Vista putting a dent in 98 userbase?

[CoffeeFiend]

That's not basic use at all! I'd go so far as to say that it's advanced.

Watching mpeg4 (including videos off youtube and such), burning DVDs, editing photos, watching HD DVDs (or plain old DVDs), filling mp3 players... Advanced?

I see countless n00bs and old people do stuff like that everyday. Hardly "advanced". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[BenoitRen]

NTFS?

Yes, because it's great to have our files stored in a proprietary format whose inner workings are a trade secret. The security that it offers isn't even needed at home.

No ridiculous file size (and partition size) limitations?

Drive size (not partition, drive) restriction got solved. As for file size limitation, well, you have to have really large files for that, which would fall in the advanced user section.

ACLs?

Access Control Lists? Aren't those on the router? Or do you mean something else?

Real multi-user environment?

...

Fast User Switching?

Which is useless at home.

Remote Desktop?

Possible with various VNC clients.

ClearType?

Useful on LCDs, horrible on CRTs. In the end, it's not a must-have feature.

PowerShell?

What the hell is that?

Hibernate and hot docking (for my laptop)?

...

ACPI that actually works?

Win98's implementation of that was incomplete, I have to admit.

WMP11 and IE7?

Both pieces of crap, and not OS features.

WMP11 = WMP6.4 + bloat + DRM

IE7 is still based on the ancient engine that IE6 used. It was a marginal improvement. Why even bother with it if you already use Firefox?

MMC 3? (oh wait, no MMC at all on win9x!)

Microsoft Management Console? Win9x is a home OS, so why would you even need it?

[CoffeeFiend]

The security that it offers isn't even needed at home.

Oh, so you get to decide what people need? Neat! Nice to not have needs for anything like basic privacy, not ever needing to setup permissions so others can't (mistakenly or not) delete (or look at) your files, or security using ACLs (just common sense) or anything like that.

As for file size limitation, well, you have to have really large files for that, which would fall in the advanced user section.

Like anyone who does even basic video editing (lots of n00b apps for this, for home videos et al -- LOTS of people do this, especially new parents), or copying DVDs (not just video) or downloads stuff off P2P. Hardly advanced.

Access Control Lists? Aren't those on the router?

NTFS has that too.

Real multi-user environment?

...

Fast User Switching?

Which is useless at home.

:lol: Nice of you to include a joke for aprils fools! That's the very best one I've heard so far.

Every single computer is only used by a single person! Not that families share PCs, each having their own accounts so they each have their preferences and such. Fast user switching is basically made just for home users.

Possible with various VNC clients.

Not the same thing at all. They complement each other, but they're no substitute. Try logging on a 2nd user session using VNC... And VNC over slow links is a dog compared to RDP. (plus RDP is built-in, requires no install of a 3rd party server process, no extra tray icon, etc) I hardly use VNC anymore these days.

In the end, it's not a must-have feature.

...unless you have a LCD, which is more or less what everyone buys these days.

What the hell is that?

Google it? (Bah, don't bother, you'll say "nobody needs that!" -- I'm sure we should remove command.com or cmd.exe too while we're at it. Using a command prompt is too advanced! no one does that!)

You've hardly refuted anything at all. You just deemed nobody has a need for stuff lots and lots of people actually have a use for. And anything you don't do automatically becomes "oh-my-god-so-advanced-nobody-ever-does-this!":

-people should use consoles to play games!

-nobody visits heavy websites, and shouldn't visit anything that uses flash (nor should web designers use it)

-nobody has big files (nor needs basic security for 'em)

-all systems are single user, or they should use it as one

-watching mpeg4 is advanced (who ever goes to youtube?)

-burning DVDs is advanced (yeah, nobody does that)

-filling mp3 players advanced - who has one of those newfangled mp3 things yet?

-all new software that doesn't run on a 10yo system is bloated or poorly written

...

I think it's pointless replying any further.

Edited April 2, 2007 by crahak

[BenoitRen]

IIS

Not an OS feature. It's an insecure piece of crap as well. Use Apache.

An OS that can use the .NET framework 3.0 and apps that require it?

Again, not an OS feature!

Or just a stable OS that doesn't BSOD everyday?

Oh, so you're one of those WinNT fanboys who believes the popular lie that Win9x is a BSOD fest? Please. It's been years since I saw a BSOD.

It's updated, had flash 8, and has recent WHQL certified drivers and all. Yet it plays for about a second, stops for one, plays another second...

You don't understand. I wasn't talking about "ZOMG old Flash version!", but the fact that it likely plays through Flash.

By the way, have you made sure it doesn't have malware first?

There's no complex css there at all

Obviously you're not a professional web developer.

BTW, IE can handle AJAX stuff just fine. Hell, AJAX came FROM IE! They invented the XMLHttpRequest.

Hahahaha! Yeah, right. You know how IE handles XML, XMLHttpRequest, and thus AJAX? With ActiveX! The browser doesn't support it natively at all!

Most popular sites nowadays. Again, did you even bother loading a dozen tabs of that /. page yet?

I'll do it soon, don't worry.

Oh yes, it's absolutely unbearable on anything but a Quad Xeon X5355 with 16GB RAM. Not like a 38$ CPU with 50$ worth of RAM or anything older like a plain old P4 or Athlon XP (even 2nd hand) would suffice

Every PC I run into runs it like a dog. Including every laptop of school buddies. Even mine, which I keep in pretty good shape. It's got an AMD Sempron 3000+ with 512 MB of RAM.

Really, this "it's bloated" crap is silly.

...

It's one of the best performing databases out there, and it has a very good feature set, and halfway decent pricing. Way to bash a product you clearly don't even know.

Oh, please. This is Microsoft we're talking about.

LOTS of people disagree with you on that one, even if just because on a PC you have a mouse, and you can buy the graphics card to get the graphics you want.

Oh, a lot of people disagree with me! I must be wrong!

Please.

Since when was the mouse useful for anything but strategy games? And this "buy the graphics card to get the graphics you want" thing is irrelevant. It's actually detrimental to gaming, as other people can get an advantage over you in multi-player because they have a better graphics card. Developers are also paid to optimise their game for the latest graphics card, so you then get to buy a new one. Not to mention that this leads to a lot of different graphic quality, so it's hard for the developer to get you to see what they intended. Lack of standards is a problem.

[BenoitRen]

Watching mpeg4 (including videos off youtube and such), burning DVDs, editing photos, watching HD DVDs (or plain old DVDs), filling mp3 players... Advanced?

You obviously don't look at my quotes at all. No, watching MPEG4, (HD-)DVDs and burning DVDs isn't advanced, hence I didn't quote those.

However, editing photos and encoding MP3? I'd call that advanced.

Oh, so you get to decide what people need? Neat! Nice to not have needs for anything like basic privacy, not ever needing to setup permissions so others can't (mistakenly or not) delete (or look at) your files, or security using ACLs (just common sense) or anything like that.

...

Nice of you to include a joke for aprils fools! That's the very best one I've heard so far.

Every single computer is only used by a single person! Not that families share PCs, each having their own accounts so they each have their preferences and such. Fast user switching is basically made just for home users.

If you can't trust people at home, you've got a serious problem. And no, obviously I didn't mean to say every comptuer is used only by one person.

Like anyone who does even basic video editing (lots of n00b apps for this, for home videos et al -- LOTS of people do this, especially new parents), or copying DVDs (not just video) or downloads stuff off P2P. Hardly advanced.

I'll give you that one.

...unless you have a LCD, which is more or less what everyone buys these days.

It's graphic fluff.

Google it? (Bah, don't bother, you'll say "nobody needs that!" -- I'm sure we should remove command.com or cmd.exe too while we're at it. Using a command prompt is too advanced! no one does that!)

Googled it. Yes, it's an advanced thing. Hell, Microsoft even says so themselves!

"Microsoft Windows PowerShell command line shell and scripting language helps IT Professionals achieve greater productivity."

You've hardly refuted anything at all. You just deemed nobody has a need for stuff lots and lots of people actually have a use for.

You're deluding yourself into thinking that everyone does all the stuff you do.

I think it's pointless replying any further.

Hah! He retreats!

[CoffeeFiend]

Ah, more trolling:

It's an insecure piece of crap as well. Use Apache.

Nevermind apache had more security problems in the lifetime of IIS6? Go educate yourself: check exploits for IIS6, and those for apache during the same time frame.

the popular lie that Win9x is a BSOD fest?

Hardly a lie.

By the way, have you made sure it doesn't have malware first?

Yes.

Obviously you're not a professional web developer.

Obviously YOU are not one. Basic margins, borders, styling, etc. Nothing complicated there. Please enlighten us, how is this complicated CSS? It's no more complicated than the stuff I write on a daily basis.

Hahahaha! Yeah, right. You know how IE handles XML, XMLHttpRequest, and thus AJAX? With ActiveX! The browser doesn't support it natively at all!

So you change your story from "IE doesn't support AJAX *at all*" to "but it uses ActiveX!", and somehow that's funny? Alright. BTW IE7 can do it natively too (and also as ActiveX for legacy purposes).

Since when was the mouse useful for anything but strategy games?

Ask gamers. Lots of people swear by the mouse for FPS games at least. LOTS of gamers disagree with you...

'

And BTW, yes you did quote the "burning DVDs" part and such. Look at your own quotes.

Edited April 2, 2007 by crahak

[BenoitRen]

Okay, I've opened 10 Slashdot comments pages. I actually still have them open right now! I can still browse the web fine. I even took a screenshot for you.

Nevermind apache had more security problems in the lifetime of IIS6? Go educate yourself: check exploits for IIS6, and those for apache during the same time frame.

This kind of argument again... Security is more than just the number of exploits. What also matters is the response time, and how the product fares in actual day-to-day business. Apache does much better there.

Hardly a lie.

I have almost 9 years of experience with Windows 95 to back up that it is.

Obviously YOU are not one. Basic margins, borders, styling, etc. Nothing complicated there. Please enlighten us, how is this complicated CSS? It's no more complicated than the stuff I write on a daily basis.

I'll get back to you on that one. The one who told me, my mentor (I'm still learning), told me that.

So you change your story from "IE doesn't support AJAX *at all*" to "but it uses ActiveX!", and somehow that's funny? Alright.

When we talk of IE, we're talking about the actual engine. Third-party components do not apply. I'm not claiming that Firefox can block ads, for example, because it takes an extension.

BTW IE7 can do it natively too (and also as ActiveX for legacy purposes).

That's nice. Its DOM support, which is also vital to AJAX, is still lacking, though.

Ask gamers. Lots of people swear by the mouse for FPS games at least. LOTS of gamers disagree with you...

Um... no. They swear by the keyboard and mouse combo. Personally I find it really awkward. But there's more gamers out there than just strategy and (dull) FPSs.

And BTW, yes you did quote the "burning DVDs" part and such. Look at your own quotes.

My mistake. I didn't mean to.

Edited April 2, 2007 by BenoitRen

[CoffeeFiend]

Okay, I've opened 10 Slashdot comments pages. I actually still have them open right now! I can still browse the web fine. I even took a screenshot for you.

10 tabs of posts with 96 replies? I bet you're not logged on either. Log on (you don't get quite the same pages at all), and try the ones with like 600 comments and see. Also, it depends what browser you're using. For some (the unsupported ones) it disables the AJAX stuff, so that makes a huge difference too. 10 of the lightest pages logged off or with a unsupported browser is nothing.

This kind of argument again... Security is more than just the number of exploits. What also matters is the response time, and how the product fares in actual day-to-day business. Apache does much better there.

So what exploits went unpatched for too long in IIS6's entire life (that's already been a few years)? Right: none. Apache didn't do any better there. Also, exploit severity also counts (none were real bad for IIS6).

I'll get back to you on that one. The one who told me, my mentor (I'm still learning), told me that.

Oh, so based on hear-say from someone else (you don't seem to know too much about it) you call others n00bs?

When we talk of IE, we're talking about the actual engine. Third-party components do not apply.

IE is more than a rendering engine. The rendering engine is only part of it. It's everything that comes with it. When we talk about IE, we mean IE (like when we talk about a car, we mean the whole car, not just the engine). The XMLHttpRequest object is NOT a 3rd party component. It was part of IE5 and shipped with it.

That's nice. Its DOM support, which is also vital to AJAX, is still lacking, though.

Hey, I never said IE7 doesn't suck real bad Looks like at least we can agree on one thing after all...

[BenoitRen]

10 tabs of posts with 96 replies? I bet you're not logged on either. Log on (you don't get quite the same pages at all), and try the ones with like 600 comments and see. Also, it depends what browser you're using. For some (the unsupported ones) it disables the AJAX stuff, so that makes a huge difference too. 10 of the lightest pages logged off or with a unsupported browser is nothing.

What the hell is this? I show you that I can take 10 pages of Slashdot comments pages, and suddenly you shake more conditions out of your sleeve? Obviously, no matter what I show you, you'll never be satisfied.

Unsupported browser? This is SeaMonkey, which uses the same rendering engine as Firefox, and it knows AJAX just as well.

So what exploits went unpatched for too long in IIS6's entire life (that's already been a few years)? Right: none. Apache didn't do any better there.

Here's what makes IIS insecure: its defaults are bad. Very bad. Sure, an experienced sysadmin could tighten it up, but the amount of work required is just stupid. Apache is much better in this regard. Apache being open-source also helps.

Also, exploit severity also counts (none were real bad for IIS6).

Microsoft always downplays the severity of their security holes.

Oh, so based on hear-say from someone else (you don't seem to know too much about it) you call others n00bs?

It's not 'just hear-say'. He's my mentor, and works as a professional web developer. I learned everything about standard and semantic coding from him.

IE is more than a rendering engine. The rendering engine is only part of it. It's everything that comes with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

After a night of sleep, I'm wondering why I'm wasting my time on you. It would seem you're just another WinNT fanboy who's come here to bash Win9x (who also often bash older things because they can't fathom that those can also still be useful).

[CoffeeFiend]

What the hell is this?

You didn't load the page I linked to 10 times, but one that's 1/6 of the size (by comment size). Not exactly heavy pages anymore. And is it too hard to understand that if you're not logged on, and that if the browser doesn't send a user agent it thinks it supported (browser caps of seamonkey are TOTALLY irrelevant here), then you're not getting the same pages AT ALL! You get the static HTML/non-AJAX ones (which are also split in different pages when there are too many comments, so even lighter), which are nowhere as heavy. Being a heavy page being the point of doing this in the first place -- not loading a heavy one totally defeats it. It probably takes 10 of these (non-AJAX, 1/6 of the size and spanned) to be as heavy as single one like the one I linked to...

Here's what makes IIS insecure: its defaults are bad. Very bad.

Again: shows you know nothing of IIS6. By default it's REALLY locked down -- it doesn't even do things classic ASP out of the box, you have to go enable everything you need by hand. It could hardly be any tighter. It's obvious you've never even tried IIS6, not even once. That FUD was partially true for IIS4 (that shipped with NT4), but not for IIS6.

Microsoft always downplays the severity of their security holes.

They don't dictate secunia et al what to rate them.

It would seem you're just another WinNT fanboy who's come here to bash Win9x (who also often bash older things because they can't fathom that those can also still be useful).

I'm hardly a NT-fanboy. But I'd certainly use pretty much *anything* over Win9x (that includes linux), and since I use a lot of windows-centric apps and I develop for that platform, I'm mostly a user of the newer NT-series products.

Can't fathom 10 year old stuff can be useful? It seems more like you can't fathom that even for the basic tasks most people do such old PCs just don't cut it anymore -- not even close. 10 years is pretty much eternity in the computing world.

[RainyShadow]

Is there a serious reason for this "discussion" to continue ?!?

For the statistics, part of my work is to assemble PCs and install an OS. Some customers still demand Win98, be it due to some specific needs, be it due to personal prefference. Our inventory ranges from P2 @ ~400MHz to Athlon/P4 @ 2.4GHz, and it's a common thing someone to request a Win98 on one of the faster systems, while someone else requests WinXP on a cheap P2 (and pretty soon comes back for an upgrade:D).

[BenoitRen]

You didn't load the page I linked to 10 times, but one that's 1/6 of the size (by comment size).

You didn't specify! You also didn't give any specifics like "Log in first! Use Firefox!". How the hell was I supposed to know? I'm not psychic.

Also, I didn't load the page you saw 10 times. You saw the main page, and the 10 other tabs were of comments pages of different stories featured on it (I wasn't going to cheat with the cache).

They don't dictate secunia et al what to rate them.

I'm not sure about that.

I'm hardly a NT-fanboy. But I'd certainly use pretty much *anything* over Win9x (that includes linux), and since I use a lot of windows-centric apps and I develop for that platform, I'm mostly a user of the newer NT-series products.

Then what the hell are you doing here? Go troll somewhere else.

Can't fathom 10 year old stuff can be useful? It seems more like you can't fathom that even for the basic tasks most people do such old PCs just don't cut it anymore -- not even close. 10 years is pretty much eternity in the computing world.

You said yourself that you haven't seen a Pentium II box for years. How would you even know they don't cut it anymore? You're just spouting FUD.

10 years is pretty much eternity in the computing world.

The computing world has barely evolved in 10 years. Sure, improvements keep coming, but actual new stuff? Rarely.

And about that complex WHATWG page I linked, this is what my mentor said:

I said "moderately complex".

it has negative margins, quite heavy selectors like "p + * > li", relative positioning, tables with border-collapse etc

absolute positioning, too

http://www.whatwg.org/style/specification

I suspect it's the selectors in particular which make processing slow.

There's _a lot_ of elements that need to be looked at before gecko knows if some of those selectors will need to be applied or not.

(Not that for me it's "slow" as such...)

How big a CSS file is doesn't mean anything. Shows how much you know.

[mike_morley]

Dispite my misgiving (http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=88992&hl=) I decided to give Vista another go.

Ok it didn't crash. Ok it looks pretty. But I really don't see the benifts of using it over XP.... The extra functionality isn't that extra.

I have given it a fair shot and I can't think of one thing that I would choose Vista over XP over (apart from the fact that it give me a reason to buy a better machine).

The extra resource that Vista uses out ways (In my opinion) any benifits the new OS has.

I know I am most likely alone in this view but I just don't get it!!!

Someone please tell me what Vista is better at than XP. Give me a reason to put my hand in my pocket and spend my hard earnt cash!!!

I mean for Gods sake it still has enough legacy software still in it it may as well be 3.1.

Edited April 2, 2007 by mike_morley

[CoffeeFiend]

Then what the hell are you doing here? Go troll somewhere else.

I was answering the original question asked -- is Vista putting a dent in Win9x user base. And I think I've answered that pretty well. You're the one trolling.

You said yourself that you haven't seen a Pentium II box for years. How would you even know they don't cut it anymore? You're just spouting FUD.

Because even P3's are barely usable? Because the P2's don't run the modern software most people need? It's obvious. Do I have to justify "the sky is blue" too?

The computing world has barely evolved in 10 years. Sure, improvements keep coming, but actual new stuff? Rarely.

Things have changed an awful lot in 10 years.

How big a CSS file is doesn't mean anything. Shows how much you know.

Actually, css total size does matter. Given the same (relative) complexity, the larger css takes more time to apply to larger pages' elements as there are more (complex) selectors and such. A page with css will load slower than the same page if you disable css (if size didn't matter like you say, it should make no difference at all). Complexity matters too, but the link you posted doesn't really use any complex stuff either (nothing out of the ordinary). Shows how much you know (hey, you started it again).

[BenoitRen]

I was answering the original question asked -- is Vista putting a dent in Win9x user base.

Emphasis on "was".

You're the one trolling.

Because I'm defending Pentium II CPUs from ridiculous assertions? Please.

Because even P3's are barely usable?

What have you been smoking? They are very much usable. Unless, of course, you load them with resource-hogging software (like XP).

Because the P2's don't run the modern software most people need?

What most people need:

-Web browser.

-E-mail client.

-Music player.

A Pentium II runs that pretty well. Don't you dare try to convince me that everyone is a geek who edits photos (in PhotoShop, of all things! probably pirated, too), encodes a lot of movies, edits audio, develops software, etc.

Maybe you have forgotten why most people bought a PC in the first place? The Internet.

Things have changed an awful lot in 10 years.

No. We're still using a Windows OS with the same (though crippled more in every release) UI, we're still increasing the speed of hardware instead of writing good software, we're still using retarded security mechanisms, we're still using proprietary file formats, we're still using a strange browser from Redmond, etc.

So, what, exactly, has changed, outside of numbers?

Actually, css total size does matter.

It's not a gauge for its complexity, was my point.

Complexity matters too, but the link you posted doesn't really use any complex stuff either (nothing out of the ordinary).

Oh, please, he explained in detail why it was. Get over it.