Windows ate my Linux drive!!!

[Psycho Fox]

Ahhh, Windows extended its extended partion into my Ext3 partions and my QNX and BeOS partitions. Yes I backedup but now I have to reinstall all my other OSs and put all my data back.

Why would anyone pay for Windows, yes it has some good games but now that I know Windows can damage other OS where I do my REAL work, I don't think I'll be keeping Windows on my machine. It is just too amaturish like it was made by some collage drop out (actully come to think of it that is an insult to collage drop outs as I know some that wrote better OSs then Windows) and it is too much of a pain getting it to live with other OSs.

This is not the first time Windows screwed up my other OSs, Windows has overwritten my MBR taking out my bootloader and screwed up my linux partitions before.

I think it is just too much of a pain just to play games. I'll give Windows on more chance and if it so much as looks at me wrong I'm turning it into data drive for my other OSs

[EinBebop]

It is just too amaturish like it was made by some collage drop out (actully come to think of it that is an insult to collage drop outs as I know some that wrote better OSs then Windows) ... Be sure your spellcheck is turned on when you start ranting about someone's education level. ;)

[Psycho Fox]

Be sure your spellcheck is turned on when you start ranting about someone's education level. ;)Uhh what spell checker? I only have Windows working and its just full of games since I never trust it with any real work.

Now I tried to to create 2 primary partitions for windows but Windows won't label the second primary fat32 partition.

[Psycho Fox]

Ahhh having 2 primary paritions screws up the fat32 file system. Man Windows is so 80's well guess that means blowing it away and that means I'm not going to put it back.

[Nimbleness]

Maybe you should of just had two computers in the first place. Though depending on what kind of work you do that could be expensive.

[Psycho Fox]

Maybe you should of just had two computers in the first place. Though depending on what kind of work you do that could be expensive.I already have more then one computer but windows don't run on PPC or ARM7 hardware leaving only ix86 computers that can run Windows and I only have one good AMD 2400+ everything else is around 300 MHZ or not compatible with windows, which is great for BSD, linux, QNX and BeOS but Windows 2000 is a hog yet the only version of windows that doesn't completly suck.

[guinaevere]

My first thought when I read the title, "Windows ate my Linux drive," was, how does this surprize you?


Why would anyone pay for Windows, yes it has some good games It has ALL the games. Or more correctly, it's the OS that all games are written for. I'd switch in a heart beat to another OS, if I weren't a gamer.


but Windows 2000 is a hog yet the only version of windows that doesn't completly suck. I still like 98SE. It's one of the most stable Windows OS's that exists. Although it is getting kinda old. I'm hoping to upgrade to XP sometime in the future, as that's suppsed to be the new best gaming OS. What I don't like about it is having to register your hardware profile and all that. That I find rather intrusive.

[HumanoidTyphoon]

Well can you blame it I mean once you've tasted Linux....

[Lucky Bob]

I've switched to Knoppix from Red Hat 9 on my laptop, and I must say that I'm very impressed. I wouldn't trust it with any mission-critical tasks, however, at the moment. It still seems to have an "unfinished" feel to it.

[zmanjz]

and yet... I like XP anyway. go figure. :rolleyes:

[Psycho Fox]

I've switched to Knoppix from Red Hat 9 on my laptop, and I must say that I'm very impressed. I wouldn't trust it with any mission-critical tasks, however, at the moment. It still seems to have an "unfinished" feel to it.Once you get use to the command line of Linux you won't be as concerned with how rough around the edges X-Window is.

I don't trust Windows with any important tasks I mean Windows doesn't even have a good CLI

Anyway I got QNX up next I'll get BeOS back up then Linux.

[Psycho Fox]

It has ALL the games. Or more correctly, it's the OS that all games are written for. I'd switch in a heart beat to another OS, if I weren't a gamer.
I'm still waiting for the gaming industry to see the ix86 as a hardware platform and have the OS the game needs embeded onto the CD and just say what filesystems it can load. Thus you put in the CD then boot your computer, lastly say which parition to mount for savegames,patches and add-ons. This would mean you wouldn't need windows to play the coolest games. It would also mean the gaming industry can use light weight OSs like QNX to boost performance.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


It has ALL the games. Or more correctly, it's the OS that all games are written for. I'd switch in a heart beat to another OS, if I weren't a gamer.

No argument there, although if you're willing to be patient and accept that there are some games that you'll never get, you can have a perfectly good gaming experience on Mac OS X, plus a totally kickin' UNIX environment to work in and all those nifty iLife apps. It's a better gaming platform than Linux, at least :).

Of course, "being patient" sometimes means things like getting Knights of the Old Republic nearly a year after the PC release, but I figured we were never getting it at all, so I'm still ahead of the curve :D.

I've never owned a Windows box, and I still have more than a few games I've never even gotten around to installing, let alone finishing, and I think I can live with the games I've never gotten. The one and only game I'd hock my grandma to play a native version of is probably Planescape: Torment.

-- Ed/Ace

[guinaevere]

I'm still waiting for the gaming industry to see the ix86 as a hardware platform<SNIP> What you described would be beautiful.

Will it happen? Unfortunately, I don't see it coming down the pike anytime soon.

[Steve Jester]

Ok, I have just one question, of course this is from someone who has never been inside the workings of UNIX or LINUX but, what is so wrong with Windows that everyone is say that these systems are better? Don't give me the whole lecture, just a few paragraphs will do. :D

[Bakasama]

Howdy,



No argument there, although if you're willing to be patient and accept that there are some games that you'll never get, you can have a perfectly good gaming experience on Mac OS X, plus a totally kickin' UNIX environment to work in and all those nifty iLife apps. It's a better gaming platform than Linux, at least :).

Of course, "being patient" sometimes means things like getting Knights of the Old Republic nearly a year after the PC release, but I figured we were never getting it at all, so I'm still ahead of the curve :D.

I've never owned a Windows box, and I still have more than a few games I've never even gotten around to installing, let alone finishing, and I think I can live with the games I've never gotten. The one and only game I'd hock my grandma to play a native version of is probably Planescape: Torment.

-- Ed/Ace

The pain of being a Mac user. The only real gaming options we have are MacMAME, MacMESS, Blizzard games, and Ambrosia Software. Other games, if they come, take a while to port.

Knights of the Old Republic, I've played on my friends XBox and it does seem to be on the easy side.


Ok, I have just one question, of course this is from someone who has never been inside the workings of UNIX or LINUX but, what is so wrong with Windows that everyone is say that these systems are better? Don't give me the whole lecture, just a few paragraphs will do.

I get the feeling the posts after mine will get "interesting".

[Psycho Fox]

Ok, I have just one question, of course this is from someone who has never been inside the workings of UNIX or LINUX but, what is so wrong with Windows that everyone is say that these systems are better? Don't give me the whole lecture, just a few paragraphs will do. :D
Well for starters Windows command line interface stinks. It is hard to use Dos for modern tasks while Linux without the desktop can do everything you expect from a modern computer from downloading music to doing actual work. The desktop in Linux simply adds to the command line meaning you can simply have a bare desktop with just a console window and do all your work through the command line including launching grapical programs.

So for command line it is really Linux vs Dos (since Windows never improved on the command line) and of course Linux kicks Dos's ass.

On the desktop side since you are sitting on such a powerful command line OS you can recover even from lockup since you can simply open another CLI session and kill the task causing the problem or simply restart the desktop. With mission critical tasks it is very nice to be able to kill a bad task the other tasks running

Then you have the raw multi-tasking power of *nix. You can turn a 300 MHZ computer into a decent file server with *nix while Windows will crawl in a server setup on only 300 MHZ. I have a 7MHZ laptop with just command line Debian and except multimedia it runs pretty well. Linux is so flexable it has even be ported to the C64

[SlyBoy]

Well for starters Windows command line interface stinks. It is hard to use Dos for modern tasks while Linux without the desktop can do everything you expect from a modern computer from downloading music to doing actual work. The desktop in Linux simply adds to the command line meaning you can simply have a bare desktop with just a console window and do all your work through the command line including launching grapical programs.

So for command line it is really Linux vs Dos (since Windows never improved on the command line) and of course Linux kicks Dos's ass.

On the desktop side since you are sitting on such a powerful command line OS you can recover even from lockup since you can simply open another CLI session and kill the task causing the problem or simply restart the desktop. With mission critical tasks it is very nice to be able to kill a bad task the other tasks running

Then you have the raw multi-tasking power of *nix. You can turn a 300 MHZ computer into a decent file server with *nix while Windows will crawl in a server setup on only 300 MHZ. I have a 7MHZ laptop with just command line Debian and except multimedia it runs pretty well. Linux is so flexable it has even be ported to the C64
Ugh...

1: Why would you use the command line, anyway? I know I don't.
2: Why would you run Windows on a 300 MHZ system? Not too many people have 300 MHZ PCs nowadays...

[Psycho Fox]

Ugh...

1: Why would you use the command line, anyway? I know I don't.
2: Why would you run Windows on a 300 MHZ system? Not too many people have 300 MHZ PCs nowadays...
1: Command line has less overhead this is why over half of the servers in the world and 100% of mainframes only operate with a command line . Also while GUIs are easier it is faster to do work in command line then a GUI.

Think of it like this, your boss wants you do do something fine you open a terminal window and speed through the task. You get your job done faster, your boss don't stand over your sholder since since most bosses don't understand command line (and even if they did if you good before they can comment on a command you can have entered 10 more) so once your done you can go right back to playing Quake :cool:

Also Command line is universial, with GUI you have to know where stuff is, in Command line you can issue commands over the whole system so it doesn't matter.

Also in command line it easier to hind stuff from your boss. See if your boss looks over your shoulder in your in one of the full screen terminal sessions they can't tell what is in the other sessions so ones they leave just hit alt and the function key for web browers, game, whatever your hiding from your boss and when he comes back just alt and the fuction key for your work. This works great I never got caught for playing MUDs, reading newgroups,ect when I've done it in command line. You know cool it is to be sitting at work and never having to worry about anyone catching you? Even if they glance at your screen it takes longer to read then look at GUI so there is tons of time to switch sessions.

2: Alot of *nix people run 300 Mhz as do QNX and BeOS users since while 300 Mhz is slow on Windows on other OSs it is pretty decent.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Ok, I have just one question, of course this is from someone who has never been inside the workings of UNIX or LINUX but, what is so wrong with Windows that everyone is say that these systems are better? Don't give me the whole lecture, just a few paragraphs will do. :D

The #1 technical aggravation that Windows imposes are its system of Dynamically Loaded Libraries (DLLs). The idea is that different programs often need the same chunks of code to work, so put those chunks into a single file and let different programs use them. In theory, it's a great idea and one that has existed in MacOS and UNIX for a good, long time. Windows' implementation of it really and truly stinks, IMO.

DLL conflicts are getting fewer and farther between in the era of XP. However, I take it as a very very bad sign that Windows can have a dialog box that asks, essentially, "This DLL may be in use by something else, but I can't tell you what because I don't know. Uninstalling it may invoke BAD EVIL WINDOWS MOJO on your computer. Do you want to uninstall it and maybe invoke BAD EVIL WINDOWS MOJO on your computer?" You NEVER say "Yes" to this, meaning you either don't uninstall the app or you leave behind the DLLs. Do this enough and you will get performance degradation. On UNIX, an unused shared library may chew up disk space, but it's not loaded unless its used, and once the program using it finishes, it goes away cleanly.

I remember a time when reformatting your hard drive and re-installing Windows every few months was recommended to maintain a happy system. That's a lousy way to maintain a system. Again, this has gotten better with XP from what I understand.

I also think you take your life into your own hands if you install a program anywhere other than the default location. This and the DLL thing give me the sense that I have no substantive control my own hard drive. Now, deep down, I know I have no substantive control over it on a UNIX system, either, but I can at least move an app someplace else without breaking the app irrevocably.

Don't get me started on how much I hate the Office apps. Outlook is possibly the worst e-mail client I have ever used except maybe Lotus Notes.

Really, a lot of the stuff I hated about Windows is at least glossed over with XP, assuming you keep your OS and virus protection up-to-date. Linux is also still a monster to maintain. I think using a raw UNIX system is kind of like being the henchman of the schoolyard bully. Every now and then, he's gonna beat the snot out of you for no reason at all, but the rest of the time you get to pound on all the other kids and take their lunch money.

-- Ed/Ace

[Psycho Fox]

Really, a lot of the stuff I hated about Windows is at least glossed over with XP, assuming you keep your OS and virus protection up-to-date. Linux is also still a monster to maintain. I think using a raw UNIX system is kind of like being the henchman of the schoolyard bully. Every now and then, he's gonna beat the snot out of you for no reason at all, but the rest of the time you get to pound on all the other kids and take their lunch money.

Well I think BSD and Linux are great for the computer savy which is why I also use QNX and BeOS and support them too. While they are not a powerful as BSD or Linux they do a far better job then Windows of getting the desktop OS right (and both provide a good CLI)

[Beefy]

A while ago The Big M got sued by about 17 states beacuse Windows XP seeks out and corrupts Linux partitions that happen to be on the same hard drive as Windows XP. I don't know what became of those legal actions. I do know that Windows XP and Linux don't mix.

Windows: Pros: Easy to use (just double-click something and it starts installing/running), games (DirectX is the standard in games, The Big M makes DirectX, so almost all PC games these days will be coded for DirectX/Windows)
Cons: Expensive ($299 for Windows XP Pro full version), full of security issues, easy to mess up

Linux: Pros: stable, open source, free, efficient
Cons: Not for the lazy, file dependencies, fewer 3D games than on Windows

Linux or Windows: what do I use? I use Windows ME. People say Windows ME is the worst Windows ever. It works just fine for me. I've had more problems with Windows 95 and 98 than I've ever had with ME. The 9x (95/98/ME) Windows I like beacuse they play my old games and there are a lot more viruses that go after the NT based Windows (NT/2000/XP) than the 9x Windows.

What should you use?
Games: Windows
Web, FTP, any kind of server: Linux
Video and/or photo work: Mac

[Psycho Fox]

Windows: Pros: Easy to use (just double-click something and it starts installing/running), games (DirectX is the standard in games, The Big M makes DirectX, so almost all PC games these days will be coded for DirectX/Windows)
Cons: Expensive ($299 for Windows XP Pro full version), full of security issues, easy to mess up

Speaking of DirectX, MS used it to push OpenGL out of the mainstream, when OpenGL was more mature then DirectX and was easy to port meaning you could port a windows game using OpenGL easily to *nix,BeOS,Amiga,Game Consoles,Mac,SGI, anything that also used OpenGL.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Speaking of DirectX, MS used it to push OpenGL out of the mainstream, when OpenGL was more mature then DirectX and was easy to port meaning you could port a windows game using OpenGL easily to *nix,BeOS,Amiga,Game Consoles,Mac,SGI, anything that also used OpenGL.

To be fair, though, Microsoft has done pretty well working with video card vendors to ensure DirectX uses all the latest nifty whiz-bang features, to the point where it is at least as cool, if not more so, than OpenGL.

Game development is astoundingly hard for a low-margin product that's often late and under immense deadline pressure with a half-life usually measured in months. Unless you're Blizzard or John Carmack, the choice between the expedient and the technically right often has to fall to the expedient for non-technical reasons. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to ensure DirectX is the most expedient solution for game programmers, even if their motivation isn't driven by technical concerns.

Any Mac porting house worth its salt has developed its own DirectX -> OpenGL lib by now. It's a requirement for any game that doesn't use OpenGL natively. A pain, sure, but the performance hit isn't hugely noticeable. The same applies for DirectSound and the other DirectX features.

However, it's business decisions like that and the one, if true, of Windows smacking down Linux partitions that drive me screaming from Microsoft more than any technical issues.

-- Ed/Ace

[Psycho Fox]

Howdy,

To be fair, though, Microsoft has done pretty well working with video card vendors to ensure DirectX uses all the latest nifty whiz-bang features, to the point where it is at least as cool, if not more so, than OpenGL.

Game development is astoundingly hard for a low-margin product that's often late and under immense deadline pressure with a half-life usually measured in months. Unless you're Blizzard or John Carmack, the choice between the expedient and the technically right often has to fall to the expedient for non-technical reasons. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to ensure DirectX is the most expedient solution for game programmers, even if their motivation isn't driven by technical concerns.

Right but any OS that doesn't run OpenGL is retro and while OpenGL has spread throughout the systems DirectX only is for Windows, not too mention it took then MS till DirectX 6 or 7 before they cought up with OpenGL.