7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

el_koraco · 2011-08-13 08:05:16

I'm as old as mynis, but my first "computer" was a Commodore 64, the one with a cassette deck that you had to hook up to the TV and adjust teh screen resolution with a screwdriver before you could play Gianna sisters. MS-DOS only came out in school, ad when my first machine with Windows 98 came along at home, I freaked out because Norton Commander wasn't the default file manager.

To Microsoft's credit, the Windows 2000 I slapped on afterwards worked continuously from 2000 to 2005, without a reinstall or loosing any juice. It all went downhill from there as far as their products are concerned.

snowpine · 2011-08-13 14:49:33

pvsage wrote:

@snowpine: Was that computer a Timex/Sinclair? That was my first PC. I'm pretty sure my wristwatch has more processor power than that thing. Had a whopping 2K internal memory, and required a big, fat brick plugged into its ass for an extra 16K. And plugging in the extra memory brick seriously fscked the TV output.

No, sounds dreadful! Santa brought us a TI-99/4A, which had some decent games and a speech-synthesis module. Nevertheless I was disappointed it wasn't an Atari (all the cool kids had one).

mynis01 · 2011-08-13 17:06:21

el_koraco wrote:

To Microsoft's credit, the Windows 2000 I slapped on afterwards worked continuously from 2000 to 2005, without a reinstall or loosing any juice. It all went downhill from there as far as their products are concerned.

You know, for all the windows bashing people do, you really have to place some blame on the end users for the problems with windows. I never really had any issues with my windows machines, but you should see some of the crap I've had to fix for friends and family before. People just don't know how to differentiate between a phishing scam and a legitimate web site, and your average user is just going to take the bait and click on random crap and install all kinds of malware on their machine at some point. I've seen infected machines that just have memory and cpu usage maxed at all times when connected to a network, probably working as part of some bot network, and people use their computers for months without realizing there's something wrong. Then they eventually call me and say "Hey, you're good with computers right? Can you tell me why my computer is running so slow?"

el_koraco · 2011-08-13 17:17:52

Meh, the biggest problem with Win2k for me was that it spoiled me running so stable, kinda like a Linux distro. When I went to XP, the memory management and general instability of the system bothered me. My OEM install of Vista had dll hell from the get go. I couldn't find the bugger anywhere online. I guess I could have fished in somebody's XP install for it, but why bother. Time will tell, it seems like Win7 is about as stable as Win2k, but really people, it took you 10 years just to duplicate what was already there, only with shinier graphics?

Long story short, the Windows "server" versions are much better than their desktop ones, and the only operating system on my machines is #!

anonymous · 2011-08-13 18:54:00

mynis01 wrote:

You know, for all the windows bashing people do, you really have to place some blame on the end users for the problems with windows.

Theres definitely a lot of PEBKAC in the world big_smile

el_koraco wrote:

Long story short, the Windows "server" versions are much better than their desktop ones

So what about Windows Server 2008? Technically it is Vista and version R2 is Windows 7.

el_koraco · 2011-08-13 19:07:38

Well, win7 is technically a refined Vista big_smile
Dunno, haven't tried it, had Vista on my previous computer, and I'm administering two Win7 desktops for my mom's office. Much less a PITA than XP that she had on the machines before. I'll give it four years before I proclaim it better than Win2k

gutterslob · 2011-08-13 21:07:33

Meh, another "list" that includes Crunchbang but conveniently forgets to mention that it has by far the best forum community on the planet .... damn halfwits!! >_>

Awebb · 2011-08-13 23:13:44

el_koraco wrote:

Well, win7 is technically a refined Vista

That's like saying the increment of 1 is 2.

By the way: Windows server sucks, anything, that doesn't boot the network stack after a power outage BEFORE starting the "WTF went wrong" survey on why the computer hasn't been shut down in a more gentle way, sucks. Wednesday was the day, when I had to climb around in the server room and hook up a frickin monitor and a smelly keyboard to a Windows server, just to answer the really stupid question, why it didn't shut down in a pink flufflepuff compliant way. So I actually typed: "You didn't shut down when the UPS told you to, because you think you are the great cornholio." I mean... yeah... nice... cut me off from the damn box, so I need physical access. That's what I want from a server. Physical access. If I want physical access, I ask my boss' daughter out for dinner, but I don't want to move two floors down and a hundred meters north just two answer a question to a damn server. Well, I turned the service off, now we don't have any maintenance service anymore, but who needs them anyway, with a syslog-ng client and a linux box somewhere on the intranet.

el_koraco · 2011-08-14 00:34:24

Couldn't pinch in, I never used Windows Server as a server, I ran 2003 instead of XP as a desktop for a while, and preferred it to XP. Then I switched to openSUSE big_smile
And of course, Win2k was a server version brought to a desktop, kinda like Linux is. Not that I could make the connection at the time, I'd heard of Linux, but thought it was something like FreeDOS.

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-14 01:21:16

@Awebb
I couldn't help but laugh for a couple minutes.

@Anonymous
What's PEBCAK?

@Gutterslob
Yes, the writer forgot about the community, which is one of the biggest selling points.

I also laughed when I tried to convince a belligerent friend that Windows Millenium must be tried for its BSODs and other buggy nightmares.

While I do admit that Win7 is Vista done right, I'd rather have a WinXP with the Win7 fixes (not the bells and whistles). 20gb minimum for an OS installation makes me scream "Why?" in a dying fashion. I would only use win7 for the laziness of it fetching me my drivers, but its success is debatable.

Atm, I'm still wondering why my friend has an apple laptop but uses Windows 7 100% of the time, since it defeats the purpose of Mac.

anonymous · 2011-08-14 01:26:03

@sunfizz98 - Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard

psyco430404 · 2011-08-14 01:35:29

sunfizz98 wrote:

While I do admit that Win7 is Vista done right, I'd rather have a WinXP with the Win7 fixes (not the bells and whistles). 20gb minimum for an OS installation makes me scream "Why?" in a dying fashion. I would only use win7 for the laziness of it fetching me my drivers, but its success is debatable.
Atm, I'm still wondering why my friend has an apple laptop but uses Windows 7 100% of the time, since it defeats the purpose of Mac.

Personally speaking, and i know trolls will rise from this, i hate OSX and its design principals. (global menu, cartoonish style with aqua, and how they manage tasks [ie. dock]). To elaborate a bit more, it looks beautiful, but once you start to use it you see the flaws in it.

For instance, the dock. It looks good and its a great way to have launchers, that's how i have mine set up. But for managing applications switching and window changing its god awful if you have multiple instances open, and their alt+tab is no better because its again app centric.

The sharp colors they use to compliment the chrome look great, but after about 4 hours of work they begin to burn my eyes when i work on them constantly. Their carbon theme is no better, its the gloss they use that does it to my eyes.

and finally the global menu is like going around your elbow to get to your A**HO*E when you have dual monitors...so stupid...

that's just a few of my complaints design wise that windows does better. If im working extended, i can take win7 turn on the classic 95 style, no harsh colors, or bad design choices. Ican just work when im forced to use that system. Another way mac sucks is there's no uninstall wizard.......again that's just stupid...

This all GUI talk, as far as underlying system is concerned, its basically the same anymore due to apples growing share virus writers and hackers are starting to target them as well, so that benefit is lost.

My two cents as to why your bud is running windows on his OSX machine.

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-14 02:04:27

@psycho430404
Really? No uninstall wizard? So does that mean anything installed is "permanent"? I assumed the dock was a more elaborate version of rocketdock or any app launcher.

My friend was always a windows kind of person, although I would have assumed that he would be more linux friendly/compliant since he's in an IT field specialty.

psyco430404 · 2011-08-14 02:06:28

None what so ever unless it is packaged with the application. and the dock is a mess in my opinion, nothing beats a good windows list for App management.

I don't blame him my OS hierarchy goes like this
Linux>Windows>OSX

Tho linux is so blazingly far ahead on the list till i hate the other two any more.

anonymous · 2011-08-14 02:11:42

sunfizz98 wrote:

So does that mean anything installed is "permanent"?

Of course not. Uninstalling applications is just different. Since the applications are mostly self-contained, you can often just delete the application folder:

http://guides.macrumors.com/Uninstallin … n_Mac_OS_X

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-14 02:12:27

psyco430404 wrote:

I don't blame him my OS hierarchy goes like this
Linux>Windows>OSX
Tho linux is so blazingly far ahead on the list till i hate the other two any more.

Haha, sounds like my hierarchy even before I jumped the shark for linux. It's hard to find a reason to go back to windows except for games. Wine sometimes doesn't cut it for me.

Anyway...just another +1 list for #!

psyco430404 · 2011-08-14 02:14:33

sunfizz98 wrote:

psyco430404 wrote:
I don't blame him my OS hierarchy goes like this
Linux>Windows>OSX
Tho linux is so blazingly far ahead on the list till i hate the other two any more.
Haha, sounds like my hierarchy even before I jumped the shark for linux. It's hard to find a reason to go back to windows except for games. Wine sometimes doesn't cut it for me.
Anyway...just another +1 list for #!

Exactly lol, ive got my 7 partition for literally only TF2 since wine is a pain in the arse on 64-bit lol

@anonymous, your done over tho for the applications that arnt self contained, and even then, just deleting the folder doesn't remove all of its cache and such. That's just one area where they designed poorly. (all my opinion)

anonymous · 2011-08-14 02:25:43

psyco430404 wrote:

your done over tho for the applications that arnt self contained

How often do you encounter such an application though? Also if its not self contained, does it have its own method of installation?

psyco430404 wrote:

just deleting the folder doesn't remove all of its cache and such. That's just one area where they designed poorly. (all my opinion)

In Linux, removing a package won't remove any of its config/cache in your home folder either.

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-14 02:28:22

anonymous wrote:

psyco430404 wrote:
your done over tho for the applications that arnt self contained
How often do you encounter such an application though? Also if its not self contained, does it have its own method of installation?
psyco430404 wrote:
just deleting the folder doesn't remove all of its cache and such. That's just one area where they designed poorly. (all my opinion)
In Linux, removing a package won't remove any of its config/cache in your home folder either.

Then does purge remove all of the config/cache?

psyco430404 · 2011-08-14 02:37:43

Purge removes all root configurations, which is what i was talking about in the mac aspect, and any commercial application isn't contained. (ie adobe, autodesk, and microsoft.) and yeah commercial applications normally do, the only exception Ive found is autodesk not packaging something to remove their program.

Last edited by psyco430404 (2011-08-14 02:38:39)

el_koraco · 2011-08-14 08:15:12

sunfizz98 wrote:

While I do admit that Win7 is Vista done right, I'd rather have a WinXP with the Win7 fixes (not the bells and whistles). 20gb minimum for an OS installation makes me scream "Why?" in a dying fashion. I would only use win7 for the laziness of it fetching me my drivers, but its success is debatable.

In my limited experience, Win7 is worth the trouble of reinstalling if you wanna use Windows. There's quite a lot of improvements, not only with regards to looks, but memory management, a better driver model which makes your graphics drivers behave correctly, and overall stability, and the system reqs are not that much higher. The second of my mom's computers, a relatively old Pentium with one gig of ram, is chugging along nicely with Aero turned off. Also, the small stuff, like setting up a local network, is much easier for casual users.

The problem, I guess, is that nobody buys a copy and makes a clean install, but uses the OEM installs, which are a horrible mess with the crapware, or if they do make a clean install, they take the warez route, which usually means something is lacking about the whole thing.

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-14 22:34:54

If you consider preinstalled Win7 on retail systems as OEM, then yes they have tons of crapware. The only problem with the warez route is that some chaps have no idea how to make a good slipstream version of their respective OS. It either has too much junk like other retailers or not enough components, thus making a broken system. Unfortunately, a wide majority fail to realize the third cheaper option is to use the oh-so-friendly ubuntu linux. With some chump change, you can mail yourself a copy of linux.

I think OEM installs are obviously cheaper than the retail disk, but I wonder if those rescue/repair discs provided by said manufacturer are failsafe.

pvsage · 2011-08-15 01:43:20

^ Apparently a lot of manufacturers are recently considering the rescue/OEM image discs as optional; I seem to recall even my Dellbuntu Hardy rescue disc was an optional extra, and I'm pretty sure my roommate's latest desktop didn't come with a Vista disc.

sunfizz98 · 2011-08-15 02:35:36

I remember Asus making me do it on my own by peeving me about making the first backup. I dunno if that's considered a good thing or just them being lazy. Funny part is that I never needed those discs and went straight to #! a few months later.

mynis01 · 2011-08-15 05:20:18

pvsage wrote:

^ Apparently a lot of manufacturers are recently considering the rescue/OEM image discs as optional; I seem to recall even my Dellbuntu Hardy rescue disc was an optional extra, and I'm pretty sure my roommate's latest desktop didn't come with a Vista disc.

On my Lenovo laptop, I had to download a utility from Lenovo's website to make a set of restore disks (it took two DVDs and probably more time than it was worth). I probably should have just used clonezilla to make a binary image of the disk or something, but I wanted to have a way to revert it to factory if I decided to resell it. So much for that now though, since three moths ago I sold the hard drive it came with and stoped using windows entirely.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#26 2011-08-13 08:05:16

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#27 2011-08-13 14:49:33

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#28 2011-08-13 17:06:21

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#29 2011-08-13 17:17:52

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#30 2011-08-13 18:54:00

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#31 2011-08-13 19:07:38

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#32 2011-08-13 21:07:33

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#33 2011-08-13 23:13:44

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#34 2011-08-14 00:34:24

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#35 2011-08-14 01:21:16

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#36 2011-08-14 01:26:03

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#37 2011-08-14 01:35:29

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#38 2011-08-14 02:04:27

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#39 2011-08-14 02:06:28

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#40 2011-08-14 02:11:42

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#41 2011-08-14 02:12:27

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#42 2011-08-14 02:14:33

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#43 2011-08-14 02:25:43

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#44 2011-08-14 02:28:22

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#45 2011-08-14 02:37:43

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#46 2011-08-14 08:15:12

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#47 2011-08-14 22:34:54

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#48 2011-08-15 01:43:20

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#49 2011-08-15 02:35:36

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

#50 2011-08-15 05:20:18

Re: 7 Lightweight Outstanding distros-Guess who made the list?

Board footer