Disk on Key slowly getting smaller

Dotan Cohen dotancohen at gmail.com
Sun Mar 9 22:50:32 UTC 2008

On 10/03/2008, D. Michael McIntyre <michael.mcintyre at rosegardenmusic.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2008, Knapp wrote:
>  > The reason I tried Linux was because Windows of the time was so
>  > unstable! I would never had tried Linux if Window's Blue Screen of
> > Death had not been popping up almost every day....
>  I tried it because I was ranting at some friends who were Linux users, and one
>  of them said I could continue ranting after I had looked at it for myself.  I
>  was running 100% Linux within a month after or something.

Sounds a lot like this guy:

>  Linux (Mandrake 8.1 in that case) seemed a lot more stable than Windows of the
>  day for sure, but that wasn't the whole story.  I guess it just rekindled my
>  old DOS hacker spirit.  Windows is pretty boring, because you're so limited
>  in how you can tweak things (especially without paying money for little
>  addons.)
>  Unstable, though, it's harder to argue that when comparing against Windows XP
>  SP2.  I've never seen a BSOD on Windows XP of any vintage, and it has
>  generally been stable enough to do the job when maintained correctly.

While I agree that SP2 is relatively stable, it has crashed on me
quite a bit. The windows machines in my university audio/visual lab
are all XP Pro SP2, and one cannot walk from one end of the lab to the
other without seeing a BSOD. And all that's run on those locked down
machines is IE6 and Windows Media Player. I don't know why they are so
unstable, but I cannot get through a day on them without a crash.
Nothing reproducable either. Just a lot of crashes. On Compaq
hardware, not slapped-together systems.

I must also say that SP2 is a resource hog. 512 MB RAM is a must. I
credit SP2 with bringing down the price of RAM, which until 2003 was
forbiddingly expensive where I live.

>  I just hate using it, because the look and feel are so childish and bland in
>  comparison with KDE.  I feel the same about GNOME, which seems to my eye to
>  have copied so many of the worst things about Windows that I can't understand
>  why people are always saying KDE is the more Windows-like of the two big
>  competing Linux desktops.

Actually, I find both Windows and Gnome to be rather polished, with
the exception of the default Windows colour scheme. I could live with
Gnome, but there are a few KDE apps (Digikam, Kate, Konqueror) that I
find amazingly efficient. And I love the wordy (how to say properly?)
clock in KDE.

>  Windows with KDE might be tolerable enough.  Windows without KDE is tolerable
>  enough these days that I might not have wound up here if I hadn't come right
>  when I did.  It's hard to say.  The big thing working in favor of Kubuntu and
>  friends now is that I hate change, and I'm comfortable with this stuff.  I
>  barely know my way around a Windows system anymore.
>  Plus it's all free, as in gratis, and that never hurts.
>  Unless you count the ocean of time I've spent working on and around Rosegarden
>  anyway.

Dotan Cohen


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list