I've been hearing on the new microsoft OS. As a project they called LongHorn, form this i heard they are making a new OS that will completely alter the way they have been making OS's by making it faster more reliable and even simplier to use. So in other words Windows might have a decent OS to use in the future

I've been hearing on the new microsoft OS. As a project they called LongHorn, form this i heard they are making a new OS that will completely alter the way they have been making OS's by making it faster more reliable and even simplier to use. So in other words Windows might have a decent OS to use in the future

Unless I'm badly mistaken, I believe "Longhorn" was the code name they used for XP while it was under development. The latest thing from Microsoft is called Vista which is scheduled for release later this year.

You are badly mistaken, the development codename for Vista (means "chicken" in my native language) was Longhorn.
form this i heard they are making a new OS that will completely alter the way they have been making OS's by making it faster more reliable and even simplier to use.
bwhahahaha!

Besides I already use and have been using such an OS for 2 years now. It's called Linux.

ehh google microsoft longhorn and mostly what will come up is somthing about microsoft vista.... i can only assume thats what there basic code name is for a new OS.

bwhahahaha!

Besides I already use and have been using such an OS for 2 years now. It's called Linux.


lol notice where i said microsoft is making a good OS. Sorry to say but Linux although is better is irrelavent

Stephan told conference attendees that Longhorn will:

# launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
# boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to resume from standby in two seconds
# allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
# reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
# enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with existing versions of Windows.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1838263,00.asp

Actually it is Windows that is irrelevant to me, even if it's not to you.

You are badly mistaken, the development codename for Vista (means "chicken" in my native language) was Longhorn.


Thanks. That's what happens when someone is going strictly from memory - thus my disclaimer.

Actually it is Windows that is irrelevant to me, even if it's not to you.



Well regardless if it is irrelevant to you or not. It is irrelavent to this thread. Well I suppose it's not anymore, seeing as were talking about it now.

It actually isn't - M$ promising vapourware that's already been available somewhere else.

Stephan told conference attendees that Longhorn will:

# launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
# boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to resume from standby in two seconds
# allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
# reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
# enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with existing versions of Windows.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1838263,00.asp

All things that winxp should already have.

Sometimes I am waiting 30 sec for an application to lauch. I am happy to learn it's almost 5 secs faster.

I remember the days I had a psion. Applications launched instantly. That was revolutionary for me. Not that a bogged down OS that is less bogged down.

I'll even bet it runs faster only because it has higher systems demands.

And is it so that it needs to start up faster because it will crash more?

3 days and 16 hours ago I restarted my desktop pc first time in 4 months, and that's only because I wanted to upgrade to the newest kernel. That's the only time when Linux has to be restarted when upgraded and is equal to upgrading to a new version of an OS, like from Win98 to WinME.
And the restart was quite fast too.

All things that winxp should already have.

Sometimes I am waiting 30 sec for an application to lauch. I am happy to learn it's almost 5 secs faster.

I remember the days I had a psion. Applications launched instantly. That was revolutionary for me. Not that a bogged down OS that is less bogged down.

I'll even bet it runs faster only because it has higher systems demands.

And is it so that it needs to start up faster because it will crash more?


Nope actually because microsoft claims they have been worrying about the wrong thing's with there previous OS's.They said somthing like they have been worrying about the stability of the program opening and not paying much attention to process time to open and other stuff so now there incorperating stuff other OS's have been doing like linux i hardly doubt this OS will be bad and will be completly worth the money

Mmmmm.... Cosmetically speaking I've no doubt Vistas will be a refreshing change from XP, and the file search facility Gates has been mouthing off about, although I believe Apple have had something of equal functionality and actually incorporated for a while now, seems interesting enough - but we are dealing with Microsoft here.

Basic rule of thumb with all Windows OS's - never invest a penny until at least the first Service Pack becomes freely and widely available and ships as standard.

The security, or should we say virtual absence of security full stop with XP's release was shameful, appalling and in no small measure verging on the completely underhand - to release the system knowing full damn well 80% of the original source code had already been pilfered, prosecutable in my book and a good many others to boot. Shame nothing ever did come of that. I bought rotten vegetables and made a thermos and everything...

It took these fat arsed, smug faced corporate bastards 6 bladdy years after the release of Windows 95 to actually deliver a system that did half of what Windows 95 claimed it was all about for the home user and only got there by basically scrapping the entire line of Win9x development and switching to the NT kernel to do it - coining in money hand over fist from hopeful punters such as yourself and all the rest of us by doing little more than using the consumer as unpaid beta testers whilst the entire time smugly rubbing our faces, day in and day out, in the big steaming pile of what isn't actually chocolate mouse that is the Microsoft Corp we know and love today.

Personally I'm not going to be wetting my pants at the prospect of Windows releasing anything, let alone a new OS - an operating system that actually works isn't, contrary to popular belief, actually an event comparable to the Second Coming of Christ or anything like - it's a simple requisite on the part of the software vendor the consumer has every right to expect, no a favour to be proffered or something to perhaps one day maybe look forward too in the not too distant future.

Whatever else will happen Vistas is undoubtedly destined to become ubiquitous, of that I have not the slightest doubt - is it's imminent arrival something to be keenly anticipated though..?

As a Windows veteran, I have some measure of misgivings about that. Not so much concerning the actual OS itself, I'm sure it will be perfectly adequate after the fist service packs release, but the self congratulatory bull-shite Microsoft are going to be pushing at us left right and centre?

That, I could genuinely do with giving a complete miss.

my brother installed the beta version on a spare comp earlier this year to check it out, so we decided to have a play with it and...:

in order to properly run what is essentially windows XP with mac searching, windowblinds, and hydravision built in. it requires a 3ghz CPU, between 512 and 1024mb of ram, a 128mb video card(256mb if you want it to be smooth), and 4gb for the base install(not including the extra space it takes up in temp files, which usually amounts to about 3gb on an XP in 1 year)

games run pretty much the same, while windowed applications run considerably slower, and everything takes about 30% longer to boot because of all the resources windows is hogging.

its just a big bloated resource hog that you DONT need, and microsoft is trying to force it down your throat so that hardware manufacturers can make more money by selling us parts that we should only need to run high end games on full graphics, not for a desktop environment.

It's still in beta, don't be so critical. I'm sure after 2 years of patches it will be roughly where XP is today.

my brother installed the beta version on a spare comp earlier this year to check it out, so we decided to have a play with it and...:

in order to properly run what is essentially windows XP with mac searching, windowblinds, and hydravision built in. it requires a 3ghz CPU, between 512 and 1024mb of ram, a 128mb video card(256mb if you want it to be smooth), and 4gb for the base install(not including the extra space it takes up in temp files, which usually amounts to about 3gb on an XP in 1 year)

games run pretty much the same, while windowed applications run considerably slower, and everything takes about 30% longer to boot because of all the resources windows is hogging.

its just a big bloated resource hog that you DONT need, and microsoft is trying to force it down your throat so that hardware manufacturers can make more money by selling us parts that we should only need to run high end games on full graphics, not for a desktop environment.


Well, in the words of my freind.

"Windows does what users want, open source OS users always pick up on system resources, adware, viruses and anything else that
s technical and
negative, a lot of these points are things a normal user doesn't even know about.

Linux does very little; open source OS users see an operating system no further than the kernel and other low level technical features. The rest of the world sees an operating system as the graphical features and functions built in, things
that make life easier.

Linux is faster and more stable because it is not useful to most people, it doesn't do as much as Microsoft products. Many businesses use Linux as a serving OS, saving money and improving speed and uptime.

Linux has no standards. Windows is the most used OS, it makes sense for other software companies to develop software for Windows.

Imagine a high school switching to Linux, there
s no "getting used to Linux" the fact is that Linux is hard to use compared to Windows. Most people see a black screen and white writing as a problem with the computer, not a starting point to log in. "

So basically put your self in microsoft's shoes you have to do 30+ things at one time would you be able to do all of them with minimal sources at one time? or efficiantly? I hardly doubt it... if linux had to do the exact same things as microsoft it would go just as slow...and eat up just as many resources.... it eats up so many graphics because of its new interface.... besides thats a beta version it hasn't been sized down to fit "older" computers but when its released i can only assume it will be sized down in order for it to run better. in my opinion if you want a good OS go with mac. very good OS and stop saying how much better linux is compared to microsoft... the fact is microsoft has to do alot more work to keep up then linux does... i suppose if i didnt do nearly as much as some one else and did it faster that makes me better.....

Doesn't do anything? I clearly see now that you haven't even tried a Linux in some years, if ever.
And you're a troll too.

For others to look at ->

Some screenshots of my fav. distro Mandriva:
my desktop: http://piparmetra.net/ftp/scr01.jpg
KDE menu: http://piparmetra.net/ftp/scr02.jpg
My fav. cellular automation software: http://piparmetra.net/ftp/scr03.jpg

some those of my friends:
http://kwh.kernow-gb.com/~bvc/theme/screenshots/CL_Cairo-gP-ish-SELECTED.jpg
http://mandrivausers.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2143
http://xs62.xs.to/pics/06014/snapyness.png

Please tell me how any of that put's it on the level of microsoft and for the fact i don't use linux your a fool, i use linux to run several server's which is what it appears to be its best use.

What, crash level? :D
What is there that M$ could possibly give me? Excel? :D

I'm doing here video editing, webdesign, all the usual office, internet and archiving tasks. And that's more than many on Windblows do.

What, crash level? :D
What is there that M$ could possibly give me? Excel? :D

I'm doing here video editing, webdesign, all the usual office, internet and archiving tasks. And that's more than many on Windblows do.




Ok well im going to start this list but im not going to give the full list seeing as that would take hours possibly day's.

1. 5 star support....compared to linux's readme's
2. several media programs that can be used for such as movie editiing, song editing, media players, and ect. i must admit linux has very decent stuff with this but not as good as microsoft's
3. Massive update server... much better then linux could ever possibly beat
4. Affective security center, with constant updates
5. Easy to use interface, very strong compatibilty to 90% of the online world


if you want more then fine no problem... but the fact is microsoft is better then linux for most use's

1. 5 star? bwhahaha :D right... , besides I don't need any more than an occasional community support, all the answers are in forums, but one can always purchase an official support from Novell, Red Hat or Mandriva
2. Do all that stuff on Linux. Actually there's a whole LIVE cd distribution dedicated to media work. MediainLinux // I didn't know that MS has any media software apart from its' sluggish Windows Media Player and a few miserable wave editing apps.
3. You must be kidding, nothing is compared to S.M.A.R.T., and apt-get beats all that MS offers and I haven't even touched Gentoo universe with its' emerge everything.
4. And we all know how SECURE is Windows :rolleyes:
5. Easy to use doesn't mean better, besides I can do all that I need on Linux with closed eyes.

I don't need to see any more to know that you are uninformed, ignorant and a MS fanboy

Oh, and:
http://piparmetra.net/outer_realms/images/troll.jpg

1. 5 star? bwhahaha :D right... , besides I don't need any more than an occasional community support, all the answers are in forums, but one can always purchase an official support from Novell, Red Hat or Mandriva
2. Do all that stuff on Linux. Actually there's a whole LIVE cd distribution dedicated to media work. MediainLinux // I didn't know that MS has any media software apart from its' sluggish Windows Media Player and a few miserable wave editing apps.
3. You must be kidding, nothing is compared to S.M.A.R.T., and apt-get beats all that MS offers and I haven't even touched Gentoo universe with its' emerge everything.
4. And we all know how SECURE is Windows :rolleyes:
5. Easy to use doesn't mean better, besides I can do all that I need on Linux with closed eyes.

I don't need to see any more to know that you are uninformed, ignorant and a MS fanboy

Oh, and:
http://piparmetra.net/outer_realms/images/troll.jpg

Well im not gonna really insult you, because seeing as the basic linux user's look somthign like this
http://humorprovider.0catch.com/pics/linux_nerds.jpg
http://www.pegasus3d.com/download/ilovelinux.jpg
http://www.kaptainkrude.com/images/mimi.jpg


Plus with one password i can remotly control your linux system ...do you call that security?

Is it me or do all linux user's live in a fantasy world...
Troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Trolls with an abducted princess (John Bauer, 1915)
Enlarge
Trolls with an abducted princess (John Bauer, 1915)

This page is about the trolls of folklore. For Internet trolls, see that article. For other uses of the word, see Troll (disambiguation).

A troll is a fearsome member of a mythical anthropomorph race from Scandinavian folklore. Their role ranges from fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of English fairy tales – to a devious, more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills or mounds, inclined to thieving and the abduction of humans which, in the case of infant abductees, was substituted with a changeling. They could also be known as hill-folk or mound-folk. In Shetland and Orkney tales, trolls are called trowe.

Nordic literature, art and music from the romantic era and onwards has adapted trolls in various manners – often in the form of an aboriginal race, endowed with oversized ears and noses. From here, as well as from Scandinavian fairy tales such as Three Billy Goats Gruff, trolls have achieved international recognition, and in modern fantasy literature and role-playing games, trolls are featured to the extent of being stock characters. Fantasy trolls, however, are highly stereotyped versions of their Scandinavian predecessors.

When you call me a troll are you saying that im a fictional creature.... you guys play to much dungeons and dragons

Plus with one password i can remotly control your linux system ...do you call that security?
Try it, my root pass is: (dr05hird!5)

Ok well im going to start this list but im not going to give the full list seeing as that would take hours possibly day's.

1. 5 star support....compared to linux's readme's
2. several media programs that can be used for such as movie editiing, song editing, media players, and ect. i must admit linux has very decent stuff with this but not as good as microsoft's
3. Massive update server... much better then linux could ever possibly beat
4. Affective security center, with constant updates
5. Easy to use interface, very strong compatibilty to 90% of the online world


if you want more then fine no problem... but the fact is microsoft is better then linux for most use's

You should get a Mac then.

Try it, my root pass is: (dr05hird!5)


http://piparmetra.net/outer_realms/images/IMG_3741.JPG
http://piparmetra.net/outer_realms/images/IMG_3762-2.JPG
http://eldo.piparmetra.net/d/1942-2/IMG_4189.JPG


Well, you still have to turn your ssh server and i have to waste my time with it

honestly i dont see what the point is sure linux can do just as much as microsoft but it takes a lot longer to get the techonlogy to do it.besides like i said i do use linux... to run server's i would rather not waste my time on the computer trying to make it work like windows does... its rather pointless...

To spurious i do have a mac. an old one though... dont use it much

My last three pics submitted to sciforums picture thread, I'm so scared!! :eek:
Besides I use Linux exactly because it doesn't work like Windows does.

The only reason I have windows is because it supports more games. I'd rather have a stripped down version of windows though (even with a prompt command if possible) to play games.

There is just too much shit and that makes things too complex and vulnerable.

My computer is now logging in slowly because god knows what kind of settings have changed.

I would like a lean mean fighting OS!

You can make your computer double bootable, i.e., if you don't play games THAT often, every time you want to play, you could reboot to Windows. Then you'd have the freedom to configure Windows just for playing games, i.e., all fancy GUI off, all unneeded processes, everything else that slugs down gaming experience.

What is a nice linux version? (btw)

My last three pics submitted to sciforums picture thread, I'm so scared!! :eek:
Besides I use Linux exactly because it doesn't work like Windows does.


There really was no threat implied in those pictures.. more or less proving you are the stereotype linux user....

What is a nice linux version?
That's really a matter of choice, spurious :)
Any which fits to your style most.
I myself use Mandriva Linux 2005, it's very good, rock stable, with excellent multimedia support. There is the new MDV2006, but it's not yet so stable as I and others would like it to be.
So you can try MandrivaLinux 2005

Or you might prefer Ubuntu, which is easy to use too and has quite a good community support, just as Mandriva, but Mandriva has the easiest installer with a walkthrough here: http://www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr/installmdv2006.html
It's for 2006, but nothing has really changed much since 2005.

Then there is SUSE ( http://www.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org ) which is very nice and easy too.

You can check out those and others @ www.distrowatch.com
You can download cd iso's there too.

p.s. Mandriva is based in France, Open SUSE is mostly in Germany and Ubuntu in the USA, but all have good language support whatever language you prefer.

Mandriva and SUSE are stronger in multilang though.

There really was no threat implied in those pictures.. more or less proving you are the stereotype linux user....
Of course, all stereotype Linux users study law, work (as - for money) as Taekwon-Do referees in national tournaments and particepate in creative writing contests.

i suppose we will see how windows stacks up to linux when vista comes out

and anyways all of that is pretty lame man

Avatar,

You pretty much have just convinced me to intall linux on desktop.

All I really use it as is a media centre to output video to my tv via S-vid and downloading and burning Xbox games and whatnot.

Plus I have my laptop which ill keep running XP on. I never considered running linux on my desktop but the more i think about it the more it makes sense.

Quick question tho, im going to try out that distro that you use and it seems like its not as command line based as i thought linux was. It looks to me more like MacOS than anything else.

Also, it appears that their are some windows apps that i am going to have to use to connect to the xbox...can you reccomend any windows emulators that work well under linux, it appears to be the only way.

Thanks a lot. If you have any other links I should check out, i would really appriciate it.

to be frank the odd's are the emulators might not exist for it but im not to sure it depends exactly what programs your looking for emulators of the xbox on the computer?

theirs a client that is used to connect to the xbox to do things such as move files and create backups.

the client only runs under windows

i know their are windows emulators for linux that can be used for small programs and whatnot

im just thinking about emulating windows so i can run the program that connects to the xbox

anyway, avatar, if you woulnt mind, id like to shoot you a pm and ask you a few things

sure, but better email me, the mail is in the profile, I have disabled PMing due to massive spam.
will answer all your questions just when I get home in 5h or so

Just a few screen shots of Vista

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_18.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_36.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_07.jpg - notice where it says search on that this is basically a shortcut to looking for the program through the list instead you can type it in and it finds it.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_cleaninstall_gallery.asp
Shows and easy installation
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_41.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_49.jpg

a few more from different sites

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image017.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image010_low.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image013.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image018.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image015.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/image019.jpg
Seem's pretty good for a home computer's use

"Windows does what users want, open source OS users always pick up on system resources, adware, viruses and anything else that
s technical and
negative, a lot of these points are things a normal user doesn't even know about.

The average user is computer illiterate.

Also ricky, those screens are flashy yes, but to be flashy they use far too much resources. You can get the same amount of flashyness on XP by simply downloading windowblinds.

The average user is computer illiterate.

Also ricky, those screens are flashy yes, but to be flashy they use far too much resources. You can get the same amount of flashyness on XP by simply downloading windowblinds.


The program that gives those looks is VERY simular to windowsblinds only thign is its slightly more advanced it does it up resouces but computers will be very well upgraded around that time to almost meet a standard to the requirements it more of a sale's pitch (to sale stuff you don't really need) but windows is targeted at home computer use and buyer's for this will always buy the extra stuff

So, if it is only slightly more advanced, yet uses up much more resources, why bother? Surely Micro$oft could have simply used windowblinds itself, and free up precious resources?

but then they would have to pay windowsblinds alot of money and do alot of stuff to follow windowsblinds when they could do it themselves for much cheaper besides it runs much faster even with them on and you have the option of taking them off

Time = money, so working on a new program when one is already available makes no sense, especially when you know that anything you make will be inferior to the one you could simply pay royalties for and include.

but it's not inferior its better... i just got the beta release of it its much much better then windows blinds..... it really does put windowsblinds to shame

Better how?

oooh, look, shiny!

The gui eye candy is only the tip of the iceberg for the new windows. There are many changes that have taken place under the hood as well. Some I like. Some I don't.

But. I don't get what you people are bitching about. I understand Avatar's bitch. He's a linux guy and hates Windows on general purposes. I'm cool with that. I have tried both and I have to say that while linux is nice in that, if you know what you're doing, you can have much more control over your system. But, its main problem is that you really need to apply yourself to it. You have to read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, and then, just when you think you've got it, you've got to read some more.
Seriously. Linux, for new users, is insanely difficult. Various distros have done a lot to simplify it and it is getting easier to use, but even so it's difficult.
Here.
Have fun reading this: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/howtos.html

Now. Once you've got a grip on what is happening in linux, you have learned much more than you would have in Windows. You gain more knowledge of the computer architecture and operations and such.
But, for the average user who just wants to browse for porn and play some mp3's, and download the occasional program off the net... nah. Not yet.
Maybe in a few more years. But, I doubt it. Fact is that linux doesn't really want the general public involved. They're not quite as elitist as Apple users, but they're close. They like things being difficult. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. Something to lord over those stupid windows users...

Anyway.
This wasn't supposed to be a linux rant. I actually like linux. But just insist on looking at it objectively rather than idealistically.

Like I said, I understand Avatar's dislike for windows.

But, how about the complaints issued by Commie Hamster?
I don't understand them at all.

"Time = money, so working on a new program when one is already available makes no sense, especially when you know that anything you make will be inferior to the one you could simply pay royalties for and include."

So. By this logic. Is it safe to assume that you're typing to us from a windows 3.1 environment? Don't you love that progman? Man. Those were the days.

The thing, commie old boy, is that by integrating it into the system, it runs more tightly with less conflicts with the rest of the system.

Sure. Windows is a bloated resource hog.
So? Is this new?
Are you saying that XP isn't bloated and a resource hog?
Windows 95? Me? 2000?
Look at each of them in context.
When Windows 95 came out, it needed 8 megs of ram to run smoothly.
8 Megs!!
That was a LOT.
And it ran slow as hell.
And all these companies came out with their rip off ram optimizer software. Softram, etc....
Lame.
And yet. Now. Due to technological advance. 8 megs of ram is laughable.

Windows Vista is being built with this technological trend in mind.
Why do you think that Microsoft should not keep up with technology? Do you think they should still be building for the old 4 meg days?
Did you know that a huge part of this new Vista is more effective memory management?
Because XP was built on the NT kernel which was built in the days of little memory and thus the address space is limited?

Vista is a step forward.
Simple as that.
There will be aspects of it that will be successful and popular.
There will be aspects that will fail and be unpopular.
There will be combinations of the above in various ways.
But, it is a step forward. And if you don't like progress...? Well. I know where you can get an Apple ][+ cheap. Hey. Think of it. 64 kb of ram. Whoah.

And, by the way, concerning windowblinds and Vista.
So Vista has themes.
Do you really think that Microsoft is going to make it as customizable as Windowblinds?
Riiiight.

Think of how much more the new windowblinds will be able to do.

I wouldn't call bloating the software progress.

Have you ever tried to solve a problem in windows. I wish I could read, read and read like in Linux as you say.

No. Nor would I call bloating the software progress. Microsoft has a problem with this and, from what I've seen, is actually attempting to deal with this.

There was a thread a while back with a link to video about Vista, here's a link to the whole series of 'Going Deep' videos which are really interesting. They explain a lot of where Windows is heading and how it is attempting to deal with mistakes of the past (and mistakes of the present and future...
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going_Deep

Anyway.
I'm not saying that bloating the software is progress. What I am saying is that maintaining an OS that is built for lean systems of the past is a mistake. And those who view Microsoft poorly because they build for newer systems rather than older systems are looking at progress as indicative of poor business choices.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who grew up here (Seattle) and remembers the place when it was a relatively small town. He looks at the houses and businesses with contempt in his voice as he scorns progress.

He'd crawl into a cave and fling feces at progress if he had the courage to do so. But, he is incapable of doing any more than complaining and living a hypocritical life as his business is dependent upon that very progress which he scorns.

Bah.


Anyway. The point is that Microsoft has made a large number of changes to Windows in this new version. But, what everyone is focusing on is the eye candy. The very eye candy which they go out of their way to acquire through third party software while complaining about how shitty Windows looks compared to Apple.

The bloat is there. And inevitable (for Microsoft.) But, so too are the changes which necessitate making this a new os rather than an update to a past one.


If you don't like the new Windows then stick with the old ones. XP is most likely not going to stop being updated for several more years I imagine. Windows 95 and 3.1 are still available (although unsupported.) There's Linux for the techies. There's Apple for the elitist scum. Lot's of choices.

But. In the end. The marketplace decides, doesn't it?
Funny thing, that. The marketplace.


Anyway.
As to documentation.
Well. If you wish you could read read read, then Linux is for you. Good luck.
But, you can find lots of documentation on Windows as well.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/default.aspx
I'm not sure how much you get without a subscription, but I know there is a lot of content there. Plus, you can find bootlegs of MSDN available for download here and there.

Have I ever tried to solve a problem in Windows? You bet. And it's always been a piece of cake to solve. Much easier than many problems I've had to solve with Linux.
But, that's just me.

Have I ever tried to solve a problem in Windows? You bet. And it's always been a piece of cake to solve. Much easier than many problems I've had to solve with Linux.
But, that's just me.

Please drop by to fix my network problems. I have given up.

Ah. Yes. You had the Internet Connection Sharing problem, yes?
Well. To be honest, I've never used it. Always turn off that service (it's paired up with the windows firewall.)
But, I bet that if I had physical access to your machine I could get it going.
It's difficult trying to give tech advice over the net or the phone.
There's no replacement for actually being there and having your hands on the box. Digging around and finding out what the problem is.

Bear in mind, that Internet Connection Sharing is a Microsoft idea and might well be considered by some to be part of that 'bloat' you're talking about.

I guarantee you that it would be far more complicated to set up in linux than Windows (assuming that you ever get it set up in windows or that I could do so in your place.) There are certain installs that would set you up as a server with basic default settings, but to get in to the nuts and bolts and set your security and other configurations....
Yeesh.
I remember trying to set up ipchains one time... That was a nightmare. But once learned, you can set up a lot more custom rules than possible in most windows firewall software. But, with the ability to really get in and control comes complexity. Much of this complexity is masked in windows. This is why it's so popular among the computer illiterate. Click and go.

You know.
Something I was wondering about your situation.
You're not using a hub? Do you have the right cat5 cable? Do you have a crossover cable? You need a crossover cable if the two computers are directly wired without a hub or router in between. And, you'd also need to set up the ip address for each computer manually, I believe, as there would be no DHCP server doing it for you.
Are you on broadband or dial up? If broadband, I'd suggest buying a router.