Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captin ShadowHawk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 14:28:00 -
[1]
OS systems are obviously one of the most important parts of computers, but whats all the fuss about windows vista is it a massive leap forward or just Microsoft marketing machine in full swing. What will the advantages of changing to this OS be? |
Araxmas
Caldari Imperial Space Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 15:17:00 -
[2]
Direct X 10 plus some other support for games it gives. --------
|
Kurren
Farscape Mining
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:05:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Araxmas Direct X 10 plus some other support for games it gives.
This is probably the only plus... imo. Everything else is just XP rehashed in a DX-10 compatable verison. To me, it's just plain ugly, but I'll need it for DX-10. Stupid XP64 not supporting it... Damn you, Gates! Damn you! --- --- --- ---
My Sig Is Not Too Big...
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:09:00 -
[4]
Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards.
More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago.
The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
digital0verdose
Caldari Ships Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards.
More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago.
The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways.
O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? -------------------------------------- http://digitalsdomain.spaces.live.com/ <--- Check it out.
Latest Update: "The Departed" and something no Nintendo fan should be without. |
Kailea Shandrasekkar
Caldari Tsurokigaarai Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 21:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards?
Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;)
The price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself: Ultimate cost for perfect value. |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 21:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: digital0verdose
Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards.
More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago.
The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways.
O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards?
Windows 98 runs fine on 64MB of RAM and even allows you to disable the swap file for near-instant OS performance. It can run as fast and smoothly as a good linux install or Mac OS X.
Windows XP eats up hundreds of megs of RAM and swapfile, cannot turn off its swapfile, and takes up 3-4 gigs of disk space just from the install and service packs.
Windows Vista will take 1-2GB of RAM and 5-10GB of disk space. It will provide nothing that a 50-100MB of RAM 1-2GB of disk space linux install won't.
That is a step back.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Kurren
Farscape Mining
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 22:06:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: digital0verdose
Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards.
More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago.
The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways.
O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards?
Windows 98 runs fine on 64MB of RAM and even allows you to disable the swap file for near-instant OS performance. It can run as fast and smoothly as a good linux install or Mac OS X.
Windows XP eats up hundreds of megs of RAM and swapfile, cannot turn off its swapfile, and takes up 3-4 gigs of disk space just from the install and service packs.
Windows Vista will take 1-2GB of RAM and 5-10GB of disk space. It will provide nothing that a 50-100MB of RAM 1-2GB of disk space linux install won't.
That is a step back.
It's still a lot, but it'll only take up 512Mb or RAM. --- --- --- ---
My Sig Is Not Too Big...
|
GouldFish
Unscoped Myriad Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 08:48:00 -
[9]
The fact that to get a computer that will run vista it will cost you 1/3 of what it would have done for win98 is neither here nor there ;)
Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. But like any interface change it will take time to get used to it.
A big plus is the fact that drivers are done differantly which means if a drive crashes you machine should not BSOD. Also due to the new driver model we get DX10!
Yes DX10 is Vista only, why because it uses the new driver model to do things better.
Also updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install. Even if you parents are using it.
I've also heard some my mates at work who have been running it that it more responsive then XP and even in Beta runs very nicely.
Oh and on the It needs more power thing again, if you really want a small OS works on 512kb of ram and can be installed in 1Mb of space go get Amiga workbench. Each time an OS is updated it uses more power because it trys to do more for the user, apples OS X uses more power then OS9.
|
Rutefly
Amarr Freedom-Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 08:53:00 -
[10]
Heard that it only runs with specially certified hardware, and allows a limited number of applications to run simultaniously. Like the Basic version of Vista will only run 4 programs at a time.
A big leap forward for mankind indeed, lol. If true, im going back to dos 32 protected mode.
(Anyone know more about these rumours, plz comment)
|
|
Badhan
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 10:12:00 -
[11]
I'm guessing it will only run with certified drivers, or warn you when you are installing drivers that an't certified.
and as for only 4 programs at once, that sounds like a LOAD of bull.
|
Kailea Shandrasekkar
Caldari Tsurokigaarai Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:03:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Kailea Shandrasekkar on 26/10/2006 14:04:40
Originally by: Rutefly Like the Basic version of Vista will only run 4 programs at a time.
That's actually true. It's called 'Windows Vista Starter Edition'. Google it.
Originally by: GouldFish (...) to get a computer that will run vista it will cost you 1/3 of what it would have done for win98 is neither here nor there ;) (...) Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. (...) A big plus is the fact that drivers are done differantly which means if a drive crashes you machine should not BSOD. (...) Yes DX10 is Vista only, why because it uses the new driver model to do things better. (...) updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install(...)
But if you run a Win98 in today's computer it'll be lightining fast, believe me. And the new interface is just a mix of WindowBlinds with Yahoo desktop objects. =/
Mark my words: DX10 won't bring anything special (it's not Vista-dependent, actually - visit the MS dev newsgroup in order to check that info; it's just tying it up with Vista for commercial reasons), the new driver model will hang Vista the same way the 'old new' model driver hangs XP, the 'updated security' will be blown to bits in less than a week after its public release and the spyware developers will learn to exploit the new security flaws in a split sec.
[EDIT] Adding references:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp Quote: 'Vista Starter will allow only three applications (and/or three windows) to run simultaneously.'
The price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself: Ultimate cost for perfect value. |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:25:00 -
[13]
so basicly code wise DX10 would run on Windows XP but need new drivers but MS has it locked out to only being installable on Vista to drive sales of the new OS.
|
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:31:00 -
[14]
Also heard that Vista unloads everything thats not being used (including desktop) from memory when a game is loaded, making it faster.
And in 8 years I'll ask you to install Vista on a machine from 2014 and see how fast it runs, every time a new MS OS is released everyone always cries "too much HD/CPU/RAM usage" but in reality all of said components are getting cheaper almost on a daily basis, and 1-2gb of RAM used just by Vista? lol, it's showing under 512mb in my testbox machine.
Hardware in PCs will just adapt to accomodate it, like every time a new MS OS is released, everyone that complains about it are 99% linux users, "average joe" doesn't care about HD/CPU/RAM usage, as the PCs that will have it on it by and large won't notice the difference.
And remember all the debug code and other crap is left in these BETA builds.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 16:43:00 -
[15]
My main PC has a 3Ghz processor, 1Ghz FSB, and 1GB of RAM. It has a 7200 RPM SATA hard disk.
I have a laptop with a 667mhz processor, 66mhz FSB, and 64MB of RAM. It has an ancient laptop hard disk.
The laptop runs 98, my main machine runs XP. The laptop boots faster and is easily 5-10 times faster in normal Windows usage.
And my main computer isn't slow--its just that the laptop uses Windows 98, which doesn't naturally swap craploads of stuff to the disk and is far less bloated than XP.
Vista will be no different.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Rutefly
Amarr Freedom-Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 17:42:00 -
[16]
Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies
|
Taedrin
Gallente Mercatoris Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 18:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Rutefly Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies
http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/index.html
0_o And that was nearly 3 years ago.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 19:26:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rutefly Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies
Clock speed has absolutely nothing to do with electron speed, which is dictated entirely by voltage. And at the voltage a CPU takes (1.5V give or take) they move at a few micrometers per second.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Sphit Ker
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 19:51:00 -
[19]
Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining.. I prefer, and by far, an half-arsed Linux distro than any Windows install. Point blank. Vista will not change this. Welcome to the new Windows, exactly like the old ones, it only cost more to operate. It still is a taskbar with a Start button and icons-on-desktop same old same old. 5GB disk space for the OS only?!? lick my POD yeah
So, back on heart for now. The 'advantage' to 'upgrade' to Vista will be that you will have access to all the shiny-new 'content' that will require Vista to get. Oh I see there is a 'new' search function.. and shiny buttons.. and DRM all around.
I love to hate Windows. If you let them successfully hype you up like that and get to believe you 'need' Vista you deserve to get poked at by a shinny new and more productive and efficient than ever stick of digital scam.
/me turn green GHAAA!
|
digital0verdose
Caldari Ships Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 21:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kailea Shandrasekkar
Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards?
Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;)
So in 40 years do you expect the OS to only take up 1/100 the resources it does now?
This is like saying program files should be getting smaller and not bigger. -------------------------------------- http://digitalsdomain.spaces.live.com/ <--- Check it out.
Latest Update: "The Departed" and something no Nintendo fan should be without. |
|
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 21:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: GouldFish Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. But like any interface change it will take time to get used to it.
I went through the Win3.1 -> 95 switch, which is a bigger interface switch than MS has done before or since. That was fine, because anything approaching a true multitasking system with Win3.1's interface would have been very clunky.
Any significant interface switch at this point is only going to cause confusion. There's nothing so massively wrong with the current XP interface to justify large changes. Not that it's perfect, just that it's not worth even the temporary confusion you'll get.
Quote: Also updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install. Even if you parents are using it.
Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 21:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Frezik
Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
This isn't true.
The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy.
In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges.
In Windows, by default, the user does.
This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 22:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: digital0verdose
Originally by: Kailea Shandrasekkar
Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards?
Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;)
So in 40 years do you expect the OS to only take up 1/100 the resources it does now?
This is like saying program files should be getting smaller and not bigger.
Diminishing returns sets in eventually, but yes. Kernels should be kept to a small set of base functionality. Everything else is an optional add-on.
Linux breaks this rule, too, but not nearly as bad as MS. And they at least try to keep things minimal.
3D-accelerated desktops are pretty nifty, but I'd like the option to shut it off. I don't need it to run a word processor.
|
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 22:22:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Frezik
Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
This isn't true.
The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy.
In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges.
In Windows, by default, the user does.
This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system.
IMHO, that's the second biggest security problem in Windows. Monoculture is the first. If people could choose between 3 OSes with roughly equal market share, a single attack won't (usually) work on all 3.
Up until the mid to late '90s, the Unix OSes out there were actually considered some of the worst, security-wise. The reason was that while it separated admin and user, you were only one or the other. Better systems would give a range of possibilities in between. For instance, a network admin might need full access to the networking card, but shouldn't need to touch /etc/passwd.
You hardly hear that argument anymore, even though Windows NT and its children offer theoretically much better user control than any Unix system out there. There are several reasons for this:
1) With inexpensive computers, it's no longer necessary for many people to share a single system. The simpler user/group model of Unix works well for that setup. 2) The overwhelming monoculture of Windows makes it the most obvious target. Security problems of anybody else are afterthoughts. 3) The more complex user/group model that Windows allows is beyond the abilities of most users. 4) Too many Windows applications are poorly written and will end up needing admin access anyway (indicating that the more complex model is beyond a lot of developers out there, too)
|
Kurren
Farscape Mining
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 22:48:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Kurren on 26/10/2006 22:50:01
Originally by: Sphit Ker Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining..
Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
Hardly MS's fault though. The saying, "Build a tougher mouse trap, get a tougher mouse," comes to mind. Nothing is impenitrable in the computer world. Everything is codes, and codes can be *****ed. But, 128 bit encryption will still remain better than 64 bit. Just because people can hack it, doesn't make it less safe. Its kind of like a security system on your car. You can low-jac it, but that doesn't mean it can't be stolen.
edit - The bit encryption part has nothing to do with actual Windows security. --- --- --- ---
My Sig Is Not Too Big...
|
GouldFish
Unscoped Myriad Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 10:34:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Frezik
Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
This isn't true.
The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy.
In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges.
In Windows, by default, the user does.
This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system.
IMHO, that's the second biggest security problem in Windows. Monoculture is the first. If people could choose between 3 OSes with roughly equal market share, a single attack won't (usually) work on all 3.
Up until the mid to late '90s, the Unix OSes out there were actually considered some of the worst, security-wise. The reason was that while it separated admin and user, you were only one or the other. Better systems would give a range of possibilities in between. For instance, a network admin might need full access to the networking card, but shouldn't need to touch /etc/passwd.
You hardly hear that argument anymore, even though Windows NT and its children offer theoretically much better user control than any Unix system out there. There are several reasons for this:
1) With inexpensive computers, it's no longer necessary for many people to share a single system. The simpler user/group model of Unix works well for that setup. 2) The overwhelming monoculture of Windows makes it the most obvious target. Security problems of anybody else are afterthoughts. 3) The more complex user/group model that Windows allows is beyond the abilities of most users. 4) Too many Windows applications are poorly written and will end up needing admin access anyway (indicating that the more complex model is beyond a lot of developers out there, too)
Very much what I was going to say but you said it better.
oh and by default vista users have very limit priviages, and even if apps need to install system files (for older apps) they no longer install into the real system folder by a user specfic folder.
|
Hellspawn01
Amarr The Phantom Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 11:44:00 -
[27]
What about the rumors that vista will have FBI backdoors or that programs that are not registered at M$ cant be installed like EVEmon or such fan programs?
Ship lovers click here |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 12:41:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hellspawn01 programs that are not registered at M$ cant be installed like EVEmon or such fan programs?
That's called Trusted Computing.
Hope that it will never see the light of day.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Yukari Tanizaki
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 12:41:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Yukari Tanizaki on 27/10/2006 12:41:18 bah alt
|
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 15:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kurren Edited by: Kurren on 26/10/2006 22:50:01
Originally by: Sphit Ker Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining..
Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
Hardly MS's fault though. The saying, "Build a tougher mouse trap, get a tougher mouse," comes to mind. Nothing is impenitrable in the computer world.
Doesn't matter who's at fault. The fact is, the biggest single security gain you can get is just to use a less popular OS, for no other reason than the fact that it's less popular.
|
|
Sphit Ker
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:30:00 -
[31]
Thrusted Computing!? ROFL what a clever cravatspeak twitch..
The users are Vista's products. Content providers and 'Thrusted' manufacturers are the clients.
So there. I still see nothing Vista promise I dont or can't have somewhere else.
But hey guys I should enlighten myself and try Vista before I continue irrationally flamming it to hell and back for no appearant reasons shall I? I am sooo sure Microsuck lets go see by myself. I am just going to spend an hour or so learning as much as I can about Vista from both side of the pond.
Can I have a LiveCD? A remote desktop session where I can clickty-click all those new features without the harsle of formating and installing and laughing at all the hyping up and then back to my beloved OS!? (VLC thing..)
Pretty please?!
|
Sphit Ker
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:01:00 -
[32]
hey I can track down criminals with Vista!
|
Benco97
Gallente Fedo Appreciation Group
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:23:00 -
[33]
Like I have said before and will say again it is fashionable to hate windows, this is a shame. I am not an idiot when it comes to computers, i'm no network-admin or rocket scientist like i'm sure 90% of the people in this thread will claim to be but I HAVE used Vista for myself and it's not bad. Use some other, more streamlined OS for your super-important works all of you people but understand, which OS is REALLY the easiest to get into, the most accessible? Can my gran log on to gentoo and change her internet connection in less than 2 clicks? quite probably doable but it's simpler on a microsoft OS, please admit that. When I absolutely need to wring 99.999% of the power from my computer i'll look at another OS but frankly i've not got a use for that and really how many of YOU do? Really computers are used because of their software aren't they, which OS has the biggest library that you can just pickup and use without any emulators or recompiling things? you know which one it is. I am NOT a microsoft fanboi, I just like to keep things simple and when I can just as easily and quickly do what I do now on another OS but BETTER then I will change, until then I will stay with what in my opinion is the best, not someone else's opinion who spouts things that sound very impressive but in all actuality affect me very very little. Is windows completely open to attack? then get a job there and fix it if you're so good. There, rant over.
Head of the Fedo Appreciation Group (FAG) and Registered Fedo breeder (Sig kindly supplied by Zurtur) |
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:38:00 -
[34]
I quite like the idea of a PC or laptop with a solid state HDD and the OS stored on a bootable CD. Switch the thing on, do your stuff, switch the thing off, and nothing is stored unless you specifically transferred it to an external data storage device.
The great thing is, your OS cannot be modified, and if someone wants to look at your HDD, too bad, once the power is off, it's blank.
I expect you would need battery backup as on a laptop, and be very careful about saving your work to an external drive, but if I could run EVE on something like that, I would be willing to pay good money one day. I wouldn't be surprised if the corporate world drove something like this into the mainstream - magnetic storage is really dumb from a security point of view, and an OS in a tamper-proof package, alterable only by creating a new disc, would be really cool.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 03:08:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 28/10/2006 03:13:23
Originally by: Benco97 Like I have said before and will say again it is fashionable to hate windows, this is a shame. I am not an idiot when it comes to computers, i'm no network-admin or rocket scientist like i'm sure 90% of the people in this thread will claim to be but I HAVE used Vista for myself and it's not bad. Use some other, more streamlined OS for your super-important works all of you people but understand, which OS is REALLY the easiest to get into, the most accessible? Can my gran log on to gentoo and change her internet connection in less than 2 clicks? quite probably doable but it's simpler on a microsoft OS, please admit that. When I absolutely need to wring 99.999% of the power from my computer i'll look at another OS but frankly i've not got a use for that and really how many of YOU do? Really computers are used because of their software aren't they, which OS has the biggest library that you can just pickup and use without any emulators or recompiling things? you know which one it is. I am NOT a microsoft fanboi, I just like to keep things simple and when I can just as easily and quickly do what I do now on another OS but BETTER then I will change, until then I will stay with what in my opinion is the best, not someone else's opinion who spouts things that sound very impressive but in all actuality affect me very very little. Is windows completely open to attack? then get a job there and fix it if you're so good. There, rant over.
Are you serious in saying that Windows is "easy"?
Its an incredibly overcomplicated operating system where problems arise all the time (Its IRQ management is so stupid that it will randomely break computers for no apparent reason) and is nearly impossible to learn by comparison to simpler operating systems.
Windows, to update software: 1. Visit Windows Update, go through all the boxes. 2. Visit Office Update, go through all the boxes. 3. LiveUpdate Norton, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It'll take you an hour and its far beyond what any computer newbie could possibly do.
In Ubuntu, it'll pop up and say that there are updates for your computer.
You click OK. It updates every single piece of software on the entire computer in a couple minutes.
I don't see how any honest person could possibly say that Windows is an "easy" operating system to use. Just making it work is nearly impossible, and it takes hours of installing drivers to get it to run on most machines. Do you think your granny can do that? Most other operating systems don't require any extra drivers to work. It isn't even easy before it breaks... and after it breaks, Windows is nearly impossible to manage, you might as well wipe the damn thing.
I run a business fixing computers, mostly for neighborhood know-nothing grannies. And I will tell you that Windows is not "easy" except for the spoiled brats who grew up with it and think its the best thing ever. I have never had a flawless reinstall of Windows XP ever: it has always required at least one extra driver. Maybe in a perfect world Windows is "easy to use," but from my experience, I wouldn't have a job if Dell shipped Ubuntu on their computers. In most operating systems, the internet works out of the box, but Windows requires all sorts of hacking to get it to work, and if you've got wireless, its even worse.
Its a piece of crap. A popular piece of crap, yes, but still a piece of crap. And anyone who thinks it is "easy" has really had zero experience with the kind of people who make up the majority of Windows users.
P.S. Linux has a larger library of useful software than Windows.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Spartan239
Caldari DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 07:15:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
stuff
So apart from what you stated whats so good about Ubuntu?
|
Benco97
Gallente Fedo Appreciation Group
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 10:42:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 28/10/2006 03:18:02 Stuff about Benco's post
Ouch.. burned ;.; oh well, i was only speaking from my experience, like I said, i'm no network admin or anything like that. Sorry.
Head of the Fedo Appreciation Group (FAG) and Registered Fedo breeder (Sig kindly supplied by Zurtur) |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 12:54:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 28/10/2006 13:00:45
Originally by: Spartan239
Originally by: Dark Shikari
stuff
So apart from what you stated whats so good about Ubuntu?
While its not as powerful as some operating systems unless you really butcher it, it simply works, and its free.
Its Linux for Newbies. Works out of the box, works well, and stays up to date. If all you want to do is use a computer, browse the internet, write documents, etc, its probably the best thing out there.
One thing I also like about it is that it retains the power of Linux: if you still want to do something fancy, you can. You can run your entire computer without ever touching a command line, or use only the command line if you're really that much of a geek.
I just like Linux for my own use because I can connect to my Linux machine from anywhere in the world and do whatever I want, through a command-line interface
And sorry Benco, didn't mean to burn your post to death--I overreacted there, no need to apologize, I'm the one who should apologize
The reasons Windows is still popular (other than being bundled with every computer): 1. The vast majority of commercial games are made for Windows. While other operating systems can still play Texttwist and Runescape just as well, client-based games are almost never made for *nix/BSD. 2. Spyware doesn't work on *nix/BSD. This means that computer idiots can't run around downloading boatloads of adware to get that new free screen saver, because it simply won't work. The average computer user will click that "shoot 20 ducks to get a free iPod" ad and will download the spyware-laden program that he/she's sent to. If they can't do that, they'll complain. 3. While Ubuntu comes with a lot of programs, it might not come with everything you need. And while its very easy to install new programs through the graphical program manager, its only easy if you know what to install. This is something that probably needs to be improved. For example, Granny knows she wants an IM program, but doesn't know that she needs GAIM.
Part of the problem is that the entire "computer newbie" world revolves around screwing them with false advertising and crappy software that costs too much. Linux doesn't work with the crappy software... which can be interpreted as a very good or a very bad thing.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Beringe
Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 01:11:00 -
[39]
The only thing that really bothers me about Vista is the "no third party access to kernel" policy. Say goodbye to third party firewall and virus scan vendors, unless that changes. Can o' worms.
Oh, and I had a good laugh about that horrible speech interface. I could have told them that the technology is nowhere near ready for that sort of usage. ------------------------------------------- "Never underestimate the power of language."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Kurren
Farscape Mining
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 10:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Benco97 <<nice post, but takes up too much space>>
Are you serious in saying that Windows is "easy"?
Its an incredibly overcomplicated operating system where problems arise all the time (Its IRQ management is so stupid that it will randomely break computers for no apparent reason) and is nearly impossible to learn by comparison to simpler operating systems.
Windows, to update software: 1. Visit Windows Update, go through all the boxes. 2. Visit Office Update, go through all the boxes. 3. LiveUpdate Norton, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You're inventing steps here. The FIRST initial update with Windows is the only thing even close to resembling complicated, but even a monkey with a hammer could do it. After that, most people have the auto-install downloaded and running. I, myself, am notified of updates when they are released. I can then choose to just download them all or select the ones I want. I click download, they download. I click install, they install. I reboot. If that is the "un-easy" that Windows is... invest in better schooling. There are probably easier OSes out there, but Windows is pretty user friendly. That's not to even mention the plug-n-play driver updating that Windows XP has.
Originally by: Dark Shikari It'll take you an hour and its far beyond what any computer newbie could possibly do.
In Ubuntu, it'll pop up and say that there are updates for your computer.
You click OK. It updates every single piece of software on the entire computer in a couple minutes.
I don't see how any honest person could possibly say that Windows is an "easy" operating system to use. Just making it work is nearly impossible, and it takes hours of installing drivers to get it to run on most machines. Do you think your granny can do that? Most other operating systems don't require any extra drivers to work. It isn't even easy before it breaks... and after it breaks, Windows is nearly impossible to manage, you might as well wipe the damn thing.
I run a business fixing computers, mostly for neighborhood know-nothing grannies. And I will tell you that Windows is not "easy" except for the spoiled brats who grew up with it and think its the best thing ever. I have never had a flawless reinstall of Windows XP ever: it has always required at least one extra driver. Maybe in a perfect world Windows is "easy to use," but from my experience, I wouldn't have a job if Dell shipped Ubuntu on their computers. In most operating systems, the internet works out of the box, but Windows requires all sorts of hacking to get it to work, and if you've got wireless, its even worse.
Its a piece of crap. A popular piece of crap, yes, but still a piece of crap. And anyone who thinks it is "easy" has really had zero experience with the kind of people who make up the majority of Windows users.
P.S. Linux has a larger library of useful software than Windows.
Sorry for the rant, folks
If making it work was actually as difficult as you say it is then I sincerely doubt it would've caught on like it did. I mean, its compatable with friggin everything, everything to run the computer is put into a neat (as in clean) little Start Menu, and seriously, monkey's with hammers could install, update, and run a Windows OS. There are better OSes out there, but Windows is not the firey ball of Hell you make it out to be... esspecially since 9 times outta 10... the people bashing Windows are using Windows in order to bash it. Hell, I've been known to bash Windows myself, but when I have to recommend an OS to somebody, I won't change the tune of "XP Pro" until Vista manages to prove itself.
Also, Dell ships XP Home Edition, if I recall, on just about all their computers. XP Home IS the firey ball of Hell you make it out to be. --- --- --- ---
My Sig Is Not Too Big...
|
|
Cleric JohnPreston
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 12:20:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Cleric JohnPreston on 29/10/2006 12:21:04 well im using the latest release as my main OS, been thru all the MS OSs and i ahve to say i quite like what im seeing. The constant march of technology means why will only update our pcs anyways so harping on about what Vista needs is silly. Chances are you have a system that can run it right now.
I play eve, have tonnes of FF tabs open and stuff in my task bar and i see absoltuely no slow down what so ever, the windows zoom as fast as XP, i perfer the streamlined interface aswell. I think you just need to give it a chance, it really is a nice update to Xp.. Plus i havent experinced one single iota of a crash yet too. Im finding it quite stable tbh.
:/
btw DX10 will change the way pcs games are programmed and add in new effects and lend developers the ability to cram more detail than is possible right now.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 12:22:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 29/10/2006 12:22:37
Originally by: Kurren Also, Dell ships XP Home Edition, if I recall, on just about all their computers. XP Home IS the firey ball of Hell you make it out to be.
Is there really that much difference between Home and Pro?
My worst experience with Home yet is on a laptop where it automatically assigned half the devices to a single IRQ, making it constantly bluescreen. Since its not a desktop, I can't move cards around to change their IRQs... so the only way to change the IRQs would be to turn off ACPI through a horribly hacky method, completely eliminating the ability to even shut down my computer through Windows, let alone manage battery settings and performance settings.
Did I mention I hate Windows IRQ management?
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Michuh
Vortex. Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 13:08:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Araxmas Direct X 10 plus some other support for games it gives.
/me is holding off forking out on a new rig, untill DirectX 10, and possibly quadcore Intel/Amd chips are a reasonable price..
Maelstrom Recruitment
|
Michuh
Vortex. Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 13:10:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: digital0verdose
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Windows Vista will take 1-2GB of RAM and 5-10GB of disk space.
You serious?? The operating system is currently using that much ram???
3 days ago Ive finally caved in and installed XP.. Looks like ill be using XP in that case for the next 5 - 6 years, untill this Vista **** is proven to be reasonably stable..
Maelstrom Recruitment
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 13:59:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Michuh
You serious?? The operating system is currently using that much ram???
I'm not sure but thats what I remember seeing on the system requirements
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 14:43:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Benco97 Use some other, more streamlined OS for your super-important works all of you people but understand, which OS is REALLY the easiest to get into, the most accessible?
Microsofties often state that GNU/Linux is not ready for a mainstream audience. They forget that by the same measures, neither is Windows.
* The registry is a huge, undocumented mess that's easy to corrupt, killing your whole system. /etc might not be pretty, but at least it's well-documented and changes are compartmentalized. * Windows still makes hidious UI errors. For instance, on bringing up safe mode in XP, you're given the option to continue running in safe mode, or bring up system restore. The options in the dialog box are "yes" and "no". Those should be "Safe Mode" and "System Restore". * Related to the last, configuration controls are put in inappropriate places. For instance, bringing up properties on a network connection, the second tab is "authentication", with options like enabling IEEE 802.1x authentication. The third tab is "advanced", and the single option I have is about enabling a firewall on the interface. Most users have no use for ethernet authentication, but have plenty of use for a firewall. But most will be scared away by that "advanced" wording.
The only OS that's really ready for mainstream is Apple.
|
Frezik
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 14:45:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Michuh
You serious?? The operating system is currently using that much ram???
I'm not sure but thats what I remember seeing on the system requirements
From http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx, minimum is 512MB. Remember that you need to at least double Microsoft's minimum requirements.
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:30:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
In Ubuntu, it'll pop up and say that there are updates for your computer.
You click OK. It updates every single piece of software on the entire computer in a couple minutes.
Please don't tell people to upgrade to Edgy from Dapper doing this. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:55:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Dark Shikari
In Ubuntu, it'll pop up and say that there are updates for your computer.
You click OK. It updates every single piece of software on the entire computer in a couple minutes.
Please don't tell people to upgrade to Edgy from Dapper doing this.
I wouldn't know, I started with Dapper
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Scorpyn
Caldari The Patriot Pact
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 23:07:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Hellspawn01 What about the rumors that vista will have FBI backdoors
Not that I am be able to prove it, but they have done it before and they will probably do it again.
Originally by: Dark Shikari Is there really that much difference between Home and Pro?
Yes. Maybe it's mainly the way things are structured, but it's a lot easier to find all the config stuff etc on pro.
|
|
Directive
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 09:55:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Michuh
You serious?? The operating system is currently using that much ram???
I'm not sure but thats what I remember seeing on the system requirements
Vista has a higher apparent memory footprint mostly due to the way the improved prefetching works. Still, it's quite daft to require 1gb just to boot up the OS in a reasonable time.
|
HolographicEntrypoint
Praxiteles Inc. E N I G M A
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:09:00 -
[52]
Edited by: HolographicEntrypoint on 30/10/2006 10:09:13 Windows isnt easy. There are so many little bugs and glitches that take ages to fix. Like Wireless Zero Configuration which is a total gamble to fix... sometimes your manufactors drivers wont install, sometimes they wont take over the responsibility etc.
And I don't want a better looking OS. I want it to be faster. ---
^ Custom Sigs for ISK
My custom Sigs Gallery |
Anastasia Cz'aren
|
Posted - 2006.11.01 22:18:00 -
[53]
This whole thread is hilarious, with few exceptions.
:beer: to DS. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |