Crunch time at Microsoft

xmas bunny the fact remains alot of programs do not run on linux and while this may not be linux's fault its still a major problem for ppl like me and many others who rely on programs such as photoshop corel draw and many other graphics applications.

now linux has become user friendly in the last 2-3 years? i stand to be corrected which im sure wizard will do if im wrong

so all us little cry babies who need certain apps for windows have grown up on windows and it does everything that we need on one platform and i can assure you i would be more of a cry baby if i had to use linux to try and get my artwork appz and big printing machines to run off linux when it works 100% on windows

i understand linux okes who love linux, but they never look at guys who need windows to be able to work, they only look at ppl and think linux can do everything windows can and has programs that are similar but not as good as alot of windows programs

so instead of calling us cry babies why not look at it from windows users who dont want to dual boot linux when windows runs everything they need and linux wont run certain programs

now maybe if we did not need all these windows programs and did not play alot of games linux would be amazing and free but for some ppl they just cannot use linux and are not willing to dual boot windows and linux when windows is all they need to get through their work

so basically linux is perfect for guys who dont need major widows applications and who game o, now before everyone(wizard mostly) freaks out i know linux can play games but nobody can argue that alot of games take alot of knowledge and research to get them working and im sure alot of games will not run 100% on linux

windows is perfect for the ppl who use alot of major WINDOWS applications such as photoshop corel draw etc and game

not all the above is linux's fault as microsoft controls alot of what happens

now wizard there is not one single capital letter in this post, hope you enjoyed and it :)
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
now wizard there is not one single capital letter in this post, hope you enjoyed and it :)
Click to expand...

:D

Linux is more user friendly at this stage than it once were.

Granted, there is also a learning curve for users to learn - and that is how to find and install applications.

If your normal user is adept at windows, then the GUI itself won't present any obstacles, merely just a new interface to get used to - but the real nitty-gritty will be in determining how to find and install new applications.

For normal usage (eg granny in her flat, emailing lil red riding hood and browsing for cookie recipes) a standard install will suffice most of the time, but power users might need to tweak their installations by adding a few extra programs (or games).

Wonder what will w1z4rd do about the caps? :D
 
not to sure but im sure his blood will boil thinking WTF does this oke not use freakin caps!!!!!!!

yea from what i've learnt from kaspx its actually really good for your average email and internet user and may be very good for alot of other things as well, plus it can run alot games just as well as windows, plus that opengl 2.0 kills dx 10 visually how it would work in a big game that i dont know

going to test out a linux distro that kaspx recommended and see what you okes love so much :)
 
Last edited:
xmasbunny said:
I really wish MS lovers would just get it through their (thick?) heads:
<rant>
LINUX IS NOT F^CKING WINDOWS YOU MORONS!
</rant>


If the majority of computers were running Linux isn't just vaguely possible that developers will switch their focus to Linux and not Windows? Hardware manufacturers will include drivers for Linux? Make sense?
Click to expand...
If the majority of computers were running OS/2 Warp isn't just vaguely possible that developers will switch their focus to OS/2 Warp and not Windows? Hardware manufacturers will include drivers for OS/2 Warp? Make sense?:D:D
 
killadoob said:
so instead of calling us cry babies why not look at it from windows users who dont want to dual boot linux when windows runs everything they need and linux wont run certain programs
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who were happy to dual boot Vista and XP while they were moving across to Vista but are not happy to dual boot Linux/XP to make that switch. For the record, there is no need to dual boot as software like VMWare will handle the odd application that people need. If you would like to play game, I would suggest one stays away from Linux.
 
Garyvdh said:
Seems simple enough to me. Keep supporting Windows XP as the legacy operating system for low-end systems (for another 5 years), Windows Vista as the high end system, and the new Windows 7 is exactly what they want it to be, a modular system for a new generation, based on a completely new rewrite. Windows 7 should be an operating system that supports the online world. Does not have to have too many bells and whistles, just a darn good browser and all the network tools to support getting connected. It should be dirt cheap and rock solid. Secure as a fortress. Will not be the first time Microsoft has had to support three operating systems in the field. And only has to last another five years. Then it will be Vista and Windows 7.

Microsoft, are you listening?
Click to expand...

Yes we are :)
 
What it frankly boils down to is that Windows Vista is a new operating system. It requires more system resources (as did Win 98, Win NT and Win 2000 and Win XP) than each of the previous releases required. In addition drivers obviously need to be updated and AVAILABLE by the third parties (as did Win 98 and Win NT needed).

Alot of issues surrounding Vista are with driver and software issues (in most cases third party related) which seems unfair to Microsoft as Vista was in the making and was available for developers and hardware manufacturers years in advance to the launch.

Linux is an OS to its own as are the various variants of MAC OS. The advantage of Linux is that it runs on relatively old hardware although it's had drivers issues for years and software for windows hasn't been ported to it. MAC OS is stable because they develop it for their OWN hardware and I dare any mac user to take their 5 year old mac and install leopard on it and see the same performance as leopard has on the new hardware.

1) If you do not have the system specs to run Vista then don't - stick with XP until you do - it's that simple.

2) If your software doesn't work on Vista - don't blame Microsoft blame the software vendor.

3) If you hardware doesn't work on Vista or drivers aren't available - don't blame Microsoft blame the hardware vendor.
 
killadoob said:
wizard nothing here makes me want to jump to vista's defence as its all true

your posts however always have something to do with why vista sucks and why linux is so amazing blah blah blah

if anything i wish linux could get its act together because windows would become cheaper and if linux could run most windows apps plus games and it was free it would be an obvious choice for people

as it stands linux has be dual booted and you cannot do everything on one platform, only ppl who do basic daily chores can use linux as their main OS which is the reason i choose to defend windows
Click to expand...

Smoking crack? What did I say against MS this time? I run Windows 8 hours a day at work, and about 2 hours in the evening for gaming. How is my comment saying ANYTHING about Vista sucking? I was trying to make a satirical joke with rpm.

I have said time and again that its great for gaming. Please tell me wtf you are on about?
 
Balstrome said:
If the majority of computers were running OS/2 Warp isn't just vaguely possible that developers will switch their focus to OS/2 Warp and not Windows? Hardware manufacturers will include drivers for OS/2 Warp? Make sense?:D:D
Click to expand...

The difference between OS/2 and Windows :

For windows you need a device driver specific to the windows version you're using. Which means three or four zipped files, and a lot of cussing and grumbling to find the correct driver.

For OS/2 you only need one device driver. A device driver compiled on OS/2 2.1 will also work on Warp v4. Even legacy device drivers compiled for OS/2 1.x will work on Warp 4.
 
quovadis said:
What it frankly boils down to is that Windows Vista is a new operating system. It requires more system resources (as did Win 98, Win NT and Win 2000 and Win XP) than each of the previous releases required. In addition drivers obviously need to be updated and AVAILABLE by the third parties (as did Win 98 and Win NT needed).
Click to expand...

I think the problem is perceived value in the new product.

Win95 represented a huge leap from Windows 3.1 and certainly justified most of hype that surrounded it's global launch.

Windows 98 and alsorepresented a some signifcant advances over 95.

Windows ME didn't, it was buggy and many of the changes were perceived to simply be cosmetic changes for change sake.

XP represented a conversion to the NT kernel for desktop computing. A significant step up in stability. Frankly though the cosmetic changes were for many rather irritating.

Vista for many doesn't seem to offer any significant additional value over XP. The new menu system is less intuative than previous renditions and annoying, and many of the so called enhancements have been available as 3rd party additions for XP for years.

After a week of Vista on my brand new laptop I couldn't take it any longer and installed XP. The performance difference was tangible.

MS should patch XP to handle more memory, and toss Vista in the bin.
 
MS should patch XP to handle more memory, and toss Vista in the bin.
Click to expand...

XP handles 4GB (2GB per App) in 32 bit. If you want more memory unfortunately you'll have to go 64bit. Undoubtedly that'll open a whole new can of worms with 32bit apps and drivers not necessarily working.

Otherwise I agreewith alloytoo in respect of the perceived differences however I think alot of people see Vista as XP with a new interface - which it isn't. It has some features that 90% of users don't even use or care about.

I also think that alot of people get irritated with the User Account Control - that annoying "Are you sure you really want to do this" that pops up alot. Once you disable this - Vista actually runs like XP as there are no annoyances like that. Also, for Apps that don't work on Vista you can simply use Operating System Compatibility mode and select XP for the specific application - 90% of the time this has solved old applications or games that didn't work on Vista (at least in my own experience). The other thing is that Windows users need to get use to the whole you're not an Administrator thing (it seems linux users can get their heads around this but older basic windows users can't because they simply haven't been exposed enough to this concept. )
 
The next version of windows will be vastly different IMO, microsoft is working hard on virtualisation, not just of machines but also of programs. I think this is how microsoft sees' its' way out of the legacy mess they have.

Vista has some support for application virtualisation and the next version might well end up relying on virtual apps that allow use of legacy APIs' whilst we could have a completlely new OS that doesn't actually support legacy apps. (if that makes sense)

D
 
quovadis said:
What it frankly boils down to is that Windows Vista is a new operating system. It requires more system resources (as did Win 98, Win NT and Win 2000 and Win XP) than each of the previous releases required.
Click to expand...

But the performance gap is much bigger then the NT->2000 and 2000->XP. That is having a big impact.

quovadis said:
Alot of issues surrounding Vista are with driver and software issues (in most cases third party related) which seems unfair to Microsoft as Vista was in the making and was available for developers and hardware manufacturers years in advance to the launch.
Click to expand...

You are a hardware manufacturer and MS comes along and tells you that you have to rewrite every driver you have ever written because they have changed the mode that drivers run in. Would you be happy? To make matters worse, MS changed stuff after RC1 of Vista which resulted in more changes for the hardware vendors.

1) If you do not have the system specs to run Vista then don't - stick with XP until you do - it's that simple.
Click to expand...

But you can get a new machine and it will run XP 40% faster then Vista. Problem is, that choice will no longer be an option in a couple of months. It's Vista, take it not leave it.

2) If your software doesn't work on Vista - don't blame Microsoft blame the software vendor.
Click to expand...

Again, do you have any idea what is involved with changing an old application to work with Vista? Hell, MS used to tell all of the developers that machine settings should be stored in the HKLM of the registry and they have now made that a nightmare.
 
VISTA Benefits

quovadis said:
It has some features that 90% of users don't even use or care about.
Click to expand...

Off hand: what are the benefits of upgrading to VISTA?

Ofcourse a big concern on deciding which way to go (at least for gaming) would be that DX10 is not available for Windows XP and already games are starting to appear that are 'Vista Only'.
 
quovadis said:
XP handles 4GB (2GB per App) in 32 bit. If you want more memory unfortunately you'll have to go 64bit. Undoubtedly that'll open a whole new can of worms with 32bit apps and drivers not necessarily working.
Click to expand...
XP is supposed to handle 4GB of RAM in 32-bit, but only recognises ~3.5GB of it. So pretty much 512MB is going to be wasted. I have not had any significant problems with running a 64-bit OS.

The release of Vista was like a premature birth. It was too early. At least 6 months premature. It may survive, but it has large-scale problems that now takes a long time, lots of frustration and worries to fix. Until then, it is pretty much borderline between surviving and being tossed away.

Then came Service Pack 1. This can only be described as an abortion. No, really. Some people found it okay, others booted to a blue screen and ended up reinstalling Vista. This is where Linux trumps all- they release several beta's (something like 6 Hardy beta versions) before releasing the final version. Hardy is due out in 6 days. Believe me, it won't crash everyday, have any significant compatibility issues (actually there shouldn't be any at all) and last but not least, it won't be a hurried piece of work. Maybe Microsoft should take a peek at what is going right on the Linux side of life.
 
killadoob said:
only ppl who do basic daily chores can use linux as their main OS
Click to expand...

Which is 99% of the home users out there.

Most users use their PCs to surf the web, check emails, message their friends on IM and listen to music.

Linux is perfect for all of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X