Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: is the

Author: Roberto Waldteufel

Date: 02:28:46 08/01/98

Go up one level in this thread

On July 31, 1998 at 20:17:54, Don Dailey wrote:

>On July 31, 1998 at 15:45:05, Roberto Waldteufel wrote:
>>On July 30, 1998 at 12:58:39, Torstein Hall wrote:
>>>I have run Win 98 for nearly two weaks now and it have kept on running like a
>>>clockwork for two weaks now. And I have used it for games, chess, wordprosesing,
>>>drawing etc. Perhaps its the best bug fix I ever paid for!
>>>( Win 95 used to crash about once every week or so. )
>>Hi Torstein,
>>OK, I'm about ready to move to another operating system, but which one?
>>It seems there is NT3, NT4 and Windows98, and presumably NT4 is better than NT3,
>>so I guess it's a choice between NT4 and Win98. Has anyone compared the two? Can
>>they both handle RAM use for hash tables bigger than 50% of system RAM without
>>going berserk like Win95 does? Is there any speed difference to be taken into
>>account? Is it true that Win98 runs all programs that run under Win95? Bob tells
>>me that NT cannot do this. Have you found any examples of programs that run
>>under Win95 but not under Win98?
>>I have heard talk of Unix and Linux operating systems, but never actually seen
>>one. Those with experience of them seem to speak favorably about them. Can
>>anyone tell me a little about these OS's and how they compare/differ from
>>I think it speaks vollumes about Win95 that by way of comparison other Windows
>>versions are considered virtuous simply by not crashing! To my way of thinking
>>this is something which simply should not be open to question - if it keeps
>>crashing, it doesn't work, and no reputable software company would continue to
>>market such a product.
>>Best wishes,
>I believe Unix is far better than windows in many ways, but it has a
>lot to do with how you expect to use an OS.  I think of Windows NT,
>or Windows 95 as a single user machine.  This is probably ok with
>you and most people because this is how most machines are used.
>With unix/linux, a machine can be used by many people simultaneously
>and seamlessly.   I can be at any machine or terminal and use a
>machine that is located somewhere else and completely forget which
>machine I am on.  When I am at work I can log onto my machine at
>home and use it as if I'm sitting there.  I cannot log onto a
>windows machine unless I'm actually setting in front of it.  I
>understand there are tools that now allow windows a limited ability
>to do this.  But it's always been a part of unix.
>One big attraction with linux is that when you install it, you
>will get tons of software, several language compilers and virtually
>everything you need.  A lot of this is also available with windows
>if you surf around for it.  But with linux it is bundled as if
>it's part of the OS and in many cases it is.  As I mentioned once
>before, I am always discovering nifty programs I never knew was
>on the machine.
>All of the power of unix comes at a price.  You would be frustrated
>for a while if you've never used it before and I would never
>recomend it to the new user.  If you are a technical person and
>love to hack, then unix/linux is for you.  All the source code for
>Linux is available too, there is no proprietary crap you don't
>have access too.  Everything is very open and free.   Also linux
>is known for extreme robustness,  I have had a linux machine running
>for months without crashing.  The amount of free stuff is amazing
>and there is also a lot of commercial software for linux if you
>prefer paying money :-)
>There are many good reasons to stay with Windows.  There is a much
>bigger commercial software base and this means linux users may
>not always have access to the very latest software fads.  Some
>windows software is truly awesome and may not be available for
>a while on a unix machine.  Windows is a good machine for a family
>and as a machine to play games on.
>Many if not most of the great things unix has can be obtained for
>windows.  Someone in our lab has a windows laptop and keeps
>accumulating nice utilities and tools for it.  Everything he is
>adding is trying to give it the functionality of unix, often
>a direct port of some unix utility that is missing in windows.
>I hope this doesn't come across as knocking windows, I definitely
>see the value of having a windows machine.  I am looking for a
>cheap computer to run windows on, for those few times I really
>need to run a windows program.  A good example of this is chess
>programs,  some of the very best are not available on Unix
>although there are a lot of good choices such as Crafty.
>Windows is slicker in terms of the very latest gizmo's graphics
>and sound stuff.  Unix has this too, but Windows will always
>be a few weeks ahead and set's the standard in terms of fad/image
>items.  If a new whiz bang graphical gizmo comes out that
>you must have or you'll just die,  you better stick with windows,
>because linux will not get it for a few weeks or months.  Windows
>will always be promoting these new things because they make money
>for Microsoft.
>Linux is not very user friendly either compared to windows, so if
>you don't know what you are doing, or don't have the patience or
>desire to learn, you will not like it.   If you are a programmer,
>or simply a programmer type, you will love Unix.   You might like
>it anyway but I think it's definitely a personality issue.
>The choices I make are not always practical.  I was a beta-max
>instead of VHS person.  Then I had 8mm because it was better
>than VHS.  I would rather have an Alpha than an Intel and so on.
>Before I discovered Unix (I am still relatively new to unix,) I
>experimented with OS/2 and would have chosen it over Windows
>even though it's all but dead.  But I ended up chosing Unix
>and will change my mind again if I find something I think is
>better for me.   But this may not apply to everyone.
>I don't think there is such a thing as "best O/S", it has to
>be tailored to what you need and/or want to do with it and
>your personality.   If you want to play chess with it, or
>run commercial software, windows is likely to be the best
>choice.  It's hard to make a case that linux is better than
>windows or visa versa because there are too many considerations.
>But you should realize that's it is not all one sided and
>many users are happy with various alternatives to windows.
>- Don

Hi Don,

Thank you for your informative post - it's made me think more seriously about
making the switch, at some point even if not now. My requirements of an OS are
certainly not most peoples' idea of what they want, but then you made some very
good points about usage. Personally, I hate flashy gizmo gimmicks. My PC was an
extravagance, but having bought the best I could afford it's all mine - that is
to say, no-one else uses it like family and so on. Unlike most computer users, I
use the computer more for writing programs than for running them. Most of what
you say about Unix and Linux sounds perfect for me. Do you know a good site to
take a closer look, maybe dowload some info about it? The idea of an OS
comprised of a large number of utility programs sounds similar to the way DOS
functioned, and I had no trouble with that. Is the syntax very different?

I am at a disadvantage to some extent, because everything seems to be coded in
C, and I program in Basic. I am, however, quite pleased with the compiler that I
use - it's a new product, a 32-bit compiler, but it depends on a Windows based
OS. Interestingly though, the vendor (PowerBasic Inc) has announced their
intention to develop versions for Unix and Linux. I would probably wait for that
to happen before making the switch, but in the mean time I would be interested
to find out more. It sounds like one or the other of these is probably the best
choice for my particular needs.

Thanks again,

This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.