[RicHSAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hate is too strong a word to be used in this case. And as I said before, you'll get me awake all night long with your name calling!. Thats the problem with window$ fan-boys: you cannot stand other people doing the same things differently, and paying a lot less for it. I don't hate you. I find you funny. And I am smart and witty

Windows is a small price to pay to be able to everything you want with little effort. Nothing funny about that, just common sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are alternatives, if you are interested. Denying reality doesn't make it go away. Why is YOUR choice the only one?. If you like it, then use it by all means!. But other people use other OS. And they are very easy to install and use. Can you stand that?. If you can, then we have no more to argue about.

My choice is the only one because no other OS allows me to play the games I want to play. There are many software that I use that simply do not work in other OS. And very easy to install and use compared to what? No way you are going to convince me that Linux is easy to use and install compared to Windows. Give me an alternative if you can ...

 

[fjf]

Again you are mistaken. I do not try to convince you of anything. If you like window$ and want to pay for it, do so, please. But other people use other OS. And they are very easy to install and use. We like them and we game within them. And we are not idiots. Can you stand that?. If you can, then we have no more to argue about. If you cannot respect it, THEN I'll have something to say.

And I invite you to try linux. You may be surprised about the ease of installation and use. The myth about it being for geeks only is an old one. It is not so anymore.

Not trying to convince you. Just inviting you. You can refuse, no hard feelings. If you can do the same with me regarding 7.

Couple of links: http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://ubuntuforums.org/ . Just in case you are curious. I doubt it, but have been wrong before

 

[RicHSAD]

I am not replying because I think you are trying to convince me. I am replying because there is something inaccurate/false in all of your posts. I am not sure where you are getting that I don't respect the Linux community .. If anything I have the utmost respect for it as it is free after all. The very reason I got into this argument with you is because you took a dump on Microsoft/Windows(notice the lack of $) in the first place.

 

[azncookiecutter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again you are mistaken. I do not try to convince you of anything. If you like window$ and want to pay for it, do so, please. But other people use other OS. And they are very easy to install and use. We like them and we game within them. And we are not idiots. Can you stand that?. If you can, then we have no more to argue about. If you cannot respect it, THEN I'll have something to say. And I invite you to try linux. You may be surprised about the ease of installation and use. The myth about it being for geeks only is an old one. It is not so anymore. Not trying to convince you. Just inviting you. You can refuse, no hard feelings. If you can do the same with me regarding 7. Couple of links: Ubuntu Home Page | Ubuntu Ubuntu Forums . Just in case you are curious. I doubt it, but have been wrong before

To each their own, I suppose. I've tried serveral builds of Linux already (openSUSE, Ubuntu, and some other ones I don't recall at the moment right now), and personally, I feel they're not ready for primetime just yet. The concept of open source computing is great, by the fact it makes companies start looking over their backs and improving their own products, especially if they start losing profits due to the quality of software released for free.

What irks me about Linux is that even the most popular devices do not have mainstream support yet. To the majority of computer users out there (count me as one of them), it's not feasible for them to move to a Linux distro full-time.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Of course I have suffered vista especially on laptops, and have downgraded to XP a few of them, mostly from friends. It is a nice-looking resource-hungry OS, very slow (even unusable) from most normal computers unless you have a mainframe. If you like it however, enjoy it. Freedom is sacred.

ORLY? It had worked like champ on my 2 year old bargain bin $325 laptop (with a cheap upgrade to 4gb ram totalling mere $20 AR) until I switched to 7. Again, I have never noticed it becoming slow, never owned a mainframe in my lifetime.

Quote:

Many people resent the fact that freedom does not include the monopolistic techniques used by micro$oft making difficult for people to know there are other OS, because window$ comes always preinstalled in all computers, and it is almost impossible to remove it and get a refund to install a different OS.

It's not MS's fault that more applications are available in windows and people value that above all. Maybe MS did resort to some unethical business practices in the past, but same goes for many other big names, first and foremost intel. By that logic, no one should ever buy a macbook pros since they are all c2d based now - a CPU from a much more evil company than MS ever was. My hatred and resentment of intel does not stop me from buying a c2d or considering i7 for future upgrades; I am a smart shopper, not a business fundamentalist.

How is it impossible to remove OS from a computer? Is there something that prevents you from doing a fresh install, how did you get your linux on yours then? Why would you buy a pre-packaged computer in the first place if you know a thing or two about computers to install an OS yourself?

Quote:

The point here is mostly that there are alternatives, and people using Mac OS or Linux are not dumb. Dont get angry with them just because you are not able or willing to use a different OS. Different tastes, I guess. If you can respect that. If not, too bad. I wont sleep tonight

Re-read the OP's post and the other posts I was replying to. When I am angry, I don't use smileys in my post

In fact you are reiterating what I have said repeatedly in couple of posts earlier. Freedom is sacred like you have said yourself, which is the gist of my post. There ARE some valid reasons why the vast majority including myself picks windows over alternatives despite the fact that the OP or some other posters have such hard time accepting it.

If I did not have any respect for linux, I would not have touched ubuntu or any other distro. In fact, I have just downloaded CentOS a few days ago for the sake of learning. Do I think it is a better platform for my day to day computing? No and no.

To be brutally honest, linux has its place in corporate settings, and free is good. Makes perfect sense that some netbooks ship with a variant of linux. As for mac, I honestly do not see a point. But to each his own. I never said or implied anyone was an idiot for using a mac. All I was doing was replying to bitter misconceptions about windows and its userbase.

BTW, what were those great linux games again?



DoYouRight, if you think 7 is soooo much better than vista, you might wanna read this:
AnandTech: Windows 7: Release Candidate 1 Preview

There are few small to moderately important quirks that are improved, and the new interface is nice. That is not to say vista was crap, however. The difference isn't huge.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again you are mistaken. I do not try to convince you of anything. If you like window$ and want to pay for it, do so, please. But other people use other OS. And they are very easy to install and use. We like them and we game within them. And we are not idiots. Can you stand that?. If you can, then we have no more to argue about. If you cannot respect it, THEN I'll have something to say. And I invite you to try linux. You may be surprised about the ease of installation and use. The myth about it being for geeks only is an old one. It is not so anymore. Not trying to convince you. Just inviting you. You can refuse, no hard feelings. If you can do the same with me regarding 7. Couple of links: Ubuntu Home Page | Ubuntu Ubuntu Forums . Just in case you are curious. I doubt it, but have been wrong before

I always believed respect is mutual. Since I do respect linux and already run a box with a dual-boot setup, I don't mean to put down linux in any form or shape. But let's just say, what if I called it Lisux and udumbtu in ever post of mine in this thread? Wouldn't that annoy you a bit, don't you think?

It is ok for you to hate microsoft or vista, that is of course of your free volition. To conform to your anti-ms lingo in a serious post of that nature really weakens your argument about respecting 'the other side', though.

EDIT: oh well, what do you know. Lisux obviously can't be a provocative term: http://www.ohloh.net/p/lisux

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RicHSAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't understand the Vista bashing either. I started using it when it was released and the only issues I had were caused by buggy drivers provided by the hardware manufacturers. The company I support migrated to Vista and while the users did complain a little bit at first(a lot of people hate change, even if it's for the better), they quickly adapted and resumed work like nothing had happened. There seems to be a lot of people out there that just bash Vista for no reason. Many, I suspect, probably never actually used it and just feel somehow smarter to be part of the Vista-bashing bandwagon

A bit dated, but good read.
4sysops - Vista bashing – Why is it so popluar?

The linked anandtech article in the post above also touches on that subject.

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif ORLY? It had worked like champ on my 2 year old bargain bin $325 laptop (with a cheap upgrade to 4gb ram totalling mere $20 AR) until I switched to 7. Again, I have never noticed it becoming slow, never owned a mainframe in my lifetime. How is it impossible to remove OS from a computer? Is there something that prevents you from doing a fresh install, how did you get your linux on yours then? Why would you buy a pre-packaged computer in the first place if you know a thing or two about computers to install an OS yourself?

Of course you can run vista turning off aero and tweaking it to death, but then what is the point of it over XP?.

And you don't read well. You can format a recently purchased computed with window$ on it, but you cannot (well, a few people had managed to with a lot of trouble) get a refund for an OS you do not want. You can ditch it, but after you have paid for it. Google a little if you don't believe me.

And to be brutally honest, if you love vista, be happy.

If you want to see the last one of that octopus-company trying to get out of business to a handful of other software companies that sell their products, look here: Virus, Spyware & Malware Protection | Microsoft Security Essentials. That is called dumping. First, you ruin your competition. Then, when you get to be a monopoly, charge whatever you want. We all loose. That's why many peopleo call then micro$oft. The fanboys don't get it, but it is all about the money. Nothing else matters.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Of course you can run vista turning off aero and tweaking it to death, but then what is the point of it over XP?.

I think you have a very WRONG idea about vista and aero in particular. If aero works without any hiccups on my laptop's aging 7050m IGP, why would anyone have to turn it off for anything? Stuck on ancient computers from museums maybe?

Well, I do know it is one of common misconcetptions about vista - you really don't need something that special to handle aero. Also, there is less tweaking that must be made compared to XP; hardware being used these days are much more robust in terms of available resources compared to the XP days, and Vista already comes with tweaks like faster boot time. Please, do yourself a favor and try a fresh clean install of vista without pretence - there isn't much to tweak, really. Why fix something that ain't broke?

The main point of vista is better memory management and ability to handle 2gb+ ram well (xp can't do this), superfetch (this one is MAJOR), DX10, UAC and better security overall. Good looking UI is a bonus, not a convincing reason to choose one OS over another.
Google a little if you don't believe me.

Quote:

And you don't read well. You can format a recently purchased computed with window$ on it, but you cannot (well, a few people had managed to with a lot of trouble) get a refund for an OS you do not want. You can ditch it, but after you have paid for it. Google a little if you don't believe me.

Maybe your post is not articulate enough? Or maybe your logic is flawed, not a common sense like you wish to imply. It is the system integrator that bought windows from MS and selling it to you with the system, not MS. Ok, so I got Mundorf replacement output caps for my valab dac because I did not like how the default tantalums sounded. Do you expect I should be able to get a refund if I return these awful caps to whoever made them? Does Apple refund for OS X if you just want to use windows on their laptops?

People have pulled similar stunt with Target selling t-mobile prepaid phones with prepaid cards bundled in the package, which I shamelessly admit being part of. They (or we) just jumped on it for the sake of cheaper than anywhere air time card, then returned the phone for a partial refund. All the while I was fully aware this isn't something normal or to be expected to last forever. When they finally discountinued this generous return policy, I knew better not to develop animosity toward Target or t-mobile.

You did not read my post either, genius

No one is forcing you to buy a computer that comes with an OS pre-installed. What, do you not know how to put parts together? Don't just assume everyone and everyone's mom has no choice but buying a laptop.

Thanks for ignoring and flushing the whole respect thing down the toilet. You don't give a damn about a legitimate question about your post's provocative use of terms and its consquence on fairness and relevance of what you write, I get it.

Quote:

If you want to see the last one of that octopus-company trying to get out of business to a handful of other software companies that sell their products, look here: Virus, Spyware & Malware Protection | Microsoft Security Essentials. That is called dumping. First, you ruin your competition. Then, when you get to be a monopoly, charge whatever you want. We all loose.

With your lofty and high standards, please direct me to a company with perfect business ethics that we can trust and depend on. I am not saying two wrongs make it right; I buy products that offer better value for performance or fits my need, and cheerleading for/against companies I like or hate is a very trivial issue when it comes to making a purchasing decision.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif With your lofty and high standards, please direct me to a company with perfect business ethics that we can trust and depend on. I am not saying two wrongs make it right; I buy products that offer better value for performance or fits my need, and cheerleading for/against companies I like or hate is a very trivial issue when it comes to making a purchasing decision.

On principle, I want to agree with Miko here. I don't want to make any great apologies for Vista, especially when it was the person child of a completely justified antitrust lawsuit that required MS to stop making "Windows" (So they made "Vista".).

However, I have now had definitive experience of the problems involved with running Mac OSX on an older iMac. Frankly, you can run XP quite readily on decrepit hardware. On the old iMac, you have to cross your fingers for word-processing and file-transfer. Baloney! OSX works well on newer models, but it had to effectively 'jettison' the old Macs to do so. C'est la guerre. Microsoft could not afford the luxury. All the Grandmothers who bought Dells would have thrown spontaneous spasms. WORSE, all the businesses that still rely on old hardware to run WinXP or Win2K do *just that*: they will run their old systems until they die. --Not until some cappuccino-swilling case-designer in Cali decides that a new Intel mobo would look sweet in a different variant of brushed aluminum. Bauhaus, Baby, Bauhaus. . . .

I'm a big fan of Linux in principle. I don't doubt for an instant that the day will come when the dominant OS is a free OS. By then the IT market will have found some other way to charge for access and service.

But I'll be damned if I listen to anybody *equate* Linux with Mac OS. Mac is the most egregious gear and hardware exclusivist. It has the most autocratic grip on its software code registration of any operating system. With rare exceptions (I can think of iRiver and other MSDs) you just can't interface a non-Mac music player with iTunes. How is it that the most elitist personal computer company in the tech stratosphere can get the reputation for being non-monopolist and fair-dealing? Are the recent conniptions with Google an indicator of Mac's open hands?

Mac has the rep of being a velvet glove, and that's extremely useful with you rule with the heaviest of iron fists.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif On principle, I want to agree with Miko here. I don't want to make any great apologies for Vista, especially when it was the person child of a completely justified antitrust lawsuit that required MS to stop making "Windows" (So they made "Vista".).

That's not true at all, it's Windows Vista, just like XP is also a version of Windows. Nothing litigated the ending of Windows as a product.

However, I agree with some of your statements about Apple as a company. Lack of hardware choice makes me avoid them especially.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not true at all, it's Windows Vista, just like XP is also a version of Windows. Nothing litigated the ending of Windows as a product.

"Vista" was denominated during the end-phase of the U.S. vs. Microsoft settlement negotiation. Microsoft was apprehensive that the DOJ *might* pin continuing punitive measures to Microsoft's trademarked and often accused program name, despite the fact that the GW Bush Justice Department demonstrated evident reticence to require serious remedies. By 2007, when MS saw that no serious US penalties would be enforced for continuing to use the "Windows" appellation, they explicitly promoted Vista as the new Windows [given that Windows remains an internationally recognized trade name, and Vista remains as reputable as diddly-squat]. Just to prove to the world that Microsoft was not using familiar trademarks to reinforce its global software monopoly, Microsoft named Vista's successor "Windows 7." Then everyone went back to sleep.

Quote:

Andrew Chin, an antitrust law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who assisted Judge Jackson in drafting the findings of fact, wrote that the settlement gave Microsoft "a special antitrust immunity to license Windows and other 'platform software' under contractual terms that destroy freedom of competition."

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RicHSAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't understand the Vista bashing either. I started using it when it was released and the only issues I had were caused by buggy drivers provided by the hardware manufacturers. There seems to be a lot of people out there that just bash Vista for no reason. Many, I suspect, probably never actually used it and just feel somehow smarter to be part of the Vista-bashing bandwagon

In May 2007 I decided to upgrade my gaming PC from an AMD XP1900 running Windows 2000 to a new one fast enough to run Oblivion without choking. My configuration is the following: a relatively quiet Antec Sonata II case, an Abit KN9 Ultra motherboard, an AMD Athlon x2 5200, 2GB of Kingston DDR-800 RAM, a humongous nVidia GeForce 8800GTX video card, a 500GB hard drive and a basic DVD-ROM drive. Nothing really exotic there.

I then took a big breath and decided to install Vista on it, for DX10 (my preferred option would have been to keep W2K, but there are a number of games like Fable that require XP or higher).

Vista blue-screened during installation, every time I tried (well, red-and-white-screen-of-death-ed). Clearly, third-party drivers were not to blame. XP installed just fine. Even Solaris 10 x86 installed just fine, and you can't get a more finicky OS in terms of hardware compatibility.

Since I had opened the CD, it was essentially a coaster (I did manage to give it to my company's QA department to build a test VM out of). Needless to say, I was not impressed with Microsoft's quality control on that release. For all I know, Vista SP1 would install on that box, but I was in no hurry to blow another $200 on a piece of junk OS that won't even install on vanilla hardware.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vista blue-screened during installation, every time I tried (well, red-and-white-screen-of-death-ed). Clearly, third-party drivers were not to blame. XP installed just fine.

Your logic doesn't flow true. XP and Vista are entirely different architectures. Just because one driver is extremely flushed out and stable does not mean another is. Vista DID have driver issues out the door, there are few today that would even question that fact. The nForce chipset definitely got the short end of the stick towards the beginning, and video cards from either nVidia or ATI were plagued with issues.

Also, anything above integrated in a build makes it above "vanilla". It adds more parts to the chain making it harder to troubleshoot.

EDIT:

What is funny though is XP had many of the same issues out the door. It had its time of being hated too and now everyone looks back lovingly on it. Funny how that happens.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is funny though is XP had many of the same issues out the door. It had its time of being hated too and now everyone looks back lovingly on it. Funny how that happens.

Huhh. . . . NT was a terrific, stable OS for an extremely limited spectrum of data-base serving business computers. For many, many years, there were terrible growth pains as administrators sought stable drivers for new hardware that would be incorporated in NT systems. MS was still working with the *then* popular model (strangely, still popular today) that businesses that wanted to significantly upgrade their computers ought to purchase completely new 'boxes' that had been professionally constructed, and that had large corporate IT companies like Compaq and IBM to look to for driver support.

Years after people had struggled between getting Win98 2nd Ed. to work for businesses and getting NT systems to work for everything else, most of the NT bugs were squashed. MS released the *quite beautiful* Windows 2000 OS, with all the experience of NT driver problems behind it. MS recognized that there was no reason to sell such a good OS to Grandma for cheap, so they invented the illustrious Millennium Edition of Win98 to satisfy Dell users who didn't need NT-level stability. To this day, we remember the performance of Windows Millennium. [A moment of silence in honor of the deceased.]

So Millennium was a grotesque bust. MS decided to turn the more stable variant of the NT System--Win2K--into a multiform platform for everybody. When Windows XP was released, we quickly discovered that it was Win2K with many more bells and whistles. It had some substantial systemic enhancements, but at the time most business and power users could not find huge differences between Win2K and XP Pro. XP Server was advantageous, but it possessed Enterprise capacities that were actually integral to Win NT and Win2K.

The short answer is that everybody loves XP now. XP was released in 2001. That's 8 years to get it right. Indeed, it's pretty damn resilient now, and the hardware that had once struggled to cope with its bloatware is now designed to run everybody else's bloatware at lightning speeds. Whenever I get nostalgic about those days of restricted resources, I search for the old folders somewhere at the distant periphery of my terabyte hard drive.

Alas, Microsoft simply can't make new money from selling an enhanced version of an eight year-old operating system. And despite the blinding illumination of Vista's enhancements, most businesses have retained their XP-based systems. And their Win2K systems. And their ancient but functional wired NT systems. And, in rare instances, those old DOS-based payroll programs. Having paid once for the privilege of learning an operating system, businesses are suspicious of MS's "new" and "better" products. Remember: Vista was the last "new" and "better." Seemingly only HP and Dell, who were selling the systems, could be fully convinced of this. Even MS has expressed uncertainty about the excellence of Vista now.