Is it Microsoft's fault if a piece of hardware designed for an Apple computer fails to work properly in Windows Vista? Of course not: it wasn't designed to work in Windows Vista. Why then it is the fault of Microsoft if a piece of Windows XP hardware fails to work in Windows Vista? It wasn't designed to work in Vista!
Granted, it doesn't matter to the user who is to blame, because in the end the result is the same: the lack of Vista drivers for some hardware makes moving to Vista a bad choice for some users. But that's the fault of the driver coders, not Microsoft.
I don't want Microsoft to let Windows totally stagnate because of lazy third-party developers. Hardware developers had months to code new drivers for Vista, and they (seemingly on purpose) failed to do so. That's not the fault of Microsoft. I applaud them for updating the architecture of Windows to be more secure. Isn't that what so many of the Mac/Linux users have said was faulty with Windows?
I use Vista, and I like it. I'm tiring of the anti-Microsoft attitude with Vista, because it really is a great operating system. I haven't seen any problems with the system that can't be attributed to user error, generally due to ignorance of the system requirements. Blaming the operating system for the lack of intelligence from the user is really getting old. The system is fine, but continuing to hold back because of supposed problems only reinforces the reasons people complain about the system in the first place. Finding an operating system to be insufficient for one's needs is acceptable, but refusing to use it based on stubbornness alone is silly.
Next time a piece of hardware fails to work on Vista, try buying hardware that does - and read the supported systems first this time. Instead of throwing one's hands in the air and proclaiming that because of one flaw, the entire system is useless, try troubleshooting.
Just stop with the FUD slinging, and base an opinion on something more solid than it being Vista, the Operating System Everyone Loves to Hate Without Actually Giving it a Fair Chance (or Actually Even Using It)™.
<!--quoteo(post=1639271:date=Jul 16 2007, 10:43 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Jul 16 2007, 10:43 PM) [snapback]1639271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Mac: I can make movies, share photos, browse the internet, what can you do pc?
PC: *right click*
Mac: ######. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Strange, I have no problems doing that on my mac.
So are we going to hold in the complaints about no games being supported in linux too? it doesnt matter whos fault it is be it hardware manufacturers or game developers if it doesnt work i dont want it. User errors could also be the fault of the operating system not relaying the needed information in a good way.
As a side note i use win2k and the only thing thats bothering me is that mspaint cant handle .jpg's :/
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1639289:date=Jul 17 2007, 03:37 AM:name=im_lost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(im_lost @ Jul 17 2007, 03:37 AM) [snapback]1639289[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <!--quoteo(post=1639271:date=Jul 17 2007, 01:43 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Jul 17 2007, 01:43 AM) [snapback]1639271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Mac: I can make movies, share photos, browse the internet, what can you do pc?
PC: *right click*
Mac: ######. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Strange, I have no problems doing that on my mac. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yah, macs have handled right clicking for ages. Hating on macs is rather silly at this point. However, there is still the cold hard fact that most developers are still not supporting Mac OS for their games.
<!--quoteo(post=1639291:date=Jul 17 2007, 03:52 AM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Jul 17 2007, 03:52 AM) [snapback]1639291[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So are we going to hold in the complaints about no games being supported in linux too? it doesnt matter whos fault it is be it hardware manufacturers or game developers if it doesnt work i dont want it. User errors could also be the fault of the operating system not relaying the needed information in a good way.
As a side note i use win2k and the only thing thats bothering me is that mspaint cant handle .jpg's :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, I actually JUST 'upgraded' to XP (from 2K) for the fact that there were starting to be enough games that would flat out not run in 2K (due to shoddy programing).
I go with what works the best for gaming.
Currently that is XP.
Eventually that will probably be Vista (games requiring DX10, 'games for windows', etc,etc).
<!--quoteo(post=1639212:date=Jul 16 2007, 01:58 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jul 16 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1639212[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It's Microsoft's fault the guys who built the laptop didn't check compatibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> actually, it is. they put the distributer under contract to only ship vista notebooks even though they knew there would be driver issues.
<!--quoteo(post=1639277:date=Jul 17 2007, 02:06 AM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Jul 17 2007, 02:06 AM) [snapback]1639277[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Just stop with the FUD slinging, and base an opinion on something more solid than it being Vista, the Operating System Everyone Loves to Hate Without Actually Giving it a Fair Chance (or Actually Even Using It)™. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> From my perspective, Windows has always had too many fundamental flaws that a pretty coat of paint won't solve. /me has been fixing Windows problems all day
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->fault<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't about fault. It's about what works and what doesn't.
What do I run? xp on desktop, vista on laptop as it came pre-installed (I don't exactly put my laptops together myself) and don't care, as I don't game on it too much. I'll probably install vista on my desktop on my first full reinstall (every 9 months or so) if it has a SP.
Frankly, I don't give a crap how much an OS costs as I just: a) get it with a new laptop or b) pirate it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MedHead's rant<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I could have sworn I was reading a Linux user's post on slashdot...
Seriously though, I'll consider Vista when it consumes less than 500MiB ram just sitting there (as it does on my friend's laptop even with aero off).
But seriously, why should anyone bother "upgrading" to Vista? There really aren't any actual improvements to it. Even the new security features have all been mostly duplicated with free third party apps (besides which, most users don't care anyway). When MS announced Vista, they promised all sorts of flashy new ######, they dropped alot of it and left us with what, to me and many others, amounts to a bloated and buggy XP with a MacOSX wannabe gui.
Now sure, XP was the same way when it came out. But eventually (round abouts XP 2) it actually started being worth having over Win2k. And eventually Vista will probably be there too, but theres certainly no rush.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2007
The X5 - you claim that Microsofts dominant position has meant they have stagnated. What evidence do you have for this?
Prove to me Microsofts position has had a detrimental effect on the software it produces. Tell me how a company that has had to virtually redisgn it's whole strategy (from targetting primarily business users to targetting home users) can be accused of Stagnating.
Tell me how many of the OS's you have mentioned have taken the time to design as many new features as Microsoft does with each new release.
Look at the initial spec sheet for the things Microsoft wanted to include in Vista, sure it got cut to buggery because they couldn't get it all in, but look at what they were trying to implement and then tell me they are "stagnant".
I work in IT and have done for a number of years. i've taken some time to learn about different OS'es, even if i don't actually use them, and I can tell you one thing for a fact - Most users in an office enviroment would not be able to deal with linux, and before you go on about the different distro's and their GUI's, stop for one moment and think "If these other operating systems are the dog's gonads and Microsoft are stagnant and poor, why did these operating systems take 10 years to come up with something as "basic" as a GUI? Surely forward thinking companies would come up with that? oh look, microsoft did 12+ years ago.
How long have, or indeed how many, of you Vista bashers in particular, but Microsoft bashers in general, actually used the operating system that you are expertly able to deconstruct and decry as the incarnation of evil?
And if you say we'll i booted it up and used it for like 2 hours or a couple of days and it was crap, i laugh in your faces. Your OS is around for years, you will use it everyday for years, so you must test it for a period of time. it would be like installing NS and then slamming it for being crap because you didn't like the background image, that's how much time people are giving it.
Microsoft are stagnant. Of course that's why Vista was going to be a 64-bit only operating system, because they never go forward. Why isn't it? Because all the other players in the IT world said, we don't want 64-bit it's too forward and radical and time consuming, we're happy with 32 bit, and thus microsofts vision was trampled. Who's stagnating? Don't forget, Microsoft can push so far, but when they meet with resistance in the rest of the IT industry they have to back off and stick with the tried and tested rather than their forward thinking approach.
OMGZ DX was first STARTED IN WIN95 FOOLZ THEREFORE THEY ARE STAGNANT. Another great argument people have put on the table. Well guess what..
Microsoft created their desktop in Win95 too, and all these other OS's are now catching on and implementing their own desktop. So does that make microsoft stagnant or just 20 years ahead of everyone else? (and before you all start I am not trying to claim that Microsoft invented the desktop OK!) If something works, you keep developing, you don't drop it because idiots on the interweb think that if it's a proven working good idea, then it's not forward thinking, you ever heard of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Oh yeah, we also have the MAC and Linux alternative to DX don't we, openGL, which is also supported in windows, but if microsoft are stagnant, and the open source community make things so much better than microsoft, why the hell is the current version of OpenGL, their fantastic open source competitor to DX in such a bad state? It is terrible in comparison to everything that dx offers, oh wait hang on, I can hear your answer as i type "Microsoft the capitalist scum make all the money so they are able to develop their products to be better than that of their rivals". now trouble is, if you say that, I retort with a quick "Microsoft are stagnant so they don't develop anything remmember?" Your words not mine.
I have hundreds of examples I could dish out, but I want you to understand something very clearly, I'm not a Microsoft Fan Boy, just someone who is able to look at things objectively, and I HATE (a very strong word that) people deriding other people's work, when they have no solid grounds for that debasement, just their own personal dislike.
This is doing exactly what i didn't want it to, turn into a rant, but some people's attitude makes me sick. Judge each and everything by it's own merits, not have it tarnished by your unqualified, personal dislikes about someone who makes more money than you so they are evil capitalist swines.
For the record, I use Windows XP64 and have done since it's release. I run LAN parties and we have a wide range of OS's in our community and I have played with them all. I do like Vista very much, although I will use it the same as I do with XP, in classic mode with all the fancy schmancy bits turned off. I'm also trying to get my dual boot Linux working, but may have to roll back a version as the latest version doesn't like my PC.
I reguarly use Macs for sound recording as they are quite possibly without doubt the finest systems to use as a recording studio. That's not to say you can't use windows, I do at home and it is very good, but not as good as the mac. My only real problem with Microsoft's operating systems is that they don't offer one that is exactly right for me. I want excellent audio functionality, low system usage, ability to run whatever app i want, when i want, great gaming features/graphics etc, and do you know what?
NOT ONE operating system on the market today provides me with what I want, but for now at least, Microsoft provide the best for what I need, and at the end of the day this whole thread is about people debating things that cannot be debated, their own beliefs.
I tell you Windows Vista is best, because it is best for me, you say OSX is best, because it is best for you. (throwaway examples for illustration only) At the end of the day it's all down to what YOU USE THE SYSTEM FOR. That's what decides what is the best OS. The fact is that for the VAST MAJORITY of PC users out there, windows and there offerings are by far the best for their needs. Until other OS's can combat that and put out a system THAT BETTER SUITS other people's needs, then people will shift.
The fault lies not with Microsoft being stagnant, the fault lies with no company being able to put together a package that suits the general populance, not us geeks, better than microsoft.
If you have specific issues with things you don't like, fair enough, but don't decry a company as being capitalist pigs, because you think other people can't see past the end of their own nose. Don't feel you have to tell people they are wrong, because when it comes to opinions, no-one is ever wrong. Oh and if capitalism and all it brings is such a burden to you living in a capitalist society, I know this lovely little dictatorship that needs a few more citizens......
I shall just point out that although this started off aimed at the thread creator, it has meandered to encompass the entire thread, so hopefully everyone will be equally annoyed at me and not just the thread starter.
<!--quoteo(post=1639409:date=Jul 17 2007, 07:50 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Jul 17 2007, 07:50 PM) [snapback]1639409[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Seriously though, I'll consider Vista when it consumes less than 500MiB ram just sitting there (as it does on my friend's laptop even with aero off).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Vista attempts to speed up loading times by pre-fetching necessary files for the most often used programs. Regardless of the memory in the system, Vista usually uses 50% of it (or at least, more than XP) when idle. This doesn't mean the memory isn't available when needed: if a memory-intensive program needs to use memory, Vista dumps the pre-fetched data and gives the memory over to the program requesting it. It's the same technology used with ReadyBoost.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But seriously, why should anyone bother "upgrading" to Vista?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't want to, don't. Avoid upgrading because it doesn't fit your needs, not because you simply believe the propaganda against it.
I like Vista, and I like its interface. XP's was horrible. The extra little features over XP are nice, too. Also, realize that I was upgrading from Windows 2000 Professional, so the difference is much more noticeable to me than an XP user, I'm sure.
----
As I wrote earlier, the end-user won't care whose fault it is that a driver isn't working well in Vista. My problem is the technical types who <b>do</b> know the responsibilities of each party that continue to claim that Microsoft is at fault, and that group (namely, the users here) were the intended demographic to which I was writing.
<!--quoteo(post=1639434:date=Jul 18 2007, 12:40 AM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Jul 18 2007, 12:40 AM) [snapback]1639434[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Be fair. Dislike Vista for valid reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Every other operating system that I have had installed on a pre-built system worked out of the box, valid 'nuff?
to Soul_Rider and others making assumptions and false conclusions about myself or my motives:
I created this topic because I am frustrated with whinning about Vista at my job (and yes 3rd parties have a lot of blame, but Mircosoft could remedy a lot of that if they <i>had</i> to), and I've been impresssed at some of the things Apple has been doing with Mac OSX -- by yielding towards compatibility rather than being confronting and staunchly proprietary. I created this topic because I dare to question that Vista is <i>really</i> the best operating system ever has Microsoft's marketing team so proudly proclaims. And lastly I ponder if Microsoft would actually improve the Windows OS product if they had some good competition in the market. This is not a question of faults or Microsoft being stagnant, I honestly think Microsoft would make a vastly better, more innovative product if another company started taking signifigant market share away from them.
I have grown up with Microsoft and Apple products as a kid (actually our first family computer was an ol' Apple computer with a black and white screen, 512KB HD, and a dot matrix printer). I have seen the heavy handed marketing tactics of Microsoft in the past and thus question their benevolence towards the future. I've seen companies raise and fall in product quality and many, many go extinct.
The title of this topic is a bit of an attention getter as are most successful topics in the highly active Off-Topic forum on these boards. I wanted to exemplify the feel of pressure from Microsoft that users should "ugrade today" and spark debate the operating systems. I am questioning subjective assumptions of just one company, Microsoft, that Vista is the best. Do you normally just obey an AD or sales pitch from a single company when shopping? Hopefully you don't; I'd hope people try to stay objective and judge what they are hearing an compare different companies' products before they purchase.
What I didn't expect what that I'd be getting labeled as ignorant, biased towards OSX, biased towards Windows, a person who's angry at Vista, borderline harassing PMs from certain members regarding this topic, and many theories as to why I created this topic.
So for the rest of this topic perhaps we could try this: <ul><li>Technical differences between the OS products in the market</li><li>Future predictions about OS products and growth</li><li>Pro's & Con's of OS'es on the market</li><li>Comparison of Vista versus Leopard (launches in October)</li><li>Pro's & Con's of Apple and Mircosoft as a company</li><li>What OS'es you are using on your systems and why</li></ul>
Or I could ask for the thread starter's perogative to lock the thead? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> I think some good could come out of a discussion. Many of you have given long replies (replies which I have read word for word), and even though ranting at times, good points have been made. Perhaps that's the forum this thread should move to...
<b>vote <!--coloro:#6600CC--><span style="color:#6600CC"><!--/coloro-->move/phase topic<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to Discussion Forum
<!--quoteo(post=1639439:date=Jul 18 2007, 02:39 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jul 18 2007, 02:39 AM) [snapback]1639439[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Every other operating system that I have had installed on a pre-built system worked out of the box, valid 'nuff? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and no. For as much criticism Microsoft has received for attempting to keep backwards compatible (criticism raised even in this thread, if memory serves), when Microsoft finally attempts to change things - and subsequently break some hardware and software support - they get continued criticism. They can't seem to win!
Microsoft, in the past, allowed programmers to code things poorly, because Windows itself wasn't coded all that well. Vista is an attempt in the right direction, but in that effort, things haven't worked well for the poorly coded programs and drivers. I don't see how - especially considering Microsoft gave fair warning - that poorly coded software and drivers not working is the fault of anyone but the authors of the programs and drivers.
I know that it must be frustrating to not have everything "just work", but to immediately uninstall because things don't work perfectly is rather unfair, and not realistic. First, non-Vista Windows versions don't always work "out of the box". Secondly, if you're using software and hardware compatible with, say, XP, and you're using Windows XP, it doesn't come at a surprise that things will be compatible.
The thing is, Vista is not XP. Vista is not Windows 2000. Vista *can* run the hardware and software if one takes the time to set the compatibility modes properly - that is, if one took the time to give the operating system a fair chance. Vista also can run hardware and software with drivers designed for Vista: since Vista isn't XP, XP drivers are therefore unsurprisingly buggy.
(and I wasn't the guy who sent the PMs to the thread parent)
<!--quoteo(post=1639554:date=Jul 18 2007, 11:38 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Jul 18 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]1639554[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Microsoft, in the past, allowed programmers to code things poorly, because Windows itself wasn't coded all that well. Vista is an attempt in the right direction, but in that effort, things haven't worked well for the poorly coded programs and drivers. I don't see how - especially considering Microsoft gave fair warning - that poorly coded software and drivers not working is the fault of anyone but the authors of the programs and drivers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> *nods* I can agree with that, but two things I think are unmentioned there:<ul><li>Vista uses a LOT of memory (what's "necessary" is subjective within reason and will always be debated, normally resolved by the free market's consumers) and Mircosoft could improve code efficiency and streamline their architecture further if they wanted to.</li><li>No, it's not not Microsofts' fault, but fault isn't what's at question here and yes they could have enhanced their driver support with a better online resource more than what there is</li></ul> Do those things cost Microsoft extra money to implement? Yes. That's why they won't bother pushing R&D and a more streamlined product design unless competition from another company causes it.
You are very correct about it's 3rd parties not having their **** together that's causing the incompatibilities and that Vista IS a step in the right direction.
I'm about to start a new year in college and I'm looking for a med-high laptop that can play latest games and yet be affordable. Recently, apple introduced the new Mac Book Pros with a nice 1080p resolution screen (17in version). As a neutralist, I thought I might get it because I didn't look anywhere else. The price with tax came out to $3,060. I was literally ready to check it out, but then I realized that there has to be something cheaper. So I go on dell.com and customize a same laptop PC, same configs and specs (Inspiron 1720). The total came out to $1,800. Now unless you want to justify why I should pay additional $1,200.00 or so just to have OS X, I'll stick to laptop PCs because Macs are incredibly overpriced.
<!--quoteo(post=1639681:date=Jul 19 2007, 03:16 PM:name=cerberus5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cerberus5 @ Jul 19 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]1639681[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... Mac Book Pros ... The price with tax came out to $3,060. ... customize a same PC ... The total came out to $1,800.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1639711:date=Jul 19 2007, 06:15 PM:name=cshank4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cshank4 @ Jul 19 2007, 06:15 PM) [snapback]1639711[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We need a new OS. Something not related to Unix or Windoze or MacOS. Something revolutionary. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, how do we get devs to make games for it?
<!--quoteo(post=1639716:date=Jul 19 2007, 11:30 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 19 2007, 11:30 PM) [snapback]1639716[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> so, every one keeps saying 'after the first SP'
didn't MS say 'no more SPs' <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought so as well, but they're still making one for Vista at least.
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=559" target="_blank">Beta in "mid-July"</a>
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--quoteo(post=1639701:date=Jul 19 2007, 10:06 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jul 19 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]1639701[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Windows is the worst operating system for our needs, except for all the other ones. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Btw cerberus, build your own computer for 1,2k <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Maybe I wasn't clear, i meant LAPTOP PC, not just a regular desktop. Unless you want to give me pointers on how to build a laptop because I honestly have no idea how to. A desktop doesn't work as a substitute for a college laptop.
Comments
Granted, it doesn't matter to the user who is to blame, because in the end the result is the same: the lack of Vista drivers for some hardware makes moving to Vista a bad choice for some users. But that's the fault of the driver coders, not Microsoft.
I don't want Microsoft to let Windows totally stagnate because of lazy third-party developers. Hardware developers had months to code new drivers for Vista, and they (seemingly on purpose) failed to do so. That's not the fault of Microsoft. I applaud them for updating the architecture of Windows to be more secure. Isn't that what so many of the Mac/Linux users have said was faulty with Windows?
I use Vista, and I like it. I'm tiring of the anti-Microsoft attitude with Vista, because it really is a great operating system. I haven't seen any problems with the system that can't be attributed to user error, generally due to ignorance of the system requirements. Blaming the operating system for the lack of intelligence from the user is really getting old. The system is fine, but continuing to hold back because of supposed problems only reinforces the reasons people complain about the system in the first place. Finding an operating system to be insufficient for one's needs is acceptable, but refusing to use it based on stubbornness alone is silly.
Next time a piece of hardware fails to work on Vista, try buying hardware that does - and read the supported systems first this time. Instead of throwing one's hands in the air and proclaiming that because of one flaw, the entire system is useless, try troubleshooting.
Just stop with the FUD slinging, and base an opinion on something more solid than it being Vista, the Operating System Everyone Loves to Hate Without Actually Giving it a Fair Chance (or Actually Even Using It)™.
There, done ranting.
Mac: I can make movies, share photos, browse the internet, what can you do pc?
PC: *right click*
Mac: ######.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, I have no problems doing that on my mac.
User errors could also be the fault of the operating system not relaying the needed information in a good way.
As a side note i use win2k and the only thing thats bothering me is that mspaint cant handle .jpg's :/
<!--quoteo(post=1639271:date=Jul 17 2007, 01:43 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Jul 17 2007, 01:43 AM) [snapback]1639271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Mac: I can make movies, share photos, browse the internet, what can you do pc?
PC: *right click*
Mac: ######.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, I have no problems doing that on my mac.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yah, macs have handled right clicking for ages. Hating on macs is rather silly at this point. However, there is still the cold hard fact that most developers are still not supporting Mac OS for their games.
<!--quoteo(post=1639291:date=Jul 17 2007, 03:52 AM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Jul 17 2007, 03:52 AM) [snapback]1639291[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
So are we going to hold in the complaints about no games being supported in linux too? it doesnt matter whos fault it is be it hardware manufacturers or game developers if it doesnt work i dont want it.
User errors could also be the fault of the operating system not relaying the needed information in a good way.
As a side note i use win2k and the only thing thats bothering me is that mspaint cant handle .jpg's :/
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, I actually JUST 'upgraded' to XP (from 2K) for the fact that there were starting to be enough games that would flat out not run in 2K (due to shoddy programing).
I go with what works the best for gaming.
Currently that is XP.
Eventually that will probably be Vista (games requiring DX10, 'games for windows', etc,etc).
Eventually? who knows.
It's Microsoft's fault the guys who built the laptop didn't check compatibility.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, it is. they put the distributer under contract to only ship vista notebooks even though they knew there would be driver issues.
Just stop with the FUD slinging, and base an opinion on something more solid than it being Vista, the Operating System Everyone Loves to Hate Without Actually Giving it a Fair Chance (or Actually Even Using It)™.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my perspective, Windows has always had too many fundamental flaws that a pretty coat of paint won't solve.
/me has been fixing Windows problems all day
It isn't about fault. It's about what works and what doesn't.
I'll probably install vista on my desktop on my first full reinstall (every 9 months or so) if it has a SP.
Frankly, I don't give a crap how much an OS costs as I just: a) get it with a new laptop or b) pirate it.
I wouldn't change now because there is no need to at all and of course since nothing really requires it now.
(Again, of course, most people wouldn't change right now either if they had a free copy).
I could have sworn I was reading a Linux user's post on slashdot...
Seriously though, I'll consider Vista when it consumes less than 500MiB ram just sitting there (as it does on my friend's laptop even with aero off).
But seriously, why should anyone bother "upgrading" to Vista? There really aren't any actual improvements to it. Even the new security features have all been mostly duplicated with free third party apps (besides which, most users don't care anyway). When MS announced Vista, they promised all sorts of flashy new ######, they dropped alot of it and left us with what, to me and many others, amounts to a bloated and buggy XP with a MacOSX wannabe gui.
Now sure, XP was the same way when it came out. But eventually (round abouts XP 2) it actually started being worth having over Win2k. And eventually Vista will probably be there too, but theres certainly no rush.
Prove to me Microsofts position has had a detrimental effect on the software it produces. Tell me how a company that has had to virtually redisgn it's whole strategy (from targetting primarily business users to targetting home users) can be accused of Stagnating.
Tell me how many of the OS's you have mentioned have taken the time to design as many new features as Microsoft does with each new release.
Look at the initial spec sheet for the things Microsoft wanted to include in Vista, sure it got cut to buggery because they couldn't get it all in, but look at what they were trying to implement and then tell me they are "stagnant".
I work in IT and have done for a number of years. i've taken some time to learn about different OS'es, even if i don't actually use them, and I can tell you one thing for a fact - Most users in an office enviroment would not be able to deal with linux, and before you go on about the different distro's and their GUI's, stop for one moment and think "If these other operating systems are the dog's gonads and Microsoft are stagnant and poor, why did these operating systems take 10 years to come up with something as "basic" as a GUI? Surely forward thinking companies would come up with that? oh look, microsoft did 12+ years ago.
How long have, or indeed how many, of you Vista bashers in particular, but Microsoft bashers in general, actually used the operating system that you are expertly able to deconstruct and decry as the incarnation of evil?
And if you say we'll i booted it up and used it for like 2 hours or a couple of days and it was crap, i laugh in your faces. Your OS is around for years, you will use it everyday for years, so you must test it for a period of time. it would be like installing NS and then slamming it for being crap because you didn't like the background image, that's how much time people are giving it.
Microsoft are stagnant. Of course that's why Vista was going to be a 64-bit only operating system, because they never go forward. Why isn't it? Because all the other players in the IT world said, we don't want 64-bit it's too forward and radical and time consuming, we're happy with 32 bit, and thus microsofts vision was trampled. Who's stagnating? Don't forget, Microsoft can push so far, but when they meet with resistance in the rest of the IT industry they have to back off and stick with the tried and tested rather than their forward thinking approach.
OMGZ DX was first STARTED IN WIN95 FOOLZ THEREFORE THEY ARE STAGNANT. Another great argument people have put on the table. Well guess what..
Microsoft created their desktop in Win95 too, and all these other OS's are now catching on and implementing their own desktop. So does that make microsoft stagnant or just 20 years ahead of everyone else? (and before you all start I am not trying to claim that Microsoft invented the desktop OK!) If something works, you keep developing, you don't drop it because idiots on the interweb think that if it's a proven working good idea, then it's not forward thinking, you ever heard of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Oh yeah, we also have the MAC and Linux alternative to DX don't we, openGL, which is also supported in windows, but if microsoft are stagnant, and the open source community make things so much better than microsoft, why the hell is the current version of OpenGL, their fantastic open source competitor to DX in such a bad state? It is terrible in comparison to everything that dx offers, oh wait hang on, I can hear your answer as i type "Microsoft the capitalist scum make all the money so they are able to develop their products to be better than that of their rivals". now trouble is, if you say that, I retort with a quick "Microsoft are stagnant so they don't develop anything remmember?" Your words not mine.
I have hundreds of examples I could dish out, but I want you to understand something very clearly, I'm not a Microsoft Fan Boy, just someone who is able to look at things objectively, and I HATE (a very strong word that) people deriding other people's work, when they have no solid grounds for that debasement, just their own personal dislike.
This is doing exactly what i didn't want it to, turn into a rant, but some people's attitude makes me sick. Judge each and everything by it's own merits, not have it tarnished by your unqualified, personal dislikes about someone who makes more money than you so they are evil capitalist swines.
For the record, I use Windows XP64 and have done since it's release. I run LAN parties and we have a wide range of OS's in our community and I have played with them all. I do like Vista very much, although I will use it the same as I do with XP, in classic mode with all the fancy schmancy bits turned off. I'm also trying to get my dual boot Linux working, but may have to roll back a version as the latest version doesn't like my PC.
I reguarly use Macs for sound recording as they are quite possibly without doubt the finest systems to use as a recording studio. That's not to say you can't use windows, I do at home and it is very good, but not as good as the mac. My only real problem with Microsoft's operating systems is that they don't offer one that is exactly right for me. I want excellent audio functionality, low system usage, ability to run whatever app i want, when i want, great gaming features/graphics etc, and do you know what?
NOT ONE operating system on the market today provides me with what I want, but for now at least, Microsoft provide the best for what I need, and at the end of the day this whole thread is about people debating things that cannot be debated, their own beliefs.
I tell you Windows Vista is best, because it is best for me, you say OSX is best, because it is best for you. (throwaway examples for illustration only) At the end of the day it's all down to what YOU USE THE SYSTEM FOR. That's what decides what is the best OS. The fact is that for the VAST MAJORITY of PC users out there, windows and there offerings are by far the best for their needs. Until other OS's can combat that and put out a system THAT BETTER SUITS other people's needs, then people will shift.
The fault lies not with Microsoft being stagnant, the fault lies with no company being able to put together a package that suits the general populance, not us geeks, better than microsoft.
If you have specific issues with things you don't like, fair enough, but don't decry a company as being capitalist pigs, because you think other people can't see past the end of their own nose. Don't feel you have to tell people they are wrong, because when it comes to opinions, no-one is ever wrong. Oh and if capitalism and all it brings is such a burden to you living in a capitalist society, I know this lovely little dictatorship that needs a few more citizens......
I shall just point out that although this started off aimed at the thread creator, it has meandered to encompass the entire thread, so hopefully everyone will be equally annoyed at me and not just the thread starter.
Seriously though, I'll consider Vista when it consumes less than 500MiB ram just sitting there (as it does on my friend's laptop even with aero off).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vista attempts to speed up loading times by pre-fetching necessary files for the most often used programs. Regardless of the memory in the system, Vista usually uses 50% of it (or at least, more than XP) when idle. This doesn't mean the memory isn't available when needed: if a memory-intensive program needs to use memory, Vista dumps the pre-fetched data and gives the memory over to the program requesting it. It's the same technology used with ReadyBoost.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But seriously, why should anyone bother "upgrading" to Vista?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't want to, don't. Avoid upgrading because it doesn't fit your needs, not because you simply believe the propaganda against it.
I like Vista, and I like its interface. XP's was horrible. The extra little features over XP are nice, too. Also, realize that I was upgrading from Windows 2000 Professional, so the difference is much more noticeable to me than an XP user, I'm sure.
----
As I wrote earlier, the end-user won't care whose fault it is that a driver isn't working well in Vista. My problem is the technical types who <b>do</b> know the responsibilities of each party that continue to claim that Microsoft is at fault, and that group (namely, the users here) were the intended demographic to which I was writing.
Be fair. Dislike Vista for valid reasons.
Every other operating system that I have had installed on a pre-built system worked out of the box, valid 'nuff?
I created this topic because I am frustrated with whinning about Vista at my job (and yes 3rd parties have a lot of blame, but Mircosoft could remedy a lot of that if they <i>had</i> to), and I've been impresssed at some of the things Apple has been doing with Mac OSX -- by yielding towards compatibility rather than being confronting and staunchly proprietary. I created this topic because I dare to question that Vista is <i>really</i> the best operating system ever has Microsoft's marketing team so proudly proclaims. And lastly I ponder if Microsoft would actually improve the Windows OS product if they had some good competition in the market. This is not a question of faults or Microsoft being stagnant, I honestly think Microsoft would make a vastly better, more innovative product if another company started taking signifigant market share away from them.
I have grown up with Microsoft and Apple products as a kid (actually our first family computer was an ol' Apple computer with a black and white screen, 512KB HD, and a dot matrix printer). I have seen the heavy handed marketing tactics of Microsoft in the past and thus question their benevolence towards the future. I've seen companies raise and fall in product quality and many, many go extinct.
The title of this topic is a bit of an attention getter as are most successful topics in the highly active Off-Topic forum on these boards. I wanted to exemplify the feel of pressure from Microsoft that users should "ugrade today" and spark debate the operating systems. I am questioning subjective assumptions of just one company, Microsoft, that Vista is the best. Do you normally just obey an AD or sales pitch from a single company when shopping? Hopefully you don't; I'd hope people try to stay objective and judge what they are hearing an compare different companies' products before they purchase.
What I didn't expect what that I'd be getting labeled as ignorant, biased towards OSX, biased towards Windows, a person who's angry at Vista, borderline harassing PMs from certain members regarding this topic, and many theories as to why I created this topic.
So for the rest of this topic perhaps we could try this:
<ul><li>Technical differences between the OS products in the market</li><li>Future predictions about OS products and growth</li><li>Pro's & Con's of OS'es on the market</li><li>Comparison of Vista versus Leopard (launches in October)</li><li>Pro's & Con's of Apple and Mircosoft as a company</li><li>What OS'es you are using on your systems and why</li></ul>
Or I could ask for the thread starter's perogative to lock the thead? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> I think some good could come out of a discussion. Many of you have given long replies (replies which I have read word for word), and even though ranting at times, good points have been made. Perhaps that's the forum this thread should move to...
<b>vote <!--coloro:#6600CC--><span style="color:#6600CC"><!--/coloro-->move/phase topic<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to Discussion Forum
Every other operating system that I have had installed on a pre-built system worked out of the box, valid 'nuff?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and no. For as much criticism Microsoft has received for attempting to keep backwards compatible (criticism raised even in this thread, if memory serves), when Microsoft finally attempts to change things - and subsequently break some hardware and software support - they get continued criticism. They can't seem to win!
Microsoft, in the past, allowed programmers to code things poorly, because Windows itself wasn't coded all that well. Vista is an attempt in the right direction, but in that effort, things haven't worked well for the poorly coded programs and drivers. I don't see how - especially considering Microsoft gave fair warning - that poorly coded software and drivers not working is the fault of anyone but the authors of the programs and drivers.
I know that it must be frustrating to not have everything "just work", but to immediately uninstall because things don't work perfectly is rather unfair, and not realistic. First, non-Vista Windows versions don't always work "out of the box". Secondly, if you're using software and hardware compatible with, say, XP, and you're using Windows XP, it doesn't come at a surprise that things will be compatible.
The thing is, Vista is not XP. Vista is not Windows 2000. Vista *can* run the hardware and software if one takes the time to set the compatibility modes properly - that is, if one took the time to give the operating system a fair chance. Vista also can run hardware and software with drivers designed for Vista: since Vista isn't XP, XP drivers are therefore unsurprisingly buggy.
(and I wasn't the guy who sent the PMs to the thread parent)
*nods* I can agree with that, but two things I think are unmentioned there:<ul><li>Vista uses a LOT of memory (what's "necessary" is subjective within reason and will always be debated, normally resolved by the free market's consumers) and Mircosoft could improve code efficiency and streamline their architecture further if they wanted to.</li><li>No, it's not not Microsofts' fault, but fault isn't what's at question here and yes they could have enhanced their driver support with a better online resource more than what there is</li></ul>
Do those things cost Microsoft extra money to implement? Yes. That's why they won't bother pushing R&D and a more streamlined product design unless competition from another company causes it.
You are very correct about it's 3rd parties not having their **** together that's causing the incompatibilities and that Vista IS a step in the right direction.
<img src="http://eside.aj2.us/macguy.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Something revolutionary.
We need a new OS. Something not related to Unix or Windoze or MacOS.
Something revolutionary.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, how do we get devs to make games for it?
didn't MS say 'no more SPs'
so, every one keeps saying 'after the first SP'
didn't MS say 'no more SPs'
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought so as well, but they're still making one for Vista at least.
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=559" target="_blank">Beta in "mid-July"</a>
Windows is the worst operating system for our needs, except for all the other ones.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nicely nailed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Btw cerberus, build your own computer for 1,2k <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />