Jump to content

Hasta la Vista


mike_morley

Recommended Posts

you dont get bluescreens in vista.......... :lol:

The blue screen of death I was refering to I was using it as metaphor. What it really was was the black screen of black hole where nothing you can do (no matter how long you leave it) you are stuck within with no hope of escape (the best I managed was two hours of playing around).

I will try Vista again, BUT it won't be on a machine that I own. The industry as it stands at the moment requires that we have an understanding of the Microsoft operating system.

That said I won't look at Windows again for at least 3 - 4 years which (I hope) by that time they have sorted out all the problems that don't seem to plague the rest of the of the non-commercial OS's. If after this time (which again due to the nature of the beast) it hasn't resolved the problems that are inherent to MS software (bar notepad) I may be tempted to have another look at Windows.

I am not making this opinion upon one beta release but upon ten years of experience of using various operating systems.

I just don't think that even as a beta release that this OS has anything to offer other than a slightly improved GUI. Even then it leaves alot to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So the question begs, why should anybody use Windows at all anymore when there are free operating systems available that are more robust, reliable, secure, and that don't restrict the user?

because im a PC gamer and there is no substitute for gaming under Windows. also im not much a fan of consoles.

this may be an over used reason, but its what keeps me with Windows. and i dont feel like learning a new OS when Windows works fine for me (hint: i said me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question begs, why should anybody use Windows at all anymore when there are free operating systems available that are more robust, reliable, secure, and that don't restrict the user?

because im a PC gamer and there is no substitute for gaming under Windows. also im not much a fan of consoles.

this may be an over used reason, but its what keeps me with Windows. and i dont feel like learning a new OS when Windows works fine for me (hint: i said me).

Best and worst point yet!

Yes the only real platform to run games on (depending on) is Windows. But isn't that only because it is the most widely used platform. There are plenty of games that are now made to run native on various other OS.

That said MSPC != work; XBox360 == cool;

And it has to be pointed out again that the server that this forum is hosted upon is a Linux server... Why is that?

Don't get me wrong I have used windows for ten years, I just find it now lacking in areas that it shoud now be excelling in for the amount of time it has been around for.

They should be setting the trend! I just think now that MS have lost what it is all about.

I am not a Linux die hard fan but I don't want to let myself get tied into bondage... It isn't my bag

Edited by mike_morley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the only real platform to run games on (depending on) is Windows. But isn't that only because it is the most widely used platform.

if more games were made for linux maybe people would switch, and if more people switched maybe more games would be made for linux.

its a vicious cycle and its all about who goes first :( a pity rele

Edited by anoymous_person
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about the Bluescreen issue - i've not once had a bsod on RTM (Been using it at least a month now), and since Beta 2, the only bsod's I have had are ones I've caused myself by installing a driver which I KNOW is incompatible with Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How original,did you come up with the "Hasta la Vista" all by yourself.

-you ran a beta version and said it was slow...have you tryed the rtm version,because thats the only true way to rate a os system performance...vista rtm can't compare to the beta versions,it simply runs great!

-you say ms will only allow you to chgange hardware once then you "must make a request to Microsoft for leniency or repurchase a new license"...this is wrong,you can upgrade all component's any number of times with no need to repurchase.

-you say linux is "more robust, reliable, secure" where as a number of recent surveys prove that this is not the case,and that was comparing to xp!

-linux "don't restrict the user"...here you are finally correct

-saying this is the beginning of the end of ms is downright silly,no one can predict the future (would you have thought of google 5 years ago?)

-"This is by and far the worst offering from Microsoft since" didn't you try windows Me?

summary: get your facts right if your going to rant on about windows vista,the whole comparing windows vs linux get's boring after a while...why not get your hands on a copy of vista rtm and use it for a couple weeks and then write a review of what you did and didn't like!

ps:in case you think im some ms cheerleader,im not! i personally have used both windows and linux for a number of years (have used linux daily since redhat 5.2 days...with my distro of choice being suse) and this post being written using a usb key version of slax...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently installed a beta version of Vista on my spare machine. Within 15 minutes of install I got the infamous blue screen of death. Not only that but to say that the speed that it ran was slow is an understatement.

I started using Linux some time ago and haven't rebooted my computer in 5 months (that is when I first put the install disk in).

Also reading the various articles on the net once you have installed it and want to make a major upgrade your machine (Motherboard, CPU), you will only be able to do this once. After that you will have to either make a request to Microsoft for leniency or repurchase a new license. The only reason I can think of for this is to make Microsoft more money. There is no security reason for this at all (unless anybody else can think of one).

So the question begs, why should anybody use Windows at all anymore when there are free operating systems available that are more robust, reliable, secure, and that don't restrict the user?

I believe that even though this won't spell the end Microsoft it is definitely the start. This is by and far the worst offering from Microsoft since... well ever!

Even this forum is being run on a Linux server!!!

I echo everything you said. The Vista RC's are actually quite stable, but at least on my laptop RC2 and I have no doubt RTM... suck.

-you say linux is "more robust, reliable, secure" where as a number of recent surveys prove that this is not the case,and that was comparing to xp!
By who, Microsoft? I could easily poll myself, and the poll would show that 100% of PCs run Linux or *BSD better than Windows. And in the case of FreeBSD, people have kept servers running for years without rebooting. I'm sure the other BSDs and Linux aren't far off.
-"This is by and far the worst offering from Microsoft since" didn't you try windows Me?

I personally used it constantly on an old laptop a few years back, and I know I'll get flamed for this, but it was actually quite quick and responsive. More than XP or Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?

Edited by WBHoenig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best comment that I've seen was earlier in this thread - where someone mentioned words to the effect "if only Apple had acted sooner, we'd all be using Mac's now".

Truer words were never spoken - every business runs on sales, and it's the marketing that encourages the sales. But once you've achieved market dominance it's tough to be unseated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English isn't my native idiom, I'll try my best.

Initially It's necessary to understand why IBM developed UNIX to understand Linux.

Unix was developed for companies that couldn't pay the costs of a mainframe, but with the same use structure: programmers, technicians, operators, etc.

The difference between Linux and Unix is just the platform, PC, but the structure is the same, it requests programmers, operators, etc., It's not for end users. They are trying to change this, but it still takes time.

One swim be done to change that, it can happen in a reverse way as it happened with OS/2, there were not programs developed. Linux has a lot of programs with the same purpose, but without any standard and support.

Windows was especially developed for end users. With the NT development It's became also corporate.

MS has more than 20 years of experience, it is an open and easy platform for developers, at the begining created more problems than solutions. Besides the fragility of the system, programs badly done and system 16 bits almost killed It. With Windows 2000 those problems were almost resolved and stiller with XP.

It is an easy system that it doesn't request the users' a lot of knowledge, intuitive, and this is also a problem, because computer is a tool, it is necessary training, learning.

Summarizing, they cannot be compared because historically the purposes are different and MS is M$ because always got to notice the users' expectations. Like or no, it was always besides these expectations, and mainly a fantastic capacity of recovering of the own mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK this is an idiotic topic by an id***.

....

....

The only reason for this topic is to make you feel important for a moment. Grow up little boy!

Go back to playing Dungeons and dragons.

jaws75,

you are perfectly free to expose your ideas and opinions on the matter, EXACTLY like Hasta la Vista and everyone else is.

Flaming other members is both unnecessary and unpolite. :no:

You might want to re-read rules:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=18408

expecially points 7a and 7b:

7.a You are expected to be mature when discussing in threads. Racism, pornography, threatening, profanity, or excessive vulgarity is not tolerated. You will be promptly banned. No Exceptions.

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

and comply with them.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site may be hosted on Linux but what is it? It's just a command line storage device with no gui frontend. It works well as that.

Actually, I was under the impression that they chose a Linux platform because it is more robust, reliable, and secure than Windows (although some might argue, and I might agree, that FreeBSD is more robust, reliable, and secure than Linux).

Useless? I don't think so. It's nice for anyone when you don't need 128mb of graphics ram to run the OS fully. It's also nice when, with or without the graphics ram, the OS doesn't crash constantly. Windows is more popular not because of ease of use. If things were popular due to that, Mac OS X would be the standard. Or even something like PC-BSD, which is based on FreeBSD, but is as easy or easier to run than Windows and OS X. And Ubuntu isn't far behind, too.

It is popular because it comes on computers. The average PC user doesn't know the difference between Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac. The average PC user runs Windows because that's what came with their new Dell. It comes on their new Dell because Windows got popular right at the right time. And every new Dell increases Microsoft's market share. It is a viscous cycle. Linux, BSD, and OS X can't get popular because no one knows about them (well, maybe not OS X) and they don't come on computers. And they don't come on computers 'cause they're not popular.

Next year will not be the year of Linux. Nor will 2008, 2009, or 2010. It probably will never be popular on the desktop PC. But not because it is inferior to Windows.

Edited by WBHoenig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't come on computers for sale to the masses because of a few important things. 1: The kernal was made to be modified at the user level (can you imagine the tech support nightmare of trying to support anyone's and everyone's changes), and ...2: Because they are free or open source.

The tech support for a free product couldn't be aforded when you can't make any money on it. Besides, even if they put a version of Linux (or any other unix based system) on a system for wide spread sale to the masses there would still be too many free alternatives of that same OS that offered too much competition and you would end up with exactly the same conversations about it.

Its not because they aren't popular, but instead because they are not wide spread to the masses because they aren't marketed, and they aren't marketed because there is no real profit to be made from them because they or the alternatives to them are free. It would be kind of difficult to base the profit for a company on a version of Linux for example when the competiton is free. It would be different if it could be marketed effectively to the masses but ya just can't do it.

And it isn't because its inferior, its just not a marketable product that a company can base long term survival on, maybe in a niche market but not to the masses.

Where there is profit, there is support, development, and products available to enhance the original product. And this is the reason that free ware type OS's are not a viable alternative to Windows for the masses because that comprehensive support and development base just isn't there and its not there because there is no long term sustainable profit base.

If companies had figured out a way to base long term profit on a free OS don't you think they would have done it by now? Companies sell what makes them money, and Windows makes them money. It isn't the fault of MS as they just competed in the free enterprise system like everyone is able to do. Its actually the fault of the alternative OS system community, like the Linux/unix flavors, by trying to keep the systems open source or free that made them less attractive as a profit base.

....It is a viscous cycle. Linux, BSD, and OS X can't get popular because no one knows about them (well, maybe not OS X) and they don't come on computers. And they don't come on computers 'cause they're not popular.

....Next year will not be the year of Linux. Nor will 2008, 2009, or 2010. It probably will never be popular on the desktop PC. But not because it is inferior to Windows.

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tech support for a free product couldn't be aforded when you can't make any money on it.

Sorry, but you are missing a point here, FREE SOFTWARE means "free as in freedom", not necessarily "free of charge".

Support for FREE SOFTWARE is normally offered as a "pay for service", as well as the actual software can be charged for the services of compiling and integrating it, companies like RedHat and Mandriva actually "live" with that:

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/

http://www.mandriva.com/en/linux/2007/discovery

http://store.mandriva.com/product_info.php?products_id=336

The fact that the same or a very similar product is provided free of charge and WITHOUT support does not mean that companies cannot get paid for their work.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...