. Before you post such a lame excuse for a reason not to use an OS I think you might consider doing more research into what you want to say first.
BESIDES YOU KNEW THIS ANSWER OF YOURS WAS GOING TO GET FLAMED BY SOMEONE! And thats why you posted it in the first place. But this time it was by a person in the computer repair industry who knows more about hardware and operating systems than you do. I can guarantee that.
Don

Rassilon · Post #8by **Rassilon** » 04.03.2003, 12:50

I only use XP because of the stability and the speed...It has alot of lil things I dont care for tho...

Thilo · Post #9by **Thilo** » 04.03.2003, 13:16

I agree with billybob.
XP is a pain in the ass too ... registration code, needing frigging much money to buy it, security flaws (I still like killing my bro's PC when he gets on my nerves :D)

another example: how can microsoft bloody justify letting their net messenger service on by default? WHAT IS THAT A COMPANY? and they exclaimed "trustworthy computing" as their directive ... secure by default? where?

I am using ME too as my gaming OS ... it is instable as hell, yes ... but at least I don't have to mess around with any of microsoft's newer additions.

Sum0 · Post #10by **Sum0** » 04.03.2003, 21:30

I use Win XP. I also have Mandrake Linux installed, but it's just too complicated to get my head round. XP is everything that Linux is (well, except free.)

Darkmiss · Post #11by **Darkmiss** » 04.03.2003, 21:47

billybob884 wrote:Can't stand XP, the way the start bar is set up, the way it puts all the items on the start bar into one catagory, how you have to log in every time it goes into screen saver, how it doesn't use dos, ME is for me. (sorry about the pun )

I dont like any of those things either.
everything you just described, is editable.
So it only does these things if you let it.

Windows XP is the easyest software to use for new users
And also powerfull for experts, to get under the bonnet.

Most People who have tried Windows XP and not liked it, have probably...
1: installed it on to very old outdated hardware....
2: used the Upgrade install over old 16bit software....
3: both.

billybob884 · Post #12by **billybob884** » 04.03.2003, 23:04

well i'm glad some people agree with me, even if you can shut all these features off, i've only used xP once and just by the first time i can tell i'll be able to find at least a dozen more things just like this by using it more. flam my opinion all u like, thats why its an OPINION

Post #13by **Christophe** » 04.03.2003, 23:38

Apparently Windows users can be vocal too, it looks like a debian vs redhat flame war!

Whoa! 4 linux users, at least now I know I'm not coding only for Fridger and myself!

--
Christophe

Post #14by **t00fri** » 05.03.2003, 00:05

Christophe wrote:Apparently Windows users can be vocal too, it looks like a debian vs redhat flame war!

Whoa! 4 linux users, at least now I know I'm not coding only for Fridger and myself!

--
Christophe

Here we go: now there is even /one/ SUSE Linuxer in the statistics;-).

There is an incredible bias against Linux users in this forum, completely unrelated to the world average. Presumably, the high professional level of this forum has scared away most Linux users...

What do you think?

Christophe and I are apparently among the most curageous left overs;-) Even Chris does'nt dare anymore to update his Linux box to KDE3, to enjoy the beauty and luxurious functionality of

Celestia-KDE!

Bye Fridger

Post #15by **Christophe** » 05.03.2003, 00:24

t00fri wrote:There is an incredible bias against Linux users in this forum, completely unrelated to the world average. Presumably, the high professional level of this forum has scared away most Linux users...

Well, it's not that bad, at least not in this poll. At well over 10%, I think we're highly over-represented.

Besides the windows users don't know all the nifty features they're missing by not using the _vastly_ superior KDE version ;-))

--
Christophe

Post #16by **t00fri** » 05.03.2003, 00:30

Sum0 wrote:I use Win XP. I also have Mandrake Linux installed, but it's just too complicated to get my head round. XP is everything that Linux is (well, except free.)

You just remind me: How again do you rename 1001 files called f1.xyz ...f1001.xyz in a directory with one command to f1.zyx ...f1001.zyx in Windows XP?

Bye Fridger

Post #17by **chris** » 05.03.2003, 02:21

t00fri wrote:
Sum0 wrote:I use Win XP. I also have Mandrake Linux installed, but it's just too complicated to get my head round. XP is everything that Linux is (well, except free.)

You just remind me: How again do you rename 1001 files called f1.xyz ...f1001.xyz in a directory with one command to f1.zyx ...f1001.zyx in Windows XP?

Bye Fridger

Well, if there are no other .xyz files beginning with f, you can do the following:

ren f*.xyz f*.zyx

This is one of the few cases where the fact that the Windows command shell doesn't do file globbing proves to be convenient. In general, it's incredibly irritating, and I much prefer a UNIX command shell like bash.

--Chris

marc · Post #18by **marc** » 05.03.2003, 05:41

I use both, (linux and XP) Has anyone else noticed how you can use tab to complete command line filenames and dirs in XP? (XP does have BSD code in it by the way)
I use a win32 xserver so I can alt tab between operating systems. samba makes the filesharing workable.

Post #19by **t00fri** » 05.03.2003, 08:15

chris wrote:
t00fri wrote:You just remind me: How again do you rename 1001 files called f1.xyz ...f1001.xyz in a directory with one command to f1.zyx ...f1001.zyx in Windows XP?

Bye Fridger
Well, if there are no other .xyz files beginning with f, you can do the following:

ren f*.xyz f*.zyx

This is one of the few cases where the fact that the Windows command shell doesn't do file globbing proves to be convenient. In general, it's incredibly irritating, and I much prefer a UNIX command shell like bash.

--Chris

This is indeed amazing, since your solution implies that the command execution in XP has certain "decision making" abilities;-).

A most "restrictive" feature...

Your above command would also be compatible with renaming

f1.xyz -> f1001.zyx
f2.xyz -> f1000.zyx

etc

and many others. That's why in UNIX this will NOT work;-) and you got to use 'find' instead...

Bye Fridger

Post #20by **Christophe** » 05.03.2003, 08:53

t00fri wrote:f1.xyz -> f1001.zyx
f2.xyz -> f1000.zyx

I don't think that:
ren f*.xyz f*.zyx

works, but:
ren *.xyz *.zyx
does.

So if you have files not starting with f that you don't want to rename, you have to move them to a temp directory first.

Anyway bash is available for windows, so the first thing to do on a windows machine (not that I use one very often) is to run:
http://www.cygwin.com/setup.exe

--
Christophe

Celestia Forums

Which Operating system are you using? (poll)

Which operating system are you using?

Which Operating system are you using? (poll)

OS