I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.
The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft.
It's not good when one company stands for all development. It wasn't bad in the old days it was only different. Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too.
I hate Windows because it crashes all the time and I have a lot of spy-ware and that kind of stuff on my computer (the last is my fault, I know, but I don't do anything about it). The first is just how my day is. Boot up, use it for two hour. Crash, start again. Use it some hours, crash again. And then I don't want it anymore.
I don't hate windows either... I just think it's not smart to buy this expensive software with lots of licenses, security warnings etc etc, when you can find free alternatives that are more stable, opensource, more secure, ...
I mean, I, for example, use Ubuntu as operating system. It has everything I need (I need programming software, openoffice, mail, internet, ftp, games, ...) and I'm happy with it. For the few problems I had I just went to the ubuntuforums or another support forum and I had nice people helping me almost before I was ready with my post. (well in fact 5 minutes after, but still ...)
I do realise that some persons need some specific software that does not work under ubuntu. If you need some advanced video editing software, don't install ubuntu (but get a Mac instead 
). But other things are great in windows (I'm thinking of specialised engineering 3d drawing programs)
So everything has its + and - side... It's just about what's most important for you... | Peterssidan wrote: |
| Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too. |
That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business. | carlospro7 wrote: |
| Peterssidan wrote: | | Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too. |
That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business. |
Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. 
)i don't hate windows but i really like it so much especially windows vista. but i hate those who make windows troubling us so much. without them, i guess windows is perfect. software development is good which i see human always come with development, become higher and higher. human won't satisfy so easily. like you, if today you earn $30, maybe the others day you will want to earn $50.
| cvkien wrote: |
| but i hate those who make windows troubling us so much. without them, i guess windows is perfect. |
Well then I guess Windows would be perfect in a perfect world... But I daresay the fact that there are so many virusses is because it's so easy to make one for windows...
The way the system was build it was never intended to be very secure. With windows vista they made a big effort to rebuild it (and that's the only way they would ever get it secure) but I daresay they did not succeed.
And there's no way they would, because if they would really rewrite it from zero, then almost no program would run on it and they would have to wait a long time before they would get a system with a great diversity of programs. (like it's now)
There are already a lot of programs that don't run on vista because they partly rewrote it...
| cvkien wrote: |
| software development is good which i see human always come with development, become higher and higher. . |
Most software written for windows is not made BY windows. Never forget the difference... If windows would get less popular, they would write their programs for other OS, and I think that would only be positive
| cvkien wrote: |
| human won't satisfy so easily. like you, if today you earn $30, maybe the others day you will want to earn $50 |
Maybe, but that's the way economy made us... You still have to feed your family, don't you? | Nyizsa wrote: |
| carlospro7 wrote: | | Peterssidan wrote: | | Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too. |
That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business. |
Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. ) |
Open-source development is cool, but never make the mistake to think that you can't make money on it...
One of the reasons why it is so cool, is because you can make a lot of money on a free product... How?
Well, you can ask money for something that gets more and more important these days: services.
For example: You just installed Ubuntu, but you have some troubles with it. (it can happen, although it's really a good OS) Well, look for an ubuntu service, and ask for help. You get professional help, your problem is fixed in no time... But for the service you have to pay.
If you don't want to pay, then you can of course ask the great community, and you will also get a lot of help, but then you need to put in some of your own time to fix it.. | Ecthelion wrote: |
| Nyizsa wrote: | | carlospro7 wrote: | | Peterssidan wrote: | | Microsoft wants money for windows and thats negative too. |
That doesn't make any sense. All companies want money for their products. It's a business. |
Yes, but when making money gets much more important than satisfying the users' needs or making good software, then there is a problem...
Also, open source developers don't want money for their software. (But they accept it, of course. ) |
Open-source development is cool, but never make the mistake to think that you can't make money on it...
One of the reasons why it is so cool, is because you can make a lot of money on a free product... How?
Well, you can ask money for something that gets more and more important these days: services.
For example: You just installed Ubuntu, but you have some troubles with it. (it can happen, although it's really a good OS) Well, look for an ubuntu service, and ask for help. You get professional help, your problem is fixed in no time... But for the service you have to pay.
If you don't want to pay, then you can of course ask the great community, and you will also get a lot of help, but then you need to put in some of your own time to fix it.. |
Yes, I know this, and an other great invention is "dual license", like MySQL's. Make it open source, let the community find and fix bugs, often in a matter of hours, then sell the now bugless software (is there a bugless software?) to firms and companies. This is a win-win deal: companies get good quality software, the community gets enterprise-quality software for free, and the developers get money, but, which is more important, respect!
And then there is the other model: make something, sell it, force companies and users to use that product, announce bugs officially when it's not possible to keep them secret anymore, and fix them if you have time or mood. And annoy customers with a "genuine advantage" thingy, which is really good to frighten legal users, but users of pirated copies don't give a... you know.
Personally I think that if the "genuine advantage" team used their time and efforts to contribute to real development, Window$ would be far, far better.1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma.
| {name here} wrote: |
1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma. |
Overall however, do u think the computer industry has benefited (i.e. in terms of technology, growth, development, free software to combat microsoft, better piracy techinques, other companies to fill niche e.g. apple etc etc) with Microsoft as a major/only player?is it because were paying for MS OS? and then there's Linux which is for free to all? I think it's a matter of choice.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| {name here} wrote: | 1. Windows has locked up much of the market so few can enter it
2. Windows keeps its seat there via Microsoft's scare tactics that work on the average consumer
3. Windows did not have a reputation as a stable operating system
4. Windows is bloatware
5. Windows Genuine Advantage
6. Windows does not have the advanced features that other OSes provide, even the less popular ones like ZetaOS and eComStation, the official successors to BeOS and OS/2, which still have advanced features that Windows does not have.
7. Windows is full of security holes that few people know how to avoid competently, and retreat to a processor sucking antivirus.
8. Technologies used by Windows lock up the market from industry standards such as OpenGL and correct monitor gamma. |
Overall however, do u think the computer industry has benefited (i.e. in terms of technology, growth, development, free software to combat microsoft, better piracy techinques, other companies to fill niche e.g. apple etc etc) with Microsoft as a major/only player? |
No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition). | {name here} wrote: |
| (there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition). |
I agree with that point 
I think whatever OS is the lead dog is going to be full of security holes because everybody and their monkey's uncle will be trying to hack into it. Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses? So in some kind of bizarro world where everything was reversed and 95% of the people had Macs and only 5% had PCs, Mac OS would be full of security holes (my guess anyway) and all the power geeks would be saying, hey you Mac users, you should switch to Windows! It's a lot better. *chuckle*..
As for Windows crashing all the time... HUH? I have my 'puter on all day long and I have a lot of resource intense programs running and I never crash. Now admittedly, this is Windows XP I'm talking about. Windows 98 on the other hand used to crash a lot.. true.
| littlegiant wrote: |
| Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses? |
Lol thats a big mistake...
More than 60% of the servers run on linx, and believe me, if you hack into a computer that might be silver, but hacking a server is gold.
So you can believe me if I tell you that linux servers are also a target, but that not a lot of hackers succeed in getting them down. | Ecthelion wrote: |
| littlegiant wrote: | | Why would a hacker waste time trying to find a security hole in an OS that only 5% of the computer user population actually uses? |
Lol thats a big mistake...
More than 60% of the servers run on linx, and believe me, if you hack into a computer that might be silver, but hacking a server is gold.
So you can believe me if I tell you that linux servers are also a target, but that not a lot of hackers succeed in getting them down. |
If you look at just sheer numbers, I think the number of machines with Windows installed on them are far greater than the number of machines with Linux installed on them (be they servers or whatever). But then we'd have to get into a discussion as to whether it would be more valuable for a hacker to hack into 1000 home machines with Windows installed on them or 1 server with Linux installed on it (unofficial numbers just off the top of my head). I'd say the former. But then again, I'm only speculating. I'm not a hacker. | {name here} wrote: |
| No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition). |
Yeah, Digital was that great company that was so totally different from Microsoft.
Dream on. It gets exactly the same sort of criticism as Microsoft gets: | Quote: |
| This list of DEC's great mistakes could be continued even more. However, other ones either aren't important that much as those mentioned above or aren't related directly to the Alpha architecture. Anyway, the following final conclusion could be derived from the author's point of view: DEC had done a real number of efforts to make as much money as possible with the Alpha architecture, but had done almost no efforts to help the architecture itself. |
They cared about money, not about quality. And that caused their downfall, too, not primarily (!) missing the deal with IBM. | Arnie wrote: |
| {name here} wrote: | | No. Microsoft's existence has only hindered the computing industry. If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now, and we would have never had to deal with the problems Microsoft has caused with sub-par quality operating systems(there was never a point in Microsoft's history where they had an operating system that had a technical edge over the competition). |
Yeah, Digital was that great company that was so totally different from Microsoft.
Dream on. It gets exactly the same sort of criticism as Microsoft gets: | Quote: | | This list of DEC's great mistakes could be continued even more. However, other ones either aren't important that much as those mentioned above or aren't related directly to the Alpha architecture. Anyway, the following final conclusion could be derived from the author's point of view: DEC had done a real number of efforts to make as much money as possible with the Alpha architecture, but had done almost no efforts to help the architecture itself. |
They cared about money, not about quality. And that caused their downfall, too, not primarily (!) missing the deal with IBM. |
DEC != DR.
Digital Equipment Corporation was a coporation that primarily worked with UNIX machines. They never participated in the IBM dealings at all. IBM was looking for an OS capable of being run on their IBM PC. DEC worked on mainframe OSes.
Digital Research was a completely different entity started by Gary Kildall which primarily programmed with their own operating system CP/M(The first OS that was fully capable of running on a desktop PC programmed entirely by Gary Kildall himself in pure PL/M initially and later with assembly. For a time it was the only OS for desktops), which is what Microsoft ripped off when it created MS-DOS(and they did it quite poorly. At the time of the IBM dealings CP/M could use hard drives and subdirectories, two features that MS-DOS didn't come close in. Later they had the advantage over MS-DOS with DR-DOS, which was one of the first OSes to feature preemptive multitasking, a technology Gary himself created). They were the other side of the IBM-MS dealings. They lost out for 2 reasons:
1) Gary was not a good businessman even though he was a good student- he refused to take IBM's deal because of how they were going to pay for the copies. Billy G gladly agreed.
2) Gary had the OS, and that's what they focused on. Their only other project other than CP/M(which included a hex assember, assembler, and text editor) was a PL/M compiler. MS however had several software projects ready to go, with the one that probably stabbed computing in a major internal organ being the BASIC interpereter.People hate Windows because of it being horribly unstable. 
And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. 
i hate MS for it's monopolistic marketing tricks and un-ethical practices.
how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why?
Its interesting how this issue always polarizes everyone. I don't really care what operating system that I use, as long as the tools I need at the time are available. Most of my usage at home involves a browser, database, web server, editor and a compilation toolchain. I also like to listen to music and check out the occasionaly video file. I can do that with any modern operating system.
So, I don't hate Windows. I use it when I have to. I use other operating systems as well. Why the hate?
Others are going to complain about the increased cost of a PC with Windows on it when thehy are intending to use another operating system. The licence for an OEM is pretty cheap, so that argument blows. If its that important, they can build their own machine. I don't know what the fuss is. Use it if its there. Remove it if you don't use it.
| {name here} wrote: |
| DEC != DR. |
I see, misunderstood that. In that case your statement is a "would-be" that you can't prove, but only speculate on.
| Quote: |
| If Microsoft lost the deal with IBM all those years ago to Gary Kildall and Digital Research, the computing industry would have been in much better shape now |
Hate Windows? No, man!
I have to use Windows, MacOS and other OSes, I don't hate any of them, I work with it!
Hate is a profane feeling when you work, you can't live with hate in something you enjoy every day... 
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why? |
I can't truthfully say that I'm 100% of Windows even though my computer is a Linux Box. My wife still uses XP on her computer, so when something goes wrong I laugh, ask if she forgot to do one of the innumerable maintenance tasks then end up fixing it for her.
Mean while my Linux box keeps chugging along reliably without constant virus checks, defragging the harddrive, cleaning the registry, having portions of programs mysteriously disappear, etc, ad nausium.
At least with Linux they give you free Beta software not sell it to you for $300 and tell you that you don't really own it. | LostOverThere wrote: |
People hate Windows because of it being horribly unstable.
And Hardware would be back 10 Years without Windows only because Windows is a memory hog. We wouldn't need any more then 256mb of RAM if we all used Linux. |
My Windows XP installation has been running fine without (honestly) the pretentious security of any kind of antivirus/antispyware/etc , for over a year now.
It consumes about ~65MB memory while idling.
I wouldn't call that a memory hog - it leaves me pretty much all of my system RAM available for other applications.
Ofcourse the installation is heavily tweaked and hardened in more ways than the average user would ever go to the extent of, but even an untweaked XP installation can run just fine on 256 MB ram under average usage.
At the same time, I've also seen the default installation of Fedora core 5 eating up more than 500MB of ram right off the boot.
I've personally done benchmarks on several games (that have linux versions), and find no performance difference whatsoever between running them in windows and running them in linux.
Nor do I find linux boot process to be any faster than XP, if anything - it's only slower.
Linux, with the GUI having features comparable to windows, can definitely be a bigger memory hog than you'd like to think.
This guy describes exactly what I'm talking about.
But if I ever talk to a linux fanatic about the bloat in linux, they're quick to blame KDE and others for it. Falling back to the old argument : "Linux is just the kernel - what you're talking about is a distro", and often end up challenging my level of computer experience.
On the other hand, I have also seen people who had their PC randomly rebooting due to a faulty RAM module - but held windows guilty (until proven innocent by yours truly).
I'm not a fan of any OS, I have Slackware running on my other machine ... and I'm as happy with it as I'm with my XP.
But I certainly can't appreciate it when half-literate fanatics go around telling others that they're "n0obs" for using certain OS/browser/software.
If anyone thinks I'm miserable for using windows, kindly let me be miserable at peace.Windows XP running on 65MB RAM? Sheesh... What's your secret, champ? By-the-way, excellent post. I noticed the exact same thing when I was toying around with installing Linux and went out and bought the Red Hat Linux Bible which came with free installation CD disks. Then I noticed the memory requirements and did a double take. Now that manual (and the CDs) are just sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust. Never did get around to installing it. I should do so one of these days just for posterity.
Maybe he's using TinyXP or any LiveXP... @morpheus:
It's a fact that most antivirus software etc is often only to protect you from your own ignorance. If you know what you do, your rarely get them. Or in any case that's my experience.
And I believe you when you say you can run xp fine with 256Mb ram, although that's probably because you don't install all the antivirus, firewall etc software.
| Quote: |
| But if I ever talk to a linux fanatic about the bloat in linux, they're quick to blame KDE and others for it. Falling back to the old argument : "Linux is just the kernel - what you're talking about is a distro", and often end up challenging my level of computer experience. |
Still whatever you might say, I find this a good argument. -not the KDE argument- but the fact that people often confuse Linux and the distros.
You have very dynamic distros and less dynamic distros, and I think any statement which tells that "Linux is ..." is just bullshit. There is a wilderness of distros that use Linux, you can't really compare them all or say one thing that's right for all of them.
| Quote: |
On the other hand, I have also seen people who had their PC randomly rebooting due to a faulty RAM module - but held windows guilty (until proven innocent by yours truly). |
Well I'm sure there are people who have the same problems with a linux distro then. If there are people blaming windows for faulty hardware, then there certainly are people who blame some linux distros for it too.
| Quote: |
I'm not a fan of any OS, I have Slackware running on my other machine ... and I'm as happy with it as I'm with my XP.
But I certainly can't appreciate it when half-literate fanatics go around telling others that they're "n0obs" for using certain OS/browser/software |
Anyone who tells someone he's stupid to use a certain OS or software makes a mistake. I'm pro linux (ubuntu flavor) but I know that I sometimes need some software that only runs with windows. So there are certainly pros for any os: windows for, let's say, 3d design engineering programs, mac to write music, and linux, well it's free and has a great community
(the list is not limited to those points, don't bite my head off)
| Quote: |
| Nor do I find linux boot process to be any faster than XP, if anything - it's only slower. |
Again, that says nothing. Some distros have fast boot, some not. That's all.
But there is one fact: A windows boot takes longer if you install more (heavy) programs. I didn't notice such thing with ubuntu (it got faster after new kernel upgrades ^^) Agree. I had Windows on my school PC. It was some old HP with a Celly D 2,66Ghz, 256mb ram. It ran Windows XP and it was HORRIBLE. The Anti-virus ( which has been configured to scan on every reboot ) ate more than HALF the PC for just scanning! Fortunatly I could turn it off but it's quite laggy and still continues for half a minute until it really stops.
Now I was allowed to put Ubuntu on it and it ran so smooth. Okay, it loads not as fast as my home PC because of the little ram but it runs Ubuntu Feisty with Gnome really smooth.
And hardly any resource use with Ubuntu.
That's funny, because I had Windows XP on a Athlon-M 1800+ with 256MB RAM, and not even DDR but SDR (so only 133MHz). And it ran just fine. But schools seem to be notorious for stupid software configurations. And with that, anyone can make any OS slow.
Too easy to blame Windows.
By the way, Firefox is a good one at making a computer with such hardware slow. But when that is said, everyone goes "well you should have newer hardware then". So blaming Windows for being slow on ''old'' hardware is ok, but don't touch the holy Firefox!
i think windows cost too much... even with OEM laptop, the price also counting in so make the laptop price come with OS are higher than those without OS. I think it is "Time" that windows start 1st before linux, so many peoples are more familier with windows, so the software development are mostly windows sided. I think if linux start 1st, i guess windows won't live in this world. anyway, i think if windows can duplicate mac os, why not linux also make it os more similier to windows and support more windows based software.
| cvkien wrote: |
| why not linux also make it os more similier to windows and support more windows based software. |
I don't think they should make linux 'more like windows'. If you just meant that they should make it possible to run more windows software on linux, well then they are already on it.
There are windows emulators like 'wine' that make it possible to run .exe on a linux system.
but, since windows is not opensource, these emulators only work on a limited number of programs. This is due to the fact that everything has the be back-engineered (they know the result, but not how it was implemented) and that's a lot of work. (It's almost better to write new, opensource stuff)
But, since linux is open-source, it should also be MUCH easier for software developers to make pograms that integrate much better in linux.
So the conclusion is: To get more 'commercial' software running on linux, there is only one thing that should be done: get more people use linux. The commercial software developers will come with the crowd...Actually the ReactOS project has already been quite succesful and I think it's only going to get better.
| Arnie wrote: |
| By the way, Firefox is a good one at making a computer with such hardware slow. But when that is said, everyone goes "well you should have newer hardware then". So blaming Windows for being slow on ''old'' hardware is ok, but don't touch the holy Firefox! |
When I was using Windows the browser #1 was k-meleon , holy k-meleon
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| how many of u hate microsoft but still use it? and why? |
Microsoft Windows is very good operation system. It costs money. It has many nag screens. It provides many security issues*. That is the reason why I don't use windows anymore.
Gentoo Linux user
* I know that this is not only Microsoft problem, but...No, of course, Gentoo isn't that frustrating. No nagscreens, many tarballs*. Great fun!
Debian Linux (and Windows, and many others) user.
* I know that this is not only Gentoo problem, but... oh wait, it is?
I do not hate Windows by far. If you know anything about how to run a computer beyond how to push the start button. The only issue I have with Windows is sort of the same reason why I like Microsoft. Microsoft brought computers to the masses. Before Microsoft and their operating systems computers were limited to geek/nerds/mathmaticians/people with to much time on their hands and nothing better to learn about. The only problem is that as the computers came to the masses, education was not brought at an equally fast pace on how to use and maintain these new machines. Then again, the only thing that Microsoft ever did wrong was bring computers to the masses. In reality, Microsoft has never made any "bad" software, their software is actually very good. There is "better" software out there that can do the same things because it is free and can do the same thing, but with microsoft what you get is mostly their warranty and their service along with updates and quality software. While I do not completely agree with all of the things that they have done in their lifetime, I think that some of the things that they have done was certainly beneficial to society as a whole. When people complain of spyware and viruses, they should not be yelling at microsoft, but rather at themselves for not learning about how to use a computer beyond clicking and turning it on. If they had taken the time to learn basic virus prevention and removale techniques then they wouldn't be complaining. Same goes for spyware and most other problems that are related to computers.
Ok, I'm done.
On a side note, I mostly use Linux...but I don't recommend most windows users do the same without first learning the before mentioned subjects
It would be perfect if Windows, Mac and Linux are combined to one OS which contains all the good features of all three OSes but I guess they want competition.
| Arnie wrote: |
No, of course, Gentoo isn't that frustrating. No nagscreens, many tarballs*. Great fun!
Debian Linux (and Windows, and many others) user.
* I know that this is not only Gentoo problem, but... oh wait, it is? |
Gentoo is frustrating, unless you like messing with your system. I've used it for a while, and it was rather nice.
The problem with linux is that most of the popular distros are starting to look more and more like windows. Bloatware, all drivers enabled by default, everything default to make it more usable. But they forget that these things actually make it slower and more vulnerable. I like FreeBSD because FreeBSD does not do these things yet.
I've used a 233MHz computer yesterday. Windows 98 was installed on it and Firefox started in about 8 seconds. My own 1,6GHZ computer (more then 6 times as fast, right?) uses 5 seconds to do that in Ubuntu Linux. Windows XP does it in 7 seconds. The versions of Firefox were 2.0something on all computers.
Don't you agree that this can only have to do with bloat and the like?
Linux starts sucking more and more. Windows does too, but at least it's user friendly and has a lot of software.
I don't really need my OS to be user friendly, I'm able to handle most bugs and errors (I got time to..), so I go with FreeBSD. Once installed FreeBSD is a great OS, which is (kinda) fast and stable.
I don't hate windows, I just prefer other OSs. | Q5U8 wrote: |
| Maybe he's using TinyXP or any LiveXP... |
First time hear about this. How it works? It will be the 'tool kits' of my debian system 
It is not so much the bloat that bothers me about XP but rather that everything (unless you know where to look) costs you an arm and a leg to purchase and install on it. For the most part in Ubuntu, a user needs to be shown how to do one simple task...open synaptics file manager. After that, there are litterally THOUSANDS of programs freely available that you can put on your computer. I remember one install of Ubuntu I had, I got so excited about this (this was way back when I first found out about debian and Ubuntu and the apt-get feature) that I filled up my entire 20GB HDD in less than 48 hours with all these programs. In my opinion with this (my generation from the mid 80's) is that we are getting used to being able to get whatever we want from the internet for free. This mentality will surely carry over into the next generation of mainstream operating systems and computer software. IMHO Linux has this right and in the long run I see Microsoft struggling to catch up with the marketing schemes implimented by both Ubuntu and Google...I wouldn't be surprised if google does much like they did with Mac a while back if Ubuntu ever gets as big as Mac.
@Arno v. Lumig: Firefox under different OSes isn't exactly the same code. Anyway, it's still a bloated browser. Opera is a lot faster wherever I start it. That includes a 233MHz P2 (which I have, too) with Debian and a 800MHz Athlon with Windows 2000. | lukeropro wrote: |
| It would be perfect if Windows, Mac and Linux are combined to one OS which contains all the good features of all three OSes but I guess they want competition. |
good point.. or even... be different OS like they r... but can run the same software or at least most software naturally (ie without use of emulators).
cus at the moment when gaming is concerned.. Windows is in front, and Linux way way way behind.The problem with combining them is that authors want to have their own unique OS.
Besides, technically the difference between for example Linux and Windows is so large, that making a seamless hybrid is more work than making a new OS. The difference between Mac and Linux is somewhat smaller if I'm correct. Probably has to do with the POSIX standard and all that.
| Quote: |
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system. |
10 Years back then it is now? Man you need to get your story straight.
Mac hardware is currently better then Windows hardware. Not only will you not find a computer that is as good as a mac from a company like Dell or Sony or Compaq/HP, but Mac OS X accually utlizes that hardware.
Say you can't find a 8-core computer at Dell. So you decide to build one. Now you have this 5000 dollar computer but Windows doesn't even take advantage of those 8-Cores. So you just wasted your money and your not going to see a big improvment in proformance.
Windows Software is also FAR!!!!! behind that of Mac OS X and Linux. Not only does Microsoft steal most of it's ideas from mac but they can't even pull it off without the OS sucking 3ghz of CPU for the OS to run at full speed. Mac OS X has all the same effects as Vista and runs great on a 350mhz G3.
People don't nessarly hate windows because it's more popular though in some cases that is true. Most ppl hate windows because it crashes to much for what they do. Same for Mac or linux.
I dislike linux because it's hard to install but onces it installed I'm perfectly fine with it. I like mac the best because it's an easy install. They dont' have to build their OS for 100 different hardware companies, and it's extremely easy to use. I mean dock menu and putting all the apps in one folder and best off all most apps on mac os x are only 1 file. that is compacted into the 1 .app file. So just adding on to the simplicity.Macs nowadays have the same x86 Intel processors as Windows computers do. Just a note about your "superior hardware" comment, since discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks.
| Quote: |
| Macs nowadays have the same x86 Intel processors as Windows computers do. Just a note about your "superior hardware" comment, since discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks. |
O and I'm sure that the only thing that makes speed in the computer is the processor. Right you are completely right. I'm sorry. O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet. O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core. LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago. Same for the Dual core crap. Windows is just opening up to Dual and Quad core Computers while Apple had Dual Core as a standard way back with the pentium 2's.Don't know enough about Macs to get into the pros and cons of hardware and software but one thing I can tell just from browsing around Futureshop today and that is Macs are expensive. The cheapest Mac laptop I could find brand new was about $1400 whereas the cheapest PC laptop was about $700. For me that's a big argument in favor of PCs right there (for my needs anyway).
Windows has had SMP support since NT4, and as far as I know the new Macs have the same sort of memory (DDR II), and PCI-express slots as x86-machines (which new Macs are, basically).
As I said before: these are only facts that any heroic fanboy can and will (ab)use to their own interest. So be my guest, go ahead and shout that this-and-that sucks. You may even win a certain contest...
Wow you change you straigy quick.
| Quote: |
| Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks. |
Insult.
| Quote: |
| So be my guest, go ahead and shout that this-and-that sucks. You may even win a certain contest... |
Twisting Words.
I'm just saying facts. Sorry but truth herts. Talking about truth, you should know better than to quote me wrong if you're going to judge my "war strategy" (which seems to be the way many software crusaders see it).
| The real Arnie wrote: |
| discussing with Mac freaks sometimes is even worse than with Linux freaks. |
Maybe you should realise I'm not a fanboy of anything. Funny huh, how not everyone sees the software world black and white?
I use Linux, MacOS, Windows (ordered alphabetically fyi) and a lot more, but I don't have any big preference. Let alone that I feel some urge to propagate it to the world.
But I do have a dislike towards fanboys like you that only praise their favourite software and bash the rest.
Further evaluation of my war strategy can be done per PM. | Xeniczone wrote: |
| I'm sorry. O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet. O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core. LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago. |
Try IBM. They're the high end workstation manufacturer. Dell is the low end consumer manufacturer for people that don't really know what they're doing - they just want a computer that does things.Dell is usally the most compared to Apple So It thought I would contiune the trend.
I'm searching through IBMs site I see a bunch of expensive computers that have similar specs to the Mac Pro but I'm not seeing more then a Dual core. Though it doesn't really matter because most of the stuff will make up for less processor, and like i said before they probably don't make them because it's a waste of money Windows wouldn't even utilize it.
Would Linux Use the multible cores?
| Xeniczone wrote: |
O, and I havn't seen dell releasing a 8-core computer for me yet.
|
That's right, you havent because 8 core CPU's dont exist yet (in the Windows world)
Also, Dell doens't make CPU's, Intel and AMD do.
| Xeniczone wrote: |
O, and I also havn't seen a Windows OS that takes advantage of a dual core let alone a 8-core.
|
Then explain why Valve is releasing Halflife 2 episode 2 which is going to use the second core to run the physics engine for the game?
| Xeniczone wrote: |
LOL, microsoft just made a working OS for a 64bit computer that has driver support Apple did that a long time ago. |
Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the hardware manufacturers do, and XP 64 bit has been out for a couple of years now.
Man you are so out of touch with the facts regarding Windows, please do some research before posting outright misleading information.
You seem to know your stuff when it comes to Mac OS, but either your hatred for MS is blinding you, or you are just a Windows newb. | Quote: |
That's right, you havent because 8 core CPU's dont exist yet (in the Windows world)
Also, Dell doens't make CPU's, Intel and AMD do.
|
I never said Dell made CPU's. Dell doesn't' make a 8-core COMPUTER I DID NOT SAY. Dell doesn't make a 8-core CPU
| Quote: |
| Then explain why Valve is releasing Halflife 2 episode 2 which is going to use the second core to run the physics engine for the game? |
Half-Life isn't a Microsoft Product nor is it a Windows OS.
| Quote: |
| Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the hardware manufacturers do, and XP 64 bit has been out for a couple of years now. |
Microsoft doesn't make drivers. Thats bull shit. More then 90% of your Windows OS runs on Microsoft drivers. The only main parts that wouldn't run on the Microsoft drive would probably be your Graphics card which usally increase proformance to use the companies Drivers rather then the Microsoft one. Some other stuff that you would probably use a different driver is add-ons like a TV Card or a Wi-Fi.
| Quote: |
| Would Linux Use the multible cores? |
Linux has had SMP support since kernel 2.0. That's 1996. Windows had SMP support since NT4, as I said. That's also 1996.
You're doing a good job living under a rock for over 10 years. | Xeniczone wrote: |
| Mac hardware is currently better then Windows hardware. Not only will you not find a computer that is as good as a mac from a company like Dell or Sony or Compaq/HP, but Mac OS X accually utlizes that hardware. |
I am sure Vista will actually utilise 100% of my CPU
| Quote: |
| Say you can't find a 8-core computer at Dell. |
Because Intel and AMD don't make them yet.
| Quote: |
| So you decide to build one. |
You can't because there are no manufacturers of 8-core processors. Best you could get would probably be 4-core, for a desktop. Dell already has 16-core servers.
| Quote: |
| Now you have this 5000 dollar computer but Windows doesn't even take advantage of those 8-Cores. |
That's right. Windows won't use it, but this won't make mac >hardware< better, the OS is better
| Quote: |
| So you just wasted your money and your not going to see a big improvment in proformance. |
I am sure that if you would install a good OS that you would actually see the performance increase
| Quote: |
| Windows Software is also FAR!!!!! behind that of Mac OS X and Linux. Not only does Microsoft steal most of it's ideas from mac but they can't even pull it off without the OS sucking 3ghz of CPU for the OS to run at full speed. |
Windows was first to have a "search" feature, Mac stole the idea and made it an instant search with Spotlight, and now Mac fanboys blame Windows for stealing the idea.
| Quote: |
| Mac OS X has all the same effects as Vista and runs great on a 350mhz G3. |
Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose)
| Quote: |
| People don't nessarly hate windows because it's more popular though in some cases that is true. Most ppl hate windows because it crashes to much for what they do. Same for Mac or linux. |
Were you just saying that Mac OS and Linux crash too much? Windows does, I must admit
| Quote: |
| I dislike linux because it's hard to install but onces it installed I'm perfectly fine with it. |
Installing Linux isn't that hard anymore after all, although some distros *cough*Gentoo*cough* are.
| Quote: |
| I like mac the best because it's an easy install. |
Yay. This OS rocks because it has an easy install! How usefull!
| Quote: |
| They dont' have to build their OS for 100 different hardware companies, and it's extremely easy to use. |
Sure thing...
| Quote: |
| I mean dock menu and putting all the apps in one folder and best off all most apps on mac os x are only 1 file. that is compacted into the 1 .app file. So just adding on to the simplicity. |
Okay, but I don't really care where my applications are located, and how much files it uses. As long as I can just click the shortcut/launcher and it will load.
| Xeniczone wrote: |
| Would Linux Use the multible cores? |
Linux 2.6.13 can scale up to 1024 cores. | Quote: |
| I am sure Vista will actually utilise 100% of my CPU |
I have an AMD x2 for my windows computer and Vista used 20% of the cpu idle.
| Quote: |
| Because Intel and AMD don't make them yet. |
They do sort of or at least the way it works for Apple is they took 2 Quad Core Xeons. That makes 8 cores. It's an 8-core computer not an 8-core processor sorry for the confustion.
| Quote: |
Windows was first to have a "search" feature, Mac stole the idea and made it an instant search with Spotlight, and now Mac fanboys blame Windows for stealing the idea.
|
You got me on that.
| Quote: |
| Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose) |
Accually when the window isn't in use it is transparent otherwise it's Oblique. It doesn't have a flip thingy but what it does is it will take all the windows and Line them up on the screen they you select the one you want with the mouse.
| Quote: |
| Were you just saying that Mac OS and Linux crash too much? Windows does, I must admit |
Not really what I was suggesting I was suggesting that every OS has a strong point at not crashing. Windows Crashes on well just about everything usally a hardware error. Mac crashes usally on Software errors because the OS is built for the hardware were windows is built to be universal. Linux has a bit of a mix but I have never seen it crash so I'm cool it.
| Quote: |
| Installing Linux isn't that hard anymore after all, although some distros *cough*Gentoo*cough* are. |
I used Suse and Mandrake.
| Quote: |
| Linux 2.6.13 can scale up to 1024 cores. |
Wow. | Arno v. Lumig wrote: |
Not true. Mac doens't have window border transparency, and the 3D window flip thingy (which is completely useless anyway, just like Expose)
|
Hey now, flip 3d isnt entirely useless...a friend of mine drew a bunch of stick people in MS paint over several images and using flip 3d you can animate them, just like the old page flipping animations! Now that's useful I tell ya!
Note the sarcasm here, I agree, it's just eye candy to make people think it's cool.
I really don't understand people complaining about Windows crashing. I havent had Windows crash in several years that wasent the result of a hardware failure (which obviously can't be blamed on the OS). Hmm I havent had a version of windows crash since I started using Win 2k (then XP and now XP and Vista). By FAR, the most common causes of Windows crashes are user error, hardware failure, and users not knowing what they are doing. Hondas crash every day due to user error, do we blame Honda for that? In the computer world we would.
Also concerning Linux distros, the Suse install is idiot proof. If you can install Windows, you can install Suse. Mandriva (the OS formerly known as Mandrake) is the same way, at least in my experience. | Quote: |
| I really don't understand people complaining about Windows crashing. I havent had Windows crash in several years that wasent the result of a hardware failure (which obviously can't be blamed on the OS). Hmm I havent had a version of windows crash since I started using Win 2k (then XP and now XP and Vista). By FAR, the most common causes of Windows crashes are user error, hardware failure, and users not knowing what they are doing. Hondas crash every day due to user error, do we blame Honda for that? In the computer world we would. |
but Hondas don't crash due to a coding error similar to windows. it's not really a user error. I'm saying that the Honda didn't crash because the system made and error and the car turned left into a shop. It turned left because the user turned it that way. A computer is much more complex. Generally crashing due to something not liking another thing or an error in the programming. Like on my macintosh. I would use IE 5.5 and it would always crash on me. I would be surfing the web then all the sudden IE would close. Is this macintoshes fault or Microsoft IE. Well. I installed another internet browser and it never crashed on that site. So, i would say that windows doesn't crash as much as people things it does it because of poor scripts from other companys and microsoft takes the blame for that. Hance thats what happens when you OS is the most popular.Serious, I am not able to use windows for more then 30 minutes without it crashing/hanging. I don't know how I do it, but I somehow just do... Other people don't seem to get bothered that much by windows...
Yeah it seems to be a random thing.
I built my friend a computer and while he was watching I was trying to show him how to install windows on it because I told him you may need to learn because you will need to do it again. We got the blue screen of death before the OS was even installed during the installation, but the second time it seemed to work fine. Now I built myself this computer it is only probably 3 months old. and it hasn't crashed yet.
| Xeniczone wrote: |
| I'm saying that the Honda didn't crash because the system made and error and the car turned left into a shop. |
hahahahaha good analogy. I was referring to user error only in my Honda example, but imagine if cars did stuff like that. I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux
| oleszka wrote: |
I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux |
I'm just wondering; do you even know the difference between NTFS and FAT?well.. . actually not.. but all what I know that NTFS is better for internet security(I mean if you use comp for internet). ANd NTFS is much stronger than other system. Too bad you missed the point that 2000 has NTFS and is often more stable and less bloated than XP. And 'strong' doesn't mean anything unless you make it concrete.
well.. when i installed 2000 it crashed after 3 days. so better i will use that operation system what i can see that it works well in practice (in action) = for me it's XP /ntfs/
Then you did something wrong or your hardware was broken. XP was completely based on 2000, which you can even see by the versions (2000 being 5.0 and XP 5.1).
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.
The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft. |
The term "hate" is a bit to fancy. I don't hate Windows.
But truth being told:- Over 500K viruses all for windows...
- 20.000$ For the software I need to do my work
- Poor support
- Tons of updates per day/week
- Patented protocols (MS sucks, they make protocols only to deter the OpenSource community)
- Hundred other reasons...
They bought RAV (Romanian Anti-Virus). At the time of the acquisition it was the best AV. Where is it now? They broke it apart.
One more interesting thing: some servers of Microsoft run OpenBSD... Wonder why...
I just like *NIX better, I don't hate windows.
However, I hate their PR and Marketing Department. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
I cannnot understand why many people hate Windows.
The way I see it is that if it wasen't for Windows, all software and hardware will be 10 years back than it is now.
Also, we will have so many programs doing one function, e.g. we will be having 10 different versions of Paint being nothing more than Paint, and being distributed with that Operating system.
The computer industry has benefited drastically with Windows, or more specifically Microsoft. |
I understand your point of view, but I have to say something for the one who hates Windows/ Microsoft.
It is very true that Microsoft had contribute a lot to nowadays computer industries, but it would have been better if Microsoft charged us less. Think about this, we need to spend above $600 for Window Vista, which could be a lot for the poor. Microsoft didn't have a thought about this. They just want the sales of Vista increase, so what they've decided is to cut the support towards Window98 & Window ME, and the customers of these two products will changed to use Vista. I've to state that there wouldn't been so much need towards Vista if the microsoft haven't cut the support. People just don't like the thinking of the executives and the way they carry sales. It wouldn't be any more healthy if Microsoft has become the monopoly of the computer industry, isn't it?
Regards
Last edited by regards on Mon May 07, 2007 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
No kidden, Every time I call microsoft I can't understand wth the guy is trying to say he has such a strong accent. | oleszka wrote: |
I hate Windows 2000, 98(because of many errors) but like XP(just with NTFS!). Windows XP on FAT also gives me a lot of errors.
And one more bad thing it's not free like for example Lynux |
I've never had a problem at all with Win 2K, sounds like you had a hardware issue.
Oh, and Linux is only free if your time is worthless
| Xeniczone wrote: |
No kidden, Every time I call microsoft I can't understand wth the guy is trying to say he has such a strong accent.
|
So true, it's a shame that the last North American support site for Windows XP shut down about a month ago. All Windows XP support, and most Vista support is now in India. No offence to anyone in India, but it really is frustrating trying to deal with someone in a technical issue, where you can only understand a third of what they are saying.I think the reason is, because Microsoft is so powerfull, and they control the whole marekt. Another reason may is enviousness, because Bill Gates got so rich with his company...
In my opinion Windows XP Professional SP 2 is currently the best Operating System on the market, even better then Vista (i think Vista sucks hard^^) or any other Operating System of the Open Source Sector (like Kubuntu, Debian, etc.)
I would agree to some degree Windows XP Pro SP2 is one of the best out their but not the best. With the right hardware set up and antivirus program it shouldn't crash. Then has a big selection of software. Though the wrong kind of software can through the OS off and then cause crashing again.
Vista is just too hardware demanding.
| Xeniczone wrote: |
Vista is just too hardware demanding. |
It does suck a lot of resources, but after using it for a while, I almost hate to boot back into XP. The Vista interface is just so much better. I'm not referring to the Aero features (but they do look good) but I can navigate around in Vista much faster, and the search technology is miles ahead of XP.
I really like the search/run line (yes, in case any of you don't know, the search line in vista replaces the run line in XP..click Start, type appwiz.cpl, press enter and add remove progs comes up, click start, type device manager, press enter, and device manager appears...it's great!)Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously. |
True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface. | Quote: |
| search technology is miles ahead of XP. |
yeah after they got done taking all their ideas of mac. Most of the features are better in Vista then in XP. | Bones wrote: |
| Xeniczone wrote: |
Vista is just too hardware demanding. |
It does suck a lot of resources, but after using it for a while, I almost hate to boot back into XP. The Vista interface is just so much better. I'm not referring to the Aero features (but they do look good) but I can navigate around in Vista much faster, and the search technology is miles ahead of XP.
I really like the search/run line (yes, in case any of you don't know, the search line in vista replaces the run line in XP..click Start, type appwiz.cpl, press enter and add remove progs comes up, click start, type device manager, press enter, and device manager appears...it's great!) |
When it comes to search facilities... nothing can beat Google desktop or even come close to it.. Although the size it takes of the HDD is perhaps the only one disadvantage.
regarding the control panel... u are able to do in all version of windows 9x and above, the appwiz.cpl statement......
But of course u cannot type device manager... but perhaps better would be type devmgmt.msc which will take u to the device manager just as equally... shorter too.,...this works on win2k and above.
In my view,, with every release of windows, it makes its users dumber and dumber. From win2k, they began to disband DOS altogether and leaves a newbie totally baffled when his windows doesn't load anymore,,, a newbie simply wont know what to do.
on the positive note, like a person said before,, it attracted consumers in their masses.
ALso, regarding windows crashing... firstly it is important to seperate the types of crashing into:
1 - is it due to windows Operating system freezing
or 2 - an application or hardware not responding (which closes that program but not windows)
The latter Microsoft cannot be fully to blame unless it is a microsoft product such as IE . But then again, IE crashes either the same number of times or less than Opera crsahes.
ANd iwth regards to windows OS freezing, since win2k, I must admit WIndows has been much more stable. On win2k, I only witnessed the BSOD once, and perhaps only restarted my computer twice due to windows not functioning.
WIth winxp, its even less... never have i needed to restart my computer. The only time i format my HDD are like once a yr,, if i can be bothered.
Once i switched off my computer due to it beginning to overheat on xp.... but thats the laptops fault and not windows...
The story for windows ME is entirely different... that in my view is the worst operating system ever released. nevertheless,,, stability is improving in microsoft. But then if we want to look that far back, y not look at linux distros at that time, which ewre in a pathetic state back then, no proper hardware compatiability ,, not even ,mouse detectoion in some distros. Mandrake 8 was perhaps the best linux OS of its time.
MIcrosoft even with windows ME was, therefore way ahead of the game.
Now more onto linux,,, i hav had many disappointing memories recently
- The first, opera wouldn't install properly on ubuntu. Perhaps slightly because of my own incompotence, cus im a linux newbie,, but a simple search on google will see many in my situation. Opera works on other linux distros fine,,, e.g. mandriva
- secondly, i once installed flash, and for some reason, on some sites, whena button is clicked it cloeses firefox, same for mozilla when i tried it on that. I dunno if flash is to blame or ubuntu. I had this on IE,, but not as frequent as linux, and not anymore.
- thridly,, i attached a new HDD, and mandriva was checking errors on it and stuff... booting is long for some reason, yet on windows xp, it seems as the HDD was always there (ie. speed has not changed and no need for lengthgly checks even though the HDD can be fully accessed). Also, mandriva has stopped functioning... im not sure if its because of the HDD or because i now have 2 linux distros on my PC. when i say it doesnt work, i mean it goes on a screen with an x mouse icon in centre and the mouse cant even move.
the only reason i want to use linux is because i feel microsoft is making people on computers dumb. personally, i dont think files should be the same whatever the case (e.g. The.txt is same as THE.TXT) and i prefer / over \.
Linux for me in its current state would never be a number 1 OS, not until it gets proper games and proper sstuff released with its OSs. If you are going to release a browser, release Opera with your OS, not firefox which is too overated.. And release better games,,, not the ones with graphics u find on windows 3.1.,.. and only if ythere was an MSN messenger for linux,,, cus no other IMs come even close. Also give the programs proper names not like KBounce, or KSnakeRace or KAsteroid... u know what i mean...
Fianlly, even though my comments may sound anti_-linux,,, i dont aim to be. Linux is a good OS and i hope it can be a real competitor to MS on the home PC front. Competition is always healthy. UNfortuantyl, more so with Linux than MS, there is a lot of work to be done. | Xeniczone wrote: |
| Quote: | | search technology is miles ahead of XP. |
yeah after they got done taking all their ideas of mac. Most of the features are better in Vista then in XP. |
Come on... Stop blaming Microsoft from stealing from Mac. the GNU community also stole from Mac by creating beagle, and google stole from Mac by creating Google Desktop Search.
I have beagle installed on my PC, and hardly ever use it. Is it really such a big deal?
The "insant" search is just a logical development. People didn't like the regular seach because of the speed, so they had to improve it.
If noone could use something someone else invented, the world would just get horrible.
Mac was the first with an mouse and an user interface, but what do you expect Microsoft to do? Stick with a terminal and the command-line?
The "argument" that Mac was first is just nonsence. There was probably also someone who figured out that creating an 24" screen would be cool, but they're not complaining that the other manufacturers "stole" the idea, do they?That argument is kind of lame anyway. At the time of IE6, the Firefox fanboys were bashing IE because it didn't have tabs. Then when IE7 came, they started bashing it because it did have tabs, saying that the idea was stolen from Firefox.
Now there's a way of making a fool out of yourself. Too bad not many people recognize it.
| {name here} wrote: |
| Arnie wrote: | | Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously. |
True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface. |
Oh yes, that reminds me of a feature I really hate: the Annoying Clip-thingy. You know, when you want to get some help about the parameters of a function in Excel, you hit Help, and this clip appears and tells something really stupid, like "Did you know that pressing Ctrl-U will underline your text?". And this is one of the "useful" ones. It said to my wife once that: "Did you know that a striped necktie won't go with checked pants?" or something similarly horrible.
Ok, it is not strictly windows, but it comes from the same place... | Nyizsa wrote: |
| {name here} wrote: | | Arnie wrote: | | Even the search functionality in Windows 98 is better than that in XP. No, seriously. |
True. I'm glad it's so easy to turn off that stupid dog and go back to that 2k search interface. |
Oh yes, that reminds me of a feature I really hate: the Annoying Clip-thingy. You know, when you want to get some help about the parameters of a function in Excel, you hit Help, and this clip appears and tells something really stupid, like "Did you know that pressing Ctrl-U will underline your text?". And this is one of the "useful" ones. It said to my wife once that: "Did you know that a striped necktie won't go with checked pants?" or something similarly horrible.
Ok, it is not strictly windows, but it comes from the same place... |
I got great news for ya. Clippy is not there anymore in Office 2007 (they did mess up the user interface tho...) | Quote: |
| Come on... Stop blaming Microsoft from stealing from Mac. the GNU community also stole from Mac by creating beagle, and google stole from Mac by creating Google Desktop Search. |
See now your comparing freeware to something completely different.
It's kind of a big deal were one company takes form the other company and succeads with the other companies ideas.
When a freeware software steals from a company it isn't a big deal. Have you seen many game companies sue over fan games? | Quote: |
| Mac was the first with an mouse and an user interface, but what do you expect Microsoft to do? Stick with a terminal and the command-line? |
XEROX PARC made the first GUI. Jobs stole the idea after working at PARC, incorporating 100% of the interface ideas into a slightly different twist on the XEROX Star interface into the Lisa. | Xeniczone wrote: |
See now your comparing freeware to something completely different.
It's kind of a big deal were one company takes form the other company and succeads with the other companies ideas.
|
So kinda like when Mac stole the GUI? Mac users love to go on about how MS stole the GUI from Mac. Microsoft only stole what Mac had already stolen from Xerox.Not quite the same as you give it out to be. Xerox was a different screen ratio where as mac set the standard for the screen ratio. the I think 4:3 screen ratio the Xerox has like a 3:5 screen ratio where the screen was longer up and down rather then side to side.
Plus I'm not the one making the big deal about it. You are. I'm just stating where they got it from. Most of the stuff Microsoft "stole" from apple was under lisence.
I remember in previous post you called me defensive. So now look at all the people getting all defensive over this.
Or maybe to the moderaters it would look better if I put this after all the insults I say this way it will be a joke and not an insult. So, Xeniczone, you blame Microsoft for having a GUI operating system? You really expect them to still be a command-line system?
The same goes with the searching. It's a logical development. Of course OS vendors want to improve the speed and quality of things. Let's say Microsoft releases the next OS that has a near instant boot, does that mean Mac won't be allowed to improve boot speed any further, because it would be imitating MS?
If this is the way you think, there should be no similarities at all in the OSs. Everything would have to be different, else it would be stolen. You must be kidding about this.
The Mac community shouldn't get all that mad because Microsoft does an invention Mac does too, and by the way, the instant search feature was announced by Microsoft in 2002, way before Mac OS X (Tiger) even existed.
Last edited by Arno v. Lumig on Wed May 16, 2007 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
He's one of those heroes that either blames software X (which he doesn't like) for not having a certain feature, and if it does have the feature, he will blame software X for having stolen it from software Y.
As I mentioned before using the example "IE stole tabs from Firefox!!!!!!!!11!!!!" Though there are many more examples... even including the exclamation marks. Brilliant. GUI isn't a copied right trademark neither is searching. It's the features they included.
A lot of people say that IE stole tabs from Firefox as if FF was the first tabbed browser. FF was the 4th browser to have tabs, first was one called Internetworks, then came Netcaptor, under a different name at the time, then Opera, then Firefox. So to say IE stole tabs from FF is really pretty far from the truth. It's about time IE started using them though.
| Xeniczone wrote: |
| GUI isn't a copied right trademark neither is searching. It's the features they included. |
Why not just answer my question:
Do you think noone should take ideas from eachother, because it would be unfair?
If you're looking for examples, search my posts above.I've been ignoring this topic for a long time. Not actively ignoring it, but "can't be bothered with it" ignoring it. I'm bored so I can't ignore it any longer.
- Windows has a very poor historic reputation for reliability. Although that has now been fixed (I can't remember the last time my PC crashed) it's hard to change a bad reputation into a good one.
- Windows is the most common desktop OS. It's, supposedly, an off-the-peg system that's just supposed to work out-of-the-box. The vast majority of users have little or no knowledge of how it works so it's intimidating and incredibly frustrating when it goes wrong. Since the vast majority of users of other OSs are far more aware of what the machine is doing, and how it is doing it, they tend to be more tolerant of faults. As a result Windows is 'hated' by many more people than any other OS.
- Windows is the most hacked OS. Due to it's popularity it has, and probably always will be, the number one target for hackers. More people have had security problems with Windows than with any other OS.
- Windows is a purely commercial product. Its sole purpose is to make money for Microsoft. This success has turned Microsoft into one of the most successful companies to ever have existed. Success like that breeds enmity.
I don;t know why others hate windows but i Know I hate M$ for several things.
a) All they think is about profit.
b)From time to time they "force" you to upgrade to a new OS just by removing support for the other one ( like most programs will not work on the old one)
c)M$ is such a big company Gates being one of the richest people in the world but still Windows is full of bugs
d)Internet explorer is nothing but bugs( I am a freelancer and i must tell you that IE7 is one of the worst browsers)
e)You can't uninstall IE...
| hiquality wrote: |
I don;t know why others hate windows but i Know I hate M$ for several things.
a) All they think is about profit. |
They're a company for Christs sake.
| Quote: |
| b)From time to time they "force" you to upgrade to a new OS just by removing support for the other one ( like most programs will not work on the old one) |