>> Software that works properly is *not* Rolls Royce design. It's *basic* 
>> design! You don't go to a watch shop and hear "well, you can have this 

>> actually tells the right time", do you? In a watch shop, *ALL* the 
>> watches WORK PROPERLY! Even the absurdly cheap ones. Sheesh...
> 
> Er this from a guy whose sister bought him a new watch because the 
> batteries weren't lasting in his old one.

Well, for the previous 8 years it worked fine. Clearly something has 
gone wrong with it now. Mechanical devices tend to wear out over time, 
and 8 years is not an unreasonable time frame for a watch to work. If 
I'd bought a more expensive watch, maybe it would have lasted longer.

Similarly, I doubt any software will ever be *completely* bug-free. The 
point is that M$ isn't even trying. They can't be bothered.

>> No-one's forcing you to buy a computer. But IF you buy one, it's 
>> pretty much a certain that you *will* have to run M$ software on it. I 
>> tried to escape, but it just can't be done...
> 
> Depends on what you want to run. Again, as has been pointed out before, 
> for basic clerical work Linux works. The problems can be summed up with 
> Nicholas's "That's the *basic* installation method on Linux. If you 
> don't even know how to unpack a .tar.gz... you don't know Linux."

Partly it's the whole "everyone runs only Windows, so we only need to 
develop for Windows", which creates the whole "people only develop for 
Windows, so I can only run Windows". E.g., good luck finding any 
headline games that run on Linux. And good luck finding Linux drivers 
for game hardware.

Linux actually makes quite a sensible choice for servers. I mean, if 
you've got a server, one would damn well *hope* you have an expert to 
run it [no matter what software it runs]. So, assuming your software 
runs there, it makes good sense.

[Random: Did you know, you can't play Team Fortress 2 on Linux, but you 
*can* run a dedicated TF2 game server on it? OTOH, I guess the game 
server only needs to send and receive UDP. The game itself needs to do 
fancy DirectX stuff that would be a nightmare to port...]

I have, on several occasions, seriously considered moving to a Mac. 
There are 2 real stopping points:

1. I don't have that kind of money.

2. None of my [very expensive] software would work any more.

>> Norton Ghost.
>>
>> The old version I've got at work boots into PC-DOS and lets you run 
>> the software. However, the newer version my Dad has boots into a Live 
>> Windows and only lets you perform restores, not backups. You must 
>> install the bloatware onto your HD to perform backups. >_<
>>
>> You know how CD-ROMs have a *really* long seek time? Well, for random 
>> access, that's BAD.
> 
> Remind me, was Norton this bad before it was acquired by Symantec.

Both CDs have Symantec written on them. I've got Ghost 2003 at work. 
[The one that actually lets you copy data.] My dad has something newer 
[which doesn't].

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message