InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition asking Microsoft to keep Windows XP available indefinitely, not end most sales on June 30 as currently planned, has prompted many readers to suggest that maybe the best answer for those who don't like Vista is to switch to another operating system completely.
"Don't be afraid. Just switch to Linux and become a member of a really free society," wrote Carlos Raul Gutierrez. "Windows Vista was the reason I bought a Mac mini. I didn't want my only choices to be an operating system that would soon be obsolete (XP) or one that was buggy and would break much existing hardware (Vista), and I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze...)," wrote "Jack."
"Don't be afraid. Just switch to Linux and become a member of a really free society," wrote Carlos Raul Gutierrez. "Windows Vista was the reason I bought a Mac mini. I didn't want my only choices to be an operating system that would soon be obsolete (XP) or one that was buggy and would break much existing hardware (Vista), and I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze...)," wrote "Jack."
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. Let me explain why.
Apple does control what their systems contain, but this doesn't mean that they're programming for one computer. The chipset in my Macbook Pro is different from the Macbook Pros that were released a few months later (they upgraded them to the Santa Rosa chipset) and those are slightly different from the various iterations that were released down the line. There's less overall variability among desktops, but the desktops are still being updated, too. It's not the exact same system.
Additionally, Apple is currently supporting Intel processors and their old RISC-based processors (G4- and G5-based systems). I'm not a programmer; I don't know how difficult it is to support two system architectures at once with a single program and operating system, but Apple is doing it. I don't know whether this rivals the variability of the PC market, but it's rather impressive nontheless.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Yeah, that's the problem with VISTA...dodgy computers with poor quality hardware and packed with rubbish software...I've recently seen OEM machines that are so full of "custom" software it makes VISTA run completely awful...install it fresh and VISTA is great...
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. [...] I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. For PC's, every other hardware company releases its own stuff. Graphics components, sound cards, motherboards, chipsets, joysticks, hard drives, memory, etc. In the PC world, Windows must support and standardize hardware drivers so engineers (both newbies and experienced veterans) in America, Europe, and Asia can plug into Windows and "just work"... with a driver install, of course.
Apple controls the hardware scope; if it is not offered as part of their computer bundle, then it will not be supported (with extremely rare exception). Microsoft does not control hardware scope; but they are expected to support them anyways! Talk about global industry pressure!!!
I'm not trying to excuse Windows for have driver incompatibility issues or occasional OS errors which inhibit unadulterated fun. But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. For PC's, every other hardware company releases its own stuff. Graphics components, sound cards, motherboards, chipsets, joysticks, hard drives, memory, etc. In the PC world, Windows must support and standardize hardware drivers so engineers (both newbies and experienced veterans) in America, Europe, and Asia can plug into Windows and "just work"... with a driver install, of course.
Apple controls the hardware scope; if it is not offered as part of their computer bundle, then it will not be supported (with extremely rare exception). Microsoft does not control hardware scope; but they are expected to support them anyways! Talk about global industry pressure!!!
I'm not trying to excuse Windows for have driver incompatibility issues or occasional OS errors which inhibit unadulterated fun. But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)[/quote]
great point.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
You need to realize that Apple release OS X every year, Microsoft released XP in 2001, this means that they have supported Windows XP since the first Mac OS X!
Apple still supports OS X 10.3 but by Microsoft standards, they should support 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 as well.
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. [...] I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. ... But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)
But surely it's more the other way round. Microsoft has such a monopoly that the manufacturers make sure that their products work well with Windows to ensure the maximum market?
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. Let me explain why.
Apple does control what their systems contain, but this doesn't mean that they're programming for one computer. The chipset in my Macbook Pro is different from the Macbook Pros that were released a few months later (they upgraded them to the Santa Rosa chipset) and those are slightly different from the various iterations that were released down the line. There's less overall variability among desktops, but the desktops are still being updated, too. It's not the exact same system.
Additionally, Apple is currently supporting Intel processors and their old RISC-based processors (G4- and G5-based systems). I'm not a programmer; I don't know how difficult it is to support two system architectures at once with a single program and operating system, but Apple is doing it. I don't know whether this rivals the variability of the PC market, but it's rather impressive nontheless.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
they are still supporting a KNOWN set of hardware thats the whole point, yeah they have different models but they know exactly what hardware those models contain, this does not come close to comparing to the PC market..and wow they are updating 10.3, as MS are updating XP. are they still updating macos 8 or even 9 is the question
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again[/quote]
Thanks for the blog spam, but I'm not interested in someone's opinion over my first-hand observations.
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again[/quote]
Built-in archiver sucks. Next?
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Then why we have to move to Windows XP from DOS?
Then why we have to move to Windows XP from DOS?
Terrible comparison. (Same with the oil change one above you).
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
Well then changing the oil in your car would be like reinstalling Vista, fresh.
Buying (or in another case stealing, downloading
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
Well then changing the oil in your car would be like reinstalling Vista, fresh.
Buying (or in another case stealing, downloading
Um no? Changing your oil is not like installing vista... that is more like putting a new engine in your car... windows makes your comp run, your engine makes your car run... oil keeps your engine running fine... changing your oil is like changing your Anti virus definitions... it keeps the bad things out...
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Are you dense or just trolling? Operating systems don't wear out as oil does.
my thoughts exactly. you don't want to upgrade to Vista, stay with XP. just because support runs out for XP in June doesn't mean XP will stop working. updates might get a lil scarce but what are the chances of that happening?
i think this date will change again depending on adoption rates for Vista and the number of corporations still running on XP when the date finally reaches.
my thoughts exactly. you don't want to upgrade to Vista, stay with XP. just because support runs out for XP in June doesn't mean XP will stop working. updates might get a lil scarce but what are the chances of that happening?
i think this date will change again depending on adoption rates for Vista and the number of corporations still running on XP when the date finally reaches.
XP support isn't scheduled to end until April 2009 with XP Pro extended support til 2014. They only intend to stop mainstream production in June 2008. Microsoft Support Lifecycle
hardware that has been around within 3 years of vista's release should be able to handle vista... heck even my dell from 2002 (it was only 1100$ at the time) seems to run vista without problems (tho more memory would be cool.. and thats a cheap upgrade)
linux is not ready for primetime... tho it is relatively easy to do basic tasks like connect to the internet, surf, w/e... its usability is still far from windows or osx.
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
551 bugs in the first year is actually very good for an OS
Last edited by XerXis on 18 Feb 2008 - 17:10
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
551 bugs in the first year is very good actually for an OS
Windows XP SP2 had over 800 hotfixes in it ....and theres been loads since ...551 is a good figure
I agree totally. Vista definitely is NOT buggy, and if anything is far more stable than XP is. I guess its all just their own loss if they choose to be so ignorant of the truth.
I've even installed Vista on a 6 year old computer and it works just fine. But you wouldn't know if it a person listens to the Anti-Vista people.
Good luck to these same people also when it comes time to utilize their multi-core cpu's which Vista supports and XP doesn't.
just the other day i had a woman ask me for advice on a Vostro. never bought a computer before... then she asks me if she should downgrade to XP. i ask why and she says Vista is crap. i ask if she ever used Vista and she says no, that everyone she talks to says it's crap and she doesn't want it.
what do you do in a situation like that? i tell her i've been using Vista for maybe 16 months or something without any hitches and she just shrugs.
just more proof that people buy into what the masses are selling without even being properly informed.
Last edited by ikyouCrow on 19 Feb 2008 - 16:45
Also anyone suggesting switching to a Mac of Linux because they can no longer buy Windows XP are stupid... if you already own a copy of Windows and you change your PC, then why not just install your copy on your new machine????
Sure a very small percentage will buy additional computers but the vast majority will be replacements.
However the idea that users should simply give up Windows and move always misses an important point. In the buisness world there are too many custom applications that run only on Windows. A wholesale move to any other OS is simply not physically possible. The company I was last working with spent $2 million on the source code (VB/Oracle) to run their business. This is not unusual. To convert Windows apps to Java or Web applications would take billions (or more) in the US alone. And even if the process was to happen, it would take many many years. My guess is that it would take 20 years.
However, if we are talking about changing the user's OS for home.... well, then I have nothing bad to say there. There are alot of fine options that will allow most users to run applications that can share data with their work based Windows apps.
My base point: A switch CAN happen, but will it? *I* doubt it. I BELIEVE Windows is here to say based in the numbers and costs involved.
Peace,
James Rose
New York City
The only thing keeping most people stuck with Windows is software compatibility. Google is investing in WINE to help Linux run more and more Windows applications. Photoshop CS2 already works, most of MS Office 2003 works (although you could probably just use Open Office?), and even some games work. It's not really that long before Linux has maybe 70% or more compatibility with Windows XP. Then you'll see a lot more people switch.
Besides that, Linux has become very easy to maintain. If it breaks (much less likely than with Windows), you back up your personal files/settings and reinstall without worrying about losing anything. It is Windows that purposely obfuscates system settings from users to make it difficult to pirate software and to make it easier for MS to spy on and control user behavior. With Linux, there's nothing hidden from you, no corporate spooks poking around inside your PC and your LAN.
I'd go as far as saying if Microsoft went down people would still use Windows if Linux hadn't sparked a renaissance in a way of sweeping the marketshare
I use fedora 8, and just about everything a user would need is available as GUI application (from networking, firewall config, wireless config, program installation, to directory/file management). I personally, use the command line often because it allows me to perform operations faster with more control, but you by no means are forced to use it.
I started using Linux because I wasn't happy with the path Windows Vista was going in general. I am a software developer, and Windows Vista made programming hell (Between registry virtualization, and a ton of other features). I decided it was time for a switch, and Linux was VERY easy for me to use.
Linux seems a lot more customizable, from services and runlevels, to the desktop interface. And nearly everything is free, and open-source. It really is sad that people generally seem to believe everything in ALL Linux distributions must be done through a CLI--that simply isn't the case anymore.
Haven't regretted it one bit!
Haven't regretted it one bit!
The only thing is, Mark... I'd hardly call you an "average" user.
HAHAHA. No. Not at all.
And its our fault the OS sucks??? Who else would you blame???
They don't like how a program or hardware they use doesn't work with Vista, so they switch to a completely different platform and OS where NONE of their old programs or hardware work?
GREAT solution there!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista. I'm tired of this crap BS, and most of it is complete lies.
All I can do is browse the web. Your insightful brilliance has shown me the light. I will wipe my drive and install Windows now!
All I can do is browse the web. Your insightful brilliance has shown me the light. I will wipe my drive and install Windows now!
Linux - It's good for almost anything. Almost. The driver hell is not worth 100$ for Windows (I'm talking about an average user). But still, I switched 70 of my users to Linux with no problem. Yeah it took some time, but we're completle legal now.
#2) i dual boot vista and ubuntu and go back and forth between which one i use more at stretches. The idea that vista breaks every piece of hardware that you own is completely overblown. I have a couple of different vista units between myself my friends and my family that i work on and none of them have hardware trouble. I'd expect that anyone with a computer slightly younger than dirt probably has the same experience.
#3) ""I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze..."" -- This quote is why more people don't use linux: because ignorant writers around the internet (who likely have little to no experience using it,) tell them that it's just too complicated for the average person. The truth is that it has come leaps and bounds the past few years and that the average user almost never has to touch the command line if they don't want to, but finds out that the command line isn't "scary" to begin with.
#4) how come "enlightened" vista users can chastise people who say that lots of hardware doesn't work on vista and not point any fingers when a vista user claims no hardware works on linux? Why don't you try actually using the OS and seeing what it's about before making up stuff that you heard someone else say who likely didnt know what they were talking about either?
IT doesnt help that you get blasted on most linux boards when you ask what they consider newbie questions.
LInux is still really for geeks. If you give a non comp person a linux disk and tell them to install it fully it still wont be easy and the command line is still needed.
IT doesnt help that you get blasted on most linux boards when you ask what they consider newbie questions.
LInux is still really for geeks. If you give a non comp person a linux disk and tell them to install it fully it still wont be easy and the command line is still needed.
If you want to say that linux needs to straighten out the whole issue with "restricted drivers" then i'd agree with you, but other than that it's very easy to get those cards working.
And i would also say that every linux community i've ever been to has been nothing but helpful in trying to help someone solve a problem, even if the question has been asked 100 times before and is easily researchable on your own.
I had some apprehensions reading this thread and that's two good points and I'm only a third of the way down the page!
+1
even though it's equally bogus, i'd say Vista 64 breaks some apps. there aren't a lot of drivers out there for lots of stuff. and that's still not MS's fault.
like, i have to use a 64-bit Kyocera CDMA 2000 USB modem driver to connect to the Internet, and it's not terrible. except the part where now i can only connect at 28.8K....
if anyone can point me towards a more compatible 64-bit driver for a CCU-550.....
I moved to Vista 64-bit in November and it has worked well. A few minor bugs but even those were crushed in SP1. The only hardware that didn't work were a 7+ year old scanner and a serial port Wacom Graphire tablet (they dropped Vista support). The Wacom thing was a great excuse to buy an A4 sized Intuos3, which works without problems in Vista, just like the rest of my hardware. By comparison on Linux often even newer hardware doesn't work due to no drivers but this is really not the OSs problem.
I think it's silly to expect that your 5 year old computer will run Vista perfectly. XP is an old OS so it's no surprise that it is less resource intensive. If anyone has tried running OSX on older Macs you'd notice it doesn't run that smoothly.
1. Apple's prices are indeed painful. I kind of understand why they do it, but at times I really wish they wouldn't and it often seems excessive. $400 for an iPod I can see, though I feel it is too much. $600 for an iPhone I think is absolutely ludicrous and my mind still boggles at the though of those people who lined up outside Apple stores to buy them.
2. Not as proprietary as in days gone by. Ever since the introduction of the B&W G3 tower they've been getting progressively less proprietary. Nowadays the Intel Macs are different pretty much in motherboard and chipset, and operating system, only.
3. The one thing you said that kind of irks me is about games. I'm not sure where the perception comes from that everyone wants to play games on their computer, but there are people who aren't interested in gaming. They either use consoles or handhelds, or simply aren't videogamers at all. Of my 4 systems, only one runs Windows and it's a Pentium 2. I only have Windows installed for audio ripping with EAC. I haven't played a new PC game in ages (played Portal on a friend's PC), probably not since System Shock 2, and I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything. All my systems run either Linux or MacOS. Games aren't a priority to me. My Mac can run the Myst games and some other adventure games, and that's sufficient for my gaming interests. Other than that, I use consoles. Thanks to fobi (thanks, Fobi!
Last edited by bitburn on 18 Feb 2008 - 20:43
Charging $100+ for upgrades that come out every 1.5 years or so is...questionable at best. I think $75 might be more reasonable, but apparently the market will bear $130. I guess that's why I'm not an economist.
As for the iterations of OS X being "service packs," that can be more or less true depending on which one you're looking at. I'd call 10.0.0.4 --> 10.1 a service pack, same with 10.1-->10.2. As for 10.3, it introduced some major new features like Exposé (which I kind of like) and FileVault (which I absolutely adore), so it's perhaps not fair to call it a "Service Pack."
10.4...really comes down to the Dashboard and what you thought of it, since it was the major new feature for the lion's share (no Apple-cat pun intended) of users. There were also the CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation features, but those were more geared toward coders. There were the 64-bit extensions, but at the time Tiger came out the only relevant system was the G5, so most users didn't benefit from that. Tiger was also a weird hybrid 32-bit/64-bit thing, which I don't quite understand.
10.5 is, as far as I'm seeing right now, too strong an improvement over 10.4 to be called a "Service Pack" by any stretch of the imagination. Being fully 64-bit helps the performance a LOT on my G5 quad, and the (finally, goddammit) multithreaded Finder is a night-and-day difference from the slow-ass piece of crap that passed for the Finder under previous versions of OS X. Time Machine, while I confess to not using it myself, is pretty revolutionary as Mac features go (though incremental backups have existed for ages), and as for Spaces...it's about time the Mac got what Linux has had for FIFTEEN FREAKING YEARS. At least they implemented it nicely. And despite Linux beating MacOS to the punch by a reDONKulous margin, it's definitely the kind of feature that changes how people work.
As for support for previous versions of MacOS, Apple has been pretty good. I was getting updates for Tiger the whole time I had it before upgrading just a few weeks ago. A lot of third-party programs support all the way back to 10.1, and I've never felt like I was missing out on a lot for waiting to upgrade. Having a common kernel helps, similar to the Win2000-->WinXP transition, but as to how much of the deal that accounts for, I'm not sure.
You still don't get the same performance or stability out of games in vista. not to mention all this games for vista crap. plus this windows live stuff eating all my resources or Microsoft thinking I want to use a xbox360 controller to play them all. But for a standard home desktop or laptop its not a half bad OS
You said it correctly, They are all good in their own ways and they are all bad in others....
Also, does anyone else know if we can complain about the shear number of "bashing" articles on the front page recently. Hmm, and they all seem to originate from one poster.....
Linux? For home users? That's pathetic. There needs to be more software that's production level that people can use with great compatibility and uniformity. The various different Linux distros do not have that.
Mac OS X? That'd be a great switch. However, the software that's out there is more expensive than that for Windows, usually. Secondly, Vista is more stable than Leopard on my MBP. I rarely ever restart Vista, I have to at least a few times a week because it can't recover from a sleep. That said, Mac OS would still be a great alternative.
I use Vista and Mac OS X regularly. I don't really have a preference for either, as I believe both are very well built. As for cost and scalability, though, I'd much rather use Windows. Most companies will want to use Windows. And this is one of the reasons why they do.
Tho software for the Mac ain't that expensive (think iLife, for eg.) the hardware part makes it a difficult task to just buy what you need. The lack of intervention in every aspect of the config might be as a hassle for 'sumers than DELL's ultra detailed order personalization.
I use OS X, use XP and Vista. I've used Ubuntu, SymphonyOS, and since I'm a graphics guy, animating things for TV, can't use OSS as of yet. There's no interoperability with industry standards, so my work gets compromised.
I give a **** for games... and think that although Vista is catchy sometimes in the drivers department, is FAR better than XP in UX stuff. The Explorer Vista has is by far a lot more usable than the lame file manager on xp... the whole setup, preferences stuff and other things have been layered so more pro users can get to them if they want to, but the first encounter seems a lot more simplified for the end user.
I will get my first Vista notebook from DELL in a couple of weeks. Time will tell if I'm right or not! Right now Vista kicks asses on my desktop!!
Let it go. I'm tired of reading the SOS every day, mostly users complaining about the "Vista this, Vista that" crap.
I haven't had any problems with Vista, even in its Beta 2 and RC1 stages back in mid-2006. I managed to grab the Vista Business RTM a day after the consumer launch (on Jan 31st, 2007 - through the MSDNAA thing from the former university I attended) - and more than 4 months later (on June 3rd, 2007), I upgraded to Vista Ultimate.
After 2 years of hardware replacing (since 2006) - the memory upgrade, hard drive upgrade, added a DVD burner, and changed the video card once - *on* a 4-year-old Dell Dim 8400 system (I have had it since July 2004 - used to have Win XP Home, 512 MB RAM, etc) ........ I haven't had any problems with Vista (both RTM and SP1) on this 4-yr-old computer.
Oh yeah, I built a computer from scratch for one of my classes last year and kept it. Pentium D, 1 GB RAM, 500-GB HD, the video card from the original Dell 8400, and DVD burner - used that self-built comp as a server of my own - yes, I have WS03 R2 and 08 both installed.
oh, and a couple 750GB hdds for my music, movies, and pRoN!!
I know that some will harp on that XP wasn't too good either when it first came out, but XP was a much bigger change from the 9x kernal to what it became, Vista really is mostly cosmetic for the most part with far fewer real changes than were planned to begin with. Even though, XP wasn't as bad as Vista actually is. People have a real choice now that Linux is maturing into a very stable and reliable OS. It far surpasses Windows in many regards that some are just too unwilling to accept the truth about and they will do their best to play it down. After near 25 years of using Microsoft's OSes I can now see the lie that it has been carrying on. There is a real choice out there. People don't have to be trapped with having to use Windows, a very faulty piece of software. Those who say otherwise are just slaves to an old way of thinking and can't see what is happening. Of course all OSes are not perfect, but some are a lot less perfect than others. I'm glad that I have now seen this reality after so long......
Definitely not true.
XP broke compatibility with far more programs and pieces of hardware when it came out. And it had many more bugs.
To say otherwise basically proves you never used XP RTM with the drivers that were available back then (even running RTM now is different cause at least you get modern drivers).
XP broke compatibility with far more programs and pieces of hardware when it came out. And it had many more bugs.
To say otherwise basically proves you never used XP RTM with the drivers that were available back then (even running RTM now is different cause at least you get modern drivers).
See what I mean....?
That was only because they had to go from 9x to NT as I had said. What's Vista's excuse? I only lost one piece of hardware, a webcam, because the manufacturer wasn't going to make a XP one. XP still wasn't nearly a real pain as Vista actually is and that is a fact whether you want to admit to it or not. And more people in the real world would agree with me than with you.
And you know what? I really don't care what apologists have to say, religious or otherwise. The more they talk the more they prove my point. Vista is a failure.
XP broke compatibility with far more programs and pieces of hardware when it came out. And it had many more bugs.
To say otherwise basically proves you never used XP RTM with the drivers that were available back then (even running RTM now is different cause at least you get modern drivers).
See what I mean....?
That was only because they had to go from 9x to NT as I had said. What's Vista's excuse? I only lost one piece of hardware, a webcam, because the manufacturer wasn't going to make a XP one. XP still wasn't nearly a real pain as Vista actually is and that is a fact whether you want to admit to it or not. And more people in the real world would agree with me than with you.
And you know what? I really don't care what apologists have to say, religious or otherwise. The more they talk the more they prove my point. Vista is a failure.
Vista is a failure that has more market share than OS X and EVERY SINGLE Linux distro combined. If Vista is a failure, what would you call Ubuntu or OS X?
- Driver not installed in a new install of a Linux distro: Run the installer from 's site. Doesn't work? Try recompiling the kernel. Still doesn't work? Then blame the manufacturers for closed source drivers.
- Driver not available OR severely crippled on Vista: Vista sucks, ditch it.
And you know what? I really don't care what apologists have to say, religious or otherwise. The more they talk the more they prove my point. Vista is a failure.
1) Microsoft has said time and again Vista changes more under the hood than the jump to 95 did. Third party developers say exactly the same thing when they write drivers and software for Vista (the ones that are open about these things anyway). Yet you're surprised drivers need to be re-written and some software doesn't work. It might be incremental feature-wise but definitely not on the underneath, whether you want to believe it or not.
2) I lost 1 piece of hardware moving from XP to Vista across 4 machines (same result as XP for me oddly enough, but I only had one machine and hardly any hardware back then). And only under the 64 bit edition was said device lost: a USB TV tuner. And no software was broken thanks to them already being updated to run (or already working no update needed). And this is including a little test I did on an old 733Mhz P3 system I did, it was slow with 384MB of RAM but everything worked.
3) For some systems yes, Vista will be a pain. XP has 6 year old system requirements, Vista doesn' - that will cause problems and I don't deny it. But I've never argued for people to install Vista on 4 year old machines (which is why that 733Mhz P3 above went back to XP after I played around with it, and now it's a fileserver running Linu
4) Ever hear of the phrase 'vocal minority'? It's quite an interesting definition you might want to look it up.
And as for everything else you said. What you're basically saying is you're going to believe what you want no matter what the evidence says, so my replying is useless I guess.
"Mac...the
"Ultimate"XP upgrade"It's just sad to realize that there are people out there who actually buy their propaganda.
Agree, last week, they was promoting a hard line mod line.
Today they are flashing a red flag in front of the bull in several news storys
Agree, last week, they was promoting a hard line mod line.
Today they are flashing a red flag in front of the bull in several news storys
I think this is one of the only times I've agreed with Evo about anything. It's all about the "DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO" mentality of the admins/mods with almost anything. In games, in forums... it's like they're children who just found daddy's loaded gun. I've said this in another thread, and it got deleted. Funny how the truth hurts, right?
The author complains about hardware and software incompatibility... funny. I thought it was Apple that switched the processor architecture on it's users... not once, but twice?
Ignorance is bliss, I guess, if you choose that path.
Linux has poor GUI support.
I do use Linux on my old laptop and server, but I don't like Linux be my desktop, why? It is painful to troubleshoot everything by yourself, and nobody can help you in some case.
I bet that I have about 4 linux ONLY trojan sources on some hard drive from years ago (AGO bot was one), you need to check Zone-H, linux has LOTS of trojans, and most are hidden backdoors, back in the day when we used to root servers... Find an exploit in an old apache or php version, exploit it, run some custom perl scripts, install a rootkit, become root and plant a hidden trojan process, the owner never notices a difference but we just got ourselves a 100Mbps server, those were the days
I bet that I have about 4 linux ONLY trojan sources on some hard drive from years ago (AGO bot was one), you need to check Zone-H, linux has LOTS of trojans, and most are hidden backdoors, back in the day when we used to root servers... Find an exploit in an old apache or php version, exploit it, run some custom perl scripts, install a rootkit, become root and plant a hidden trojan process, the owner never notices a difference but we just got ourselves a 100Mbps server, those were the days
I hate people like you. Let someone hijack your stuff and see how you feel. Jerk off.
I hate you, but I don't go bitching about it.
Anyway people DID, how I got into hacking in the first place because people did it to me, you assume things and like most other people you get it all wrong, so do NOT assume more things unless you know they are correct next time
I bet that I have about 4 linux ONLY trojan sources on some hard drive from years ago (AGO bot was one), you need to check Zone-H, linux has LOTS of trojans, and most are hidden backdoors, back in the day when we used to root servers... Find an exploit in an old apache or php version, exploit it, run some custom perl scripts, install a rootkit, become root and plant a hidden trojan process, the owner never notices a difference but we just got ourselves a 100Mbps server, those were the days
I wouldn't say rootkits are the same thing as viruses.
Vista is much much better than XP, including games, taking into account that some games that don't work in vista are not MS fault, as with drivers developers (creative...just a sad story about driver support for vista).
XP is good now but people with new computer need to uninstall the crap companies bundle or order their systems without the loads of programs and adware that comes nowadays. This is the main reason the first experience with vista is annoying for most people.
so he went from having lots of choice to 1 choice, unless of course he installs vista XP or linux on his mac, which he doesnt seem to want to do on a PC. and whocares if it is soon obsolete, and what does he mean by that 'unsupported' just means MS will stop releasing updates for it, however if critical issues are found they will still be fixed.. the guysa tool, it wont be obsolete for quite a while, as applicatinos will still run on it, it will only be obsolete when applications dont work on it and hardware no longer comes with drivers for it
not that i didnt like xp... but once a virus came and removed my bootsector and thats it... i was doomed... with linux this has not happened so far. and from what i know of it would never happen...
i do go into xp for playing games... but normal day to day things are in linux only.
for those of you who are not convinced, request you to download a live cd and give it a try. i am sure you would like the OS. if you do not like it, just throw away the disc or pass it on to some one who wants to give it a shot... there might be some command line operations after the install (in most cases it is not the case)... and actually i find somehtings are faster in command line than from gui... i mean opening the app, clicking a button, etc.... instead just type a command and you are thru...
Thank God for flywheel scrolling.
My windows have been perfectly safe and will be so on.
Those who don't protect their computers should blame themselves for their ignorance.
It's like you crash a car and go whine about it somewhere that, lets say
Each year, for the past 10 years or so, there are news stories that 'This is the year of Linux!' So, I grab a Linux distro or two, and give them a spin. I've tried Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake/Mandriva, Ubuntu to name but a few. For a couple of days I try my best to like Linux. Each year I run away screaming, back to the easy comfort of Windows. Don't get me wrong, Linux is progressing, but to me it's only got as far as Win95. Sure, it has fancy graphical effects, but they're just eye candy. We're well into the 21st Century, the time of the command line is long gone, and good riddance.
I've been running Vista exclusively on my machines (not on my work desktop yet unfortunately, nor my Eee PC which is XP) since the Beta 1 days, with no real issues to speak of (other than what you would expect during a beta). It even runs spot on on my low spec Dell Inspiron 1300.
Sure, Windows has some ragged edges, but to me Linux is more like a rip-saw blade.
Can't comment on Macs, as my experience of them was about 1 hour 15 years ago.
Just my 2p worth.
I believe XP is set to stand upto 2014.
I think thats it, final.
However I will probably goto Windows 7 when that hits SP2.
I would prefer a subscription windows, so when life cycle finishes I pay a subscription for further year(s), then the millions of us that still wish to use XP can get updates each year and pay £30 per year.
When Microsoft finish their Hyper-V virtualisation, technical people will start changing their minds (as will I) Then they can start running anything and everything. I have not got the courage even to attempt fiddling with Xen. Linux is fine, but anything other than a basic installation on well known hardware usually turns into a headache.
There is a good reason why people hate Vista, that is only likely to change with Windows 7, Microsoft will not make the same mistake that puts so many people off their latest and greatest. I still like Windows 2000!
i never use any other OS other than windows .........
GOD know what will happen
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.