OT, but interesting...
ok, as part of my colledge course, have to do a 5 week module, using excel and word. its one of those stupid things that i just have to do. i mean, i use MySQL, not access right?? C and python, not QBasic or pascal. anyway, i thought i may aswell get it out of the way, and decided to do all the work in teh first two weeks. so ive been staying down there some pretty late nights recently. anyway, I have some statistice:
in the 62 hours i was using either word or excel:
word crashed 20 times,
excel crashed 33 times.
yes, i really did count the times they crashed, and the total hours i spend using them. This was done on more than one machine, and across OS's aswell.
Now, IM not so HO, microsoft products are generally of poor quality, and microsoft office 2000 (thats what we were using BTW) is a heap of crap. which raises an interesting point:
It may be crap, and it may be the worst product ever, but all it needs to do is be the "standard", and millions of people all around the world will struggle with it untill the next version comes out. sucks eh?
So, with that in mind, i decided to download and install Open Office on all the computers down there (they trust me with the admin passwords, see? ). Open office is an open source alternative. has 99% of the features of office 2000, and is free. my only slight irritations are that it loads slower than office, and that it doesn't look quite as good. other than that, check t out!!:
www.openoffice.org
Windows XP and office XP, are the most stable I have seen, they haven't crashed on me at all!
--WC
--WC
yeah, XP is stable, 2000 is better tho (no games support )
BUT, i have an install of XP pro, and it has crashed many times on me, but then again maybe i do more "stuff" with mine?? i mean, 98 was fine if all you ever did was word processing...
BUT, i have an install of XP pro, and it has crashed many times on me, but then again maybe i do more "stuff" with mine?? i mean, 98 was fine if all you ever did was word processing...
: yeah, XP is stable, 2000 is better tho (no games support )
: BUT, i have an install of XP pro, and it has crashed many times on me, but then again maybe i do more "stuff" with mine?? i mean, 98 was fine if all you ever did was word processing...
I have 98 SE and I find it suitable... still Microsoft , but suitable. Better than ME, at least. I had that for a year, and it WOULD NOT STOP CRASHING. So i reformatted and installed 98 SE...
: BUT, i have an install of XP pro, and it has crashed many times on me, but then again maybe i do more "stuff" with mine?? i mean, 98 was fine if all you ever did was word processing...
I have 98 SE and I find it suitable... still Microsoft , but suitable. Better than ME, at least. I had that for a year, and it WOULD NOT STOP CRASHING. So i reformatted and installed 98 SE...
I have ME, and it used to crash about three times a half-hour....but for some reason beyond my comprehension, Nvidia's Detonator video drivers fixed almost all of my computer problems.
Isn't that something?
Isn't that something?
I've got ME too, on my laptop, not really had many crashes, can't actually think of any... just sometimes it don't come out of hibernation.
I have XP and it's been the most stable windows ever since 95 or version 3.1. (ahh the memories)
I don't want to talk about 98 SE (sucky edition ). Bad experiences you can say. I like the first edition of 98 better than SE. I never tried ME, but I heard it's worse than 98SE. Tullisi was right about Microsoft. They are indeed unstable and a monopoly.
I would recommend either XP or 2000 professional.
- DethLord
I don't want to talk about 98 SE (sucky edition ). Bad experiences you can say. I like the first edition of 98 better than SE. I never tried ME, but I heard it's worse than 98SE. Tullisi was right about Microsoft. They are indeed unstable and a monopoly.
I would recommend either XP or 2000 professional.
- DethLord
: I have XP and it's been the most stable windows ever since 95 or version 3.1. (ahh the memories)
: I don't want to talk about 98 SE (sucky edition ). Bad experiences you can say. I like the first edition of 98 better than SE. I never tried ME, but I heard it's worse than 98SE. Tullisi was right about Microsoft. They are indeed unstable and a monopoly.
: I would recommend either XP or 2000 professional.
: - DethLord
yeah, id agree theer. personally, id recommend 2000 over XP.. but then again, id recommend mandrake linux for beginners, and debian linux for experts over all windows products!!
i have installed ME on other peoples machines, and yes, its crap. worse then 98SE...
: I don't want to talk about 98 SE (sucky edition ). Bad experiences you can say. I like the first edition of 98 better than SE. I never tried ME, but I heard it's worse than 98SE. Tullisi was right about Microsoft. They are indeed unstable and a monopoly.
: I would recommend either XP or 2000 professional.
: - DethLord
yeah, id agree theer. personally, id recommend 2000 over XP.. but then again, id recommend mandrake linux for beginners, and debian linux for experts over all windows products!!
i have installed ME on other peoples machines, and yes, its crap. worse then 98SE...
I have an idea that maybe the products are becomming more stable as the uncertainty about open source grows?? just read teh halloween documents, or any of the other under hand tactice they are trying to sue at www.opensource.org, and you'll quickly see what i mean.
i wonder what the actual numbers are??
i wonder what the actual numbers are??