Experiences with Windows XP SP3 anyone?

[Spock]

never change a running system.

I think that is generally good advice, EXCEPT if you are connected to the internet, in which case no matter what O/S you run, you should keep up to date with the latest security patches

[bob]

Those that won't will probably run under vmware which is a commercial wine-like package that is more robust.

Or the free but excellent option:

http://www.virtualbox.org/

I'm not sure that (or other free options) is as robust as vmware, but for chess they might be just as good. I'm not an expert on any of them however...

[parrish]

Best is subjective, but if you are new, I suggest Ubuntu, since it has a huge user base, so you can more easily find support when you need it.

Once you are familiar with Linux, though, distro doesn't matter much. They all have almost the same packages and the same CLI. They are all Linux after all.

Yes, I second that recommendation for Ubuntu. Especially for Linux newbies who are more familiar with Windows.

[Tommy]

I'm not sure that (or other free options) is as robust as vmware, but for chess they might be just as good. I'm not an expert on any of them however...

G'day Robert!

Just wondering if I can ask you a question on how things are done in the Linux world? I have to administer Windows machines in our office, and I have to spend a lot of time setting up and configuring the automated installation of software across the whole office. Basically, I think this sucks and I blame the way Windows works.

So I was just wondering, in the Linux world, is there a standard way for rolling out software across a network of machines? And how is this done (in general)?

On a side note, I have told my manager that we should start thinking about a Linux future and consider changing the way we do things now because Microsoft is basically taking us for a ride. But unfortunately they are too scared of abandoning Microsoft. Ironically, Microsoft is not scared of abandoning us.

Cheers,
Tom.

[bob]

I'm not sure that (or other free options) is as robust as vmware, but for chess they might be just as good. I'm not an expert on any of them however...

G'day Robert!

Just wondering if I can ask you a question on how things are done in the Linux world? I have to administer Windows machines in our office, and I have to spend a lot of time setting up and configuring the automated installation of software across the whole office. Basically, I think this sucks and I blame the way Windows works.

So I was just wondering, in the Linux world, is there a standard way for rolling out software across a network of machines? And how is this done (in general)?

On a side note, I have told my manager that we should start thinking about a Linux future and consider changing the way we do things now because Microsoft is basically taking us for a ride. But unfortunately they are too scared of abandoning Microsoft. Ironically, Microsoft is not scared of abandoning us.

Cheers,
Tom.

The only option I can think of to make that simple is the "ROCKS" system we use on our clusters. It builds a common kernel image, and installation script and installs the same version on every node in the cluster. it has a config file to deal with IP address assignment, hostname assignment, etc. Whether that would work in the environment you use is hard to say.

Here, I simply install linux on whatever box I choose from a common installation DVD (I am running Fedora on my boxes)...

[terminator]

Someone exorbiting such ignorance should not come anywhere near a computer or even be a tester.

And somebody exhibiting such rudeness and disrespect shouldn't be coming anywhere near a respectable computer chess forum or even be a poster.

Geots reminds me of a certain fellow associated in some way with the Arena project who couldn't understand why the hydrachess site shouldn't have malicious code embedded. Everybody is entitled to their "opinion" but if you make a statement which is unsupported by technical "opinions" e.g. if Geots can come up with respectable techy sites that support his opinion, then he would not look so bad. ATM it looks like an old wives tale even if Geots is some kind of a star around here. Sorry to tread on your toes but get your technical "opinions" in order.....

[terminator]

never change a running system.

You are probably running SP2 so you have already broken your own rule.

It may help to understand what a service pack is as you are already running several from the list.

Service Packs

Service packs are the means by which product updates are distributed. Service packs may contain updates for system reliability, program compatibility, security, and more. All of these updates are conveniently bundled for easy downloading. For more information about what a particular service pack contains and how to obtain that service pack, click the appropriate link:

[daws]

never change a running system.

I suppose it's possible that SP3 might give problems if you update your current system, I don't know. Whenever I install a service pack, I always slipstream it and reinstall windows to get a completely clean install. Sure it takes longer but I think it's the safest method. I have been running it for almost a year now and don't remember it giving me a single problem.

XP SP3 is probably the most stable general purpose OS that Microsoft has ever produced. It is so good in comparison to Vista that there was a rumour that Steve Ballmer wanted to cripple SP3 to make it worse than Vista. I guess he must have been overruled.

[Bill Rogers]

I need a little advice. My running with an XP system was destroyed by trogens and viruses so I am stuck with a laptop running vista.
I do not really like vista and was wondering if Windows 7 would be a better system. I know nothing about Windows 7 but it seems that everyone that has written about it seems to praise it.
My question is: is it worth it, and what makes it better if at all.
Bill

[parrish]

If you're running an old system with XP, there's no need to upgrade to Win 7. Just wait till you get a new system with Win 7 pre-installed. If you're running a fairly new system with Vista, you will probably benefit from upgrading to Win 7. Win 7 is less of a resource hog than Vista, seems quicker and more efficient, with a lot of the problems fixed that Vista had. It should basically have been Service Pack 3 for Vista, and been given away for free to all Vista owners. If you're happy with how Vista is running, then no need to upgrade, but I don't know anyone who is happy with how Vista is running on their system.