_25_11_2024_15_40_33.jpg)
_25_11_2024_15_40_55.jpg)
_25_11_2024_15_43_24.jpg)
|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> Bad Vista |
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 10:59 | |
|
garand |
Post your comments about your Vista experience here (or just ramble): Bad Vista
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 12:58 | |
JL235
|
What about 'Good Vista'? I'm so sick and tired of Linux users bitching about Microsoft. They sell software, so what? I don't want to use Linux, I want to use Windows. I want to use MS Office, Visual Studio, Halo on my XBox and Age of Empires on my PC. Encouraging free software is a good thing, I personally get plenty of free software from Microsoft. But that doesn't mean you must automatically oppose Microsoft. Windows Vista also cost 10 billion dollars to develop, so why would it be free? MS Office is far superior to Open Office, why? The same reason why Visual Studio is considered to be the best programming environment for C++, because it is commercially developed. The idea of all software being completely free also doesn't work, it's a pipe dream. You need money to pay for a team to develop a large project. I'm not saying you cannot do that with free software, but it is no where near as easy. Microsoft have done more for computer software then any other company in the history of computers. People own a home computer because of Windows, and all those Linux and Mac users should be thanking them for not only massively helping to increase popularity and ownership of computers, but by also helping to drive down the cost of hardware as a consequence. I do have one brief Vista experience though, the guy above me installed it. He says Vista runs faster on his pc then XP but Grand Theft Auto 3 is buggy and slower, which he claims is because it uses OpenGL and it isn't suppost to be very supported on Vista at the moment. Personally I think that's more because of the drivers for Vista rather then anything OpenGL specific, but the problems still exist. A reasons for not using Vista is not the same as a good reason to use Linux. |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 14:10 | |
HoboBen
|
Maybe Garand is just a die-hard Windows XP fan? 
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 14:38 | |
|
hyruleknight |
actually the original Mac was the first OS to have a GUI i give credit to starting the GUI revolution to apple but microsoft did take their original design and make it better and be installable on any computer with a x86 CPU. vista looks nice but it is something to wait on, at least till i get my really awesome computer later this year. but that is after i get my macbook pro though .
-=-=- i like green haired girls... |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 14:45 | |
Jayenkai
|
Aaah, but as we all know, most of Win95's improvements were nicked from Amiga Workbench! Yeah, that's right.. I can make mad claims, too! I agree with everything that Diablo said, apart from the Visual Studio being super thing. Can't stand that stuff. Would much rather code in plain Programmers Notepad. (although I haven't tried it out for a while!) -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 14:46 | |
|
mike_g |
"hoboben" Lol  Maybe Garand is just a die-hard Windows XP fan?  "hyruleknight" Actually Xerox were the first to make a windows based GUI. Mac copied off them, so why shouldent Microsoft?
actually the original Mac was the first OS to have a GUI |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 15:12 | |
|
HoboBen
|
Seriously though, using my family's cool new Windows XP laptop, and using the spy/virus saturated bloated XP machines at school, In my opinion, Operating Systems aren't such a big deal to argue over any more. I prefer Linux and, especially, mac OS X, but a decent amount of RAM and a half-decent processor far outweighs any other factor for me... So much so that I'm happier on the XP laptop than anywhere else. ... and that's the trend that is the newish idea in the software/computing world - people reckon now (I'd find some links if I could remember where they got to) that an OS is becoming less important, and the individual software and the hardware is the bigger thing... Which I think is true. I like Open Source software - restrictions designed to protect corporations' massive profits on existing software and also the big costs to begin with when buying non-open software means that both "free as in cost" and "free as in freedom" are attractive to me. Also, features to add to products that matter to the general masses of users that won't necessarily spin as much money gets more of a chance. In addition to this, and this can be argued for anything involving money and funding, be it science, medicine, health care, if a company can't make money off a piece of software (or whatever), the company will not create it to sell in the first place. Open source allows that chance. There are also better alternatives to Open Office, even if Microsoft appears superior over it in Diablo's opinion... however, if you've dished out all that cash for Microsoft Office, then feel free to use it if you like it. Your choice and opinion... |edit| BTW... Windows Vista's GUI using 64MB of graphics memory? - ew ew ew! |edit|
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 15:23 | |
|
hyruleknight |
mike, xerox gave up on their project so apple was free to release the first GUI based OS so haha!! but seriously apple does get credit for making the first GUI based OS to work. also i just linux more than windows, the whole free thing is just a bonus -=-=- i like green haired girls... |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 16:23 | |
steve_ancell
|
@ Jayenkai... Aaah, but as we all know, most of Win95's improvements were nicked from Amiga Workbench! You mean to say that you are as old as I am to remember ? .
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 16:34 | |
Scherererer
|
I'm running Vista Ultimate x64 and i love it. It may be a little intensive, but i still like it quite a bit. And Visual Studio is amazing jay  .
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 16:44 | |
|
JL235
|
Originality does not exist. Everyone copies from people who happened to copy first. It's true with films and it's true with software. Many aspects of GUI's however have become fundamental and a basic requirement. Imagine browsing the internet without a tabbed browser, so why is it strange and 'copying' when Microsoft implement tabs with IE 7? Since IE 7 has copied FireFox, am I to presume FireFox invented tabs? But I just want to make it clear, I do not have a problem with Linux. However, I think Solaris 10 is superior. Linux is often claimed as being a better OS for running servers then Windows (which I do believe is true), well Solaris 10 is claimed (by several benchmarks) to be better then Linux for servers. Solaris 10 is also free. With other computing software areas, professional editing software excels on the Mac and with games Windows beats everyone. So I actually think Linux doesn't, and shouldn't, have a place because it isn't the only free OS and doesn't appear to excel anywhere. Except for the price tag (I agree there HoboBen), MS Office is far superior to Open Office. I remember I hated Open Office and far prefer Microsoft Works which came with my PC (but Star Office might be better then Open Office). Jay: I have only heard VS is the best. I don't use it, but I remember Poed and Cicero saying it was the best, as did several others during the conversation. The real problem I have is all the anti-Microsoft nostalgia simply because they are a large company that sells software. So they are planning a large advertising campaign, is that really a problem? Many comments of 'Bad Vista' even state it needs to start start posting real pieces of bad evidence about Vista. But without 'Good Vista' is it really an honest website? and so is it really stating a non-biased and objective viewpoint of Vista in comparison to free operating systems (namely Linux)? |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 16:49 | |
|
Yayyak |
I prefer Office to OpenOffice, and prefer 2000 versions of MS products to any others. I use MacOS X most of the time, and I'm pretty happy doing that. I couldn't use VS at any time, it's GCC or nothing.
|
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 17:04 | |
power mousey
|
the mousey will happily stick with XP for now. Maybe will get Vista next year... when bugs and glitches are more worked out. Yes, maybe next year will get Vista with my Visa. Or, something else that is usually red or green but is delicious to eat as well. true.<back to slumberland and sleep the soulful sloth until I have to go to work tonite >cheers all, and good nite or is it good morning power mousey |
| Tue, 13 Feb 2007, 19:59 | |
|
Scherererer
|
I think we should all just stop complaining and use DOS.
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Wed, 14 Feb 2007, 15:45 | |
|
JL235
|
I read this just, very interesting. Now this can be construed as an article arguing real reasons for being anti-Microsoft, and notice it doesn't directly insult Microsoft in any way. It is more negative about the S. Korean government and as though MS just happened to step in and win the monopoly. If sites such as 'badVista' worked through this method, of actually showing and debating real evidence around problems with Microsoft, I would read it. But as it doesn't I won't. |
| Wed, 14 Feb 2007, 23:58 | |
skypenguin
|
@ Instinct I'm not going back to using windows 3.1 |
| Thu, 15 Feb 2007, 00:10 | |
shroom_monk
|
skypenguin I'm not going back to using windows 3.1All Windows operating systems require DOS to run, however Windows 3.1 is more DOS-based than others. However, it still has a GUI and, although is not set out like later versions of Windows, is still easy to navigate and use. This is by far the most stable version of Windows. I have one in my room!!! 
-=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom! |
| Thu, 15 Feb 2007, 00:21 | |
|
power mousey
|
hey, if we all go back to Dos. I'll read up on my ole book The Black Art of 3d Game Programming. the book is by Andre Lamothe and he talks about using a generic C compiler to create both 2d and 3d games and in Dos. Anybody want to borrow the book after I'm done. I also have the book Tricks of the Windows Game Progamming Gurus and by Andre Lamothe too. cheers, -
|
| Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 14:32 | |
|
TheMadProff |
@shroom_monk technically, xp does not run on dos anymore @everyone Microsoft do make some good software but Vista is a rip off Vista is a carbon copy of Mac OSX Vista has more holes than a colander Microsoft's OS's are very unstable HOW MUCH DO THEIR OS' COST!!!!!!!!! Microsoft do not beta test their OS' properly Apple make lovely, original OS' They look nice, and are really easy to use www.apple.com/getamac/ads/ All completely true!!!! And funny... -=-=- ''It works, but I'm not sure why it works...'' |
| Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 15:07 | |
|
JL235
|
Shroom: Windows 9x was Dos based (such as Windows 95), NT isn't (such as Windows XP). So no, Windows is not Dos based. Although Windows XP can emulate Dos (badly), but you can no longer quit Windows and enter Dos like you could with Windows 95.
|
| Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 15:10 | |
shroom_monk
|
But don't you still need DOS to make it work?
|
| Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 15:56 | |
|
JL235
|
No, not for NT based Windows systems. But I get the impression what your really asking is 'does my PC not run DOS behind everything?' (or something similar). I'm really not sure if DOS is on PC's now or not (and I do mean 'on' and not 'running'). I would very much doubt it, because Windows (and all pretty much all Operating Systems) are designed to work with the hardware directly (this is achieved by the HAL (hardware abstraction layer) in the Kernel), and so DOS is just redundant now. These days I also have to run it off a boot disk, which is ridiculously slow. Windows 95 is DOS based, as were earlier version of Windows, and seen as a program running in DOS rather then a full OS (but that is not to claim they were not Operating Systems). But this is being scraped from the edges of my knowledge, so I really don't know for sure. You also have to remember, DOS is an Operating System like Windows (hence the OS in DOS). |
| Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 19:24 | |
|
hyruleknight |
DOS stands for Disk Operating System. also no you don't need DOS to run an OS like windows or linux, in fact linux started out as a commandline based OS like DOS. up till windows NT and up windows was more of a shell system than a stand alone OS. after they stopped using DOS the OSes got a hell of a lot faster -=-=- i like green haired girls... |
| Sun, 18 Feb 2007, 00:18 | |
|
shroom_monk
|
OK, thanks for clearing that up guys. 
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||