Yes, I think my max uptime for Win2K was about 6 months, then we had a power outage.  Absent hardware issues, it's damned near bulletproof.

Unfortunately, the modus operandi of most software companies, and MS is no exception, is to force upgrades to drive revenue, whether the user wants it or not.  There are no technical reasons 2000 couldn't run IE7, or the latest .NET applications, but it certainly helps the bottom line.

cough

Aren't you missing something in your list? At the moment I am typing this message on none of the OSes that you have put on your list.

I only reboot my iBook when installing system updates that require system reboots. I run the maintenence processes regularly, and the system never gives me any trouble.

Aren't you missing something in your list?

Yes, I am missing something. But AmigaOS is dead, more or less.

2003 p0wnz 2000

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

2003 p0wnz 2000

I was referring to the workstation version. Sorry for the confusion.

Windows 2000 is one of the least secure operating systems Microsoft has ever released, and that's saying a lot.  Its plug-and-play vulnerability, unpatched by many 2000 curmudgeons, has given birth to a thousand botnets.

and far, far easier to manage than any Linux.

All computers are hard to manage; some are just hard to manage in ways we are more familiar with.  Windows puts everything into a nest of overlapping dialog boxes with non-intuitive user interfaces (how many times do I have to click on the word "Advanced," either as button or a tab, to get my new Wifi card to work?).  I still haven't figured out how to get Windows to run off of a live boot CD.  And Windows doesn't come close to touching the convenience of package managers in Linux.  Linux gives you one command to find, download, unpack, and install a software package; Windows makes you Google for it yourself, download it, and run a customized GUI installer.

As for Windows Vista, I cannot drive home how useless this upgrade will be for users any better than Bill Gates can:

NEWSWEEK: If one of our readers confronted you in a CompUSA and said, "Bill, why upgrade to Vista?" what would be your elevator pitch?
Bill Gates: The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar, show them the way the search lets you go through lots of things, including lots of photos. Set up a parental control. And then I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos. As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?"

In other words, Vista is as useful as XP with Google Desktop, Net Nanny, and a DVD burner installed.  Or, you could just try a new Linux distro with eye candy installed by default.

Linux gives you one command to find, download, unpack, and install a software package;

While I love the idea of Linux, I've never been able to take the plunge. Every time I try to switch over, something goes wrong. I've tried SuSE, Ubuntu, and Mandriva, and while each distro has come a long way, they all still have a long way to go. The biggest, glaring holes right now are in hardware support. I realize that this isn't something that Linux developers have a lot of control over, but the lack of third party driver support is extremely problematic. This is most apparent when you contrast the state of video card drivers to the state of audio drivers.

For whatever reason, nvidia provides pretty good Linux support for its cards, and they work flawlessly once you get them set up. Sound cards, on the other hand, can be a real bear to get working properly, and even once you have them up and running the mixer interfaces are usually poorly labeled and difficult to work with. Even if you do get the hardware working, you can run into a stupid default setting that screws everything up.

I recently installed SuSE in a dual-boot setup, and everything seemed to install fine but there was no sound. It turned out that by default new users added to the system are not members of the "sound" group, so they need to be manually added to it via the Users panel in YaST. I figured that out eventually, but how many people making the switch are going to install, see that they have no sound, and decide it's not worth it? (I decided it wasn't worth it when I couldn't get my wireless card to work, even with ndiswrapper)

Desktop Linux is now to the point where everything works most of the time, but it's still a few steps behind OS X, Vista, or XP in terms of usability. About half the interface looks polished, but the other half is downright primitive (i.e. the mixers, the tools for setting up & controlling wireless internet connections, etc). Until I can do everything in Linux (to be fair, I'm not even counting the better availability of software for Windows) that I can in Windows, I just can't justify switching.

I know what you are talking about.  It can be a pain to get Linux working in a world of Windows hardware.  But it is really much easier now.  Although personally, I've never owned a PC with a serious sound card, so maybe there are problems there.

But seriously, it's come a LONG way.  When I first tried Linux in 1999, it got the refresh rate wrong on my video, the thing wouldn't recognize my modem at all unless I was a root user, and I didn't even try to print.  But today, a default Ubuntu install recognized my entire system, without any fiddling from me.  It even knows what the special proprietary buttons on my Logitech keyboard are supposed to do (pop up the calculator, mail, web application).  USB flash drives, printers, even scanners -- they all work perfectly.  I am now at the point that if hardware doesn't work with Linux, I blame the hardware, not Linux.

But seriously, it's come a LONG way. When I first tried Linux in 1999, it got the refresh rate wrong on my video, the thing wouldn't recognize my modem at all unless I was a root user, and I didn't even try to print. But today, a default Ubuntu install recognized my entire system, without any fiddling from me.

I'm glad it worked out for you, and I agree it has come a long way, but just recently (with Efty Edge) I had to manually configure the graphics drivers to get x-windows working (on a computer I built for my parents - they only do e-mail / browse the web, and linux keeps the viruses away). My sister's boyfriend installed Efty Edge and couldn't even get X windows to load (he's not as computer savvy as you or I, but he's decent). And as I mentioned - the wireless support is just bad across the board. If you have the right hardware, it can work flawlessly; but if you don't, watch out. As I said above, that's as much the vendor's fault as anything, but it's still a hurdle that needs to be overcome before I can honestly recommend linux to mid-range tech savvy folks. I think it's great if you really want to fiddle with the system all the time, and it's great for a "parent's computer" that will only be used for very basic things (in fact, it's better than great for that due to the lack of virus / security problems), but for people who do a lot of stuff with their computer, but generally want it to "just work" without a lot of fiddling around, I'd still say Windows and OS X have linux beat.

the wireless support is just bad across the board.

Hell, yes. I just went through absolute hell getting wireless going on Edgy Eft on a home build. The Ubuntu forums were ahem less than helpful. Eventually, I had to ask a local guru to help, hands-on stylee.

Still, I'm going to plug away, just because a open source is appeals to my wallet and info-philosophy more than the ill-founded and overly expensive elitism of apple or the greedhead must have more m.o. of microsoft.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

Its plug-and-play vulnerability, unpatched by many 2000 curmudgeons...

You judge the security of an OS by the actions of people who don't bother to apply patches?

If you apply the security patches offered by Microsoft, don't use Internet Explorer, and put your machine behind a firewall, then WIndows 2000 is absolutely secure.

Linux gives you one command to find, download, unpack, and install a software package; Windows makes you Google for it yourself, download it, and run a customized GUI installer

I wouldn't consider third-party software to be part of an operating system except for things that are explicitly tied in to the OS. Which brings me to my next point,

...how many times do I have to click on the word "Advanced," either as button or a tab, to get my new Wifi card to work?

So, I finally gave up on Linux because there was no way to make RPM or yum find a driver for my wireless card on that laptop that I had installed Linux on. But guess what: Windows 2000 had a driver for that card, and even made it simple to discover, download, and install an updated driver when the card's manufacturer released one.

If you apply the security patches offered by Microsoft, don't use Internet Explorer, and put your machine behind a firewall, then WIndows 2000 is absolutely secure.

Replace "absolutely" with "relatively" and I am with you.  But I do blame the operating system for the fact that people don't patch it.  Microsoft should have turned on auto-update by default.  OS X and most Linuxes do, as does Vista.

Also, I blame Microsoft for the vulnerabilities in IE.  IE is part of Windows, after all; just ask Microsoft's antitrust lawyers.

I wouldn't consider third-party software to be part of an operating system except for things that are explicitly tied in to the OS.

Obviously, but most people do find installing and running software to be useful things to do with an operating system.  Notepad and Minesweeper can get old.  (Speaking of which, Linux has better games and text editors out of the box).  So the ease of downloading and installing software is a valid comparison.

There's a problem with one WIfi chipset used in PCMCIA cards.  They are Windows-only.  This is, indeed, a pain.  But consider where your baselines are:  You are putting Linux on top of Windows hardware.  If you tried to install Windows on top of a Mac, you would also have problems.  When you want to run Linux, it is easy enough to shop for hardware for which drivers are available.  The fact that Linux can use so much hardware that Windows can also use is a huge plus, but you can't hold against Linux the fact that some hardware vendors want their stuff to be Windows only.

Microsoft should have turned on auto-update by default

Let me clarify a couple things: when I am referring to Windows 2000 being the best OS ever I meant 1) it's the best workstation OS, and 2) I include updates as being part of the OS.

Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 turned installed and turned on the "Automatic Updates" function.

Speaking of which, Linux has better games and text editors out of the box

Yeah, and how many text editors does the typical Linux distro install by default? Windows has two (Notepad and Wordpad), and, for the typical user, more is not better.

...you can't hold against Linux the fact that some hardware vendors want their stuff to be Windows only

Actually, I can and I do. And so do most people, I think. As a practical matter, even third-party device drivers are part of an OS, and Windows ships with far more of them than Linux, and supports them better as well.

When you choose an operating system you are choosing a system, not just a random group of programs. I am well aware that there are a number of technical reasons that many Linux components are superior to their Windows counterparts, but, as a system, Windows is clearly superior.

Linux is not superior when it is installed on hardware that is not designed for Linux.  Also, Windows is not superior when you install it on hardware that is not designed for Windows.  Try installing Windows on a MacBook without Bootcamp (or whatever that thing is called) and see if you prefer it to OS X.  Or, try installing it on a PowerPC processor machine, and see how it turns it into a brick.  This says more about your choice of hardware than it says about your choice of an operating system to run on that hardware.

Anyway, at this point the incompatible hardware we're talking about is pretty damn cheap -- cheaper than what Microsoft charges for a home license of Vista, in fact.  If the only problem you're having is that you have a Windows-only wifi card, a real wifi card will cost you, what, $50?

Windows is not superior when you install it on hardware that is not designed for Windows

The choice offered by having a wider selection of hardware (vastly wider, I might add) available is only one of the reasons that Windows is a better system than Linux.  More important is the fact, only tangentially related to the structure and support of the OS, that there is a much better selection of software available for Windows, and among those selections are software packages that, for all practical purposes, are unavailable for Linux.

The choice offered by having a wider selection of hardware (vastly wider, I might add) available is only one of the reasons that Windows is a better system than Linux.  More important is the fact, only tangentially related to the structure and support of the OS, that there is a much better selection of software available for Windows, and among those selections are software packages that, for all practical purposes, are unavailable for Linux.

Summarised: Windows is better because it has a monopoly status so all software companies write programs for it, and all hardware companies write drivers for it.

Up until 2002, I think, I used Windows. Then I transitioned to Linux, using the same hardware that I'd had XP on. When I was preparing to leave Japan, I needed a laptop, and obviously Linux wasn't at that stage yet. So I made the move to my iBook.

I had a dual-boot when I had Linux, but for some strange reason I never booted into windows. Browsing the internet, photo-editing and playing games was all done in Linux. Thankfully I like D&D based RPGs, and NWN had a linux program core.

Yes, my requirements are limited compared to some users, but I wonder just how many people do more with their computers than I do? Would they really miss the multitude of programs that are released for Windows?

Anyway, the debate is going to become purely academic for me when I upgrade to an Intel iMac this year, and use Parallels to run the one or two Windows programs that I would like to use. But still, it is funny to me that the major arguments in Windows favour is not the OS itself, but its monopoly position.

Yes, my requirements are limited compared to some users, but I wonder just how many people do more with their computers than I do? Would they really miss the multitude of programs that are released for Windows?

That depends on whether you are asking about users switching to Linux or MacOS. The lack of an office suite that is compatible with Microsoft Office is probable the major thing that is hindering the widespread adoption of Linux by business users. Although MS Office is available for the Mac, the lack of low cost hardware to run it on is probably the major thing hindering the adoption of MacOS by business users.

But still, it is funny to me that the major arguments in Windows favour is not the OS itself, but its monopoly position

Your comment demonstrates that Windows does not have a monopoly. Windows dominance is a result of Microsoft focusing on the needs of users. It's really that simple. What are those needs? Low cost and easy to use programs. Linux competes on the former, and MacOS on the latter, but until one of those operating systems is able to compete on both I don't see Windows losing its dominance.

The question (getting back to the topic) is whether Vista's high cost, both in the purchase of the OS and its steep hardware requirements, and the fact that Linux developers are (belatedly) worrying about usability may have a significant impact on the dominance of Windows.

As for Windows Vista, I cannot drive home how useless this upgrade will be for users any better than Bill Gates can:

Well, nobody ever said Gates was a good salesman.  Regardless, most users will never upgrade to Vista, they'll get it with their next new PC.  And they will welcome the new look, simplified interface, and much improved start menu/search.

Linux simply is not an option for most folks.  I gave up on it long ago, as I have work to do.  I simply cannot afford the time required to chase down drivers and arcane kernel/configuration options.  I've wasted tremendous amounts of time banging my head a against the wall with windows.  I've wasted twice as much with Linux and was never able to get sound working on a Linux install, and I've tried damned hard.

You mention package managers downthread - but I've never been much impressed.  You can still get stuck in the linux version of DLL hell, where various packages need incompatible versions of the same libraries.  

Sure, for the most part, if you stick with the distro's base distribution, you are golden.  But oh wait, there is a bug in libblah1.1.23 that causes Gimp to corrupt images with my video card.  Well, the latest version of gimp uses libblah1.1.29, and that fixes the issue, but my distro hasn't upgraded to the latest version of Gimp, or libblah yet.  What do I do then?  I am sure there is a way to install the new Gimp, and the new libblah, and not mess up the other distro apps that require the old library, but it's not something grandma is going to pull off, and it's something I honestly have no interest in spending the time to figure out.

Even on a modern version of Ubuntu, installed in the very vanilla VMWare hardware environment, I've had problems with package managers failing to install applications, with suitably unintelligible error messages.

Windows is not perfect, but it's a much better desktop OS than Linux has ever been, at least for the average user.

Vista, at least on the surface, is mostly an evolutionary improvement of XP.  But the vast majority of the changes were under the hood.  These changes address the things that people like yourself complain so much about - lack of security and lack of modularity.  Hopefully these changes will make it easier to make substantial incremental improvements in the future, without requiring us to wait another 5 years.

Seems as if I screwed the link up. I mean to link you to my recent blog entry on vista.

The worst bug right now (now that I've gotten past the issue of the AGP graphic card driver not working with dual core cpus) is that when you do a install and load RAID/other drivers that are needed to get the install going, Vista installs the system files on the reference hard drive/partition.

i.e. if you are installing vista on drive C, but have key system drivers stored on D that Vista needs to load; Vista will place ntldr, ntdetect and the other system files on the D drive, while installing the operating system to C. I've seen this problem replicated whether its two partitions on the same drive, or whether its separate physical drives.

In order to get all of Vista on one drive, you need to load your drives from a USB/floppy/CD key -- loading from a hard drive is a recipe for disaster.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

1. Tribal Videografix goes out of business...or decides to make cocconut cell phones.  Either unable or unwilling to pay fees on a per unit or per year basis.

2.  MS stops revokes certification.  Why? Because it can.  Or more to the point, it's just one less thing it's customer service folks* have to deal with.  "Oh, you have a Trible Visionblaster Extreme?  They are no longer in business...go buy a new card and call back."

*I will say, however that my experience with MS customer service has been pretty good.  Go them.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

We'll just have to wait for the EU anti-competition lawsuit so that we can get a non-viral version of Vista.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Or, continue to use Windows XP until enough freeware/shareware is written for Vista to obviate the problem.