Originally posted by 8trak
Ah yes,

Take a look at FAT!!!!
Fat12, 16, 32, whatever one, i dont care!
know why?! because they all suck!
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement!

Windows is tied to a single company which could fail, look at Union Carbide!
Linux doesnt have that problem!
No, but the downside is that Linux lacks the same amount of standardization. What would Linux do if Linus died suddenly?


In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs. for example, tryto make windows find files starting with T, sort them chronologically and have it all done on wednesday morning at 3:00.
Do it without writing a new program.

In linux it would be rather easy by comparison.
It depends on who wrote the programs, just like in *nix!! Some people add command-line functionality, some don't! As for moving data you have a backup.... copy... paste...

As for finding all files starting with T (I ASSUME you mean the filename) and sorting them chronologically (Last modified, or Created?) and having them done on Wednesday Morning at 3:00...

At 2:45... Click Start. Click Find. Click "Files or Folders", enter in 'T*', click SEARCH, when done, click the 'Last Modified' tab.

And Processes dont get punished by how long they have been running!!! They get punished by how long they have been idle!
Which makes complete sence!
'sence' makes no sense. Furthermore, if they are Idle so much, why should they be forced to be 'Idle-er' when they are not fully Idle?

Windows is restricted completely by legacy dos hardware emulation. Linux of course is not.
What about Windows NT/2000? Legacy Dos? It just emulates dos.

Linux isn't limited by legacy dos, of course, silly. It's limited by conventions of *nix, because it is based on it, and if you changed it too much people would say it wasn't linux.


By your definition, you can only have as many concurrent tasks as you have processors, but there is a problem with this as well, because multiple processors multitask exactly the same as one processor does.
I suppose you *could* set up an OS which uses two processors, each handling a different program, neither program interacting with each other. (Add RAID arrays... hmm...) Hence, you are running two tasks at once. The word 'Multi-tasking' makes sense in that context, if freed from encumbering connotations from early computers. Who says they both must be working on the same program? They *can*, but could be made to work independently as well. Each processor is not multitasking, but as a unit, the computer and OS are multitasking...

EDIT: Fixed quotes and bold tags