|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 6 of 203:
| 
Jan 30 21:31 UTC 2007 |
The piece I just read about Vista says you have to load iTunes and then your
iPod will do just fine.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 7 of 203:
|
Jan 30 21:33 UTC 2007 |
Huh?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 8 of 203:
|
Jan 30 21:48 UTC 2007 |
You snuck in, that was for richard.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 9 of 203:
|
Jan 30 22:25 UTC 2007 |
Re #1:
mostly agree with Re #2: Vista is nice, better than XP for users
spending time on graphic intensive stuff, and agree too with Re #4: a
waste of time if the goal is to get work done with a computer.
I played with Vista since beginning dec., was lazy and downloaded the
leaked MSDN dvd image from some binary news server.
It's better than XP and the Aero look can be pleasant, if you have a
recent hardware.A silly gadget is the 3D flipping windows.
Contrary to the requirements on the MS site, I got it to install on
533mhz+512ram and one can sill trim it down to a "classic" look
(95/NT/2K). The filesystem tree is different for the users (home
folders, documents and settings, ...) with stronger authorizations. But
the default conf. is very annoying, whatever network move you do and
installation of software, you get a warning window while the whole
desktop fades away, and the finding of the tuning parameter in the
control panel is cumbersome. The control panel is really a pain in the
ass to walk through. The Outlook Express replacement seems to be more
secure, but I guess it will catch as much virii as the previous
versions.The default IE7 setting keeps warning that internet is a wild
place, and it's just a rip-off of Firefox with a less intuitive main
bar. The needed disk space is insane because the mail/calendar stuff,
media player/moviemaker , all the desktop visuals and the huge drivers
base. Best is to install it, get vlite.net and re-author a tuned dvd
image. I know, people do not care because hard disk these days are 120
or 250 Gb, but I still find insane to waste space with junk.
The Vista default desktop is somewhat closer to the idea of something
like OSX, so for users allergic to the unix paradigm, I think it's
better, for the comfort and useability to get a Mac.
When I need to use Windows, I'm on NT4 or 2K.If I had to choose between
XP and Vista, I'll take the latter.
An important point: it's not possible to use Vista more than few weeks
without internet connection, because it keeps doing hand-shake
validation of the license with MS servers on a regular basis. Kind of:
you computer belongs to MS... (of course there's a hack, but non
trivial).
Verdict: interesting, but not worth the money for most users.Get a
pirate version to install and test drive.
|
twenex
|
|
response 10 of 203:
|
Jan 30 23:57 UTC 2007 |
An important point: it's not possible to use Vista more than few weeks
without internet connection, because it keeps doing hand-shake
validation of the license with MS servers on a regular basis. Kind of:
you computer belongs to MS... (of course there's a hack, but non
trivial).
Well that just ensures that not only will I never install a copy of Vista on
my machines, but I will also recommend to anyone who will listen that they
follow suit.
I can get a more pleasing (to my eyes) near-as-dammit-OSX-look on my KDE
desktop too. I don't get drop shadows or that silly rubik's cube thing, but
who wants them except to play around with for a few minutes?
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 11 of 203:
|
Jan 31 08:48 UTC 2007 |
Given that those bsrtds expect the premium crap to run on a 1Gig processor
with 1 GB RAM it's not likely i'll be updating my Win-2K any time soon.
I hate their lousy GUI and i sincerely hope that all software companies don't
start designing only Vista compatible software!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 12 of 203:
|
Jan 31 13:42 UTC 2007 |
I doubt it'll happen. Especially since Vista doesn't work well with a lot of
business applications.
|
fudge
|
|
response 13 of 203:
|
Jan 31 15:08 UTC 2007 |
so, to sum it up:
- you can provide drivers during setup on media other than floppy (what? no
ftp, pxe, http...???) hmmm exciting
- have transparent windows, 3d flicking and funky effects. give up enough
power to run a decent desktop just for some annoying eye candy? hmm (tried
that sort of things in gnome and found them a waste of just about everything)
- can use usb sticks as virtual memory. oohh that's a clever way to kill flash
memory...that's ok it's cheap now....
- all the *really* funky stuff they were selling vista on has been left out...
- you have to sign off your arse and your soul
now, I've just last week started using XP (for work, and had the company get
me a laptop for it 'cos I refused to install on any of mine) and I'm not
impressed already. is there any *good* reason for one to switch???
ah btw, the email thingie, they've swapped out the html rendering engine from
IE in favour of that of Word. presumably to stop all the known exploits for
IE, but how much real-life usage has the word engine had on the 'net? how long
before it's taken apart?
I'll stick with Fedora. So far it's worked on everything out of the box, and
there's nothing in Windows that I've missed... well apart from the shockwave
plugin for my 6yo daughter's online games. Adobe! FFS!
FC6 already gives me more than Vista. By the time SP1 is out fixing all the
major fuckups, I'll be way ahead on FC7.
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 203:
|
Jan 31 15:52 UTC 2007 |
All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is
to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set
number of years. He could force you to upgrade. If he wanted to.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 15 of 203:
|
Jan 31 16:34 UTC 2007 |
> He could force you to upgrade.
No he couldn't.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 203:
|
Jan 31 17:43 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #14; And then people would switch to Linux and it's like in droves.
The remaining usability issues would be quickly fixed (due to demand and
economic incentive) and Microsoft would be totally screwed.
|
twenex
|
|
response 17 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:02 UTC 2007 |
Re: #14
All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is
to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set
number of years. He could force you to upgrade. If he wanted to.
No, all Bill Gates really has to do o really push his new OS systems is say
to the vendors "well, if you REALLY want to sell that nasty communist Linux
thing, maybe we'll just not supply you with Windows anymore!" - Just like he
has been doing for the last however-many years.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:07 UTC 2007 |
All Bill Gates has to do to push his new OS is make it cheap. Like, $20
cheap. Then there wouldn't be a reason NOT to buy it. Leave the business
versions priced at $150 to $200.
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:09 UTC 2007 |
So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.
Thanks for the info.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 20 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:17 UTC 2007 |
You guys can quibble all you want, but MS OSs are still the leading OSs
worldwide.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 21 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:20 UTC 2007 |
> So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.
That doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't be selling anything.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:42 UTC 2007 |
Actually I was surprised the government never broke Microsoft up. Bill
Gates has a monopoly among PC's. Almost any PC computer you buy
anywhere in the world is going to have his software on it, his o/s and
his browser and his apps. The courts broke up AT&T years ago when you
basically had to have an AT&T phone to have a phone. But the same
rules don't apply to microsoft.
|
twenex
|
|
response 23 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:45 UTC 2007 |
Re: #20. Completely irrelevant, since they are foisted on most people. Most
people choose a PC supplier, but a lot of them don't even understand the
concept of "an OS", so of course they don't choose between them. Added to that
the fact that not only are suppliers who will sell you a computer pre-loaded
with anything but Windows (or MacOS) rare, but you would probably have to hold
the majority of them at gunpoint to get one without Windows on request.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:48 UTC 2007 |
Re #22: You don't have to have a Windows computer to have a computer.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 25 of 203:
|
Jan 31 19:10 UTC 2007 |
Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
or something else intervene. They decided to take on a model that in the end
left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their business
so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.
Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms - well
too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip it
off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
too ingrained in them.
So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.
Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:19 UTC 2007 |
Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
or something else intervene.
What?
They decided to take on a model that in the end
left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their
business
so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.
So how do you propose to break this monopoly if most people are blackmailed
into running Windows?
Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms -
How did you get this idea?
well
too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip
it
off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
too ingrained in them.
Of course you can - but then you've still paid for Windows.
So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.
Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.
I think you should endeavour to understand the issues before you patronise
people.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 27 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:21 UTC 2007 |
"Blackmailed" into using Windows - care to elaborate?
|
twenex
|
|
response 28 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:24 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:25 UTC 2007 |
I already did elaborate, in #23.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:30 UTC 2007 |
My gut? It doesn't really matter. Microsoft has almost run its course:
they're going to implode under their own weight. It's just the way of the
world. It happened to Bell, it happened to GM, it happened to GE, it happened
to IBM, it happened to everybody who was on top for too long.
Why isn't Linux the dominant OS? Well, it certainly came on the scene *after*
Windows did, so it would have had to overturn an already entrenched installed
base. Initial versions required more resources than DOS/Windows 3.11 or
whatever. Why didn't Unix before it take over the world? Much because of
the inept business practices of AT&T (after the breakup of Ma Bell), larger
resource requirements than what one could get out of an original IBM PC, and
an arrogant attitude of not wanting to deal with `toy' computers.
Yeah, you're right; Billy G is laughing all the way to the bank.
|
