Windows 7

[loopy]

My problem with Windows Vista is that it EATS MEMORY! And it is very slow. Is this new Windows 7, going to be a better product with less "bloated code" and continual patches?

If you try to run Vista with less than 3 gigs of memory it's not going to work well. I limped along for a year before adding another gig to my note book. It's painful.

I've used Linux and it's lightning fast by comparison and takes much less operating space. I can boot my computer in either mode.

Free Office works better than MS-OFFICE and it's free. I just don't get the rapture with Windows.

MacOS is a better platform but it'll never take off the way it should because nobody develops any kick ass games for MAC and all the APPS are freaking ridiculously expensive because they have to recoup their investment on such a limited population.

But back to my original question... besides the cute little note functions and doo-dads... is it faster and less prone to problems? Does it require less system resources than VISTA?

If not, they can keep it. I'm not wasting a dime on upgrading everything just to run their lastest software.

-Brutal

I think the whole point of win 7 is to try and fix the clusterfuck that is vista, thats why they released so soon after vista :/.

[Brutal]

I think the whole point of win 7 is to try and fix the clusterfuck that is vista, thats why they released so soon after vista :/.

Well Vista didn't deliver what it promised. I think Windows 7 should be a free upgrade to everyone who purchased a copy of Vista. Selling a shoddy product and then selling the "repaired" product under another name is just crappy business.

It won't suck for Microsoft right now. But it will soon. A company I was at was using very old copies of Office. I believe Office 97. They wanted to upgrade 70 computers and were dumbstuck by the cost. I showed them "Open Office" and the company decided to use that instead of paying the $40k for MS Office licenses.

As more people use alternative software, Microsoft is gonna feel the bite. They already have because they did a layoff not just 6 months ago. Why? Because they are losing money hand over fist right now. Nobody wants to buy into a continual upgrade process.

Computers are now being sold with Linux installed. It's a beautiful thing.

-Brutal

[loopy]

Well Vista didn't deliver what it promised. I think Windows 7 should be a free upgrade to everyone who purchased a copy of Vista. Selling a shoddy product and then selling the "repaired" product under another name is just crappy business.

It won't suck for Microsoft right now. But it will soon. A company I was at was using very old copies of Office. I believe Office 97. They wanted to upgrade 70 computers and were dumbstuck by the cost. I showed them "Open Office" and the company decided to use that instead of paying the $40k for MS Office licenses.

As more people use alternative software, Microsoft is gonna feel the bite. They already have because they did a layoff not just 6 months ago. Why? Because they are losing money hand over fist right now. Nobody wants to buy into a continual upgrade process.

Computers are now being sold with Linux installed. It's a beautiful thing.

-Brutal

Yep, they do need to sort out the pricing of it, only massive companies will pay to upgrade, medium sized will stick with what they've got or move to something cheaper as long as retraining is cheap. Windows still has the home market cornered through.

[ArtemisEnterri]

Well Vista didn't deliver what it promised. I think Windows 7 should be a free upgrade to everyone who purchased a copy of Vista. Selling a shoddy product and then selling the "repaired" product under another name is just crappy business.

It won't suck for Microsoft right now. But it will soon. A company I was at was using very old copies of Office. I believe Office 97. They wanted to upgrade 70 computers and were dumbstuck by the cost. I showed them "Open Office" and the company decided to use that instead of paying the $40k for MS Office licenses.

As more people use alternative software, Microsoft is gonna feel the bite. They already have because they did a layoff not just 6 months ago. Why? Because they are losing money hand over fist right now. Nobody wants to buy into a continual upgrade process.

Computers are now being sold with Linux installed. It's a beautiful thing.

-Brutal

Absolutely, it IS a beautiful thing! And I also agree that the MS pricing scheme is INSANE!

For instance, let's say you paid $90 for Win 95 back in it's day, then had to shell out the extra $50 to update from 95 to 98. Then when XP hit the market, you had to pay another $90 to update from 98 to XP. The Vista hits shelves with a price of $150 to update from XP... It is completely nuts. In this hypothetical example, you would have spent a total of $380 JUST FOR THE MAIN OS if you were still running the same computer all those years! That doesn't even include any costs for replacing software (like Office) each time... (The pricing for the Mac OS versions during those same years was just as bad... No free updates...)

If you had been running Linux that same length of time, your cost would have been $0 - ZERO DOLLARS!

Linux is so much better than Windows (or even OSX) can ever dream to be. The reason: OPEN SOURCE! Meaning that everyone who uses a Linux distribution can (if they have the skills and choose to do so) fix anything they consider a glitch, bug, problem, etc or even add functions or features not previously existing, then send those changes out to the rest of the Linux world for review, testing, and eventually addition to at least one (if not many) distribution.

Windows (and OSX), being closed source, doesn't have enough eyes looking at it to review for bugs or to find potential hardware/software conflicts.

In the end, Windows will LOSE the market for computer Operating Systems.

[ArtemisEnterri]

Is it much easier to install linux instead of OSX?

Since I have never used OSX (and have no intention of owning a Mac due to the insane price differences - I can build my own PC with nearly double the cpu speed, harddrive space, and ram for the listed price of any Mac model) I cannot answer that question Loopy.

I know it's a lot different than installing Windows, since the Linux installer has more options for you to choose from, but it also has more things it can install - like the free games & apps included with the distribution. Like I said earlier, a Windows install disc can only install Windows, nothing else.

[ArtemisEnterri]

Since none of what you just said has anything to do with "OSX = Linux!!!111one"; I'm going to assume you're just building a strawman argument to cover-up your error. It doesn't matter how many installations of BSD there are vs that of Linux; none of the above facts presented make BSD equal to Linux in all forms and manners. The kernels are different; and though they can be made binary compatible it doesn't make them the *same*.

I'll make a few *really* easy statements for you to understand ~

BSD != Linux

Darwin == A Flavor of BSD

Mac OS X == Darwin + NeXT + Aqua (Carbon/Cocoa)

.:

Mac OS X != Linux

It's okay to say "Oh, right; Pudding. I was wrong with that assumption; haha!" rather than argue a silly point into the ground.

Pudding, did you miss the fact where I said BSD and Linux SHARE SOME OF THE MAIN SOURCE CODE?

BSD may not be EQUAL to Linux, but it IS RELATED to Linux.

If you know how to use one, you can use the other without additional training.

[WetDad]

I love it- a thread on DD that has degraded into a pissing match. Who'd a thunk it? Mac vs. PC vs. Linux vs. Eunochs vs. WhatEver.

Here is my take:

Mac- training wheels for technology. Good for the technically ignorant.

Linux- Perfect if you have lots of time and no money. Made by and for unemployed IT staffers.

WinPC- For those with money but no time. Slowly getting better

Hey- if your machine makes you happy that is good enough for me.

Now- back to the OT-> I've been using Win7 for more than a year now and watched it grow in speed and stability along the way. I will update all my family's machines once it hits the stores in October. We have been using Vista and never had a problem with it.

[BabyDavey]

Pudding, did you miss the fact where I said BSD and Linux SHARE SOME OF THE MAIN SOURCE CODE?

BSD may not be EQUAL to Linux, but it IS RELATED to Linux.

If you know how to use one, you can use the other without additional training.

I'm not too sure about that "share some of the main source code". The core of either (the kernel) is essentially what defines whether it's Linux or BSD. The Linux kernel and majority of the software is typically released under a GPL license. This gives the user certain rights to the source code, but restricts it in other ways - basically ensuring that a company, say Apple, can't take the open source Linux kernel and turn it into a closed source OS. BSD on the other hand is released under the BSD license. The open source BSD kernel can be tailored to a specific piece of hardware (perhaps a Mac, or an iPhone/iPod touch) and then the source is closed (OSX).

Yeah, Linux and BSD are related, but they don't share the source. It would violate several licenses. They can run the same software (if it's recompiled), and perhaps even the same drivers (I'm not sure on this one). But they're not the same source.

Linux is easy to install - as has been said earlier - for most hardware. I've had a few tricky installations, and these issues can usually be overcome by visiting forums. It has definitely come a long way since I've started fiddling with it. BSD is more CLI as has also been stated, but the CLI has it's advantages. There are some minimalistic LiveCD versions of (free)BSD that contain very useful recovery tools. I've used them a few times when I've hosed a partition or wanted to backup an entire partition to a file.

OSX, because it's designed to run on specific hardware is easy to install also. All the drivers are there as the computer manufacturer and the os developer are the same entity. If Microsoft had the tight control over drivers and 3rd party hardware that Apple has, the stability problems that Windows usually has with new OS releases wouldn't be an issue. As they allow anybody to create and distribute hardware and drivers for Windows, poorly written drivers can conflict with other poorly written drivers and cause lovely things like the Blue Screen of Death (BSoD). Hell, my iPod Touch and iTunes gave me a BSoD in the beta release of Win7 (when I unplugged the USB when my laptop was in sleep and iTunes was open).

For me, the Windows 7 installation was basically seamless - considering what troubles I've had with earlier releases of Windows. Only a couple of things didn't install properly, but that was fixed with a quick visit to their web site and also the Windows update service.

[babykeiff]

Everyone,

consider this before chosing an OS for your computer.

• Every company in the world, when they want the computer to do real work, they use LINUX. When they wish the computer to behave as a glorified typewriter, some use Windows and MS Office OR a shell on a LINUX host machine. These machines run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and some have been running continusly for the past 10-20 years. Some machines (running CoBOL based software) have been running since the 70s. These include banks, financial instutions, and most hospital software.

• Graphics based companies, requiring powerful graphics processing, use Apple RISC processors, and the variation of LINUX altered to suit.

• The world wide web is based on LINUX, hosted by LINUX servers, and the web browser that is used (even on a Windows based machine) has the core of LINUX.

• LINUX machines don't require anti-virus / anti-spyware programs. It is the 'autorun' feature of a Windows machine that 'lets' virus's / spyware attack.

• Most home users use Windows, and are either 1 or 2 versions behind the current release. Reason : cost / learning curve / new hardware required / no comercial need to upgrade

• Microsoft have managed to do in their ten plus operating system versions, and thirty four years of existance (1975 - 2009) is

1. combine the typewriter, and fax / telex machine and a games machine into a single unit.
2. convince their customers, that it is correct to sell faulty product.
3. constantly update their product inorder to make hardware obsolete. - eg, NetBooks (4 months old) has a maximum ram of 2gb. Windows 7 on its own requires a minimum of 3gb. Yet, I could easily install Windows 7, Vista, XP, and 2000 in shells of a core LINUX OS, and have them all running concurrently on the exact same specification machine. How? How does the LINUX OS handle 4 operating systems and itself better that any one of a Windows OS can? Simple answer, LINUX WORKS, WINDOWS DOES NOT.

I honestly believe that if retail decided to stock both two machines, one optimized for Windows 7, and the other optimized for LINUX, that

1. The LINUX machine would be way way cheaper.
2. The LINUX machine would be way way faster.
3. The Windows machine would never sell.

In my humble opinion, the world would be much much better off if Microsoft never existed. Then, you could go into a shop, pay money for product, and make the reasonable assumption that the product you bought will work.

[loopy]

• LINUX machines don't require anti-virus / anti-spyware programs. It is the 'autorun' feature of a Windows machine that 'lets' virus's / spyware attack.

Bollocks! And you know it. Most virus's are caused by dumb users clicking on random files. Just less dumb users using linux machines.

• Microsoft have managed to do in their ten plus operating system versions, and thirty four years of existance (1975 - 2009) is

1. combine the typewriter, and fax / telex machine and a games machine into a single unit.
2. convince their customers, that it is correct to sell faulty product.
3. constantly update their product inorder to make hardware obsolete. - eg, NetBooks (4 months old) has a maximum ram of 2gb. Windows 7 on its own requires a minimum of 3gb. Yet, I could easily install Windows 7, Vista, XP, and 2000 in shells of a core LINUX OS, and have them all running concurrently on the exact same specification machine. How? How does the LINUX OS handle 4 operating systems and itself better that any one of a Windows OS can? Simple answer, LINUX WORKS, WINDOWS DOES NOT.

I honestly believe that if retail decided to stock both two machines, one optimized for Windows 7, and the other optimized for LINUX, that

1. The LINUX machine would be way way cheaper.
2. The LINUX machine would be way way faster.
3. The Windows machine would never sell.

In my humble opinion, the world would be much much better off if Microsoft never existed. Then, you could go into a shop, pay money for product, and make the reasonable assumption that the product you bought will work.

Firstly, Microsoft have managed much more then making a glorified type writer, they made a system that works and that alot of software/hardware companies support, be that through dodgy industry pratices or what ever.

As for ram and hard disk space... they're so cheap that its a non problem now, hell I got 4gig of ram for £50 which is nothing really, and a terrabyte of disk space for £70 and that was half a year ago.

Also, in the UK at least retail do stock both linux and windows machines. And due to OEM schemes from Microsoft they're not that much more expensive, if at all. As for performance difference your average consumer isn't going to give a crap, especially when performance is pretty cheap.

The fact is for the vast majority of people, windows works, the updates work, the average person on the street doesn't give a crap about instant speed, they just want their email, and most know how windows works.

You linux fanbois need to take a step back and look at why windows is the biggest OS in the world. Its not because of performance, its not because of price. Its because it works, it does the job, and most people just want that.

And yes i am drunk :X

[ArtemisEnterri]

Everyone,

consider this before chosing an OS for your computer.

* Every company in the world, when they want the computer to do real work, they use LINUX. When they wish the computer to behave as a glorified typewriter, some use Windows and MS Office OR a shell on a LINUX host machine. These machines run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and some have been running continusly for the past 10-20 years. Some machines (running CoBOL based software) have been running since the 70s. These include banks, financial instutions, and most hospital software.

* Graphics based companies, requiring powerful graphics processing, use Apple RISC processors, and the variation of LINUX altered to suit.

* The world wide web is based on LINUX, hosted by LINUX servers, and the web browser that is used (even on a Windows based machine) has the core of LINUX.

* LINUX machines don't require anti-virus / anti-spyware programs. It is the 'autorun' feature of a Windows machine that 'lets' virus's / spyware attack.

* Most home users use Windows, and are either 1 or 2 versions behind the current release. Reason : cost / learning curve / new hardware required / no comercial need to upgrade

* Microsoft have managed to do in their ten plus operating system versions, and thirty four years of existance (1975 - 2009) is

1. combine the typewriter, and fax / telex machine and a games machine into a single unit.

2. convince their customers, that it is correct to sell faulty product.

3. constantly update their product inorder to make hardware obsolete. - eg, NetBooks (4 months old) has a maximum ram of 2gb. Windows 7 on its own requires a minimum of 3gb. Yet, I could easily install Windows 7, Vista, XP, and 2000 in shells of a core LINUX OS, and have them all running concurrently on the exact same specification machine. How? How does the LINUX OS handle 4 operating systems and itself better that any one of a Windows OS can? Simple answer, LINUX WORKS, WINDOWS DOES NOT.

I honestly believe that if retail decided to stock both two machines, one optimized for Windows 7, and the other optimized for LINUX, that

1. The LINUX machine would be way way cheaper.

2. The LINUX machine would be way way faster.

3. The Windows machine would never sell.

In my humble opinion, the world would be much much better off if Microsoft never existed. Then, you could go into a shop, pay money for product, and make the reasonable assumption that the product you bought will work.

You are absolutely right Keiff.

If Microsoft had never existed, we would still have multiple operating systems to choose from (like the old Commodore Amiga, OS/2 from IBM, the different brands of DOS, etc), and software manufacturers would have no choice but to release multiple separate versions so everyone could use that program (whether an app or a game).

Microsoft has a LONG history of DELIBERATELY removing competition by buying the competing company then locking away that software.

Bollocks! And you know it. Most virus's are caused by dumb users clicking on random files. Just less dumb users using linux machines.

Bollocks yourself Loopy. Viruses are NOT "caused by dumb users", viruses are caused by ABSOLUTELY EVIL PROGRAMMERS who think it is "fun" to cause havoc for other people. Linux has less than ONE PERCENT of the number of viruses that Windows has, simply because there's fewer machines to be attacked compared to the number of Windows machines that can be affected (and also that Linux is so much more secure thanks to the efforts of MILLIONS OF CODERS around the world).

Firstly, Microsoft have managed much more then making a glorified type writer, they made a system that works and that alot of software/hardware companies support, be that through dodgy industry pratices or what ever.

As for ram and hard disk space... they're so cheap that its a non problem now, hell I got 4gig of ram for £50 which is nothing really, and a terrabyte of disk space for £70 and that was half a year ago.

Also, in the UK at least retail do stock both linux and windows machines. And due to OEM schemes from Microsoft they're not that much more expensive, if at all. As for performance difference your average consumer isn't going to give a crap, especially when performance is pretty cheap.

The fact is for the vast majority of people, windows works, the updates work, the average person on the street doesn't give a crap about instant speed, they just want their email, and most know how windows works.

You linux fanbois need to take a step back and look at why windows is the biggest OS in the world. Its not because of performance, its not because of price. Its because it works, it does the job, and most people just want that.

And yes i am drunk :X

Again Loopy, you are WRONG. The ONLY reason Windows is "the biggest OS in the world" is because Microsoft FORCED IT TO BE THAT WAY! Microsoft did not SUCCEED through proper business practices. Microsoft became the primary Operation System company in the market through THUG-STYLE TACTICS. Microsoft was buying out small-time companies who were trying to produce their own operating systems to compete against Windows (or those who already had OS's out there).

Windows DOES NOT WORK, OR ELSE THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO RELEASE NEW VERSIONS WITH NEW NAMES! The BSoD is PROOF that Windows does not work. The fact that Windows machines are being nailed with viruses, keyloggers, trojans, and being turned into zombie machines PROVES that Windows DOES NOT KEEP PEOPLE'S MACHINES SAFE!

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the primary OS was DOS (which came in multiple "flavors" - IBM-DOS, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, etc), computers REALLY DID WORK without hassles. Windows was good through v3.1 (which essentially ran on top of whatever DOS version the machine was running), but with the release of Win95, Microsoft began a dictatorship over the PC world. That dictatorship MUST BE BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES!

People DON'T "want" an OS that can easily be attacked by viruses (since Windows by itself does NOT have virus scanning capabilities). People DON'T "want" an OS that needs to be rebooted on a daily basis because of an update patch or because the system slows down after hours of use (because Windows does not have a proper memory management design, if you shut down programs in a different order than what you opened them in, you leave "holes" in the ram equivalent to the "holes" on a harddrive that lead to the need for "defragging", but Windows doesn't have a "ram defragger" ability).

What "most people want" is what they are COMFORTABLE with, and because of the last 20 years being dominated by Windows, they don't know that there's other options.

Think about this: Linux does "out of the box" MANY things that Windows requires EXTRA SOFTWARE (meaning EXTRA COST TO PURCHASE) to do: ftp server, email server, sql server, software development (coding and compiling - C/C++, Lisp, Python, Ruby, etc), and so much more. All of it included FREE during the install of the OS.

[Pudding]

does "out of the box" MANY things that Windows requires EXTRA SOFTWARE (meaning EXTRA COST TO PURCHASE) to do: ftp server, email server, sql server, software development (coding and compiling - C/C++, Lisp, Python, Ruby, etc), and so much more. All of it included FREE during the install of the OS.

The following programs are available free for the Win32 environment.

FTP Server

Filezilla

Xlight

Cerberus

Email Server (You didn't specify POP, IMAP or SMTP, btw ~ so I took liberty and included only full featured solutions)

hMailServer

Macallan

SQL

MySQL

Microsoft SQL Server Express

Software Development

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for Visual Basic

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for C#

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for C++

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for Web Developers

All of these products are available *free* to use with any Windows install. And most importantly; they're not included by default so that people who don't need them aren't forced to have them~

[ArtemisEnterri]

The following programs are available free for the Win32 environment.

FTP Server

Filezilla

Xlight

Cerberus

Email Server (You didn't specify POP, IMAP or SMTP, btw ~ so I took liberty and included only full featured solutions)

hMailServer

Macallan

SQL

MySQL

Microsoft SQL Server Express

Software Development

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for Visual Basic

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for C#

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for C++

Microsoft Visual Studio Express for Web Developers

All of these products are available *free* to use with any Windows install. And most importantly; they're not included by default so that people who don't need them aren't forced to have them~

Umm, you really must never have run a Linux install in your life then, because you are NOT "forced" to install anything beyond the central kernel and the most basic set of system tools. EVERYTHING else that is included on the install media is OPTIONAL!

[Pudding]

All of it included FREE during the install of the OS.

Perhaps you should word your posts better, in that case?

I've dabbled in the Linux OS with Ubuntu and it seemed to include all manner of inconsistently styled and semi-functional apps and daemons that I have no real desire to have. In the end Puddin' wondered why use a Unix OS built by amateurs when she can have her Unix OS built by professionals - OSX <3

[dl_ashlee]

* Graphics based companies, requiring powerful graphics processing, use Apple RISC processors, and the variation of LINUX altered to suit.

Please get your facts straight. Apple does not make processors. Before switching to Intel's Core 2 processors they used RISC processors made by Motorola.

Also what do you mean by "graphics based companies" this is to general of a term.

Risc has basically become a dead technology. Pixar, Disney's Light and Magic have all switched from Sun's and SGI's RISC processing computers to Intel or AMD's Multiple Core processors using CISC.

It is true that these companies run a flavor of linux, but they are specialized and engineered for that specific task. These are not your typical desktop flavor linux, such as fedora, suse, ubuntu, gentoo, debian.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but an open source OS just can't become a main stream desktop OS. The typical user doesn't want to spend hours customizing their computer for their specific needs. And always is missing something critical and is always more complicated to install whatever you need then it is in windows or mac. Also because of all the flavors of linux there is no standard. And that's the nature of open source, and the typical user just wants some kind of standard as they can expect to go to any computer running windows and know how to use it without having to relearn how to do things.

I love linux for specific tasks, but as a general everyday computer windows or mac os is the easiest to use.

Gotta love the linux fan boys that can't realize that it isn't the best solution for every task out there. And the customer decides what will work for them and the majority has spoken what works best for them at a price point that works for them.

In engineering the statement goes there is no best solution solution for designing the software or hardware. The best solution is designing the hardware software to the customers needs and wants. Such as the simplest circuit is not always what the customer requires, so even though the hardware with the simplest circuit will be the most reliable and cheapest, this might not be what they are after. Say if the customer wants a alarm clock that also works as a space heater. As the more complex the circuit the more heat it will produce, so the engineer will have to design a more complex circuit with more parts as the more parts you have, the more current they draw, which in turn generates more heat. So a complex enough circuit will have to be built to produce enough heat to warm up a room.

[loopy]

I HAVE A STICK AND I SHALL PROD!

Microsoft has a LONG history of DELIBERATELY removing competition by buying the competing company then locking away that software.

This is bad but isn't unique to Microsoft, the big oil companies buy up new forms of energy all the time and then just sit on it.

Bollocks yourself Loopy. Viruses are NOT "caused by dumb users", viruses are caused by ABSOLUTELY EVIL PROGRAMMERS who think it is "fun" to cause havoc for other people. Linux has less than ONE PERCENT of the number of viruses that Windows has, simply because there's fewer machines to be attacked compared to the number of Windows machines that can be affected (and also that Linux is so much more secure thanks to the efforts of MILLIONS OF CODERS around the world).

Sorry, but as someone who uses windows and barely ever needs to do a virus/ adware scan, I know its users, its the silly person who just double clicks attachements with out looking that creates the problem. If Linux had a larger install base there would be just as many viruses floating around for it. Is it that much more secure? really? Theres always a way round even the most secure systems, and scammers/virus writers will get in there. The only way to prevent viruses in a long term way is to teach people good practice. Most linux users are savvy to this, most windows users aren't.

Again Loopy, you are WRONG. The ONLY reason Windows is "the biggest OS in the world" is because Microsoft FORCED IT TO BE THAT WAY! Microsoft did not SUCCEED through proper business practices. Microsoft became the primary Operation System company in the market through THUG-STYLE TACTICS. Microsoft was buying out small-time companies who were trying to produce their own operating systems to compete against Windows (or those who already had OS's out there).

Firstly I'm sure I mentioned dodgy industry practices, or did you just skim the post?

I couldn't really care what tactics they use, this isn't a very nice world, and I'm not going to stop using the best OS for the job just because of some outdated moral code. The owners of those small time companies let them selves be brought out, its what they wanted. Make some tech that looks slightly interesting then sell out and make some quick cash.

Windows DOES NOT WORK, OR ELSE THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO RELEASE NEW VERSIONS WITH NEW NAMES! The BSoD is PROOF that Windows does not work. The fact that Windows machines are being nailed with viruses, keyloggers, trojans, and being turned into zombie machines PROVES that Windows DOES NOT KEEP PEOPLE'S MACHINES SAFE!

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the primary OS was DOS (which came in multiple "flavors" - IBM-DOS, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, etc), computers REALLY DID WORK without hassles. Windows was good through v3.1 (which essentially ran on top of whatever DOS version the machine was running), but with the release of Win95, Microsoft began a dictatorship over the PC world. That dictatorship MUST BE BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES!

I haven't had a BSOD in years, and the last time i had one was due to a faulty graphics card. BSODs happen for a reason, and that reason is either poorly written software messing up, or a true hardware problem. And why should microsoft have to take responsibility for keeping peoples computers safe? What ever happened to people taking care of their own stuff? The fact that the windows team releases so many updates for free shows that they want to support the OS and keep making it better.

As for that second paragraph...... Words actually fail me, they're not a government killing its own people, they're a god damn software company that are good at what they do.

[loopy]

Bleh @ a limited number of quote block :S

People DON'T "want" an OS that can easily be attacked by viruses (since Windows by itself does NOT have virus scanning capabilities). People DON'T "want" an OS that needs to be rebooted on a daily basis because of an update patch or because the system slows down after hours of use (because Windows does not have a proper memory management design, if you shut down programs in a different order than what you opened them in, you leave "holes" in the ram equivalent to the "holes" on a harddrive that lead to the need for "defragging", but Windows doesn't have a "ram defragger" ability).

What "most people want" is what they are COMFORTABLE with, and because of the last 20 years being dominated by Windows, they don't know that there's other options.

Its only easily attacked because of poor user education, and windows has defender, or do you mean an always on real time virus scanner?

People don't care about rebooting, they turn their computers off when they're finished with them anyways. Maximum 2 Minutes reboot time, they just don't care. And as for it slowing down after hours of use, well in my experience that's just not true. I regularly leave this box on for weeks at a time and get no slow down.

Think about this: Linux does "out of the box" MANY things that Windows requires EXTRA SOFTWARE (meaning EXTRA COST TO PURCHASE) to do: ftp server, email server, sql server, software development (coding and compiling - C/C++, Lisp, Python, Ruby, etc), and so much more. All of it included FREE during the install of the OS.

Think about this, you get a choice of programs alot of which are free that do that for windows. And instead of using what ever program some furry toothed geek put on the install disk you get to actually go looking for it! Imagine that.

At the end of the day, I don't care what OS people use, I just get annoyed at rabid fanboism, especially from you linux guys. The average pc user isn't dedicated to the machine, they just treat a computer the same as any other house hold appliance.

Edit: right on ashlee said it better then my hungover ranting could ever hope to

[ArtemisEnterri]

* Graphics based companies, requiring powerful graphics processing, use Apple RISC processors, and the variation of LINUX altered to suit.

Please get your facts straight. Apple does not make processors. Before switching to Intel's Core 2 processors they used RISC processors made by Motorola.

Also what do you mean by "graphics based companies" this is to general of a term.

Risc has basically become a dead technology. Pixar, Disney's Light and Magic have all switched from Sun's and SGI's RISC processing computers to Intel or AMD's Multiple Core processors using CISC.

It is true that these companies run a flavor of linux, but they are specialized and engineered for that specific task. These are not your typical desktop flavor linux, such as fedora, suse, ubuntu, gentoo, debian.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but an open source OS just can't become a main stream desktop OS. The typical user doesn't want to spend hours customizing their computer for their specific needs. And always is missing something critical and is always more complicated to install whatever you need then it is in windows or mac. Also because of all the flavors of linux there is no standard. And that's the nature of open source, and the typical user just wants some kind of standard as they can expect to go to any computer running windows and know how to use it without having to relearn how to do things.

I love linux for specific tasks, but as a general everyday computer windows or mac os is the easiest to use.

Gotta love the linux fan boys that can't realize that it isn't the best solution for every task out there. And the customer decides what will work for them and the majority has spoken what works best for them at a price point that works for them.

In engineering the statement goes there is no best solution solution for designing the software or hardware. The best solution is designing the hardware software to the customers needs and wants. Such as the simplest circuit is not always what the customer requires, so even though the hardware with the simplest circuit will be the most reliable and cheapest, this might not be what they are after. Say if the customer wants a alarm clock that also works as a space heater. As the more complex the circuit the more heat it will produce, so the engineer will have to design a more complex circuit with more parts as the more parts you have, the more current they draw, which in turn generates more heat. So a complex enough circuit will have to be built to produce enough heat to warm up a room.

Gee, I LOVE the people who assume that Open Source automatically means that people "spend hours customizing their computer for their specific need". Guess what, I can download a NEW edition Linux install image, burn it to cd or dvd, install the OS, then run the PC for MONTHS without ever doing anything more than setting up user accounts and passwords. See your post seems to me like it is written as if you've only used the OLDER less user-friendly distributions (from maybe 2005 or earlier) and have not tried any of the NEWEST "idiot proofed" installers.

And TECHNICALLY, in the Linux world, the Linux kernel IS a "standard" item (since you can't have ANY "flavor" of Linux without the kernel), as well as xWindows (whether it's the xfree86 or x.org edition) and the KDE or GNOME graphic environments, and even the GCC software development system is a "standard" (although it is not REQUIRED for general use of the machine) <- these 5 (counting KDE and GNOME separately) ARE STANDARD ON ALL LINUX INSTALLATION DISCS. The major difference between distributions is what secondary programs they include (apps, games, etc). And no, there is nothing "complicated to install" if you have the GUI for the Software Management app (whether zypper, yum, apt-get, etc).

I've said this already on this thread, and I'll just keep repeating it: the ONLY reason Windows is so popular is because Microsoft made sure there was no competition. If it wasn't for Microsoft, companies like Commodore and Tandy (Radio Shack - remember the TRS 80's?) might still be making their computers and their own OS's.

And guess what, there are MANY European countries who have TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY switched AWAY from Windows for all their GOVERNMENT computer systems.

I've had my 7 year old daughter play around on a Linux GUI screen and have NO TROUBLE AT ALL using the same "point and click" techniques she knows from Windows on the Linux machine. So your comment of "but as a general everyday computer windows or mac os is the easiest to use" is simply based on your BIAS toward Windows and against Linux and not any real FACT.

ANY GUI is "easy to use". What makes me laugh is that these days most people would be completely lost if their mouse (or trackball, touchpad, etc) stopped working and they couldn't get a replacement fast enough, since even in schools they don't even teach keyboard commands or shortcuts anymore. I was in a computer class in 2004 and the teacher freaked when I opened the dos-style command prompt and typed a few commands (because that teacher never used command line stuff themselves). I grew up with DOS first, then started using Windows, so I'm more comfortable using keyboard commands and command lines than I am with "point and click".

[ArtemisEnterri]

I HAVE A STICK AND I SHALL PROD!

This is bad but isn't unique to Microsoft, the big oil companies buy up new forms of energy all the time and then just sit on it.

Sorry, but as someone who uses windows and barely ever needs to do a virus/ adware scan, I know its users, its the silly person who just double clicks attachements with out looking that creates the problem. If Linux had a larger install base there would be just as many viruses floating around for it. Is it that much more secure? really? Theres always a way round even the most secure systems, and scammers/virus writers will get in there. The only way to prevent viruses in a long term way is to teach people good practice. Most linux users are savvy to this, most windows users aren't.

It's not just email attachments that allow virus attacks. There are very badly coded parts in the Windows OS itself that hackers use through web pages and scripts to plant things on your machine without you ever clicking anything. So STOP blaming it on users. If you want to point the finger at someone point it at the assholes who write the viruses in the first place. Don't sit there being smug and say "it's their fault cuz they clicked it", that's like telling a woman "it's your fault you got raped because you dressed like that". You can't stop a virus that is embedded in a web page if you don't know it is there in the first place. Just doing a word search in google, yahoo, msn, aol, etc can give you links to pages that are infected...

Firstly I'm sure I mentioned dodgy industry practices, or did you just skim the post?

I couldn't really care what tactics they use, this isn't a very nice world, and I'm not going to stop using the best OS for the job just because of some outdated moral code. The owners of those small time companies let them selves be brought out, its what they wanted. Make some tech that looks slightly interesting then sell out and make some quick cash.

Well, you don't know that for sure and neither do I. All I know is that the moment Microsoft buys a software company, usually any and all projects that company was working on DISAPPEAR. Hell, Microsoft RUINED the Mechwarrior and Freelancer games (both were written by other companies which Microsoft bought before those companies could market the games).

I haven't had a BSOD in years, and the last time i had one was due to a faulty graphics card. BSODs happen for a reason, and that reason is either poorly written software messing up, or a true hardware problem. And why should microsoft have to take responsibility for keeping peoples computers safe? What ever happened to people taking care of their own stuff? The fact that the windows team releases so many updates for free shows that they want to support the OS and keep making it better.

The Windows Update patches are so people stop screaming about glitches and attacks. But what do you call the complete redesign messes (from Win 3.1 to Win95, from Win 9x to XP, from XP to Vista)? And those were NOT free upgrades. Every time a new Windows was released to the market, users had to pay MORE MONEY to upgrade (if their hardware could handle it) or had to buy a new PC (costing the user MORE MONEY) with it pre-installed.

Those prices are why there are still so very many small companies running either Win98 or WinXP on all their machines, because they cannot afford the licensing cost to upgrade...

As for that second paragraph...... Words actually fail me, they're not a government killing its own people, they're a god damn software company that are good at what they do.

Microsoft has been killing INNOVATION in the computer world. Microsoft is doing what the telephone companies did back in the 80s, making itself the ONLY option (and look where it got the phone companies... they were forcibly split up by the government). The problem with monopolies is that when you have no competition, you can price your product at any level you want, and people have no choice but to buy it. And that is a VERY UNFAIR way to do business.

[DailyDi]

...anyway

I still like Windows 7

[Pudding]

You never answered my PM, DailyDi! *pout*

[ArtemisEnterri]

Bleh @ a limited number of quote block :S

Its only easily attacked because of poor user education, and windows has defender, or do you mean an always on real time virus scanner?

People don't care about rebooting, they turn their computers off when they're finished with them anyways. Maximum 2 Minutes reboot time, they just don't care. And as for it slowing down after hours of use, well in my experience that's just not true. I regularly leave this box on for weeks at a time and get no slow down.

Uh, Windows may have "defender" in either Vista or the new 7, but it definitely does NOT exist for XP users as part of a "clean" new install.

And how much RAM does your PC have? 2, 3, 4 gigs? The highest RAM in any of my machines is only 1gig, most of my machines only have 512mb or less, and those machines DO wind up with lag issues over time based on programs opened and closed all day long.

Think about this, you get a choice of programs alot of which are free that do that for windows. And instead of using what ever program some furry toothed geek put on the install disk you get to actually go looking for it! Imagine that.

At the end of the day, I don't care what OS people use, I just get annoyed at rabid fanboism, especially from you linux guys. The average pc user isn't dedicated to the machine, they just treat a computer the same as any other house hold appliance.

Edit: right on ashlee said it better then my hungover ranting could ever hope to

Loopy, that's right "you get to actually [WASTE TIME TO] go looking for it" if you want it for Windows, as compared to browsing the list of included options on your Linux install CD... Hmm, which is better, spending HOURS searching for a program for a certain capability, or TRUSTING THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARED THE INSTALL MEDIA and just clicking on what they have tested and KNOW works? I'll go with trusting the people who test the OS.

And by the way, I prefer the title of NERD. Just watch the Revenge of the Nerds movies...

A Geek is a carnival act who bites the heads off live animals (bats, rats, mice, etc). Look it up in a Webster's dictionary, or better yet, here's the definitions:

geek (gēk)

n.

1. a. A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.

b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

2. A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.

The number 2 entry was the ORIGINAL definition, it was modified in recent years to add the # 1 entries (which are directly copied from the definition of nerd).

nerd also nurd (nûrd)

n. Slang

1. A foolish, inept, or unattractive person.

2. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

Notice how the definition of nerd has been merged into the definition of geek? Any self-respecting nerd will tell you that WE ARE NOT GEEKS!

[ArtemisEnterri]

...anyway

I still like Windows 7

Sorry I hijacked your thread...

[Pudding]

Words change meaning through the evolving etymology of the language; and take upon new meanings and revised contexts. Originally, asexual meant only that a creature or organism reproduced without the need for a mate ~ but now it means also a human being without a desire for sexual activity, and that's merely a modern example. Historically; Silly once meant "blessed"; gaudy meant "joy" and meat used to mean "any sort of food" ~ but we now know each of these words to mean something entirely different. Geek has, for all relevant purposes, taken on a newer and more updated meaning and I think you'll just need to update your own personal knowledge-base to accept that as truth.

For a little bit of trivia, the process that the word "geek" has undergone is known as "Amelioration" and is the process by which a word's meaning improves or becomes elevated, coming to represent something more favorable than it originally referred to. The more you know, huh?

[AutieAB]

Wow. This thread has more drift than one of these: