Discussion Forums > Technology

Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes

<< < (36/197) > >>

fohfoh:
Linux is good at basic levels and all, but once you get more complex (business programs, and at one point, games) so for the "complex" stuff... I'll use windows. NOT VISTA, but 7 isn't bad.

Try the beta before bashing it dankles. It's not that damn hard.

dankles:

--- Quote from: fohfoh on February 06, 2009, 10:16:17 PM ---Linux is good at basic levels and all, but once you get more complex (business programs, and at one point, games) so for the "complex" stuff... I'll use windows. NOT VISTA, but 7 isn't bad.

Try the beta before bashing it dankles. It's not that damn hard.

--- End quote ---
What kind of business stuff can't Linux run? or at least have an equal counter part application (there are a few, but most can be matched by linux). Everything in the business world is becoming web-based, so anything like that will work fine with Linux. Again, I use Linux for almost everything. Not just non-"complex" stuff. As for games, I've already said that Windows wins. I use XP for games *sometimes*(I say it grudgingly).

I'm not bashing the usability of Win7, just the philosophy. And for that, I will never run Win 7 if I can get away with it.

xShadow:
Employers are used to using windows, and the employees are, too. Who the fuck would want to decrease (even temporarily) the productivity of their company to switch to Linux, where they will spend glorious amounts of time hunting perfect alternatives (which may or may not exist) to the PERFECT business applications that they already use, when the change isn't even going to be an improvement (in fact, you're going to have the tech-illiterates wondering around not knowing where the hell this or this is in Linux)? No one. Linux is a very inconvenient workspace format.

You talk about "alternative this" or "alternative that". Where are they, what are they, and where is your concrete proof about them being as good?


--- Quote from: dankles on February 06, 2009, 06:54:32 PM ---I merely gave examples of how DRM is bad, which is related to Vista/Win7 (What *could* happen to them).
The freedom I speak of is the ability to do what ever I want with my OS, which I think is necessary especially at an OS level over application level. Because bugs would be *much* easier to fix, security would be better (lots of people think that hiding code is security, but thats simply not true), and user flexability would be greater because so many more people/companies could easily contribute.

[snip]

--- End quote ---

You were being ridiculously vague about the DRM issue. I fail to see how the hell it has anything much to do with the actual OS itself. I have not run into ANY issues involving DRM on my Vista system and it has stayed that way. The only time it's popped up is when I was playing a song that I downloaded, and it was right to; that song was protected media. The damn thing doesn't touch anything other than that.

As a user of a Vista system, I will say that you are WAY fucking overreacting about the DRM. It's not even noticeable, and it doesn't do shit.

I will admit Vista is a bit overbloated, and sometimes a little annoying, but even IT isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and the Aero skin looks quite fantastic. Honestly, it just seems you're pulling stuff out of your ass, concerning how much you're a fanboy of Linux, not about how Linux is actually in any way better. The only valid point you've really given is that you can customize it. Yippee, now I can dig around with piles of code and whatnot, to achieve some effect that was entirely unnecessary, and doesn't make up for shit.
If Linux is gonna even start competing with windows, they have to set their focus to one distro, and start developing to it. That isn't to say other people shouldn't be able to tweak it (have fun fucking around with 50 fucking megs of code, or something), but just the fact that they don't have shit in the unity department is part of the reason that Linux doesn't have very good support. The damn thing needs to get its act together. Literally. If it was as easy to use as Windows, and it had all of the support of Windows, I would use it. It doesn't. I don't want to be a handicapped man in a wheelchair that goes slightly faster than walking speed. I'd rather be a man that has working legs and can walk, albeit a bit slower. Crappy analogy, but I'm tired.


With that argument aside, I'm not gonna say that Vista is better than XP. It really isn't (but you knew that). Nevertheless, I haven't had any urges to change it lately, nor have I gotten horribly annoyed with it, and I even find it downright convenient, at times. If that ain't saying something, I don't know what is.

So okay, Linux can keep all of its wonderful advanced features, while I stay with the applications that count (that is, any application ever released; compare that to your library. >_>).

dankles:
@xShadow:
I really don't feel like explaining myself twice. And I don't think I'm over reacting in what I've said after reading your post.

My first post explanation is Reply #162

Just to summarize though:
-My point is to bash the DRM philosophy of MS more than promote linux. Go use something else for all i care(BSD/Solaris/even Mac(without DRM Itunes) is better).
-there are plenty of options that don't involve MS. I've seen many many many network setups that don't require MS stuff and they work great.(google it)

Lupin:

--- Quote from: dankles on February 07, 2009, 12:16:47 AM ----My point is to bash the DRM philosophy of MS more than promote linux. Go use something else for all i care(BSD/Solaris/even Mac(without DRM Itunes) is better).

--- End quote ---

bashing a product to promote another product is not really a good way to promote something. if you want to promote linux then show the good stuff about it not bitch about how much microsoft's drm sucks. the way you promote your os is like the way mac cultists promote their beloved osx.

the drm example you gave makes me wonder. is microsoft the real culprit in your example? did microsoft added that broadcast flag crap to control the content or did the media companies pressured them to add that drm? is this any different from the way intel forced microsoft to lower the vista capable branding so that intel graphics can be used when it fact they cannot? remember that microsoft is a for profit company. they have shareholders to please. they have to control the market they have to keep their shareholders happy. while it's not an excuse for giving them some slack for implementing such drm, can you give me some alternative on how microsoft can please everyone? if ms removes drm, media companies will let hell break out on them. if they add drm, some consumers will let complain but the majority will be silent about it. why? because drm is something designed and implemented by humans, thus it can be broken by humans. this silent majority will look for alternatives. if microsoft will be forced to choose between angry media companies and some angry customers, who do you think they will try to please? the one with lots of money of course!


--- Quote from: dankles on February 07, 2009, 12:16:47 AM ----there are plenty of options that don't involve MS. I've seen many many many network setups that don't require MS stuff and they work great.(google it)

--- End quote ---

yes, there are alternatives. and some of them are free and maybe even better than their windows counterparts. but have you considered the transition costs it will make the companies pay? they have to look for experts using these alternative to train their staff. if a company implements a specific project development cycle, they have to retrain their staff for the changes. they might have to even create a new project cycle if they can't modify it. these are costs established companies cannot take in in an instant.

dankles, i agree with you about all the free/libre stuff you've been posting. but please, if you're just going to bitch about linux being better because X features of windows are shit in this thread, then please shut the fuck up. your posts doesn't contribute any constructive ideas to the discussion. this is a thread about windows 7, not linux. you're not a real windows user to begin with. it also doesn't help your cause to promote linux. if you want to promote linux, tell people things that will make them think "this feature of linux looks good, i might as well try the os." don't do some mudslinging because people can also do the same thing. and please, avoid using sources like FSF and stallman. i understand what they try to point out but they have a bias against microsoft. to them everything microsoft does is wrong. they may or may not be right in their claims against windows, but i'd rather read stuff from sources that are impartial to both sides.

moving back to the topic, there are some changes to the user account control since people complained about it:


--- Quote ---the UAC control panel will run in a high integrity process, which requires elevation. That was already in the works before this discussion and doing this prevents all the mechanics around SendKeys and the like from working. Second, changing the level of the UAC will also prompt for confirmation.
--- End quote ---

this is clearly better that the uac implemented in vista.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page