Windows Vista [Archive]

rlbell

17-01-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by SirPeter+Jan 17 2006, 02:51 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SirPeter @ Jan 17 2006, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Bobbin Threadbare@Jan 17 2006, 02:42 PM
What do you think?
Notice something cool about IE7?

Stolen tabs like FireFox?
Stolen quick search on the right from FireFox?

Vista will be to big for a OS. Takes to much memory etc.
Im sticking with XP then next few years. [/b][/quote]
WinXP, you MS junkie.

I still use Win98, because some companies are still releasing games for it. I cannot actually buy any of the newer games, as they all require too much memory speed and video RAM. The other reason that I stick with Win98 is that I will never have to reactivate it.

Microsoft is the worst thing to happen in the history of computer science. They use their monopoly power to stifle innovation and perpetuate their monopoly power. They seem to believe that every computer user is required to pay them money to rent their shoddy software. Perhaps the worst thing that they have done though, is conditioned users to believe that the unreliability of Microsoft products is normal and that they shouldn't expect any better. While most of the computer industry makes do with very narrow margins, for every $11 that customers pay for MS Office, $8 is profit.

The rest of the world is slowly coming round to the idea that giving Microsoft money to develop products that they will be forced to pay to upgrade to in the future is a bad idea. More importantly, the rest of the world is coming around to the notion that if Microsoft stops supporting any of their proprietary file formats, there is no way to read old electronic documents. People are already discovering how bad digital rights management software is (It only works by preventing the owner of having full control of his computer [look up the Sony rootkit fiasco]), so we can imagine how they will feel about an operating system with inbuilt DRM. Although you will still have to purchase the hardware that you use, it will be Microsoft that decides what software runs on it, so it will be Microsoft that owns your PC.

Nancy Reagan said it best: Just say NO to Microsoft.

If you have not already guessed, I use linux and the actual install was easier than the Win98 install for my PC.

Puffin

17-01-2006, 02:41 PM

My computer will never handle this ^_^

Bobbin Threadbare

17-01-2006, 02:43 PM

@rlbell: Ever hear of borrow from someone. Or pi-rate pi-rate pi-rate pi-rate. We didn't pay for any of our Win OS's nor did we get Office free. This stuff was mostly borrowed.

efthimios

17-01-2006, 02:50 PM

I will not get Vista, I see no point in it, upgrade for upgrade's sake looks like to me.
Plus, though I have a very fast pc, I see ZERO reasons to slow it down even a bit for Vista. Asta la vista baby.

Javaguy

17-01-2006, 03:03 PM

uh hmm
I hate the blue buttons, and personally linux GUI looks just as pretty.
dont like the price or the resource hoggingness it will undoubtably be
basicly.. I cant afford it ;)
and never will

Don Andy

17-01-2006, 04:16 PM

Looks just like Windows XP, just a bit more *bling *bling*

And the only good thing they could do to IE would be removing it.

Bobbin Threadbare

17-01-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Don Andy@Jan 18 2006, 03:16 AM
Looks just like Windows XP, just a bit more *bling *bling*

And the only good thing they could do to IE would be removing it.
And offering to use Firefox as the browser.

Dark Piedone

17-01-2006, 04:22 PM

I heard rumours that Windows Vista will not support Direct X 9, so if you want to play a game that requiers Direct X 9 or other application you will need an emulator because Windows Vista supports ONLY Direct X 10.
Personnaly Windows Vista sucks,a friend of mine said once that all look exactly like Windows 95, a taskbar down on the screen, the aspect of the window is similar, and other few things that sadly remained unchanged since Windows 95, the only thing changed is the visual aspect and other stuff so the system can work better. Anyway I use Win 98 and I think is the best of all.

rlbell

17-01-2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Bobbin Threadbare@Jan 17 2006, 03:43 PM
@rlbell: Ever hear of borrow from someone. Or pi-rate pi-rate pi-rate pi-rate. We didn't pay for any of our Win OS's nor did we get Office free. This stuff was mostly borrowed.
Why would I violate copyright to get a product that I have no use for?

Linux is free to use and install, runs dosbox just fine; although, my being shackled to a 28.8 connection means that i cannot easily get all of the libraries to run dosbox on the linux side of my dual boot system, so I play my old games with Win98SE (the software and license came with the computer and my wife and I were only just starting our linux migration).

The only thing that I actually need Win98 for is running my archiving software. After two too many hard drive failures, I spent the money for a professional disk imaging suite, and it works with linux disk partitions, too.

Besides, Bill Gates likes it if you pirate his software. It means that you will not try anything else, and that you are more likely to buy his software when circumstances prevent you from just pirating.

rlbell

17-01-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Bobbin Threadbare+Jan 17 2006, 05:21 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bobbin Threadbare @ Jan 17 2006, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Don Andy@Jan 18 2006, 03:16 AM
Looks just like Windows XP, just a bit more *bling *bling*

And the only good thing they could do to IE would be removing it.
And offering to use Firefox as the browser. [/b][/quote]
Microsoft would rather eat its own children. If Microsoft unbundled IE from the OS, few people would use IE and demands for standards compliant web browsing would force Microsoft to take out all of the proprietary HTML extensions. The fallout from this is that if few people are using IE as their web browser, there is little reason to use Microsoft server software, a market that MS has enough trouble with, despite the fact that many intel based servers are shipped with a MS server package, as most have their disk re-imaged with Apache running on linux.

There are also legal troubles with unbundling IE. One of the MS claims in the US DOJ anti-trust suit was that they could not unbundle IE from the OS. The successors-in-interest to the original Netscape group could sue MS for restraint of trade with a reasonable expectation of being offered hundreds of millions of dollars to drop the claim before going to trial (Microsoft hates to lose court cases, but engages in such egregious business practices, that it cannot win [Just look at their giving Linspire, called Lindows at the time, $20 million to let MS drop the trademark infringement case]).

Finally, MS needs to have tightly integrated networking software so that their DRM software will work. I find it hard to imagine that independant browser providers will program in hooks to let MS verify that you have licenses for all of the software installed on your machine. You might dismiss me as paranoid but MS software will already do auto-updates. Without the ability to ensure no unauthorised copying, the Windows Media Format may lose its preeminence and force the Windows Media Player to handle multiple formats.

Microsoft would rather die than open up its standards to competition and they may just get their wish.

Don Andy

17-01-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by rlbell+Jan 17 2006, 09:15 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ Jan 17 2006, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Bobbin Threadbare@Jan 17 2006, 05:21 PM
******QuoteBegin-Don Andy@Jan 18 2006, 03:16 AM
Looks just like Windows XP, just a bit more *bling *bling*

And the only good thing they could do to IE would be removing it.
And offering to use Firefox as the browser.
Microsoft would rather eat its own children. If Microsoft unbundled IE from the OS, few people would use IE and demands for standards compliant web browsing would force Microsoft to take out all of the proprietary HTML extensions. The fallout from this is that if few people are using IE as their web browser, there is little reason to use Microsoft server software, a market that MS has enough trouble with, despite the fact that many intel based servers are shipped with a MS server package, as most have their disk re-imaged with Apache running on linux.

There are also legal troubles with unbundling IE. One of the MS claims in the US DOJ anti-trust suit was that they could not unbundle IE from the OS. The successors-in-interest to the original Netscape group could sue MS for restraint of trade with a reasonable expectation of being offered hundreds of millions of dollars to drop the claim before going to trial (Microsoft hates to lose court cases, but engages in such egregious business practices, that it cannot win [Just look at their giving Linspire, called Lindows at the time, $20 million to let MS drop the trademark infringement case]).

Finally, MS needs to have tightly integrated networking software so that their DRM software will work. I find it hard to imagine that independant browser providers will program in hooks to let MS verify that you have licenses for all of the software installed on your machine. You might dismiss me as paranoid but MS software will already do auto-updates. Without the ability to ensure no unauthorised copying, the Windows Media Format may lose its preeminence and force the Windows Media Player to handle multiple formats.

Microsoft would rather die than open up its standards to competition and they may just get their wish. [/b][/quote]
You did not really take my rant serious, did you?
I mean, of course I know Microsoft would never take out IE. Why should they anyway? (Besides the reasons you gave.)

I just tried to say "IE sucks, the only improvement would removement" ;)

But actually, after seeing how much IE actually sucks, and seeing how much they changed it for IE7, I guess they're taking one big step to Firefox/Opera.

phreeze

18-01-2006, 01:48 PM

uerf....the new iexplore wants to take a challenge with firefox hehe OMG

Bobbin Threadbare

18-01-2006, 01:52 PM

And IE is not safe.

List of popular SAFE browsers. http://browsehappy.com/browsers/

Fruit Pie Jones

18-01-2006, 04:06 PM

Hmmmmm, Opera and Safari have tabbed browsing, I see. Those greedy bastards must have ripped off Firefox too.

SupSuper

18-01-2006, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones@Jan 18 2006, 05:06 PM
Hmmmmm, Opera and Safari have tabbed browsing, I see. Those greedy bastards must have ripped off Firefox too.
Pretty much any browser but IE has tabbed browsing :P

Danny252

18-01-2006, 09:25 PM

It looks like one of those linux images... or maybe Mac.. too smooth.

It had best have win98 themes.

And those tabs really do look ugly...

Melikey Mozzie Firriefo'.

Stebbi

18-01-2006, 10:13 PM

my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?

Danny252

18-01-2006, 10:28 PM

its the new windows? LOL

rlbell

19-01-2006, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Don Andy@Jan 17 2006, 09:53 PM

You did not really take my rant serious, did you?
I mean, of course I know Microsoft would never take out IE. Why should they anyway? (Besides the reasons you gave.)

I just tried to say "IE sucks, the only improvement would removement" ;)

But actually, after seeing how much IE actually sucks, and seeing how much they changed it for IE7, I guess they're taking one big step to Firefox/Opera.
I suffer from a form of compulsive pedantism that will sometimes map sarcasm to "dangerous ignorance that desperately needs to be removed by education". As a result, I can be catapulted into a fit of typing up posts of information that my peers seem to be lacking. Nuclear safety is another topic that will elicit voluminous amounts of information from me. Other topics sure to get a lot of text from me involve electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution, or posts by secular humanists that boil down to them being shocked and disappointed by the pope being a catholic.

my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?
Stebbi, I would doublecheck the EULA before making any such statements (at least this outburst is short).

Don Andy

19-01-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by rlbell+Jan 19 2006, 04:14 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ Jan 19 2006, 04:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Don Andy@Jan 17 2006, 09:53 PM

You did not really take my rant serious, did you?
I mean, of course I know Microsoft would never take out IE. Why should they anyway? (Besides the reasons you gave.)

I just tried to say "IE sucks, the only improvement would removement" ;)

But actually, after seeing how much IE actually sucks, and seeing how much they changed it for IE7, I guess they're taking one big step to Firefox/Opera.
I suffer from a form of compulsive pedantism that will sometimes map sarcasm to "dangerous ignorance that desperately needs to be removed by education". As a result, I can be catapulted into a fit of typing up posts of information that my peers seem to be lacking. Nuclear safety is another topic that will elicit voluminous amounts of information from me. Other topics sure to get a lot of text from me involve electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution, or posts by secular humanists that boil down to them being shocked and disappointed by the pope being a catholic.

my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?
Stebbi, I would doublecheck the EULA before making any such statements (at least this outburst is short). [/b][/quote]
Well, OK, then, there wasn't any lack of information for me to be filled, but I'm glad somebody did anyway ;)

And sarcasm is often misunderstood over the Inet, it's hard to display anyway. And since some people don't even know the difference between sarcasm and "dangerous ignorance that desperately needs to be removed by education"....

Bobbin Threadbare

19-01-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by rlbell+Jan 19 2006, 02:14 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ Jan 19 2006, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Don Andy@Jan 17 2006, 09:53 PM
I guess they're taking one big step to Firefox/Opera. [/b][/quote]
While we're on the topic of Opera :P

It is free. I tried it today. I don't really like it.

swiss

19-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by efthimios@Jan 17 2006, 04:50 PM
Asta la vista baby.
isn't that Hasta la vista?

anyway. I think it looks just like ripps of other spectacular OSes like Mac OS X and some Linux thingys. Windows will never be what it was once the 95 Version released.

And thinking of "oh no direct x9 is no longer supported" I really do not have any urges to get Vista ... the only prob is that I am going to have a new computer one day and there will be Vista preinstalled ... maybe then I check it out ...

Stebbi

19-01-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by rlbell@Jan 19 2006, 04:14 AM
my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?
Stebbi, I would doublecheck the EULA before making any such statements (at least this outburst is short).
..........what?

Reup

19-01-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by rlbell@Jan 19 2006, 06:14 AM
...or posts by secular humanists that boil down to them being shocked and disappointed by the pope being a catholic.
Oh man, LMAO here...

But seriously. Vista will be the same but newer. There will be benefits from using it, and many, many downsides as well, most notably the price. But, as Microsoft has an unprecented talent for running a good marketing campaign, they'll undoubtebly succeed in making Vista a succes. They strike the deals with Dell, HP and other PC retailers, not to mention that their excellent educational licensing (i.e. practically giving the stuff away to any educational facility) gives them a vast userbase.
Power-users know there's more fish in the sea, but most people couldn't care less about their OS, as long as they can email, play a game or two and download Pr0n, they're happy.

JM0.02$

rlbell

19-01-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Stebbi+Jan 19 2006, 09:08 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stebbi @ Jan 19 2006, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-rlbell@Jan 19 2006, 04:14 AM
my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?
Stebbi, I would doublecheck the EULA before making any such statements (at least this outburst is short).
..........what? [/b][/quote]
In order to prevent you from disabling the features that will be built in to keep you from making illegal copies of copyright protected material, it will be necessary for Windows Vista to own your computer. The EULA is the acronym for the End User Licensing Agreement which is where you, the end user, agrees to give up as many of your rights that Microsoft can legally get you to, in return for being allowed to use their software (all software companies do this).

If you read the EULA, you will understand that the software comes with no guarantees. Specifically, in the Microsoft EULA, there is no guarantee that the software will either run or perform any useful function, if it does run. By installing the software, you are agreeing to those terms.

efthimios

19-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by swiss+Jan 19 2006, 04:14 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (swiss @ Jan 19 2006, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-efthimios@Jan 17 2006, 04:50 PM
Asta la vista baby.
isn't that Hasta la vista?

[/b][/quote]
Does it matter if I missed a letter? I mean, really really matters? :not_ok:

Bobbin Threadbare

20-01-2006, 02:42 AM

I'll get Linux instead...

Stebbi

20-01-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by rlbell+Jan 19 2006, 11:16 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ Jan 19 2006, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Stebbi@Jan 19 2006, 09:08 PM
******QuoteBegin-rlbell@Jan 19 2006, 04:14 AM
my new comp would own this vist thingy but, what makes it so special?
Stebbi, I would doublecheck the EULA before making any such statements (at least this outburst is short).
..........what?
In order to prevent you from disabling the features that will be built in to keep you from making illegal copies of copyright protected material, it will be necessary for Windows Vista to own your computer. The EULA is the acronym for the End User Licensing Agreement which is where you, the end user, agrees to give up as many of your rights that Microsoft can legally get you to, in return for being allowed to use their software (all software companies do this).

If you read the EULA, you will understand that the software comes with no guarantees. Specifically, in the Microsoft EULA, there is no guarantee that the software will either run or perform any useful function, if it does run. By installing the software, you are agreeing to those terms. [/b][/quote]
um okay who the hell would give microsoft their cpu, and i was just talking about that my new cpu would run this OS perfectly....

Iron_Scarecrow

20-01-2006, 03:30 PM

Jus for the hell of saying it: I have nothing against Monopolists.

SupSuper

20-01-2006, 03:59 PM

It's an even more bloated and resource-demanding Windows! So what else is new?

rlbell

20-01-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Iron_Scarecrow@Jan 20 2006, 04:30 PM
Jus for the hell of saying it: I have nothing against Monopolists.
Monopolies are not inherently evil. They even have their uses. Copyrights and patents are both granted monopolies. They are issued so that people will go through the trouble of being creative. It is supposed to work like this: I invent something useful, like the magnetic tape cassette, and let anyone build it who pays a dime per unit. The patent allows me to make money from licensing and protect my creation by taking any unlicensed infringer to court.

There are also natural monopolies. No one is going to have multiple sets of plumbing in their home to allow different water suppliers and sewage removers to compete for their business. So long as the utilities are prevented from price gouging, they are allowed a monopoly to allow them to recoup the high initial investment.

Microsoft is a monopoly because they have enough money to force computer manufacturers to install their software on their systems. They leverage their control of the desktop to prevent competition (if everyone gets Internet Explorer for free, why pay for a web browser? With native ActiveX support, why bother with the Java virtual machine?). Because they have control of the interface, with a version patch, they can break any competing application, or prevent interoperability.

For reasons that I cannot imagine, the Bush administration decided that the US economy was better served by letting Microsoft continue to gouge customers for their products and then sit on the money, than let american business pay less for their productivity software and reinvest the difference.

Microsoft has entered many markets, but in each market that it cannot leverage its monopoly power, it fares poorly. Microsoft is heavy handed about wielding its monopoly power, because it knows that it has forgotten how to compete and lives in fear of being forced to be competitive.

I apologise for the rant, but there are monopolies, and then there are evil empires

Playbahnosh

20-01-2006, 10:24 PM

Who said anything about BUYING? I don't BUY software or anything that cannot be touched or owned in the meaning. The software term is a bit defected. It isn't actually soft. no, its bloody hard to actually keep intact. I mean Window$ that is. Why the hell should I pay hilarious ammount of cold hard cash to be able to run programs? I did it when I bought my computer damit.

Why do you actually buy a computer? Think about it. To play games, to watch movies and do many kinda stuff on it. BUT, when you buy your computer it is empty. If you wanna run ANY program, you need an operating system, go figure.

I won't pay for Vista, nor did I pay for XP or any other OS. Why should I? Thats just a framework for running REAL programs. And without it you are as good as none. I only buy games or programs that DESERVES to be payd for. Like StarCraft, or CS 1.6 from games. The Independence Day from movies. Or FL Studio from programs(I didn't pay for that actually, but if I gather some more money I will buy a copy for sure). This is different for everybody, but one thing still stands, The OS. Why pay for the ABILITY to pay for programs?

You can't be sure if a game, movie or program is good, until you try it out to it's full extent. You play through the entire game, you watch the movie or work with the program until you are sure of the judgement. This demo/shareware/30daystrialperiod stuff is just nonsense. You cannot possibly judge a program in 30 days, not as complex as FL Studio anyways. And you can't be sure that a game is good until you play it through. Then why buy something you don't actually sure that is good for you, or it's worth the money?

Okay this probably sounds like a revolt for copyright infregment, so I won't continue. This is my own personal opinion. Kids, don't try this at home! :D

Anyway, Windows Vista is just another pathetic mix of what MS thinks is good for the user. I read something about 3D icons and background, and stuff, I don't know if it's actually true or not, but to tell the truth íi don't really care. I use XP until I feel the need to go for something else.

wee, its over. Happy?

win98

20-01-2006, 10:32 PM

I will get Vista when I upgrade my PC because I like windows even though it gets all this critisem.

Playbahnosh

20-01-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by win98@Jan 21 2006, 12:32 AM
I will get Vista when I upgrade my PC because I like windows even though it gets all this critisem.
...and your nick is Win98. Yeah right :D

efthimios

20-01-2006, 11:24 PM

I guess it is because some people WORKED to create your OS that you are so easy to steal (or imply that you do). Because people do need to work and you having a computer to play games is not your *dirty word* right. You were not born with the right to steal others. Because it is software it is not any less stealing than anything else.
I hope one day when you grow up and get a job, to have other people steal your work and see how nice that feels.

Blood-Pigggy

20-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Concering Microsoft hate :
My friend swears he will never buy anything produced by Microsoft.
Evidently he didn't do his research because he owns a X-Box he bought with his own money.

Microsoft isn't that bad, and having a monopoly just because you know how to make money isn't evil.
But I'm not saying Microsoft's methods aren't morally questionable, I'm just saying they aren't a company to be hating on.

XP is fine when you turn off certain features, (and the Professional version is a absolute blessing).
But for god's sake, can't they just take off those stupid graphical desktop enhancements? I don't want colorful toolbars and windows, I just want a freakin' fast computer without having the OS eat up my Processing speed with needless programs and graphics.

Hopefully they won't be stupid and find a way to speed up the performance even with all these graphical fonts and themes.

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 11:24 PM
I won't pay for Vista, nor did I pay for XP or any other OS. Why should I? Thats just a framework for running REAL programs. And without it you are as good as none. I only buy games or programs that DESERVES to be payd for. Like StarCraft, or CS 1.6 from games. The Independence Day from movies. Or FL Studio from programs(I didn't pay for that actually, but if I gather some more money I will buy a copy for sure). This is different for everybody, but one thing still stands, The OS. Why pay for the ABILITY to pay for programs?
HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS????
DESERVE??? what do you mean by deserve???
houndrets of people developed operating system for LOTS of hours, weeks, month and years! do you know, EVEN CARE how difficult this is?
operatg system is root of your computer. if hardware is body then operating system is soul
without operating systems NONE of your starcrafts-counterstrikes WOULD work
and this is not less then any "real program"-as you call it
DO-YOU-GET-IT?

//iam sorry to get that angry but that post just killed me

btw Playbanosh do you use any program/OS of those you did not pay for?

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by efthimios@Jan 21 2006, 01:24 AM
...Because people do need to work and you having a computer to play games is not your *dirty word* right.* You were not born with the right to steal others...
:omg:
Well duh! Why would I pay for (or if you insist, how could I possibly steal) something that apparently has NO VALUE AT ALL? Like windows. It is a nice load of male cow excrement, what they try to keep together with patches and updates. Like when you buy a car and the dealer runs after you yelling "I forgot the steering weel, waaaait". Oh, I do know that some ppl worked day-to-night, neglected family, deivorced...etc to make Windows. Well, aawww. Poor little bastards, isn't it? Hell no! They got their fat paycheck at the end of the month, regardless if I bougth their useless piece of *dirty word* or not.

Second, windows is not something like a toaster that you can take back to the shop and get your money back if you don't like it. Can you take any software back to the shop sayin "I don't like it, give me back my money?" of course you can, but all you gotta get is a big laugh. Windows comes with absolutely no guarantee, and other softwares too if you read the EULA. If a software (that you actually payed for) screws up your computer, you cant do anything but sit in the corner and cry.

You can call me pirate or gangster or anything, that won't change the fact that I won't buy anything that has no value to me. I buy quality software becouse those people really DESERVES that money. But sady those softwares are hard to find.

Just think about this: StarCraft is sold worldwide in thousands of copies even nowdays! Thousands of people play it online around the world even as we argue. Those people (including me) BOUGHT StarCraft. Where is that money now? Where is StarCraft 2? Nowhere to find...

If you say, I stole windows so I didn't payed for it. So did millions worldwide. And windows vista is here. Where the money from? Nowhere? interesting isn't it? If I pay for the software of my choice, nothing happens. Blizzard gone bankrupt, no StarCraft 2 for us. BUT If I don't pay for windows, it doesn't matter they release vista. Money flows in from the abyss? Go figure.

All in all, say what you will, but don't say that every single software you use or used in the past was payed for. If you do, you are lying...

'nuff said.

btw Playbanosh do you use any program/OS of those you did not pay for?

If I find that a game or program is good enough to earn my support, yes I buy a copy of it definetly. If I find out that a program is not good, why should I use it, no I delete them. As for windows, I have no choice you see. As I said, I support quality software, but I won't pay for crap. That's it.

Blood-Pigggy

21-01-2006, 01:00 AM

What do you mean no value at all?
Do you realize how difficult it is to make a operating system? Do you know WHY Microsoft has a monopoly right now? Because it's insanely difficult to create a operating system, not only that, it takes forever.

You should be grateful that there are people actually making operating systems, they spend hours upon hours writing some of the most MONOTONOUS and BORING code in existence, so you can have a USER-INTERFACE!

Guess what, it is worth alot, and saying "I won't pay for a program so I can run my programs", well okay, I guess that's fine, but what about the fact that WE DON'T WANT TO USE DOS!

I would rather use the most horrid operating system EVER than use DOS, that thing was the most atrocious pile of crap ever!

I would really respect the fact that there are actually people doing this. Fine, their attempts aren't always succesful, but so far, it's the best out there. Mac is too native, they don't spread out far enough. Linux is far too complex due to lazy programming, and several other OS have crazy problems.

I would rather use Windows than anything else out there, that's why I pay for it, Linux may be free, but that doesn't matter squat. I want to pay some people to make a system that lets my computer work, and function by itself.
You realize that a OS doesn't just run as a basis for programs? Your OS decides what goes where, how that happens, how the BIOS operates, and which components are used at which times, they aren't just some kind of cheap scam to get you to pay to play stuff on your PC, they make OS so you can actually work on your PC without having to worry about text-interfaces.

Sorry if that sounded too agrivated, but there are some points in your argument I don't get.

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 01:04 AM

Well duh! Why would I pay for (or if you insist, how could I possibly steal) something that apparently has NO VALUE AT ALL? Like windows.
1. it HAS value, it seems you realy dont understad how realy important and valuable operating system is

Oh, I do know that some ppl worked day-to-night, neglected family, deivorced...etc to make Windows. Well, aawww. Poor little bastards, isn't it? Hell no! They got their fat paycheck at the end of the month, regardless if I bougth their useless piece of *dirty word* or not.
2.if someone works on something whole nights, they will get their paycheck BECOUSE you pay and support it, and you didnt. luck is we have other-good people in the world too...

Second, windows is not something like a toaster that you can take back to the shop and get your money back if you don't like it. Can you take any software back to the shop sayin "I don't like it, give me back my money?" of course you can, but all you gotta get is a big laugh. Windows comes with absolutely no guarantee, and other softwares too if you read the EULA. If a software (that you actually payed for) screws up your computer, you cant do anything but sit in the corner and cry.
3. if software screws your computer (unless its not at-your-own-risk, which is your foolishness to use), you can judge

You can call me pirate or gangster or anything, that won't change the fact that I won't buy anything that has no value to me. I buy quality software becouse those people really DESERVES that money. But sady those softwares are hard to find.
4.they DESERVE money, but you, hypocrite, dont see it. if not-stop using their soft and make PlaybanoshXP and shut up

Just think about this: StarCraft is sold worldwide in thousands of copies even nowdays! Thousands of people play it online around the world even as we argue. Those people (including me) BOUGHT StarCraft. Where is that money now? Where is StarCraft 2? Nowhere to find...
5the fact you pay for starcraft doesnt mean that starcraft2 would be made.
they made a soft- starcraft, you like it and pay for it. thats it. sarcraft2 has NOTHING to do with this

If you say, I stole windows so I didn't payed for it. So did millions worldwide. And windows vista is here. Where the money from? Nowhere? interesting isn't it? If I pay for the software of my choice, nothing happens. Blizzard gone bankrupt, no StarCraft 2 for us. BUT If I don't pay for windows, it doesn't matter they release vista. Money flows in from the abyss? Go figure.
AND WHAT DO YOU THING ARE MONEY FROM?
little fairy make them for Bill Gates?
or is it "taken from us people, from taxes, blah blah blah"?
NO
WE- WE WHO PAY FOR OUR WINDOWS, THERE IS WHERE ARE MONEY FROM
and now YOU have your *beep* windows form OUR *BEEP* MONEY :ranting: :ranting:

JEEZ!

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 01:18 AM

Finally an intelligent man. Thanks for replying Pigggy. I know that writing an operating system is no easy task, I never said that it is. I know some people are just doing their jobs in there coding like hell. ITs a sorry job, the worst job a programmer can actually get I know. I myself is a university student in Information Technology. If anybody, I know how difficult is to write a program, not even an OS. I CHOSE to become a programmer, even becouse of these circumstances. If I ever graduate, I'll try to write programs that are valuable to some people. I know how hard is to code monotone sh!t all day, I do it every day.

But I know that microsoft can do better than this. They release crap after crap knowing that they got the monopoly so people will buy any sh!t they can throw. And THIS is the sad thing. I know wrinting an OS is hard...etc, but how much harder could it be to write it good I ask? Some minor bugs are tolerable, but EVERY single windows has major errors and pathetic bugs in it. They use the same STOLEN base code in every single OS they release. Did you know Bill STOLE the base of windows and released it as his own? That doesn't make it right what I do, I know, but if they can write an OS, why don't they care about what they release?

I'm not "hijacking" windows becouse it IS the OS, rather I do it becouse that is crap. and Pigggy you are absolutely right. This is the best OS out there, and THIS, my friend, THIS IS THE SAD THING.

Quality software is something of the old generation. Vista is rather a graphical orgasm than a real OS. This stands for all the games out there. No gameplay, no replayablity no real game feeling, no real value just shiny graphics and phisical engine. Sadly the kids and users nowdays want just this....

@r.u.s.s.

Calm down dude, jeez. Hey I wasn't insulting you in any way. Why do you use dirty words against me? You can do it nontheless, but why bother flaming when we can talk like intelligent people? This is not the russian government dude, we don't kill each other here. I said my opinion, you can say yours. You can say that I'm not right and you can say why. This is how it goes. Of course you can flame me all you will, but will that change anything? I hope we can come to terms...

Now regarding your statements. You say I'm the enemy? Wooo, look there is the big Playbahnosh moster who doesn't pay for windows. I'm the bad guy now huh? Look, I know how you feel, but its not I who took your money. Microsoft did. I'm sorry if you payd for it, it was your choice, and this is mine. If microsoft will finally release an operatin system that really operates and not just a system, I will be the first to buy it, I swear an oath right here. But until that, they won't get a friggin cent. They are doing just fine releasing crap without my support, they don't need my money.

Regarding the salary issue. Progrramers get payed monthly just like regular working people do. They get their money regardless if they are working on will be good or bad. They are not payed after they release the software. Thats Bill who gets paid after they release the software. Your money lands on His account, not the working man's....

Blood-Pigggy

21-01-2006, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 09:18 PM

But I know that microsoft can do better than this. They release crap after crap knowing that they got the monopoly so people will buy any sh!t they can throw. And THIS is the sad thing. I know wrinting an OS is hard...etc, but how much harder could it be to write it good I ask? Some minor bugs are tolerable, but EVERY single windows has major errors and pathetic bugs in it. They use the same STOLEN base code in every single OS they release. Did you know Bill STOLE the base of windows and released it as his own? That doesn't make it right what I do, I know, but if they can write an OS, why don't they care about what they release?

I agree 100% with that.
I acknowledge the fact that some people are working hard and long to make OS, but how Microsoft can decide to ship without correcting obvious mistakes is stupid.

That is one of the biggest problems in this industry, developers aren't given enough time, just so the publisher can get it out the door and make cash fast.

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy@Jan 21 2006, 03:40 AM
That is one of the biggest problems in this industry, developers aren't given enough time, just so the publisher can get it out the door and make cash fast.
Exactly. I don't want to hurt the coding people, I know they are just doing their jobs, but they get their payment nontheless. The developers are trying to do the best they could to make some quality software(well, some of them actually does), but they 1, don't really have time to finish what they started becouse they've given far less time from the publisher or 2, they got far less money FROM the publisher to develop resulting in crappy stuff.

How much of the price of the software do yo think actually goes to the developers? 20% to none. The rest goes to Uncle Sam and the publishers. The developers are no longer develop stuff they want, well not in lot of cases anyway. They do what the publisher tell them. This is in fact a sad thing, that the art of designing a program goes out the window becouse of some fat bastards looking for some cold cash another car...

mini_actionman

21-01-2006, 03:32 AM

ive got windows vista and my computer 1.7gigahertz 256ram
and its run perfectly i wouldnt recommend it, its all a new colour scheme
mini_actionman@hotmail.com

rlbell

21-01-2006, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy@Jan 21 2006, 12:40 AM

Microsoft isn't that bad, and having a monopoly just because you know how to make money isn't evil.
But I'm not saying Microsoft's methods aren't morally questionable, I'm just saying they aren't a company to be hating on.

You will forgive me if I never have any business dealings with you, because you do not consider Microsoft to be "that bad".

Microsoft kills competition, and to a lesser extant kills innovation in the following way:

Suppose you come up with a killer app that people will spend money to use, but have no other revenue stream. Microsoft notices that your niche market could bring in alot of money, but they have no product for that niche. Microsoft then quickly releases a new product that they bundle into the next version of Windows, so you are competing with a product that people do not pay for. Microsoft absorbs the losses of the giveaway into the huge profits from Windows and Office. As the new computer of potential customers already has the Microsoft version and your version has yet to be patched for the new user interface, potential customers stick with the MS product, because it is there. You try to take them to court, but you have no revenue stream to fight Microsoft in a lengthy court battle, so you accept the paltry settlement that MS offers you to shut up (you might find it a large sum, but to MS it is a pittance).

A known variation of the above has Microsoft steal your product, but it ends in the same way.

Netscape, RealPlayer, and Lotus were all attacked in this way. The WordPerfect situation is a little different, as Novel has lots of other revenue to let it have its day in court.

Microsoft's attempt to close down RealPlayer garnered it a record breaking four hundred million euro fine (which it is appealing).

In the case of Netscape, the US Department of Justice took them to court and got a conviction. However, the Department of Justice seems to have not bothered to actually punish Microsoft for their behaviour.

For the love of Aslan, what does a company have to do for you to call it bad?

rlbell

21-01-2006, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy+Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blood-Pigggy @ Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 09:18 PM

But I know that microsoft can do better than this. They release crap after crap knowing that they got the monopoly so people will buy any sh!t they can throw. And THIS is the sad thing. I know wrinting an OS is hard...etc, but how much harder could it be to write it good I ask? Some minor bugs are tolerable, but EVERY single windows has major errors and pathetic bugs in it. They use the same STOLEN base code in every single OS they release. Did you know Bill STOLE the base of windows and released it as his own? That doesn't make it right what I do, I know, but if they can write an OS, why don't they care about what they release?

I agree 100% with that.
I acknowledge the fact that some people are working hard and long to make OS, but how Microsoft can decide to ship without correcting obvious mistakes is stupid.

That is one of the biggest problems in this industry, developers aren't given enough time, just so the publisher can get it out the door and make cash fast. [/b][/quote]
There are issues, and there are issues. An unknown (and unknowable) number of bugs in Windows and every other OS are the result of the work of Dykstra (sp?), who wondered what would happen if you created a non-deterministic computing model (you won't know what a program does before you run it). Part of the answer is that you can never know if it is completely debugged. On the other hand, you also get dynamically allocated memory and recursive programming methods, so it is unlikely that bug-free, multi-threaded operating systems were ever on the cards, if we refuse to run potentially buggy software.

Peculiar to Windows is the problem that if MS ever comes up with reasonably reliable set of features that satisfies their customer base, they have made their last sale. The largest competitor to the latest Windows upgrade is their pre-existing software base. To get people to buy the next version of Windows, the new version must add some new feature that the previous version lacked while still leaving the customer with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction that is not great enough to get them to migrate. You have never been satisfied by Windows, because it is not in Microsoft's best interests for you to ever be happy with it, just happier with this version than the last one.

Windows is plagued by the problems of adding the feature, without caring about how that feature could be exploited. You cannot design a feature and then add security to it. Especially if execution performance is important. Microsoft does not deliberately design their software to be vulnerable to hackers, it is just the only way to make it run at an acceptable speed. Active X is much faster than Java, but the java virtual machine tries to keep malicious code from untrusted sources (read everywhere else) from running amok in your hardware, but the emulation layer slows everything down. Active X is forced, by design, to trust everybody.

Security-wise, Windows suffers from never being originally designed to network. Networking was added afterwards. Linux was inspired byUnix, which was developed to control a distributed computer system that could be accessed from anywhere by anyone (the phone network), so security was the first thing on the mind of its designers. If unix-like operating systems appear to be less user-friendly and flexible it is because security-compromising features were left out.

You can design software to be bug free. It has been done for at least one nuclear power station. However, the bug-free nature comes at a price, software flexibility and power.

Stebbi

21-01-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+Jan 21 2006, 01:03 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s. @ Jan 21 2006, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 11:24 PM
I won't pay for Vista, nor did I pay for XP or any other OS. Why should I? Thats just a framework for running REAL programs. And without it you are as good as none. I only buy games or programs that DESERVES to be payd for. Like StarCraft, or CS 1.6 from games. The Independence Day from movies. Or FL Studio from programs(I didn't pay for that actually, but if I gather some more money I will buy a copy for sure). This is different for everybody, but one thing still stands, The OS. Why pay for the ABILITY to pay for programs?
HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS????
DESERVE??? what do you mean by deserve???
houndrets of people developed operating system for LOTS of hours, weeks, month and years! do you know, EVEN CARE how difficult this is?
operatg system is root of your computer. if hardware is body then operating system is soul
without operating systems NONE of your starcrafts-counterstrikes WOULD work
and this is not less then any "real program"-as you call it
DO-YOU-GET-IT?

//iam sorry to get that angry but that post just killed me

btw Playbanosh do you use any program/OS of those you did not pay for? [/b][/quote]
well some games just suck and are not worth wasting m,oney on......

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 12:43 PM

@rlbell 1

You are 100% right dude. Microsoft is not evil in the meaning of the word. They are business people, they are out for the cash. And they know how to get it. They abuse people. Well duh! Who doesn't? This is the oldest of the profiencies (not counting wh0res). They know that people NEED their crappy OS to run other crappy programs. They control the whole software market, cut this was they can control and redirect the cash flow to their accounts.

Did you see the documentary Pirates of Silicon Valley(I guess this was the title, not sure)? It's a bit old, but true nonetheless. It tells the story of the early Macintosh and IBM companies and the birth of Microsoft. It tells how Bill Gates TOOK PART in creating the base of an operating system FOR MAC computers, the mouse and so on. But he got an idea. He STOLE the fledling base OS, created Microsoft and released it as Windows before their partners had the time to react. That was Windows 1.0. Of course their partners took the case to court, but the fact that was a top secret project, they had no proof of taking part in it. Bill and his Windows lived happily ever after, the end. Brilliant move. It was nasty and evil, but you have to admit it was genius. And Bill continues to control the market with the same rotten-brilliant attitude. He is unfair and nasty, but he knows his marbles fo' shizzle.

@rlbell 2

I and Pigggy were not pointing out that windows must be bug-free. Nobody can do a program that complex bug free. I was just pointing out that EVERY SINGLE release of windows contains major error and pathetic bugs. For example, many people encountered the W32.Blaster.Worm a while back. It was a simple, yet entertaining worm. Of course it was annoying at some point, but when I realised what was it using to annoy people I gone rofl. Blaster uses a BUILT IN service of windows, I can't translate it now. Now look at this: They designed this service so, that wen it shuts down for some reason, it restarts the computer after 30 seconds. Why, I ask? Why 30 Seconds? "to save your data" right LOL. If it was THAT dangerous error, the windows should be freezed or BSOD or something like that no? Or just simply display a message sayin "this service was shut down. You must restart your computer as quickly as you can". This would be appropiate I think. But why give a countdown? ITs just annoying, and giving the feeling your computer will explode or something. All you can do is watch the clock ticking and you computer die. Well, rofl. And Blaster is no comlicated stuff, it uses a single method tho call a function from NTUSER.dll and shut down a certain service. Child's play.

This was only one hilarious bug, and there is Sasser written by a 14 y.o. guy from Germany. I was talking about this.

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Jan 21 2006, 02:18 AM

Calm down dude, jeez. Hey I wasn't insulting you in any way. Why do you use dirty words against me? You can do it nontheless, but why bother flaming when we can talk like intelligent people? This is not the russian government dude, we don't kill each other here. I said my opinion, you can say yours. You can say that I'm not right and you can say why. This is how it goes. Of course you can flame me all you will, but will that change anything? I hope we can come to terms...
ok, peace dude.

btw what do you have agains russian goverment?? :angry:

Master MC

21-01-2006, 02:17 PM

Will Vista have DOS-support?

Havell

21-01-2006, 02:43 PM

XP was the first step away from the inefficient and clunky DOS base, Vista is the second. So I doubt it, except in the form of emulators.

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Jan 21 2006, 03:18 PM
ok, peace dude.

btw what do you have agains russian goverment?? :angry:
oo-kay... You say peace with your first word, and attack me with your second. Wow :)

I have nothing against the russian goverment, but a while back they used to kill each other, if you've learned your history you have to know that. Of course those "purging programs" were not public, but everybody knows about it. I don't know how it goes nowdays, but considering there are occasional fights in the Duma, I doubt everything is in order.

But that is far off topic right now don't you think? :max:

@on topic

I doubt vista has any support for dos. XP only had a joke-of-an-emulator and was pretty much useless. You are better off using DosBOX. I don't know but I have a feeling that DosBOX actually won't run on vista. Not in its current form anyways.
This is only a business thing. They designed vista so, thatn only a small portion of the "chosen" programs can run on vista. Or to explain this more clearly, they um "restrict" the usage of "not wanted" programs. The rest, those are far less important then Microsoft to notice will continue working on the new system. At least if I was Bill I would do this...

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 06:49 PM

it wasnt attack it was a bit abusy from you, but it doesnt mater now
peace
=D

and bout that thing bout payng not for windows, you said that you dont pay becouse its crappy
ok i understand why dont you pay
yes it is crappy, but if everyone do this then we wouldnt have niether that crap we have now

if that you say its right and most of money go to uncle ...Mike? OH it was Sam and to bill gates pocket, not programmers pocket(if they got much less money then them)
then their prices are too high and anti monopoly ministry would "react"
or no? :blink:

efthimios

21-01-2006, 07:50 PM

If you use it, you have to pay for it since they are not giving it away. It doesn't matter if you don't like B.Gates, Microsoft or Windows with or without its bugs. You use it, you pay for it. If you do not, then you are a stinking thief. It is as simple as that.
There is no matter of right or wrong, matter of if you like it or not, or if you believe the OS is the worst out there. You use it, you pay for it.

Gandalf

21-01-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Reup@Jan 19 2006, 09:51 PM
But seriously. Vista will be the same but newer. There will be benefits from using it, and many, many downsides as well, most notably the price. But, as Microsoft has an unprecented talent for running a good marketing campaign, they'll undoubtebly succeed in making Vista a succes. They strike the deals with Dell, HP and other PC retailers, not to mention that their excellent educational licensing (i.e. practically giving the stuff away to any educational facility) gives them a vast userbase.
Power-users know there's more fish in the sea, but most people couldn't care less about their OS, as long as they can email, play a game or two and download Pr0n, they're happy.

JM0.02$
Yes, that's it!

So far every new version of Windows eventually found its way onto the HDs of millions of computers. Due to ubiquitous software piracy and bundling contracts that's only a matter of time. And of course this will happen once again with Windows Vista.
Other contributing factors are that Microsoft will quickly discontinue support for older OS including XP. So if you want to stay updated and "protected" you will be forced to use their newest version. And last but not least: watch the system requirements of newly released game titles. Due to the domination of Win2000/XP many developers have stopped testing and support for Win98/ME.

Looks like you can't stop the march of time, especially with MS pushing in your back. ;)

I certainly will give Vista a try. Hopefully there's an option to turn off all those fancy graphic effects. I don't like those giant icons, bars and menues, because they waste so much space and reduce usability instead of improving it.
With each version the desktop looks more and more like a showcase presenting its content to the world. Sigh, some people just want to work with it. What about the original meaning of "desktop"?

efthimios

21-01-2006, 09:19 PM

Gandalf, you can just, not use Vista. XP will continue to be supported by developers for years and years, till the sequel to Vista is out.

I have no plans to get Vista. I dislike the idea of graphic whoring the OS. I like OSes simple and doing what you want them to do. Plus I do not wish to lose resources for doing nothing extra (for me) than what XP can do.

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by efthimios@Jan 21 2006, 09:50 PM
...you use it, you have to pay for it... x3
:huh:
You are a bit closed-minded my friend. Do something for me, try to think outta the box, if only for a second. Try to think globally, to see the wole picture, not just your viewpoint. You will see that the enemy is not me no matter how you insist. The enemy is the progress unfolding out there in the software(and sadly in every single) market.

Look, not I caused Microsoft to release crap. If I had any small chance to interfere with Microsoft OS making program, I would do it. But sadly I have no chance to do that. If I had the knowledge and the funds to write an OS, I would asseble a team and write an OS THAT WORKS! I'm on my way to gather that knowledge right now, leaning programming and computer technology at the University Of Veszprém. But I'm just one drop in the ocean. And you are too dude. What do you think who did write Lunix? Some people thinking similar to me. They fed up with the MS crap and took the matter in their own hands. And why do you think it is free? To fend off the patriotic ownership ideology you were talking about. Lunix is open source. Why? Because this way many people (the end user) can help developing it. Who know better what's the problem with a certain program than the people using it? See, microsoft denies this opportunity because they like windows buggy. They don't want it to be perfect, because they need the market for the next release as the dudes before me explained so clearly.

You say I'm a thief and I stole YOUR money. Why do you say that? I was at your house and I took it or what? Bah, don't be rediculos. Read my earlier posts if you need more explanation.

You say if I use something I must pay for it. You ideology is just stupid. But you said it 3 times so you must think this. I'm sorry if I offend you with this, but if there is some common sense left in you will realise that that sentence is just wrong. Okay, let's think, for the example's sake, that you are right. Okay then, I take the monopoly over air. Now you breathe don't you? Then you must pay me money, say 1$/l from now on. You use air don't you? Then You must pay for it. You don't want to pay of course becouse you think it is unfair if I ask money for something that you use if you want it or not. Or I can say I take the monopoly of the sidewalk. You use it, you walk on it. So you must pay me 1$/m from now on. You are getting angry don't you? See my point?

If that was some incerdibly clear air, and it was scented pine, so it was QUALITY air, I would gladly pay for it. Other people do when they go on holiday to the mountains :) . But I breathe the same polluted smoke as you do day by day. And if the sidewalk was smooth and it was moving, taking me where I want to go, So it was QUALITY sidewalk, I would gladly pay for it. But I walk the same trashy and grainy sidewalk as you do. This stands for software, more particularly the OS. If I EVER see QUALITY OS, I will buy it, you will be the first to know dude :ok: But I won't support crap, I cannot emhasise that enough. If you keep supporting Microsoft as it is nowdays, they will sell you the same crap knowing you will gladly, patrioticly buy anything they throw at you. You do of course whatever you want to do, but think about this for a second.

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 09:56 PM

If you keep supporting Microsoft as it is nowdays, they will sell you the same crap knowing you will gladly, patrioticly buy anything they throw at you
and if you dont, you get nothing!

Playbahnosh

21-01-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Jan 21 2006, 11:56 PM
and if you dont, you get nothing!
You got a point there, but that's not entirely true. Actually, quite the contrary. If we can somehow open the eyes of the people and incite a revolt against crappy software, most importantly crappy OSs (like the one against computer piracy now), possibly more and more people will seize to pay for bullshhh windows. Then Microsoft will have no choice but to rearrange their ideas and finally release some quality software that actually usable, stable ad WORTH BUYING. I'm not talking about bug free and unearthly complete stuff, some minor bugs left unseen are tolerable. But you get my point from my earlier posts, I'm sure....

I'm not an armageddon prophet or something, I won't do anything like that, I just say that if we can somehow MAKE Microsoft to release a good OS, it will be better for all of us.

_r.u.s.s.

21-01-2006, 11:35 PM

i dont know, in my opinion they do what they can
at least.. programmers do

Blood-Pigggy

22-01-2006, 12:09 AM

OS = good
Dos = bad
I really don't think there's more of an argument as long as we have one leading OS.

Playbahnosh

22-01-2006, 12:20 AM

You are right r.u.s.s. I'm sure the programmers are doing the best they can. The problem is Microsoft, not the programmers. The fat executives that are stuffing their pockets, thats the problem. Second, as I see, the lack of organization beetween programmers is the bigger problem. The executives really don't know or don't care about the programming phase of the OS making. Of course you can't program an OS by yourself, so they divide the tasks beetween tons of programmers. This is good, but the lack of organization and teamwork causes programmers working against each other, conflicting codes and doubled-codes make the whole thing wrong. Of course when the time comes, some lead programmers try to salvage some good stuff and put together the whole thing, but in the end, you get Windows XP. Bleh...

plix

22-01-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Playbahnosh+Jan 21 2006, 08:43 AM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Playbahnosh @ Jan 21 2006, 08:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But he got an idea. He STOLE the fledling base OS, created Microsoft and released it as Windows before their partners had the time to react. That was Windows 1.0. Of course their partners took the case to court, but the fact that was a top secret project, they had no proof of taking part in it. Bill and his Windows lived happily ever after, the end. Brilliant move. It was nasty and evil, but you have to admit it was genius. And Bill continues to control the market with the same rotten-brilliant attitude. He is unfair and nasty, but he knows his marbles fo' shizzle. [/b]
[For the sake of brevity I truncated the text to which I am responding]

That's a very vague half-truth. You do realize that Apple stole the mouse, the GUI, and the desktop metaphor from Xerox PARC, right? Xerox PARC is responsible for what is quite possibly the majority of all modern computing concepts, and recieves compensation for the usage of nearly none of them. Crediting Apple for those early innovations is no different than crediting Microsoft as both companies stole the ideas from someone else (the entire backstory of the tour of PARC is available elsewhere on the web and I don't feel the need to recount it here).

The fact of the matter is that all three major desktop operating systems are a culumnation of ripoffs. It's the nature of the business.

******QuoteBegin-Havell
XP was the first step away from the inefficient and clunky DOS base, Vista is the second. So I doubt it, except in the form of emulators.[/quote]
Not true, NT was. WinNT was a derivative of OS/2 (which was co-developed by MS and IBM), had no DOS underpinnings, and was developed "from scratch" (in the sense that it was developed independently of Win9x). NT was then used as the foundation of Win2k which was, in turn, the foundation of XP.

As for "DOS-based," Windows 95 and after were so only insofar as you can consider a boot-loader the base of any OS. The DOS support in Win95 and Win98 was pretty poor and it caused some pretty severe headaches for a good number of DOS games.

efthimios

22-01-2006, 06:18 AM

Playbahnosh

I am not closed minded, so leave these hippy crap out of my way. It has nothing to do with freedom of thought, it has to do with breaking the law.

BTW, continuing mentioning that you are a student of computing does not make your comments more valid. You see, probably 1/3 of the people here have education or training in the field. Hell, even I went to a university for computing. (University of Plymouth). So, please don't make a dick of yourself.

I never said you cannot use Linux or that Linux is bad. You are saying it because it suits you and to withdraw the attention from the actual crime here. You can use Linux, you can use Workbench if you wish, good for you. If you do not steal any of them great, if you use Windows and not paying them, you are stealing. There is no other way to look at it.

You continue with your lies. I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MY MONEY. Stop lying.

No, my ideology is not stupid, it is simple economics. You are using exagerated theories about air now? There is no point to see, we are not talking about AIR, we are not talking about oxygen you are breathing. We are not talking about a fundamental right you have on this world. When you were born, the docs did not say, "quick give him a mouse and a copy of an OS". You have no right to use an OS. You have the privilege of using one, and if you want to use one that is being sold, you have to pay for it, or steal it, in the latter, you are stealing.

Quality OS? What a bunch of thieving crap. No, you do not have the right to steal it because it is not of high quality. You do not have the right to steal it because there are better OSes. You do not have the right to steal it because it has almost a monopoly. No matter what you have been taught (school, friends, whatever), you do not have any such right. You are stealing it, no excuses. You are a thief.

Oh, yes, then you go and talk about a revolt against crappy OSes. That's the way to do it, claim that an OS is crappy and needs to be dethrown, then steal it and use it. Funny. Your morality keeps getting better. You want MS to start making better windows? Stop using *dirty word* windows. But not paying and STEALING you are not helping Microsoft make a point. What you do manage (and all like you) are, to make MS use all better protection and DRM. Continuying having a huge base of windows machines, even when some of them are not paid. Remember the following, if you even knew it that is. Back in the 80s and early 90s (some say including the release of W95) Microsoft was looking the other way when people would pirate their OSes and other software and even making it easier for them. Why? To establish a base of users for that software. Of course some of the thieves back then, used the same half behind "smart" comments that you are using about MS and their software. All at the same time doing NOTHING to reduce the amount of PCs with MS software on. Instead they were stealing the software and installing it and being happy that they have screwed the BIG BROTHER, while it was they that were getting sticked up their poop holes.

Closing this post, I will repeat myself on something that you keep missing.
I do NOT support Microsoft or their OS. In fact where ever I can I do not use their products. (media players, www browsers, "office" programs, etc) I am NOT against Linux or even MacOS. BUT, I AM AGAINST stealing and then trying to make it appear like you are doing a favor to the people.

Before you reply to this, read the whole post again, and do not lie again, claiming that I have said things, I never did.