Help In My War Against Microsoft!

[Speedo]

Any examples? Most of the computers on Dell's site look like rip-offs, even the ones that cost <$1000

The thing with OEMs is the sales they run. Take for example this HP.

Take the base config, with the (currently free) upgrade to 2GB of memory, and it's plenty for anyone who just needs internet/email and the other basic stuff. For $450. Not even a shipping charge (atm). Even if you could build a comperable system for that price -would be difficult, IMO- I doubt you'd save enough to make it worth it.

 

[Zelig]

Any examples? Most of the computers on Dell's site look like rip-offs, even the ones that cost <$1000

They're not bad deals, it's difficult for someone to build anything better when comparing to something like their $350 system.

This comes particularly because Dell can sell systems with cheap parts cheaply, when consumers don't save as much on low end components.

Take hard drives for example, the $350 Dell machine comes with a 160GB drive. For consumers, buying a retail (or OEM) 500GB drive is only about $40 more ($100 vs. $60) than a 160GB drive, but you can bet that Dell is saving a lot more proportionally than what they'd pay for a 500GB drive in a system like that.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

I was planning to build my next system myself anyway, partly because I want some odd things on it (such as a Zip Drive, 3 1/2 Floppy, 5 1/4 Floppy if possible, 10 USB ports) secondly that I want to make it as future-proof as possible (like leaving lots of space in the shell + extra slots) and lastly that I have enough PC parts littering my home to make enough PC's for a small school....

 

[Beam]

This thread should be easier than the last....I hope.

In my continuing war aginst Microsoft, I recently downloaded FireFox for use instead of IE. And I report, I was very happy with my desicion. So happy, that I want to banish IE just like I banished Office - to electronic heaven . However, it's all a tangle in there and not exactly sure how to rip it out without killing the OS itself (not ready yet to embace Unix) My OS is XP Pro SP 2 - European Edition (if that matters).

On a related topic, is there another option than Media Player which won't cack up my music allready on there?

Thanks for any help you are able to give me...

Make a dual boot Linux with a nice distro like Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS (iirc). Most if not all have a download that can be burned to a CD and boot from there and have all the utils to install as dual boot if you like it.

It took me a couple of days 1,5 year ago to get it installed and with the great help at the Ubuntu forums easily managed to do so. [] Since then saved a hell of a lot of time with things I don't have to do anymore to keep my sys running like regcleaning, removing unneccessary files, waiting for the virus scanner to complete, waiting for Windoze to complete updates and reboot etc., etc.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

On a related topic, is there another option than Media Player which won't cack up my music allready on there?

Thanks for any help you are able to give me...

Quicktime for movies, iTunes for music.

 

[Strider]

Make a dual boot Linux with a nice distro like Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS (iirc). Most if not all have a download that can be burned to a CD and boot from there and have all the utils to install as dual boot if you like it.

Also, if you want any questions answered, be free to drop by the CFC chatroom. There is quite a few of us that use Ubuntu regularly (and me full-time) there.

 

[Jamesds]

Yes, if you want to "win the war against Microsoft", you'll have to ditch XP as your OS and use Linux. Being a casual user of Ubuntu (installed on my external HD for dual booting), I would highly recommend it as a quality fully-fledged operating system. The latest version of Ubuntu - 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon - has been very easy to set up, even though I have two components (broadcom 43xx wireless and ATI Radeon Xpress 200M graphics) which were barely supported in previous versions.

If you have some software you still want to use, or can't find alternatives for, then do check out Wine and the AppDB - it may be that it is able to run your application within Linux, albeit with minor tweaks.

I was planning to build my next system myself anyway, partly because I want some odd things on it (such as a Zip Drive, 3 1/2 Floppy, 5 1/4 Floppy if possible, 10 USB ports)

That certainly is odd . 5 1/4 floppy drive? You still get them? And a ZIP drive? I can only presume you have lots of data spread around these archaic forms of backing storage. I did just last year back up a program to a 5 1/4" floppy, but then it was assembly code on the BBC Micro, so I didn't have much of a choice - and I put it on 2 others for good measure. Amazing, after 15-20 years these discs are still holding data, and reading and writing. I played an ancient asteroids game on it, great fun .

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Just get Leopard. Unix is almost immune to viruses.

 

[Shadylookin]

Just get Leopard. Unix is almost immune to viruses.

anyone that would leave windows on principle definitely shouldn't switch to mac. There business practices are just as bad if not worse they just don't get a bad rap because they aren't a monopoly.

Besides paying for unix when you could get freebsd(or switching to linux) for free just seems dirty to me. heck there are even themes for ubuntu that basically make the OS look like mac.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

But Unix is the safest language, and Apple makes some fine products, so go with them. Plus it's only $130. FreeBSD has more errors than Leopard. I would rather use Unix than Linux and rather use Linux than Windows. Unfortunately I have to use windows.

 

[Aramazd]

But Unix is the safest language,

Unix is an OS. Not a language.

and Apple makes some fine products, so go with them. Plus it's only $130. FreeBSD has more errors than Leopard.

I can't comment on this since I haven't used a Mac with OS X yet.

I would rather use Unix than Linux and rather use Linux than Windows.

Why is Unix better than Linux?

 

[Shadylookin]

But Unix is the safest language,

unix is an operating system. it's written in the C language like every(well probalby not every but most) operating system is.

and Apple makes some fine products, so go with them.

apple makes products that typically lock you in to apple products. For example unless i'm mistaken leopard is only supported on macs and not pcs.

Plus it's only $130.

the others are $0 and you can give them away, make copies, and print out the source code and drop the stack of papers from several stories up and watch pedestrians run for their lives.

FreeBSD has more errors than Leopard.

this is something i highly doubt. FreeBSD is used at the corporate level for servers and has proven to be rock solid.

I would rather use Unix than Linux and rather use Linux than Windows. Unfortunately I have to use windows.

for all intents and purposes linux is unix. the only thing separating them is that unix is a trademarked name and costs big bucks to use. It is basically unix from scratch(originally based off of minix). FreeBSD and apple are based off of BSD unix legally speaking their not unix either(unless apple bought into the name)

 

[Strider]

for all intents and purposes linux is unix. the only thing separating them is that unix is a trademarked name and costs big bucks to use. It is basically unix from scratch(originally based off of minix). FreeBSD and apple are based off of BSD unix legally speaking their not unix either(unless apple bought into the name)

Aye. There are some (pretty minor) differences, but linux is basically just the free/open source version of unix.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Unix is an OS. Not a language.

I can't comment on this since I haven't used a Mac with OS X yet.

Why is Unix better than Linux?

Oops, sorry.

Because it's built on a safer OS than Linux.

unix is an operating system. it's written in the C language like every(well probalby not every but most) operating system is.



apple makes products that typically lock you in to apple products. For example unless i'm mistaken leopard is only supported on macs and not pcs.



the others are $0 and you can give them away, make copies, and print out the source code and drop the stack of papers from several stories up and watch pedestrians run for their lives.



this is something i highly doubt. FreeBSD is used at the corporate level for servers and has proven to be rock solid.



for all intents and purposes linux is unix. the only thing separating them is that unix is a trademarked name and costs big bucks to use. It is basically unix from scratch(originally based off of minix). FreeBSD and apple are based off of BSD unix legally speaking their not unix either(unless apple bought into the name)

The reason that I like Apple's Unix is because they don't tamper with Unix. They use Unix, and build a GUI around a solid base, unlike Microsoft.

Obviously Leopard is only available on Macs. But Apple's products are actually worth it, unlike other companies' products, so being locked into Apple (which isn't the case anyway, look at Office...)

I would rather purchase an OS than get a free one, unless it's Linux, since then there can't be forged versions of it, or complex problems only a true computer genius could resolve.

Unix &#8800; Linux

There are many differences between the two. If you mean the GUI, then yes, you're right. But the actual OSes are very different.

 

[Strider]

The reason that I like Apple's Unix is because they don't tamper with Unix. They use Unix, and build a GUI around a solid base, unlike Microsoft.

OSX is NOT Unix. OSX is Unix-like. Same as linux is.

Unix &#8800; Linux

There are many differences between the two. If you mean the GUI, then yes, you're right. But the actual OSes are very different.

Mac OS X does not equal Unix.

OS X is based off of BSD.

The various BSD variants are notable in that they are in fact descendants of UNIX, developed by the University of California at Berkeley with UNIX source code from Bell Labs. However, the BSD code base has evolved since then, replacing all of the AT&T code. Since the BSD variants are not certified as compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, they are referred to as "UNIX-'like'".

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

OSX is NOT Unix. OSX is Unix-like. Same as linux is.



Mac OS X does not equal Unix.

OS X is based off of BSD.

1) Where are you getting that from? I have been taught that from a guy who has made his living off that kind of stuff, and unless you cite me a beastly-good source, I'm going to have trouble believing it.

2) You're right, there are some slight differences between them, but the similarities are far more numerous.

 

[Strider]

1) Where are you getting that from? I have been taught that from a guy who has made his living off that kind of stuff, and unless you cite me a beastly-good source, I'm going to have trouble believing it.

2) You're right, there are some slight differences between them, but the similarities are far more numerous.

Let me put it simply. Mac OS X is based off of BSD. BSD is considered to be Unix-Like. Got it?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I understand that, but I still have yet to hear where you are getting the first thing from.

 

[Shadylookin]

Oops, sorry.

Because it's built on a safer OS than Linux.



The reason that I like Apple's Unix is because they don't tamper with Unix. They use Unix, and build a GUI around a solid base, unlike Microsoft.

MS was never meant to be unix or unix like

Obviously Leopard is only available on Macs. But Apple's products are actually worth it, unlike other companies' products, so being locked into Apple (which isn't the case anyway, look at Office...)

vendor lock in is a pain in the rear no matter whose giving it to you. Getting leopard for him means coughing up the cash for high prices of macs in comparison to pcs.

I would rather purchase an OS than get a free one, unless it's Linux, since then there can't be forged versions of it, or complex problems only a true computer genius could resolve.

I'll sell you a linux distro if it makes you feel any better I highly doubt you'll get a bad copy from the official FreeBSD site or any linux distro's site.

Unix &#8800; Linux

There are many differences between the two. If you mean the GUI, then yes, you're right. But the actual OSes are very different.

none of the UNICIES are the same HP-UX is not the same as Solaris which is not the same as Mac OS X.
I'm sure linux is different from the unix kernel simply from all the extra stuff it supports. However when put into practice I haven't seen a significant difference between a linux distro, solaris, or freebsd. what differences do you notice?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

MS was never meant to be unix or unix like



vendor lock in is a pain in the rear no matter whose giving it to you. Getting leopard for him means coughing up the cash for high prices of macs in comparison to pcs.



I'll sell you a linux distro if it makes you feel any better I highly doubt you'll get a bad copy from the official FreeBSD site or any linux distro's site.



none of the UNICIES are the same HP-UX is not the same as Solaris which is not the same as Mac OS X.
I'm sure linux is different from the unix kernel simply from all the extra stuff it supports. However when put into practice I haven't seen a significant difference between a linux distro, solaris, or freebsd. what differences do you notice?

I never said anything about that.

But that's simply because the Macs actually can perform tasks efficiently. Sure those $500 Dells sound pretty appealing, especially with those shiny plastoid coverings, but they'll get outdated within a year or so. You either pay a lot and replace less often or you pay less and replace more often.

Free OSes just don't cut it for me. It always seems like there's something out to get me. I might just be paranoid because of my old PC, but oh well.

Sorry, I don't speak computer.