Vista Sucks!

Off Topic
21

[quote]Bullmoose wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
lixy wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:

Sure, you can “bake” your own version of Linux (or tinker with it enough to call it your own), but to say it works with everything out of the box is just an outlandish claim.

He said Ubuntu had proper driver support. Games aren’t hardware.

Sure, dual-boot to make up for the inadequacies of Linux, but don’t do that for Windows. It’s easier to just call it a piece of crap and say, “Linux r0x0rz!”

We dual-boot to be able to work within the Windows near-monopoly, which is in no way an inadequacy of Linux. Games that are written for Windows work on Windows and nothing else. Even games that have Linux versions won’t run in Ubuntu if you try to install your Windows version.[/quote]

It’s not Windows fault it’s so succesful… Oh wait, yeah it is.

I love how people who either “love Linux” or “hate Windows” (aren’t they the same though, really?) equate corporate success with a Monopoly… Oh sorry, “near-monopoly”.

[quote]EmperialChina wrote:
I’ve been on both sides and used quite a few operating systems and this blind Linux love, is nearly laughable. I love how some Linux supporters will downplay and sweep any HUGE inadequacies and issues with their trumped up distro(s) under the rug while bitching about issues that to 99% of users don’t matter to them.

When people say Linux is better than XP, are they even comparing them within the same context? Just because you read a manual and can command prompt your binary installs doesn’t mean that,

  1. Anyone cares.

  2. That you are anymore productive, if anything most people don’t want to spend countless hours tweaking their system or installing Linux and then trying to get windows based software to run IE WINE. If you enjoy programming, power using, and control of your system however irrelevant it may be to common use, that is great, and fantastic, but to say that Linux is a better Desktop environment for the public…Give me a break, it is anything but.

A few of the more popular claims are.

“I can install my Linux Distro on my 1995 486, try that Vista!”

Who gives a shit? There is something called progression, this isn’t '95 and I am not using the same hardware. There have been benchmark tests that have shown most common flavors of Linux fair no better on older hardware, than the equivalent windows version of that time (of course excluding minimalist distros like slackware).

If I want to get real world work done I am not editing my kernels modules or searching out and installing property codecs just so I can play a mp3 or an MPEG movie.

“You may be onto something here. The interface is indeed, far from intuitive. But that’s not my only concern.”

Would command line or graphical KDE/Gnome be anymore intuitive?

I don’t have a grudge for Linux I have used it, but I have a problem with the gospel and the misinformation, it has it’s place and is indeed important, but touting it as a desktop solution for normal people…no.

I think if more average people where to jump on OS X (Leopard being the current release) they would be surprised.
[/quote]

Well said… And I intend to try out Leopard in a month or two… I’ll wait for it to be smoothed out a bit before I install it on my Windows machine.

22

[quote]js385787 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
like the Blue Screen of Death!, but you just don’t see those any more for the most part. I cant remember the last time I got one of those on my computer honestly.

.

Wish I had that problem, I get one of those motherfucking blue screens at least once a day. Running XP on toshiba laptop that is one year old.[/quote]

Try turning off unnecessary processes, running a disk defragmentation program and getting rid of useless things like google/yahoo toolbar.

23

[quote]lixy wrote:

Games? I thought we were all adults here. Oh well…

[/quote]

This statement is just plain ignorant. Who said games were for kids in the first place? If you weren’t a member of the population who grew up with them, then that would explain why you don’t play them now, but they were a large part of growing up for some of us. The gaming industry realizes that, which is why there are so many games being made now that are meant to appeal to an older audience.

24

My main computer has Vista and I love it. I find it better than XP in most areas. As far as problems the only ones I have are with aim and an obscure program but I’ve found ways around it. All my other programs work fine and I find it crashes and has less stability issues than XP.

25

It’s always like that with Microsoft. The initial releases always have bugs and it only becomes a great OS when SP2 arrives.

26

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Bullmoose wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:

It’s not Windows fault it’s so succesful… Oh wait, yeah it is.

I love how people who either “love Linux” or “hate Windows” (aren’t they the same though, really?) equate corporate success with a Monopoly… Oh sorry, “near-monopoly”.
[/quote]

I didn’t say I love Linux or hate Microsoft, only that I prefer Linux. I don’t care what you use, but I need to dual boot to save files to .doc or .xls if I need share them and be sure the formatting stays intact, which is where the “near-monopoly” comes into play.

What I do hate is using Office 2007, or having to call Microsoft and ask permission to reinstall Windows XP whenever I changed some hardware, which as I understand is still the case, if not worse, when using Vista.

27

[quote]Bullmoose wrote:
I didn’t say I love Linux or hate Microsoft, only that I prefer Linux. I don’t care what you use, but I need to dual boot to save files to .doc or .xls if I need share them and be sure the formatting stays intact, which is where the “near-monopoly” comes into play.

What I do hate is using Office 2007, or having to call Microsoft and ask permission to reinstall Windows XP whenever I changed some hardware, which as I understand is still the case, if not worse, when using Vista.
[/quote]

I would do the same thing if I owned Microsoft. Don’t blame them, blame the people who steal their software and costs them millions of dollars a year in revenue.

It’s just good business for them at this point.

28

[quote]Bullmoose wrote:
I don’t care what you use, but I need to dual boot to save files to .doc or .xls if I need share them and be sure the formatting stays intact, which is where the “near-monopoly” comes into play. [/quote]

Virtualization has gotten pretty impressive lately. A much better alternative than dualboot.

http://www.virtualbox.org

29

Always wait until something new is proven.

There is no way average Joe needs the latest technology. What Joe needs is no pain in the ass headaches stuffing around with junk.

30

Hmmmmm, I must be the only one who doesn’t have ANY problems with vista.

Fuck apple and their over-rated products.

31

I’ve been using linux for years now, and I fix Windows PCs for a living. I’ve also used Mac i reasonable amount, but not as much as the others.

If your operating system does everything you ask of it, why are you angry? I personally use linux (currently Kubuntu 7.10) but load up Windows XP for games. For anything other then games I cannot stand Windows.

My recommendation is that if you like what you currently use, stick to it. If you have an interest in computers and want to play around use linux. Don’t try it, use it properly, because its not windows, you’re going to have to learn a few new things.

32

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
I would do the same thing if I owned Microsoft. Don’t blame them, blame the people who steal their software and costs them millions of dollars a year in revenue.

It’s just good business for them at this point.[/quote]

I would probably also do the same thing, and I don’t blame them. I just didn’t feel like dealing with it anymore, so I switched.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Virtualization has gotten pretty impressive lately. A much better alternative than dualboot.[/quote]

Yeah, I tried out VMWare but I got huge slowdowns (512MB RAM). When I say dual boot, I really mean that the computers at school use XP, so I use them when I must. Only problem is that now they have Office 2007, which is extremely annoying.

33

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Step into the light my son…

[/quote]

What are you nuts?

That’s even worse than Vista.

Best option is Windows XP, or Linux (which is free). A good Linux is Ubuntu.

34

[quote]lixy wrote:
You may be onto something here. The interface is indeed, far from intuitive. But that’s not my only concern.

First, there’s no multilingual support.

Then, there’s the built-in DRM crap.

Then, the WGA locking out legit’ customers… Weekend WGA Failure Locked Out Legit Windows Vista Users

The lack of complete drivers (for example, my Ubuntu (7.10) install works flawlessly and out-of-the-box with everything I throw at it).[/quote]

I agree with all of the above.

You also forgot to add in the fact that there are so many damn version of Vista.

Here’s a list:

Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate

And let’s not forget most of these also come in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.

That’s the limitation with a 32-bit application running on 32-bit windows. Its not the OS’ fault. Its the fact its 32-bit.

You can prevent this by using 64-bit apps in 64-bit windows.

[quote]
The lack of a powerful shell prompt and the very limited customizability of the OS.

The impossibility to run it on old hardware (bad for the planet).

The slooow patch release cycle.

The closed source code (that is, unless you’re in a government entity).

The exorbitant price tag of the Pro version.

And don’t even get me started on the security bit, and the monopolistic actions of Microsoft.[/quote]

Agree. Except you forgot to add the ‘security’ part is a joke.

You’re better off with Linux (and a firewall if you’re paranoid) or XP and a firewall… one that is not built into the system. A good one instead.

Outpost for XP is pretty good.

35

You’re touting Linux as a good thing and damning Vista because of all the versions?

How many versions of Linux are there? I stopped counting at 40 here, and I wasn’t even halfway through the list:
http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html

And they’re just the English Distro’s.

And the security of Linux isn’t that great, either, it’s just not targetted as frequently because it’s not a mainstream OS. In fact they’ve done studies and found that Servers that run Windows Server are more secure than Linux servers.

36

[quote]unbending wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Step into the light my son…

What are you nuts?

That’s even worse than Vista.

Best option is Windows XP, or Linux (which is free). A good Linux is Ubuntu.

[/quote]

I forgive you for your blasphemy!

37

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
You’re touting Linux as a good thing and damning Vista because of all the versions? [/quote]

Well, there’s only a couple of versions of Linux. The rest are fringe.

I’d say fedora and Ubuntu.

See? 2 versions.

And linux is an alternative to vista, if you want to move away from windows altogether.

[quote]
And the security of Linux isn’t that great, either, it’s just not targetted as frequently because it’s not a mainstream OS.[/quote]

That’s a method of security in itself. Its as secure as a Mac OSX which is a bastardized FreeBSD Linux distro.

But enough about that. The real alternative to Vista which is the most practical, compatible, cheap, runs on old hardware, and has blazing performance once you set it up good, is XP. No contest.

Here’s my list of OSes in order of preference:

Server 2003 (its a modified XP) SP2
Windows XP 64-bit edition for 64-bit apps
XP Professional SP2
Ubuntu
Vista (only when it reaches Service Pack 2 though)

and OSX if I really have no choice.

38

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
You’re touting Linux as a good thing and damning Vista because of all the versions?

How many versions of Linux are there? I stopped counting at 40 here, and I wasn’t even halfway through the list:
http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html

And they’re just the English Distro’s. [/quote]

There are literally thousands of distros out there. Heck, my school’s got its own official distribution. Yet, all run basically the same kernel.

Choice is a strength, not a weakness.

This is bullcrap. The studies you speak of were all sponsored by MS. Heck, Microsoft itself has been using Linux on security-critical assets. I’ve seen some of them first-hand.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39115920,00.htm

A computer isn’t inherently secure. But, Windows is defective by design. A Unix system (Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, etc…) has always been superior to the ones running Windows. I won’t go into the authentication processes and other safeguards built into Linux (PM me if you’re interested). There are many things that are wrong with Linux, but claiming that security is one of them, is ignorant - at best.

39

[quote]unbending wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
You’re touting Linux as a good thing and damning Vista because of all the versions?

Well, there’s only a couple of versions of Linux. The rest are fringe.

I’d say fedora and Ubuntu.

See? 2 versions.
[/quote]

Redhat? Suse? Mandriva?

I guess they don’t count.

[quote]unbending wrote:
That’s a method of security in itself. Its as secure as a Mac OSX which is a bastardized FreeBSD Linux distro.
[/quote]

Yep, and the more popularity Mac’s gain the more frequently you hear about bugs, virus’ and exploits.

Leopard was hacked in under a day.

40

[quote]lixy wrote:
There are literally thousands of distros out there. Heck, my school’s got its own official distribution. Yet, all run basically the same kernel.

Choice is a strength, not a weakness.
[/quote]

Well apparently in this thread, if you’re Microsoft and have several different versions of Vista it’s a bad thing in this thread. That’s all I was saying, thanks for agreeing.

[quote]lixy wrote:
This is bullcrap. The studies you speak of were all sponsored by MS. Heck, Microsoft itself has been using Linux on security-critical assets. I’ve seen some of them first-hand.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39115920,00.htm

A computer isn’t inherently secure. But, Windows is defective by design. A Unix system (Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, etc…) has always been superior to the ones running Windows. I won’t go into the authentication processes and other safeguards built into Linux (PM me if you’re interested). There are many things that are wrong with Linux, but claiming that security is one of them, is ignorant - at best.[/quote]

That article is from August 2003. The study’s I referred to are about 10 months old now if I remember correctly. If I happen to find them i’ll post a link or shoot you a PM.