Windows 7 Beta.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:07
Being released in a few days, anybody going to give it a spin?
Personally, I had no issues with Vista, but I'll try it anyway.
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 18:08
Or, Buy a Mac.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:10
Or, Buy a Mac.
Why? What use would I have for a $5000 paperweight?
Why? What use would I have for a $5000 paperweight?
I can think of several possibilities.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:21
Macs are useless for what I do.
Macs are useless for what I do.
No way, you can troll even better with macs since there are fewer potential viruses and such that can be inflicted upon you by angered online communities.
No way, you can troll even better with macs since there are fewer potential viruses and such that can be inflicted upon you by angered online communities.
Macs can't even get negative attention. :D had to be said :-p
Galloism
08-01-2009, 18:24
Macs are useless for what I do.
http://www.1000topics.com/images/mac-shaving-with-bowling-pin.jpg
Port Arcana
08-01-2009, 18:25
Macs are useless for what I do.
Agreed. Not a big fan of apple products here.
Although I'm skeptical about Windows 7 and will probably stick with Vista since I just switched over from XP during the summer.
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 18:27
Why? What use would I have for a $5000 paperweight?
What Apple computer that isnt a special main server is $5,000? I think you need to shop better.
The Mindset
08-01-2009, 18:29
What Apple computer that isnt a special main server is $5,000? I think you need to shop better.
I lol how you dispute the price but not the paperweightness.
Hydesland
08-01-2009, 18:30
What Apple computer that isnt a special main server is $5,000? I think you need to shop better.
Maybe the recession is hitting hard in down under.
The Alma Mater
08-01-2009, 18:30
I lol how you dispute the price but not the paperweightness.
Well.. it CAN be used to that purpose. Multifunctional thingy it is.
Port Arcana
08-01-2009, 18:30
*snip*
I don't get it. Explain please. (I'm not compy savvy)
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 18:31
I lol how you dispute the price but not the paperweightness.
Hardly, nothing was funnier then when Apple showed its machines were running Vista faster then the comparable PCs were.
greed and death
08-01-2009, 18:32
No way, you can troll even better with macs since there are fewer potential viruses and such that can be inflicted upon you by angered online communities.
not that hard for them once they know you have a mac.
Galloism
08-01-2009, 18:32
I don't get it. Explain please. (I'm not compy savvy)
Well, imagine trying to shave with a straight razor. Then trying to shave with an electric razor. Think about how that would work compared to shaving with a bowling pin.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:34
What Apple computer that isnt a special main server is $5,000? I think you need to shop better.
I exaggerated a bit, but a high-end Mac is AUD4000.
Port Arcana
08-01-2009, 18:34
Well, imagine trying to shave with a straight razor. Then trying to shave with an electric razor. Think about how that would work compared to shaving with a bowling pin.
*still doesn't get it* :$
So the mac doesn't serve its purpose?
*still doesn't get it* :$
So the mac doesn't serve its purpose?
Apparently the Mac does not compute.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:35
$5000?? for a decent mac? - not since 10 years ago. $2800 gets you a new mac pro a pretty decent machine IMHO. Name one thing you can't do (besides games) on mac OS or linux.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:35
Hardly, nothing was funnier then when Apple showed its machines were running Vista faster then the comparable PCs were.
Oh, a Mac fanboy. Well, let's get this out of the way.
1) Macs crash.
2) Macs can't do a lot of what PCs do.
3) PCs rule because I don't have to buy a whole new one in order to upgrade.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:37
$5000?? for a decent mac? - not since 10 years ago. $2800 gets you a new mac pro a pretty decent machine IMHO. Name one thing you can't do (besides games) on mac OS or linux.
Well, I'm sure the Mac can browse the Internet, download stuff and run an IDE fine, but I'd sorta lose the ability to easily run millions of pieces of software than do run on Windows, thus buying a Mac = net loss for me.
Port Arcana
08-01-2009, 18:38
Also, macs can't right click? :p
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:39
There are lots of different software titles on each platform which have the same function. Name one *task* it can not do.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:40
There are lots of different software titles on each platform which have the same function. Name one *task* it can not do.
Play Oblivion.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:40
Also, macs can't right click? :p
Wrong. They can. the standard mouse is two button now but it looks one button... it sucks btw. I replaced mine with a 9 euro corded optical immediately.
Bouitazia
08-01-2009, 18:41
Macs are...not PC´s ..that is all I will say.
*Trying to steer the thread back on course*
I have not yet read anything about Windows Se7en,
So I can not form a correct opinion in this matter.
I loath and despise Vista however, and if W7 is being marketed as even more "use-friendly",then it is not for me.
I will stick with XP Pro thank you very much.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:41
Play Oblivion.
Thats a title. I recognize windows is better for games. Name a task besides games.
"Macs suck because software companies don't write as many programs for Macs, instead they publish them for the larger economic demographic namely PC users as myself, therefore Macs suck lol"
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:43
Macs are...not PC´s ..that is all I will say.
...
No PC stands for personal computer. Macs are personal computers. If you have a mac you don't need a Windoze PC because the fulfill the exact same function.
The Alma Mater
08-01-2009, 18:43
Play Oblivion.
1. That is not a task in the sense the question was being asked, and you know that.
2. Ironically, that is something a Mac CAN do ;)
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:43
I loath and despise Vista however, and if W7 is being marketed as even more "use-friendly",then it is not for me.
I will stick with XP Pro thank you very much.
That's one thing I found interesting, and it's a bit like the Wii vs 360/PS3 debate; Windows users don't like to be babied, they like to have control of their machines, even if it comes with a little bit of complexity.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 18:45
1. That is not a task in the sense the question was being asked, and you know that.
2. Ironically, that is something a Mac CAN do ;)
I didn't even know that. But then I don't play games on my mac. Mymac is strictly for business.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:45
1. That is not a task in the sense the question was being asked, and you know that.
2. Ironically, that is something a Mac CAN do ;)
Can it do that WELL?
Macs can do EVERYTHING. So can PCs. The point is whether or not they do things well.
No PC stands for personal computer. Macs are personal computers. If you have a mac you don't need a Windoze PC because the fulfill the exact same function.
"PC" is generally understood to refer to IBM-compatible machines.
Thats a title. I recognize windows is better for games. Name a task besides games.
sooo....it cant play games but if we pay more we can do all the things we can do with a cheaper machine, and the cheaper can play games?
exactly why should I be paying more?
The Alma Mater
08-01-2009, 18:46
Can it do that WELL?
Hmm. Not as well as a windows pc of the same price, no.
Can it do that WELL?
Macs can do EVERYTHING. So can PCs. The point is whether or not they do things well.
The point is you'll shift the goalposts as long as you think people will still kick the ball at you.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 18:49
The point is you'll shift the goalposts as long as you think people will still kick the ball at you.
What do you do, follow me around looking for a fight?
What do you do, follow me around looking for a fight?
Paranoid much? I'm responding to your posts here. You know, where first a Mac is a "paperweight," but then it just "can't run programs," and now it can't run programs "well." You just change your bullshit claim whenever it gets refuted.
The Alma Mater
08-01-2009, 18:53
I loath and despise Vista however, and if W7 is being marketed as even more "use-friendly",then it is not for me.
I will stick with XP Pro thank you very much.
It is also being marketed as far more "light weight" than Vista. Which for me is a +. Maybe it will even run reasonably well on netbooks.
Hardly, nothing was funnier then when Apple showed its machines were running Vista faster then the comparable PCs were.
But that was to be expected. Apple has complete control over all hardware in the Mac, and can therefor write drivers that do not have to take incompatibilities with other brands/drivers into account. That takes quite a lot of bloat away.
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 18:55
But that was to be expected. Apple has complete control over all hardware in the Mac, and can therefor write drivers that do not have to take incompatibilities with other brands/drivers into account. That takes quite a lot of bloat away.
So we went from Macs are paperweights to oh well they run PC programs better then PC for the following perfectly understandable reasons...
The Alma Mater
08-01-2009, 18:59
So we went from Macs are paperweights to oh well they run PC programs better then PC for the following perfectly understandable reasons...
Do pay attention. I was the one who said that Macs are very versatile machines who conceded that yes, Macs CAN be used as paperweights if one so desires - not the one claiming it was their sole function;)
But yes. Of course it is easy to make something perform better if you completely control every aspect of it.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 19:00
So we went from Macs are paperweights to oh well they run PC programs better then PC for the following perfectly understandable reasons...
It would be a paperweight for ME, because I can already do everything I want to do on a PC.
Who the hell turned this into a Mac vs PC thread anyway?
Risottia
08-01-2009, 19:01
Being released in a few days, anybody going to give it a spin?
Personally, I had no issues with Vista, but I'll try it anyway.
No way. Vista (home premium) sucks quite a lot: loses connection quite often and I have to reboot the bugger.
I'm going to make my laptop a dual-boot WinXPPro - Debian 4.
Risottia
08-01-2009, 19:02
It is also being marketed as far more "light weight" than Vista. Which for me is a +. Maybe it will even run reasonably well on netbooks.
More lightweight than Vista, this means about more lightweight than a planet!
New Manvir
08-01-2009, 19:03
There's a new one coming out now? I'm still using XP.
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 19:04
There's a new one coming out now? I'm still using XP.
Yes and i hear after its release customers will prefer Windows 2000. The newer the release, the farther back in history PC users will want to go.
There's a new one coming out now? I'm still using XP.
Windows 7 doesn't get released for a while yet, this is the first public beta, and it's out tomorrow.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 19:18
Yes and i hear after its release customers will prefer Windows 2000. The newer the release, the farther back in history PC users will want to go.
You do know that Windows 2000 was a business release, right?
The next release back was ME, and nobody wants to go back to ME.
Exilia and Colonies
08-01-2009, 19:25
Stupid Vista... takes up half my harddrive. Hopefully this new OS won't be so stupidly big.
VirginiaCooper
08-01-2009, 19:36
Yes and i hear after its release customers will prefer Windows 2000. The newer the release, the farther back in history PC users will want to go.
You must have never used Windows 2000 ;) they could release a stone as an operating system and I'd still prefer it over 2000.
Its funny how much anger this argument stirs up! You guys should all simmer down - its just an operating system, for Chrissake. This isn't a religious debate!
... sorry, I wasn't thinking.
I prefer Macs, but that's simply because I'm an avid photographer.
Kryozerkia
08-01-2009, 19:41
Would a MAC be able to run Office 2007? I use .docx file format and I've saved a few of my files under that format. It makes it easier to search when I don't feel like digging through my insane file structure. So, can a MAC run this and allow me to open the files in this format?
Stupid Vista... takes up half my harddrive. Hopefully this new OS won't be so stupidly big.
To you I ask, how small is your disk? I'm running Vista Ultimate. It doesn't even take up half of the partition I put it on. I put it on a 70G partition (on my 450G harddrive), with Windows only taking up space on 16G of that partition. The C:\ drive where the OS is installed has 22G of stuff on it. Some of which is stuff I put there that doesn't come with Windows. Windows only takes up more than half of the drive when the drive is tiny,
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 19:42
Stupid Vista... takes up half my harddrive. Hopefully this new OS won't be so stupidly big.
I think it's just time for a new HDD. You can get 750GBs for AUD100.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 19:51
Would a MAC be able to run Office 2007? I use .docx file format and I've saved a few of my files under that format. It makes it easier to search when I don't feel like digging through my insane file structure. So, can a MAC run this and allow me to open the files in this format?
I use open office but if you need that... Sure, just use Office 2008.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 19:53
It would be a paperweight for ME, because I can already do everything I want to do on a PC.
Who the hell turned this into a Mac vs PC thread anyway?
That would be you. By making baseless claims about a system you know nothing about.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 19:55
That would be you. By making baseless claims about a system you know nothing about.
I believe I started a thread about Windows 7 Beta, with no discussion of Mac in sight.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 20:01
You called macs $5000 paperweights... They are neither $5000 dollars nor paperweights. If you didn't want this to be a mac vs. pc thread then you shouldn't insult all the mac users out there.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 20:08
You called macs $5000 paperweights... They are neither $5000 dollars nor paperweights. If you didn't want this to be a mac vs. pc thread then you shouldn't insult all the mac users out there.
If I didn't want this to be a PC vs Mac thread, I wouldn't have mentioned Mac in the first place.
Oh, wait...
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 20:14
If I didn't want this to be a PC vs Mac thread, I wouldn't have mentioned Mac in the first place.
Oh, wait...
Ask a retarded question in a mostly political science forum and get a Oh, wait....
Pirated Corsairs
08-01-2009, 20:15
That's one thing I found interesting, and it's a bit like the Wii vs 360/PS3 debate; Windows users don't like to be babied, they like to have control of their machines, even if it comes with a little bit of complexity.
If you really wanted full control over your computer, you would use a GNU/Linux distribution. Of course, most games won't run on that (though if you use WINE you can run them on slightly lower settings), so if it's a gaming rig, Windows is still probably your best bet. The thing is, if you're not careful, you can fuck things up much easier than on Windows.
I mean, rm -r: Bam.
"PC" is generally understood to refer to IBM-compatible machines.
People who use "PC" that way are wrong.
Ferrous Oxide
08-01-2009, 20:15
Ask a retarded question in a mostly political science forum and get a Oh, wait....
This is a general forum. Or have croissants been moved from "baked goods" to "political science"? I missed the last meeting.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 20:16
Meh, I'm not even a die hard mac user. I just happen to have one at work. I use linux at home. Linux is the better OS - IMHO, but it's probably not for everyone.
Intestinal fluids
08-01-2009, 20:19
Yes its a General forum and you asked a retarded general question and got a retarded general answer. Incidentally i would also recommend Macs to people who like croissants.
Pirated Corsairs
08-01-2009, 20:19
Meh, I'm not even a die hard mac user. I just happen to have one at work. I use linux at home. Linux is the better OS - IMHO, but it's probably not for everyone.
As far as difficulty and such, I actually think Linux has gotten much better in this regard. Ubuntu, for example, is very user friendly.
Frisbeeteria
08-01-2009, 20:30
Let's knock off the Mac vs. PC vs. Linux hijack, folks. It's more than run its course.
Stupid Vista... takes up half my harddrive. Hopefully this new OS won't be so stupidly big.
Don't bet on it. From the version numbering, Win7 is really just an upgraded version of Vista. Everything I've seen, including comments from M$ CEO Steve Ballmer, indicates that 7 is not a lot more than Vista as it originally should have been. There are some bug fixes, some changes to the boot sequence timing, and hopefully some enhancements for remote users that should have been there all along ... but the look and feel will be Vista.
Regardless of whether it's any damn good, my company is committed to shifting to Win7. Microsoft pulls support for older versions (in our case, XP) fairly quickly, and they won't even do paid extended support for XP past 2014. Corporate users will make Windows 7 a financial success, simply because they don't have a choice but to switch.
(And no, we can't move our 100,000 end users and our 4500 supported applications to Mac or Linux, no matter how good they might be. Corporate users will always go to the most popular / widely sold platform. It's simply a given.)
Exilia and Colonies
08-01-2009, 21:03
I think it's just time for a new HDD. You can get 750GBs for AUD100.
I'm running a fairly aged laptop with only 40GB harddrive. I've got an external one but all the important stuff needs to live inside so to speak so space is getting tight. I could upgrade the internal hard-drive but it sounds more effort than its worth.
Frisbeeteria
08-01-2009, 21:31
I could upgrade the internal hard-drive but it sounds more effort than its worth.
It's usually pretty easy. Most of the systems from the last few years have a fairly simple modular approach, and swapping out drives is perhaps the easiest thing you can do.
If you've got a spare drive bay, you almost always have a spare cable connector and power plug for the drive. You might have to move a jumper, but that's pretty easy to figure out if you Google a decent site (this (http://www.helpwithpcs.com/upgrading/install-hard-drive.htm) is the first one I spotted - pretty easy). You move all your movies and music to the second drive, and suddenly you have tons of spare room.
If you only have room for one hard drive, you're looking at reinstalling the operating system and all your software. If all you have is a System Restore disk from your vendor, that might not even work, as it sometimes checks hardware configuration and may reject your new disk. So depending on your setup, it might indeed be more work than it's worth. I'm pretty technical, and I usually just buy a whole new computer rather than dealing with the pain of a rebuild. They're almost cheap enough to be disposable these days.
Edit: missed the key word "laptop" in the preceding post. Never mind.
FreeSatania
08-01-2009, 22:12
I'm running a fairly aged laptop with only 40GB harddrive. I've got an external one but all the important stuff needs to live inside so to speak so space is getting tight. I could upgrade the internal hard-drive but it sounds more effort than its worth.
Thats really not so hard to upgrade. Depending on how aged the laptop is it may be worth it. The only tricky part is opening the laptop, but generally there is either a panel on the bottom of the laptop or the keyboard comes off and it's under there. What kind of laptop is it?
Exilia and Colonies
09-01-2009, 00:20
Thats really not so hard to upgrade. Depending on how aged the laptop is it may be worth it. The only tricky part is opening the laptop, but generally there is either a panel on the bottom of the laptop or the keyboard comes off and it's under there. What kind of laptop is it?
I ran into this problem when upgrading the memory. Its a PC World own brand laptop that no-one on the internet has ever heard of. I have no idea whats in it.
Apart from the memory. Thats DDR2 SODIMM 533 MHz SDRAM.
Edit: *Looks at label on box* 40 GB S-ATA HDD
Gauntleted Fist
09-01-2009, 00:35
I think it's just time for a new HDD. You can get 750GBs for AUD100.Dude, what the hell is the RPM rate on it?
Being released in a few days, anybody going to give it a spin?
Maybe next time I have to reinstall my main comp OS....
The last time I had to do that was probably early November 2004 (2004/11/06).
btw. The OS is XP
edit:
Yes, it was in November -04. The only XP installation I've had to make on my primary comp...still running solid after all these years (on very different hardware) :)
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 01:15
dude, what the hell is the rpm rate on it?
7200.
Mike Honcho
09-01-2009, 01:28
either way your still wasting your time on this stupid website talking and arguing about shit that doesnt matter at all
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 01:32
either way your still wasting your time on this stupid website talking and arguing about shit that doesnt matter at all
Your insight has been duly noted and filed away.
Pirated Corsairs
09-01-2009, 01:32
either way your still wasting your time on this stupid website talking and arguing about shit that doesnt matter at all
Boring troll is boring.
VirginiaCooper
09-01-2009, 01:40
I think its funny he created an account to inform us. What a public servant.
Gauntleted Fist
09-01-2009, 02:37
7200.That's cheap!
Got good prices on a 720GB, 10,000 RPM?
One-O-One
09-01-2009, 02:44
Can it do that WELL?
Macs can do EVERYTHING. So can PCs. The point is whether or not they do things well.
"PC" is generally understood to refer to IBM-compatible machines.
I think the early nineties are calling, they want their certification back.
One-O-One
09-01-2009, 02:51
Would a MAC be able to run Office 2007? I use .docx file format and I've saved a few of my files under that format. It makes it easier to search when I don't feel like digging through my insane file structure. So, can a MAC run this and allow me to open the files in this format?
To you I ask, how small is your disk? I'm running Vista Ultimate. It doesn't even take up half of the partition I put it on. I put it on a 70G partition (on my 450G harddrive), with Windows only taking up space on 16G of that partition. The C:\ drive where the OS is installed has 22G of stuff on it. Some of which is stuff I put there that doesn't come with Windows. Windows only takes up more than half of the drive when the drive is tiny,
The fact that it takes up 16 GB is ridiculous. I'm running PCLinuxOS (awful distro name, however) and in its 8 GB partition, 1.2 GB is installed, this includes all the programs I have downloaded using Synaptics, and a couple of Windows games I run through WINE. The size of this operating system base was 350 MB, compared to be having to taking up a DVD.
Non Aligned States
09-01-2009, 03:09
There are lots of different software titles on each platform which have the same function. Name one *task* it can not do.
Have it's individual components upgraded.
Be cheaper than equal performance PCs.
That being said, I'll wait for a few service packs for Windows 7 before even taking a look at it. The usual rule of thumb is at least wait until the first service pack before it works the way it's supposed to.
VirginiaCooper
09-01-2009, 03:13
Be cheaper than equal performance PCs.
I think the key here is equal performance doing what?
Non Aligned States
09-01-2009, 03:17
I think the key here is equal performance doing what?
Raw computing power. You get the exact same hardware performance specifications for an PC and a Mac, and a Mac will still cost more. Apple is basically selling itself like Starbucks. Pricey, trendy, stuff that you can get without the brand name for a fraction of the cost elsewhere and will do the same job.
Non Aligned States
09-01-2009, 03:22
The fact that it takes up 16 GB is ridiculous. I'm running PCLinuxOS (awful distro name, however) and in its 8 GB partition, 1.2 GB is installed, this includes all the programs I have downloaded using Synaptics, and a couple of Windows games I run through WINE. The size of this operating system base was 350 MB, compared to be having to taking up a DVD.
It's a given that Windows OS generally has a lot of bloat with each generation. I have an XP machine and it takes up about 2/3ds of what Vista does.
That being said, I wonder what the final tally will be for Windows 7. I'm particularly interested in whether it will be hungrier for more system resources than Vista in reality or not.
FreeSatania
09-01-2009, 03:24
I think the key here is equal performance doing what?
Well I am a little POed with apple because they don't have a nice cheap midrange desktop without monitor. Its kind of annoying that you can only get an awesome mac pro 8 cores and with 8 ram slots or an imac with 2 cores. It wont be long before they release a 4 core imac but you can get a midrange desktop for a lot cheaper!
I'm a prgrammer and a MA student so for myself it makes very little difference to me if I use a Mac running OSX or a PC running linux. I abandoned windows years ago and haven't looked back.
FreeSatania
09-01-2009, 03:30
Vaguely on the topic of windows... Neither Mac OS nor windows fully supports turbo memory yet. I'm considering a new lenovo T400 or an R400 which has it and I'm idly wondering to myself how long it will be before linux supports it?
Christmahanikwanzikah
09-01-2009, 03:32
I hear that Windows 7 is going to implement a lot of the features from Vista but add on a few things and take away the ever-annoying safety risk warnings. I also heard about new features like Peek which will probably be much more graphically intensive than Aero.
I do like Vista, so I'm sticking to that until I get any very good reason to the contrary.
I've only used Vista Home Premium (which I loath) but I'm told if you buy Ultimate or Gaming edition the experience is actually much better? Of course I got my Vista free with a cheap laptop and those editions cost $320. Can anyone attest to this?
I've pretty much given up on Vista as a serious operating system and went back to XP, leaving the laptop to collect dust, but it was in fact my experience that when I bought XP Pro and turned off the more ridiculous features that the experience was almost pleasantly Win98-like.
Perhaps if I bought a "real" copy of Vista I would have the same experience?
The sales people at the computer supply stores keep telling me that, but they seem a bit too eager.
FreeSatania
09-01-2009, 04:15
You parked your laptop because Vista sucks so much? That seems a little extreme... If it really is a spare system why don't you at least try linux on it - or just switch it to XP. Hate to imagine a half decent computer collecting dust like that :(
I heard Windows 8.1 will be better, noobs.
Brogavia
09-01-2009, 06:05
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/evildrdan/Funny/1127606844821.jpg
Windows 7 Is simply windows Vista repacked. Same old deal, same OS, new tweaks. The end. And BTW mac users, you really cant compare Microsoft to Apple, because frankly, Apple makes a computer, and an OS. Microsoft makes an OS, crap computers, are still crap, no matter which OS you are running.
VirginiaCooper
09-01-2009, 06:41
http://xkcd.com/528/
/thread
Christmahanikwanzikah
09-01-2009, 06:43
I've only used Vista Home Premium (which I loath) but I'm told if you buy Ultimate or Gaming edition the experience is actually much better? Of course I got my Vista free with a cheap laptop and those editions cost $320. Can anyone attest to this?
I've pretty much given up on Vista as a serious operating system and went back to XP, leaving the laptop to collect dust, but it was in fact my experience that when I bought XP Pro and turned off the more ridiculous features that the experience was almost pleasantly Win98-like.
Perhaps if I bought a "real" copy of Vista I would have the same experience?
The sales people at the computer supply stores keep telling me that, but they seem a bit too eager.
I have Home Premium, and I definitely enjoy it. It's not some gaming rig - 3 GB RAM, 2 GHz Dual Core processor... I mean, it's a mid-level Gateway.
It runs everything (but games... thank you, X3100) well, and the only problem I've had was hardware associated (bum HDD).
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 15:28
It runs everything (but games... thank you, X3100) well, and the only problem I've had was hardware associated (bum HDD).
+1, the only errors I've ever had came from hardware.
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 15:44
The beta site says to come back in the afternoon on Jan 9th. What time have you Americans got over there?
Chazakain
09-01-2009, 15:49
The beta site says to come back in the afternoon on Jan 9th. What time have you Americans got over there?
10:00 am eastern
Galloism
09-01-2009, 15:56
And the new XKCD is out:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
Credit to www.xkcd.com
Pirated Corsairs
09-01-2009, 16:06
And the new XKCD is out:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
Credit to www.xkcd.com
Beaten to it, I'm afraid:
http://xkcd.com/528/
/thread
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 16:08
It's actually available to Australians...
Galloism
09-01-2009, 16:10
Beaten to it, I'm afraid:
One word.
Damn.
Also, I'm clearly blind.
Santiago I
09-01-2009, 16:16
I´m quite happy with Vista right now. My puter runs it fine and I haven't found the problems everybody talks about. So my personal experience has been quite good.
I do have the problem that I can't run some of my old games, but I have a laptop with XP for that.
I'm not sure about this Windows 7 thing. I want to see it first before changing.
What I really don't understand is why windows is releasing 7 so quickly after Vista?
UNIverseVERSE
09-01-2009, 16:56
Well, imagine trying to shave with a straight razor. Then trying to shave with an electric razor. Think about how that would work compared to shaving with a bowling pin.
So Linux takes longer to learn to use, but gives you far more flexibility and better results?
That's one thing I found interesting, and it's a bit like the Wii vs 360/PS3 debate; Windows users don't like to be babied, they like to have control of their machines, even if it comes with a little bit of complexity.
Hahaha, no. If you want actual control of your machine, you run *n?x of some flavour. Windows does things the Microsoft way, only supports what Microsoft choose, and is increasingly working on making the computer into Microsoft's computer. Both Windows and Mac restrict what you can do with /your/ files based on what some other company says, both only present a single usage model and a narrow range of choices inside that.
If you actually wanted flexibility and control, and don't mind the complexity, you would be using Linux, BSD, or something similar.
I´m quite happy with Vista right now. My puter runs it fine and I haven't found the problems everybody talks about. So my personal experience has been quite good.
I do have the problem that I can't run some of my old games, but I have a laptop with XP for that.
I'm not sure about this Windows 7 thing. I want to see it first before changing.
What I really don't understand is why windows is releasing 7 so quickly after Vista?
Because Vista is widely perceived as a pile of steaming crap.
Edit: for a nice example of Linux's flexibility, the following screenshots were all taken in 10 minutes on a debian system, without any reboots or the like. Each one demonstrates a wholly different approach to graphical interfaces: E16 - a mouse based WM with an emphasis on prettiness and themability (http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/shots/e16.png), FVWM - a traditional and powerful WM, focusing on configurability (http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/shots/fvwm.jpg), StumpWM - keyboard driven tiling WM, with dynamic configuration through LISP (http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/shots/stumpwm.png), Windowlab - an Amiga-inspired WM designed to be snappy and fast (http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/shots/windowlab.jpg).
Santiago I
09-01-2009, 17:02
Because Vista is widely perceived as a pile of steaming crap.
Yes, I think you are right. And it is actually not crap. Not by MS standards. But is has been so bashed that I guess they had to come up with a new product quickly. Lets see if Windows 7 lands good.
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 17:28
10:00 am eastern
I'd imagine Microsoft run on Western USA time, so a few more hours.
The Alma Mater
09-01-2009, 17:51
So Linux takes longer to learn to use, but gives you far more flexibility and better results?
Of course. It also makes it easier to hurt yourself - so the razor analogy indeed works pretty well here.
UNIverseVERSE
09-01-2009, 17:53
Of course. It also makes it easier to hurt yourself - so the razor analogy indeed works pretty well here.
Yes, that it does. I was just establishing that the straight razor is better as a tool for that purpose, despite the greater learning curve.
(UvV runs Debian, as it happens)
Hydesland
09-01-2009, 18:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcVlhCnC670
Pure Metal
09-01-2009, 18:47
i might download the beta, but if i use it it'll be on one of my other PCs. this lappy is what i use for work and i can't afford the time should it get messed up at all (which is the same reason i don't use any flavours of linux on it, but rather on older boxes)
Vista does work pretty great for me. resources are fine, though after over a year with this machine, it needs a bit of a clearout. i did try running with UAC on for a while, just a couple of weeks ago, having turned it off as soon as i got this machine. i lasted about 2 days before i got so pissed off with UAC that i turned it off, trying to pass as much fury into the 'turn off' button as i could when clicking on it :P
The Alma Mater
09-01-2009, 18:50
Does anyone know if the release will have fixed the mp3 bug ? I have read conflicting reports...
Not that I plan on using mediaplayer, but hey - one never knows what MS forces you to do.
The Alma Mater
09-01-2009, 18:52
MP3 bug?
In earlier betas Media player had a tendency to incorrectly update the information tags of mp3s, overriding the first 2 or 3 seconds of sound.
Santiago I
09-01-2009, 18:59
i might download the beta, but if i use it it'll be on one of my other PCs. this lappy is what i use for work and i can't afford the time should it get messed up at all (which is the same reason i don't use any flavours of linux on it, but rather on older boxes)
Vista does work pretty great for me. resources are fine, though after over a year with this machine, it needs a bit of a clearout. i did try running with UAC on for a while, just a couple of weeks ago, having turned it off as soon as i got this machine. i lasted about 2 days before i got so pissed off with UAC that i turned it off, trying to pass as much fury into the 'turn off' button as i could when clicking on it :P
Oh don't be so mad at the UAC. I was also pissed at first and keep it on just because a friend told me it was a great security measure. So I decided to give it a chance. The UAC won my love an approval when it blocked some malwares from auto executing a couple of times. So yes, you have to give one or two more clicks to install things, but it blocks so many nasty things that I live with it.
The Alma Mater
09-01-2009, 19:04
Oh don't be so mad at the UAC. I was also pissed at first and keep it on just because a friend told me it was a great security measure. So I decided to give it a chance. The UAC won my love an approval when it blocked some malwares from auto executing a couple of times. So yes, you have to give one or two more clicks to install things, but it blocks so many nasty things that I live with it.
You did not have the "oh god, there is the popup again, let us click it away without looking" syndrome?
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 19:05
Oh don't be so mad at the UAC. I was also pissed at first and keep it on just because a friend told me it was a great security measure. So I decided to give it a chance. The UAC won my love an approval when it blocked some malwares from auto executing a couple of times. So yes, you have to give one or two more clicks to install things, but it blocks so many nasty things that I live with it.
I don't use UAC because I know malware when I see it and my other programs block out anything malicious. But I can see why less technically-inclined users would appreciate it.
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 19:12
Anybody else get the feeling that a lot of regular users are going to download this, not understanding the concept of "beta", and then have a shitty when they realise that it's not perfect?
Thats a title. I recognize windows is better for games. Name a task besides games.
I know one thing Mac's can't do.
say they are free from MS products! :D
I'll wait to test drive Win7 before I make judgement. but Vista didn't impress me at all.
The Alma Mater
09-01-2009, 19:21
Anybody else get the feeling that a lot of regular users are going to download this, not understanding the concept of "beta", and then have a shitty when they realise that it's not perfect?
The sad thing is that even this early beta could well be MUCH better than official versions released in the past. ME and Vista indeed being prime examples.
Anybody else get the feeling that a lot of regular users are going to download this, not understanding the concept of "beta", and then have a shitty when they realise that it's not perfect?
I would test drive Beta and compare it with the final product. see what changes they made. but I won't hold a beta as the final product.
Could be, would be, should be. The art of vaporware peddling. People should post any funny blogs they find that try to pump up this turd.
Ferrous Oxide
09-01-2009, 20:49
Could be, would be, should be. The art of vaporware peddling. People should post any funny blogs they find that try to pump up this turd.
... What?
Pure Metal
09-01-2009, 21:27
Oh don't be so mad at the UAC. I was also pissed at first and keep it on just because a friend told me it was a great security measure. So I decided to give it a chance. The UAC won my love an approval when it blocked some malwares from auto executing a couple of times. So yes, you have to give one or two more clicks to install things, but it blocks so many nasty things that I live with it.
i have AdWatch realtime scanner for that, and Avast now does realtime malware scanning too. i do know its a good security feature (emulating something that *nix has from the ground-up, of course), but it was just too annoying to live with. photoshop would do weird things with UAC on, firefox looked odd unless i ran it in administrator mode (in which case it would ask me even more questions), my wamp server was a joke, and opening dreamweaver gave a deluge of warnings and questions. the localhost server thing was the last straw though, before that i could live with it. it would pop up and ask me "do you want to open this file?" for every single file in the directory of my local wamp server
*grump*
I should also note that my laptop was woefully underpowered for Vista. (1.7Ghz 1GB RAM) and that whenever UAC tried to come up the computer would stop responding for up to 30 seconds before it pulled up the accept/deny buttons.
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 01:31
Well, I'm using it now, and it's pretty nifty. The new taskbar is pretty solid. I like the desktop slideshow too.
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 01:56
Or, Buy a Mac.
By " Mac ". You mean a its actually just a PC running a over priced and overly shiney oprating system, because Apple finally realized those piece of shit PPU based systems suck :)
I think Maddox puts it right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tq7yykR-DM&feature=channel_page#
I love how Apple based their entire product line around people who can't use a computer.
And lets not even forget about cost.
Macbook: For 1500 USD
# Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB DDR3 Memory
# 250GB hard drive1
# NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
# Illuminated keyboard
13 Inch LCD
Dell Studio XPS 16: For 1500
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8600 (3MB cache/2.4GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit
Edge-to-Edge HD Widescreen 16.0 inch WLED LCD (1366x768) W/2.0 MP
BluRay Disc Combo (DVD/CD read/write + BD read) Slot Load Drive
4GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB3 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
ATI Mobility RADEON® M86XT - 512MB4
Looks like for the SAME money, the Dell destroys the Mac in every single category. They both even have comparable warranty.
Mac= Suck
XP was a great OS, and Vista while its not XP, Ive honestly never had a problem.
Fartsniffage
11-01-2009, 02:09
By " Mac ". You mean a its actually just a PC running a over priced and overly shiney oprating system, because Apple finally realized those piece of shit PPU based systems suck :)
I think Maddox puts it right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tq7yykR-DM&feature=channel_page#
I love how Apple based their entire product line around people who can't use a computer.
And lets not even forget about cost.
Macbook: For 1500 USD
# Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB DDR3 Memory
# 250GB hard drive1
# NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
# Illuminated keyboard
13 Inch LCD
Dell Studio XPS 16: For 1500
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8600 (3MB cache/2.4GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit
Edge-to-Edge HD Widescreen 16.0 inch WLED LCD (1366x768) W/2.0 MP
BluRay Disc Combo (DVD/CD read/write + BD read) Slot Load Drive
4GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB3 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
ATI Mobility RADEON® M86XT - 512MB4
Looks like for the SAME money, the Dell destroys the Mac in every single category. They both even have comparable warranty.
Mac= Suck
XP was a great OS, and Vista while its not XP, Ive honestly never had a problem.
Just build a pc.
My desktop beats or matches that Dell in every way except the blu-ray player and cost me about £650 to put together.
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 02:22
Just build a pc.
My desktop beats or matches that Dell in every way except the blu-ray player and cost me about £650 to put together.
I built all of my PCs.
Those are both laptops, and I'm just using the Dell as an Example.
Fartsniffage
11-01-2009, 02:26
I built all of my PCs.
Those are both laptops, and I'm just using the Dell as an Example.
So they are. Shows what happens whe you skim-read stuff:$.
I did wonder why the graphics card and HDD were so pants for that sort of money.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 02:36
That illuminated keyboard is worth at least 300$.
Do you think a Dell would be better for a photographer than a Mac?
Fartsniffage
11-01-2009, 02:40
That illuminated keyboard is worth at least 300$.
Do you think a Dell would be better for a photographer than a Mac?
What's the big deal with an illuminated keyboard? I live in a first world country, I have electrical lighting.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 02:49
What's the big deal with an illuminated keyboard? I live in a first world country, I have electrical lighting.
Well I just think its cool. I often do things in the dark, that require me to be able to see the keyboard because I never took the time as a child to learn how to type without looking.
Seriously though, I live in a college dorm room and the overhead light makes this constant, faint buzzing noise that everyone says is driving me batshit insane. I really just need to invest in a lamp, but the Jews of the world won't let me.
Oh lord, where did that come from?
Galloism
11-01-2009, 02:50
Well I just think its cool. I often do things in the dark, that require me to be able to see the keyboard because I never took the time as a child to learn how to type without looking.
Well, that's your first problem.
Fartsniffage
11-01-2009, 02:54
Well I just think its cool. I often do things in the dark, that require me to be able to see the keyboard because I never took the time as a child to learn how to type without looking.
Seriously though, I live in a college dorm room and the overhead light makes this constant, faint buzzing noise that everyone says is driving me batshit insane. I really just need to invest in a lamp, but the Jews of the world won't let me.
Oh lord, where did that come from?
That keyboard thing is what makes me dislike macs, they work just fine, you just have to pay 5 times what you'd pay for an equivelent pc because they shove all kinds of pointless crap into them and then stick an apple logo on the front.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 02:57
That keyboard thing is what makes me dislike macs, they work just fine, you just have to pay 5 times what you'd pay for an equivelent pc because they shove all kinds of pointless crap into them and then stick an apple logo on the front.
You could say the same thing about any brand name of PC, except all their useless crap is on the inside and is used to run state-of-the-art, better-than-real-life-looking video games. You don't need those to word process (unless you're running Vista, I guess). It all depends on what you are doing with a computer as to what you need. If you like using a computer in the dark, voila, illuminated keyboard. If you like impressing your friends with how thin your computer is, voila, computer more fragile than the envelope it fits in. If you like running games, voila, hyper expensive video card.
Like Alienware. That ugly little alien head costs $1,000, easy.
Non Aligned States
11-01-2009, 03:16
That keyboard thing is what makes me dislike macs, they work just fine, you just have to pay 5 times what you'd pay for an equivelent pc because they shove all kinds of pointless crap into them and then stick an apple logo on the front.
Pretty much. PCs might have all sorts of useless "bling" accessories as well, but as far as I know, no consumer standard PC comes with them, and it's only the modders who have them installed.
Perimeter Defense
11-01-2009, 03:21
I think one of the biggest price points behind the Mac is the big-ass software bundle that comes with it, you know? GarageBand ain't that much really but it does have a nice set of synths etc that could be used for general consumer things, and I think equivalent software on Windows-based PCs'd cost...say, $200. Then there's a load of other stuff too...which I forget. Anyway, if there was the option to remove the included software, I think a piece of Mac hardware alone will cost only a little more than an equivalent PC.
There's still no excuse though as to why upgrading to an 8800 GT in a Mac Pro costs about 2 times more than an 8800 GT.
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 03:31
I think one of the biggest price points behind the Mac is the big-ass software bundle that comes with it, you know? GarageBand ain't that much really but it does have a nice set of synths etc that could be used for general consumer things, and I think equivalent software on Windows-based PCs'd cost...say, $200. Then there's a load of other stuff too...which I forget. Anyway, if there was the option to remove the included software, I think a piece of Mac hardware alone will cost only a little more than an equivalent PC.
There's still no excuse though as to why upgrading to an 8800 GT in a Mac Pro costs about 2 times more than an 8800 GT.
What I don't get is all that anti-trust, "you can't bundle anything with your OS" shit that Microsoft has to wade through, but other companies like Apple don't.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 03:32
Maybe this will help: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 03:35
Maybe this will help: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
That doesn't explain anything.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 03:36
Read that graph and tell me what the market share of Macintosh is as compared to Windows.
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 03:38
Read that graph and tell me what the market share of Macintosh is as compared to Windows.
Not very big. So what?
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 03:39
So what effect would Macintosh attaching a piece of software to their OS have on the market, versus the same effect for Windows?
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 03:40
So what effect would Macintosh attaching a piece of software to their OS have on the market, versus the same effect for Windows?
So what you're telling me is that because Microsoft is successful, they should be held back by the govt.? What a lot of crap that is.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 03:49
So what you're telling me is that because Microsoft is successful, they should be held back by the govt.? What a lot of crap that is.
That's what anti-trust legislation is! Don't take it up with me man, this stuff has been around for a very long time. Do you harken back to the days of Standard Oil?
Conserative Morality
11-01-2009, 03:50
So what you're telling me is that because Microsoft is successful, they should be held back by the govt.? What a lot of crap that is.
Of course! It's because Macs are the best and Bill Gates eats babies!!!
:p
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 03:53
That illuminated keyboard is worth at least 300$.
Do you think a Dell would be better for a photographer than a Mac?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. No. You get illuminated keyboards for 30 bucks at Best Buy.
Why would a dell be any worse? There's tons of PC support for it.
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 03:54
That's what anti-trust legislation is! Don't take it up with me man, this stuff has been around for a very long time. Do you harken back to the days of Standard Oil?
The law as it stands is used to prevent companies with very high market share from tying their products together at the expense of the consumer. This is a massive kick in the balls for Microsoft, because you've got people who demand new features with Windows and the govt. is telling Microsoft that thay can't do it.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 03:58
For the record, I would be willing to pay anywhere up to $564.99 for an illuminated keyboard. And PC support isn't what I look for in a computer if I'm buying it for my photographic needs.
The law as it stands is used to prevent companies with very high market share from tying their products together at the expense of the consumer. This is a massive kick in the balls for Microsoft, because you've got people who demand new features with Windows and the govt. is telling Microsoft that thay can't do it.
Microsoft could easily turn their giant market share against the consumer if you let them run free. That is why anti-trust legislation exists, to prevent companies like Microsoft from monopolizing the market. Which they would do if the government didn't step in and stop them. And honestly, I don't think Microsoft is suffering for all the government intervention.
Conserative Morality
11-01-2009, 03:58
The law as it stands is used to prevent companies with very high market share from tying their products together at the expense of the consumer. This is a massive kick in the balls for Microsoft, because you've got people who demand new features with Windows and the govt. is telling Microsoft that thay can't do it.
More proof that everyone up in a higher position uses a Mac.
Wait, that explains why it takes forever to get anything done here in the US!;)
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 04:01
For the record, I would be willing to pay anywhere up to $564.99 for an illuminated keyboard. And PC support isn't what I look for in a computer if I'm buying it for my photographic needs.
For USD564.99, I could build you a whole PC.
Microsoft could easily turn their giant market share against the consumer if you let them run free. That is why anti-trust legislation exists, to prevent companies like Microsoft from monopolizing the market. Which they would do if the government didn't step in and stop them. And honestly, I don't think Microsoft is suffering for all the government intervention.
It's a crock that they're using laws which clearly aren't designed for software to govern the manufacture of software.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:04
It's a crock that they're using laws which clearly aren't designed for software to govern the manufacture of software.
How is this case different? Why do you think that Microsoft couldn't/wouldn't use their superior position to take over if the government stepped back as you'd like them to?
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 04:06
How is this case different? Why do you think that Microsoft couldn't/wouldn't use their superior position to take over if the government stepped back as you'd like them to?
How do you propose they would take over?
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 04:08
How is this case different? Why do you think that Microsoft couldn't/wouldn't use their superior position to take over if the government stepped back as you'd like them to?
I don't think Microsoft could, because you have people who will always waste money on an Apple, and people who will always use Linux.
I love how everyone thinks Microsoft is some big evil company who is out to get you.
They make a fine product, and people seem to love it.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:10
I asked first!
If Microsoft was allowed to run free, their instinct as a business would be to take over their competition. This unclogs their market; if the consumer has no one to choose from but Microsoft, the consumer buys Microsoft. With a 100% marketshare, Microsoft makes 100% of the profits in their market. And Microsoft has so much damn money, who says they can't buy out Linux and Macintosh.
Once they have successfully taken over, Microsoft is free to do whatever they please to operating systems without fear of any repercussions, because its their way or the highway. With our societal dependence on computers, Microsoft launches a bloodless coup and Bill Gates becomes President of the Universe.
I'm no economist, so all of this is based on supposition on my part, but I don't think I'm wrong either. After all, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
(and thus the reason for creating this thread is fulfilled - a Holiday Inn Express joke)
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 04:13
If Microsoft didn't buy out Apple back when they were kicking their ass, they never would.
Anyway, when did the image of Apple being downtrodden heroes standing up to big, bad Microsoft appear? I remember back in the day, Apple was king of personal computing.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:14
Anti-trust laws prevented them from doing so.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:27
Why Apple failed, if you're actually interested
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/9FD12E37-8DC7-4AD1-872F-2021BEDE6D96.html
Besides, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/C91CCB7E-A668-4B0A-ABB6-98840AC8A317.html
Soleichunn
11-01-2009, 04:32
That's one thing I found interesting, and it's a bit like the Wii vs 360/PS3 debate; Windows users don't like to be babied, they like to have control of their machines, even if it comes with a little bit of complexity.
What I'd like from Windows is to have the manual installed with the OS and a little easier to read
Pirated Corsairs
11-01-2009, 04:35
I asked first!
If Microsoft was allowed to run free, their instinct as a business would be to take over their competition. This unclogs their market; if the consumer has no one to choose from but Microsoft, the consumer buys Microsoft. With a 100% marketshare, Microsoft makes 100% of the profits in their market. And Microsoft has so much damn money, who says they can't buy out Linux and Macintosh.
Once they have successfully taken over, Microsoft is free to do whatever they please to operating systems without fear of any repercussions, because its their way or the highway. With our societal dependence on computers, Microsoft launches a bloodless coup and Bill Gates becomes President of the Universe.
I'm no economist, so all of this is based on supposition on my part, but I don't think I'm wrong either. After all, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
(and thus the reason for creating this thread is fulfilled - a Holiday Inn Express joke)
There is basically no way they could buy Linux-- they could possibly try to buy out a popular distro or two, but that's about it.
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:48
There is basically no way they could buy Linux-- they could possibly try to buy out a popular distro or two, but that's about it.
Is there a way they could buy the property rights to the code? I mean, if Microsoft owned Macintosh they would basically own our government, so maybe they change the copyright laws to their own benefit. And the church, too. You better pray to the idol of Bill Gates, or else!
Ferrous Oxide
11-01-2009, 04:50
Is there a way they could buy the property rights to the code? I mean, if Microsoft owned Macintosh they would basically own our government, so maybe they change the copyright laws to their own benefit. And the church, too. You better pray to the idol of Bill Gates, or else!
... You're joking, right?
VirginiaCooper
11-01-2009, 04:51
... You're joking, right?
You couldn't tell by the rest of the post?
Its obvious they already do. Owning Mac wouldn't do anything to solidify their hold.
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 14:52
Oh man I see all you winblows users are at it again... There is no point rehashing the OS wars debate all I can say is actually try using a mac for a while before dissing it. Comparing system specs vs price isn't even fair because unless you have a very very fast system vista *always* seems slow. IMHO its the OS which is the only important difference. The most important thing about the mac for me though is that it is a unix compatible system. If all you do is play games, run word and use Firefox then I suppose windows is fine for you but some people actually need to work with their computers!
Yootopia
11-01-2009, 14:53
If all you do is play games, run word and use Firefox then I suppose windows is fine for you but some people actually need to work with their computers!
... aye if your job involves making films or pictures, a Mac is lovely. Most people with real jobs will get more out of Excel, though.
The Mindset
11-01-2009, 15:00
... aye if your job involves making films or pictures, a Mac is lovely. Most people with real jobs will get more out of Excel, though.
Hardly. I find this is a commonly held belief because Macs are common in the arts industry, but I honestly don't know why. I think it's because they're "pretty". I'm an illustrator - I use Windows because the workflow on a Mac is like continually stabbing yourself in the eyeball. Even the keyboard shortcuts on a Mac slow me down! It's ridiculous. OSX is a horrible, horrible operating system. Truly awful. Yet it's lauded as brilliant because it's pretty, and different to Windows. Different is not better. There's a reason a great deal of Linux window managers use Windows style paradigms - they work.
Something that's always bothered me - and is completely counterintuitive, not to mention fucking retarded - clicking the X button in OS X does not quit the application, it simply hides it in the dock. What the fuck?
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 15:06
... aye if your job involves making films or pictures, a Mac is lovely. Most people with real jobs will get more out of Excel, though.
Excel runs just fine on the Mac. I should also point out that there is no problem running Linux, mac or windows on any new Mac. I would never dream of installing windows on mine but you can if you want to. A new iMac would actually be a pretty decent gaming system running XP (i dont have time though).
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 15:16
... I'm an illustrator - I use Windows because the workflow on a Mac is like continually stabbing yourself in the eyeball. Even the keyboard shortcuts on a Mac slow me down! It's ridiculous. OSX is a horrible, horrible operating system. Truly awful. ...
Whats wrong with the keyboard shortcuts? Their almost exactly the same! so it's command-c & command-v vs ctrl-c & ctrl-v ... whats the difference? You can also remap some of the keyboard shortcuts if you need to. I did that so that home and end were easier to get to - and I just got used to the alt-L = @ thing. I'll admit i was pretty annoyed at first but It didn't take too long to get used to.
I'm also pretty used to the thing that clicking x does not close the application only the window. If your such a fan of keyboard shortcuts why not simply try command-Q ???
It's not a horrible operating system. IMHO windows is.
The Mindset
11-01-2009, 15:21
Whats wrong with the keyboard shortcuts? Their almost exactly the same! so it's command-c & command-v vs ctrl-c & ctrl-v ... whats the difference? You can also remap some of the keyboard shortcuts if you need to. I did that so that home and end were easier to get to - and I just got used to the alt-L = @ thing. I'll admit i was pretty annoyed at first but It didn't take too long to get used to.
I'm also pretty used to the thing that clicking x does not close the application only the window. If your such a fan of keyboard shortcuts why not simply try command-Q ???
It's not a horrible operating system. IMHO windows is.
The shortcuts in Mac are not the same as in Windows for many applications. They also tend to be convulated or unintuitive. None immediately come to mind, I try not to subject myself to OSX.
Sorry, but the Windows GUI is as close to perfect as we're able to get at the moment. For one, despite billions upon billions of third party products, they all work in largely the same graphical environment. The same cannot be said for OSX, where widgets are used in different ways - trays that pop out to match window heights do not match window heights in other apps etc. OSX is a GUI nightmare. It was clearly designed by graphic designers, not GUI designers. This is NOT a good thing.
UNIverseVERSE
11-01-2009, 15:29
Hardly. I find this is a commonly held belief because Macs are common in the arts industry, but I honestly don't know why. I think it's because they're "pretty". I'm an illustrator - I use Windows because the workflow on a Mac is like continually stabbing yourself in the eyeball. Even the keyboard shortcuts on a Mac slow me down! It's ridiculous. OSX is a horrible, horrible operating system. Truly awful. Yet it's lauded as brilliant because it's pretty, and different to Windows. Different is not better. There's a reason a great deal of Linux window managers use Windows style paradigms - they work.
Something that's always bothered me - and is completely counterintuitive, not to mention fucking retarded - clicking the X button in OS X does not quit the application, it simply hides it in the dock. What the fuck?
Ugh, so many mistakes. Firstly, clicking the X button in OSX closes that window. It doesn't hide it somewhere, but it also does not exit the program. This is because OSX is not Windows - it's build on BSD and Mach. Windows has always been of the opinion that you're only really doing one thing at once, which is the application in front, and when you hit close, it should be gone. OSX, NextSTEP (which it's built on) and Unix have always recognised multi-tasking, and having programs not die when their graphical face is closed makes sense.
If anything, it's more consistent than Windows - clicking X always closes the window. On Windows, it closes the window, unless that window is the last one open for a particular application, or that application is one of the special ones like explorer which are always running.
And the reason many Unix and Linux WMs use a Windows style model is simple - they want to make it easier for Windows users to switch over. But it is in no way true that most of them do, unless anything with floating windows and a close button is Windows style. Look at StumpWM, Awesome, Ratpoison, AmiWM, Evilwm, AEWM, Ourobouros, Sawfish, QuarkWM, Enlightenment, Sugar, TWM, FVWM, FLWM, 9wm, OpenStep, WindowMaker, UDE, and many others. Windows style is downright uncommon, if you actually look at what people have written as Linux window managers.
Edit: And don't even get me started on Windows keyboard shortcuts.
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 15:33
The shortcuts in Mac are not the same as in Windows for many applications. They also tend to be convulated or unintuitive. None immediately come to mind, I try not to subject myself to OSX.
Respectfully I have to disagree. I know that Photoshop is exactly the same and so is Firefox. I don't use windows and I don't have much excuse to use any non-open-source software.
Close to perfect??? windows??? You guys only got multiple desktops with vista! WTF!!! Linux has the best interface because it's the most customizable unfortunately you do have to invest a lot of time in setting up your linux system.
Kryozerkia
11-01-2009, 15:34
The fact that it takes up 16 GB is ridiculous. I'm running PCLinuxOS (awful distro name, however) and in its 8 GB partition, 1.2 GB is installed, this includes all the programs I have downloaded using Synaptics, and a couple of Windows games I run through WINE. The size of this operating system base was 350 MB, compared to be having to taking up a DVD.
As I said, I'm using Ultimate. I took the entire install as is. It was smaller before I put Service Pack 1 on. Though, 16G is no big loss since I have more space than I need. I'd run Ubuntu but I have numerous games I play and I don't feel like doing extra configuring in order to enjoy a quick round of AoC.
UNIverseVERSE
11-01-2009, 15:37
Respectfully I have to disagree. I know that Photoshop is exactly the same and so is Firefox. I don't use windows and I don't have much excuse to use any non-open-source software.
Close to perfect??? windows??? You guys only got multiple desktops with vista! WTF!!! Linux has the best interface because it's the most customizable unfortunately you do have to invest a lot of time in setting up your linux system.
Well, OSX only got them in whatever the most recent version is, and even then it's a very limited model.
When you see what wmii has done with groups and tags, any previous multiple desktop model becomes restrictive and narrow.
And neither Windows nor OSX have a proper tiling system yet.
Edit: Neither has focus-follows-mouse yet either, for that matter. They're both as bad as each other, forcing a single usage paradigm which is in no way optimal of all (or even most) tasks.
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 15:56
Well, OSX only got them in whatever the most recent version is, and even then it's a very limited model.
Sorry your correct. I had multiple desktops on Tiger and Leopard but that due to an add on. VirtueDesktops ... it's free however.
When you see what wmii has done with groups and tags, any previous multiple desktop model becomes restrictive and narrow.
And neither Windows nor OSX have a proper tiling system yet.
Edit: Neither has focus-follows-mouse yet either, for that matter. They're both as bad as each other, forcing a single usage paradigm which is in no way optimal of all (or even most) tasks.
I don't like focus-follows-mouse... but I agree that OSX should be a lot easier to customize than it is. It is however much more customizable than windows. At least it has a decent command prompt. It also runs X windows, and can also run gtk and kde apps.
UNIverseVERSE
11-01-2009, 16:18
Sorry your correct. I had multiple desktops on Tiger and Leopard but that due to an add on. VirtueDesktops ... it's free however.
This, incidentally, led to one of the things that amuses me most about Mac fanboys. For years they have been saying "you would never need Virtual Desktops, they're completely pointless". Then they are implemented, and they are now saying "Windows is so backwards, it doesn't even have Virtual Desktops".
I reiterate, however, that OSX still has a very limited model. They are about equivalent to what Gnome will offer you, while systems such as FVWM (both multiple and virtual desktops) and wmii (tags and views on multiple tags at once, plus dynamic tiling) are far more powerful and configurable.
I don't like focus-follows-mouse... but I agree that OSX should be a lot easier to customize than it is. It is however much more customizable than windows. At least it has a decent command prompt. It also runs X windows, and can also run gtk and kde apps.
I can't live in a floating window manager without either focus-follows-mouse or click-to-focus-but-not-raise-on-focus. There needs to be some way of looking at one window and typing into another which is partially covered by it. As it stands, this is impossible on both OSX and Windows.
And no, the OSX GUI cannot really be customised at all. Simply being able to run X windows apps doesn't help when you're still limited to Quartz as your window manager and stuff. And Windows can be made to run both GTK and QT apps, with sufficient persuasion.
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 16:26
Excel runs just fine on the Mac. I should also point out that there is no problem running Linux, mac or windows on any new Mac. I would never dream of installing windows on mine but you can if you want to. A new iMac would actually be a pretty decent gaming system running XP (i dont have time though).
No, an iMac really would not be a decent gaming rig, it lacks any kind of super high end video card.
Hell, the base iMac has a X2400HD in it. Thats what my old Linux box has!
And they're ungodly expensive for what your getting, with a shit mouse, shit keyboard, shit operating system, with over rated shit programs, did I mention shit? They look pretty, thats IT. As far as someone who said that Macs are used for " real work ", you are aware that the corperate world is pretty much locked up by PC's right?
And yes, I have used Apples, alot. There is a mac lab at my college, and they're all newer iMacs, every time I end up having to use one, I stab myself in the balls, and shove a spoon up my ass, because it's less painful than using an Apple.
OSX is a shitty shitty shitty operating system, its pretty. Thats pretty much it. OSX is based on the idea that the user has NO idea how to actually use a computer, it walks you through everything.
And don't start about Vista, I have XP, Vista and Linux boxes, guess what. NONE of them have any problems, even Vista.
I'll post it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tq7yykR-DM&feature=channel_page
Macs can blow me.
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 17:01
*snip*
Thats a very stupid comment.
Surettia
11-01-2009, 17:10
Honestly, I'm just going to wait until the final Windows 7 release comes out. I'm not too keen on trying out betas that involve my entire OS. I don't know how likely it is, but I don't want to risk losing all of my data.
East Coast Federation
11-01-2009, 17:52
Thats a very stupid comment.
What? That Mac's actually make crappy gaming machines? Even with windows on them?
I've always loved paying 1500 dollars for something that you could build yourself for 600 dollars, or get from dell for 1000.
FreeSatania
11-01-2009, 20:22
No this...
...
There is a mac lab at my college, and they're all newer iMacs, every time I end up having to use one, I stab myself in the balls, and shove a spoon up my ass, because it's less painful than using an Apple.
OSX is a shitty shitty shitty operating system, its pretty. Thats pretty much it. OSX is based on the idea that the user has NO idea how to actually use a computer, it walks you through everything.
...
So it's a bad idea to have a Unix OS repackaged so that it's relatively easy to use? Lets see which os is based on the idea that the user don't know what the f*ck they are doing.
1. Mac OS has a usable command line from which you can can launch any program, modify a variety of system settings, install any opensource tools you like, etc. Windows on the other hand is completely unusable from the command line. It *is* possible to modify windows setting but you really have to have a lot of knowledge about the windows registry.
2. The development system for OSX is XTools which is based on gcc and is absolutely free. Visual-C is not free, in fact it's quite expensive.
3. All part windows are closed source. Only some parts of OSX are closed source. All parts of Linux are open source. It's pretty easy to compile and run any open source tool on Mac - the same is not true with windows.
I'd say that windows is the most obfuscated and f'ed up OS. It is the most difficult to modify and definitely not for power users. Mac on the other hand is very similar to Linux in most respects which really matter.
The Mindset
11-01-2009, 23:40
Note: Visual C is free. It's the pro IDE that's not free. The compiler and the stripped down IDE are both free. A great deal of open source tools can compile on Windows. Now you're just making shit up.
Soleichunn
12-01-2009, 00:03
Regardless of whether it's any damn good, my company is committed to shifting to Win7. Microsoft pulls support for older versions (in our case, XP) fairly quickly, and they won't even do paid extended support for XP past 2014. Corporate users will make Windows 7 a financial success, simply because they don't have a choice but to switch.
(And no, we can't move our 100,000 end users and our 4500 supported applications to Mac or Linux, no matter how good they might be. Corporate users will always go to the most popular / widely sold platform. It's simply a given.)
Why doesn'tyour company just continue using XP for another few years, at least until the prices for Vista/Win7 have decreased?
Dude, what the hell is the RPM rate on it?
It could be an internal drive bought direct from a wholesaler, or imported from a cheaper location - the quality need not be that bad.
Most electronic retail stores I go to sell a 500GB external HD for ~$150-170, so an internal, bought from a discount area would be much cheaper.
*Looks sadly at the current 30GB internal HD*
The fact that it takes up 16 GB is ridiculous. I'm running PCLinuxOS (awful distro name, however) and in its 8 GB partition, 1.2 GB is installed, this includes all the programs I have downloaded using Synaptics, and a couple of Windows games I run through WINE. The size of this operating system base was 350 MB, compared to be having to taking up a DVD.
Actually 4 DVDs (or two double layer DVDs). :p
It's a given that Windows OS generally has a lot of bloat with each generation. I have an XP machine and it takes up about 2/3ds of what Vista does.
That being said, I wonder what the final tally will be for Windows 7. I'm particularly interested in whether it will be hungrier for more system resources than Vista in reality or not.
Mine's ~1/5 - 1/4 the size than a Vista install.
But that was to be expected. Apple has complete control over all hardware in the Mac, and can therefor write drivers that do not have to take incompatibilities with other brands/drivers into account. That takes quite a lot of bloat away.
So it's a PC with console architecture?
Pure Metal
12-01-2009, 02:17
... aye if your job involves making films or pictures, a Mac is lovely. Most people with real jobs will get more out of Excel, though.
see, i don't get this. i use a PC with Vista. it has SLI graphics, 4gb of ddr3 ram, raid striped HDDs, and a fast dual-core cpu (its a bit old for quadcore). i use an external terabyte NAS storage volume over a gigabit lan for storage, and i use Adobe's CS products, which can (and would, if i upgrade like i want to) contain industry standard video editing programs such as Premier and After Effects. i use industry-standard Photoshop, as well as InDesign, and Illustrator. my job is in making films (somewhat occasionally) and pictures, and i do rather well with Windows.
the commerical printers we use at work all use macs, and they open up and work on files considerably more slowly than i do with this machine. i just don't see where this notion of 'macs = better creative stuff' comes from, apart from a very outdated state of affairs (certainly from well before mac's move from PowerPC architecture)
i also use excel >.>
East Coast Federation
12-01-2009, 07:32
No this...
So it's a bad idea to have a Unix OS repackaged so that it's relatively easy to use? Lets see which os is based on the idea that the user don't know what the f*ck they are doing.
1. Mac OS has a usable command line from which you can can launch any program, modify a variety of system settings, install any opensource tools you like, etc. Windows on the other hand is completely unusable from the command line. It *is* possible to modify windows setting but you really have to have a lot of knowledge about the windows registry.
2. The development system for OSX is XTools which is based on gcc and is absolutely free. Visual-C is not free, in fact it's quite expensive.
3. All part windows are closed source. Only some parts of OSX are closed source. All parts of Linux are open source. It's pretty easy to compile and run any open source tool on Mac - the same is not true with windows.
I'd say that windows is the most obfuscated and f'ed up OS. It is the most difficult to modify and definitely not for power users. Mac on the other hand is very similar to Linux in most respects which really matter.
1. Wrong, the command prompt in windows works for anything, I know with Vista it can be iffy, but with XP its just fine ( I believe XP is the greatest consumer OS ever made ). Also, I've never heard of Windows rejecting any kind of modification or program.
2. Wrong for Visual-C, its free as is the basic compiler ( as mentioned above ). There is alot of open source support for programs that can be run on Windows.
3. Of course all Part Windows is closed source, always has been. For 90% of users, that really is not a problem. If you want a completely open Operating System, there is always Linux, ( as you mentioned ). Which is more often than not, completely FREE. And if there is a cost, its normally not very high. So, if you wanted to be a hardcore power user, you would rather waste 2 grand on a Mid Spec PC running OSX? Rather than spend that 2 grand on a very very fast PC, running a Free operating system which is more flexible than OSX?
Summary: If its very similar to Linux, spend 1/10th the money on your OS, and build yourself a nice media box, believe me, Apple computers NEVER come close to hardware power on a cost scale.
The fact of the Matter is, I can't see why a lot of people use Apples, still does not make any sense.
The other fact is, Microsoft has most of the market share, because they make a good, simple, stable operating system that meets almost everyone's needs. Which is why they're so successful.
If Mac's were so amazing, then why doesn't everyone have one?
Oh yeah, Priced out the ass.
UNIverseVERSE
12-01-2009, 17:27
1. Wrong, the command prompt in windows works for anything, I know with Vista it can be iffy, but with XP its just fine ( I believe XP is the greatest consumer OS ever made ). Also, I've never heard of Windows rejecting any kind of modification or program.
<snippety snip>
Wrong. The command prompt in Windows dumps you into a pseudo-DOS shell. This is, quite literally, light years behind a shell such as bash or zsh (or even csh)*. Interactively, most of this difference doesn't appear, save horrendous keyboard editing and bad completion and design. But scripting them makes the difference as plain as day.
*The worst thing about it is that half of these predate Windows, and are still better. The right thing had been done, and MS still managed to mess it up.
The other fact is, Microsoft has most of the market share, because they make a good, simple, stable operating system that meets almost everyone's needs. Which is why they're so successful.
<snippety snip>
For values of simple meaning arcane, and of stable meaning house of cards. Windows is, from a technical point of view, the worst of the current operating system family. It is arcane, complex, an endless layer of patches and addons and bugfixes to an 8-bit single user system, held together with spit and luck.
They are so successful because they bought DOS 30 years ago, marketed it to IBM who put it on the PC, which then managed to take over the business market. Since then, they have retained their market share by making no real changes, in order to be the same as the last version and backwards compatible with it. If the competition was actually on technical merits, every computer in the world would be running a form of Unix.
They control the business market because of backwards compatibility. They control the home market because most people first learned to use a computer at the office. They control the school market because every business uses Windows, and so schoolkids get taught it so they can be 'competitive in the marketplace'. They own none of the above on technical merits, on effectiveness at meeting users needs, or on simplicity*.
*Okay, Unix would run into problems on the desktop because of X11, which is also arcane and complex, and happens to be incredibly overengineered. It has many powerful tricks, most of which are unneeded nowadays. But if there was a decent competition here, someone would fairly rapidly write a better windowing system. As it stands, there just isn't enough incentive to port things from X.
FreeSatania
12-01-2009, 17:38
^ ^ this ^ ^
although the 8 bit thing isn't really fair.
And if you want to compare Mac to Linux fine... Linux wins as the better OS. But the Mac is nice if you want *some* nice commercial software, ironically Office. My point is that a Mac is a Unix box and you can *make* just about any user space program run on it. No matter what you say about windows *that* is just not true about windows. And really WTF is this about the Windows shell being as capable as bash! Anyone who says that obviously has no experience with either! BTW the correct response would have been I installed perl so I don't care....
The Alma Mater
12-01-2009, 19:00
Back on topic:
I sofar like win 7. Really like it. Much better than Vista, the new task bar works intuitively and the whole thing feels faster as well.
I have not dared to use mediaplayer though ;)
Kryozerkia
12-01-2009, 19:40
Ugh, so many mistakes. Firstly, clicking the X button in OSX closes that window. It doesn't hide it somewhere, but it also does not exit the program. This is because OSX is not Windows - it's build on BSD and Mach. Windows has always been of the opinion that you're only really doing one thing at once, which is the application in front, and when you hit close, it should be gone. OSX, NextSTEP (which it's built on) and Unix have always recognised multi-tasking, and having programs not die when their graphical face is closed makes sense.
The "X" closes the window, the other button, the left most lets you minimise; put in the background; reduce it to the task bar. I fail to see what the problem is. The buttons are obvious in their function, and besides, why would it be called "Windows" if it was assumed you're doing only one thing at once?
"Minimise" is the same as putting something in the background.
And question, if you're rebooting, is it so difficult to restart the application(s) you had running previously? It takes a few seconds and the time wasted is often due to a person's choice to have their start up cluttered with unnecessary bells and whistles.
http://www.weaselhut.net/startup.png
Only the very bare necessities are in my start up directive for Windows. 5 items total. No instant messenger, no frivolous things.
Is it a pain in the ass to reboot? Yes, does it take long, no. Besides, applications need to be refreshed after a while.
The Mindset
12-01-2009, 19:45
I was forced to use a Mac today. The keyboard had no # key. What the fuck? Apparently alt+3 will give you it, but it's not written on the keyboard, and that's hardly the intuitive method you were boasting about earlier! How about apple key+alt+shift+4 then space just to take a screenshot? How intutive!
UNIverseVERSE
12-01-2009, 20:11
The "X" closes the window, the other button, the left most lets you minimise; put in the background; reduce it to the task bar. I fail to see what the problem is. The buttons are obvious in their function, and besides, why would it be called "Windows" if it was assumed you're doing only one thing at once?
They are called 'applications' for a reason. An application was an program which applied the Windows GUI to one task. As a result, Windows thinks 'closing the window' and 'closing the program' are the same things.
The button comments are slightly irrelevant - I was talking about the complain that closing the window of a program on OSX does not exit the program. And the reason it doesn't is because OSX distinguishes between 'closing the window' and 'closing the program'.
"Minimise" is the same as putting something in the background.
When I close the only Safari window, I am telling a Mac that "I am done with this window, please remove it". When I close the only Word window, Windows assumes that I mean "I am done with this program, please quit it". When I minimise a window, I am saying "I do not want to see this window at the moment, please put it somewhere out of my sight."
Putting something in the background, when done properly, is not the same as minimising. When I put mplayer into the background, it no longer needs any sort of interface to be able to communicate with - I can log in and out, etc, without it exiting.
And question, if you're rebooting, is it so difficult to restart the application(s) you had running previously? It takes a few seconds and the time wasted is often due to a person's choice to have their start up cluttered with unnecessary bells and whistles.
Only the very bare necessities are in my start up directive for Windows. 5 items total. No instant messenger, no frivolous things.
Is it a pain in the ass to reboot? Yes, does it take long, no. Besides, applications need to be refreshed after a while.
I'm not quite sure how this was relevant to what I was saying.
I was forced to use a Mac today. The keyboard had no # key. What the fuck? Apparently alt+3 will give you it, but it's not written on the keyboard, and that's hardly the intuitive method you were boasting about earlier! How about apple key+alt+shift+4 then space just to take a screenshot? How intutive!
Control-v for paste. How is that intuitive? What you find intuitive is based on what you are used to. I bet you would complain about using a Dvorak/QWERTY/Colemak keyboard as well (delete as applicable), because they're not what you're used to. Or using Emacs, which has hundreds of powerful keyboard shortcuts with sensible memnonics (C-f is forward, C-b is back, C-v is down one screen, C-e to end of line, M-< to beginning of buffer, etc.). The only problem is they aren't the same as the ones you are used to.
On a UK Mac keyboard (I wouldn't know, the one in the house has a US keyboard), # is a special character, and as such lives on alt-something. They all do - it's how OSX organises them.
The keycombo for taking a screenshot on Windows is? Print screen, probably? I never liked that one myself - I prefer the method my system has: "C-t ! scrot [ret]". Not a single special key, but rather a case of the general method for launching a program. Makes it much easier to remember and work with. Of course, quite why every keyboard should have a dedicated key for screenshots was never really explained very well, in my opinion.
FreeSatania
12-01-2009, 21:13
I mentioned this before you can remap the keyboard on MacOS ... just like on linux. I did that because I needed home and end to be easier to reach.
Frisbeeteria
12-01-2009, 21:46
Why doesn'tyour company just continue using XP for another few years, at least until the prices for Vista/Win7 have decreased??
We are and will continue to use XP until we switch over to Windows 7. It's still going to be horrific, as we typically do a hardware replacement rather than a OS migration, and hardware refresh for 100,000 seats will take 4 years and beaucoups £££. Like everyone else, we're not overwhelmed with an IT budget surplus in these trying times.
Also, don't know if you've ever noticed, but Microsoft OS prices never decrease, at least not on the corporate license level. We're not walking into OfficeMax on Memorial Day weekend to take advantage of the $20 coupon - we have to buy for the whole site at once, even if we're "downgrading" to XP. In fact, it costs more to use an older OS, thanks to M$'s extortionate service contract fees (which we foolishly pay anyway).
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 00:59
Control-v for paste. How is that intuitive? What you find intuitive is based on what you are used to. I bet you would complain about using a Dvorak/QWERTY/Colemak keyboard as well (delete as applicable), because they're not what you're used to. Or using Emacs, which has hundreds of powerful keyboard shortcuts with sensible memnonics (C-f is forward, C-b is back, C-v is down one screen, C-e to end of line, M-< to beginning of buffer, etc.). The only problem is they aren't the same as the ones you are used to.
On a UK Mac keyboard (I wouldn't know, the one in the house has a US keyboard), # is a special character, and as such lives on alt-something. They all do - it's how OSX organises them.
The keycombo for taking a screenshot on Windows is? Print screen, probably? I never liked that one myself - I prefer the method my system has: "C-t ! scrot [ret]". Not a single special key, but rather a case of the general method for launching a program. Makes it much easier to remember and work with. Of course, quite why every keyboard should have a dedicated key for screenshots was never really explained very well, in my opinion.
Wait, you actually thing that's a good system? Wow. I have no words.
Soleichunn
13-01-2009, 05:44
We are and will continue to use XP until we switch over to Windows 7. It's still going to be horrific, as we typically do a hardware replacement rather than a OS migration, and hardware refresh for 100,000 seats will take 4 years and beaucoups £££. Like everyone else, we're not overwhelmed with an IT budget surplus in these trying times.
Also, don't know if you've ever noticed, but Microsoft OS prices never decrease, at least not on the corporate license level. We're not walking into OfficeMax on Memorial Day weekend to take advantage of the $20 coupon - we have to buy for the whole site at once, even if we're "downgrading" to XP. In fact, it costs more to use an older OS, thanks to M$'s extortionate service contract fees (which we foolishly pay anyway).
How dodgy.
Macs are useless for what I do.
What do you do that macs are useless and windows isn't?
...I mean, really, macs can now do most things windows can so if osx is useless then windows probably is too and you should just get linux like a sensible person.
I was forced to use a Mac today. The keyboard had no # key. What the fuck?
*is typing on a mac*
*hits shift + 3*
##################
...my mac has a #, labeled on the keyboard above the 3 like any other keyboard. Wtf were you using? My only complaint with the keyboard setup on here is that there's no backspace, only delete... and there isn't a function key on the right side, only the left (but I can remap this somehow), but this is also a laptop so there are always some button issues.
How about apple key+alt+shift+4 then space just to take a screenshot? How intutive!
This is a little annoying, yes... although I never have to use space, just apple+shift+3 for a screenshot... but apple+shift+4 gives a selectable screenshot option so I can only take a screenshot of a small portion of the screen, which is super handy.
Also, on the laptops there's an option to turn on right clicking such that you push with two fingers and get a right click, which I have found much more convenient than windows laptops where you have to use a right mouse button click.
I should add: I would never purchase a mac desktop machine. They're underpowered and impractical because you have to worry about heat since they're built into the damn screens, but for laptops they're pretty good and it's not too hard to get linux running on them.
Ferrous Oxide
13-01-2009, 07:21
What do you do that macs are useless and windows isn't?
...I mean, really, macs can now do most things windows can so if osx is useless then windows probably is too and you should just get linux like a sensible person.
Well, every OS can be used for almost everything. So that means that games is the tiebreaker, and since Windows wins in that category by a country mile...
... aye if your job involves making films or pictures, a Mac is lovely. Most people with real jobs will get more out of Excel, though.
If your real job involves programming... well, I find it much easier to do on a unix based system than windows. The only way I manage to do anything at all on windows is with cygwin.
Also, macs run Excel as well as the open source alternatives: open office and neo office (I recommend the latter since it doesn't need X to run).
Well, every OS can be used for almost everything. So that means that games is the tiebreaker, and since Windows wins in that category by a country mile...
I would not be able to do my work on a windows machine. Fortunately, my work computer runs Fedora and the terminal window where I can ssh to my work computer is much more stable in os x than it is on xp running cygwin. For me, windows is only useful because I occasionally have to open a file that some nitwit has made in the new version of office and open/neo office programmers haven't caught up to being able to open the damn things. Stupid proprietary bastards at microsoft.
Question though: is there a way to write documents in LaTeX in windows without going through cygwin?
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 15:20
*is typing on a mac*
*hits shift + 3*
##################
...my mac has a #, labeled on the keyboard above the 3 like any other keyboard. Wtf were you using? My only complaint with the keyboard setup on here is that there's no backspace, only delete... and there isn't a function key on the right side, only the left (but I can remap this somehow), but this is also a laptop so there are always some button issues.
The UK keyboard layout on a macbook pro has no # key. Neither does any UK layout mac keyboard released in recent years. But that's besides the point. Macs are still shit, Linux is even worse.
The UK keyboard layout on a macbook pro has no # key. Neither does any UK layout mac keyboard released in recent years. But that's besides the point.
So all recent UK keyboards do not have #, but this is beside the point when you want to bitch about macs?
Macs are still shit, Linux is even worse.
This right here tells me that you are either not a serious computer user at best or incompetent at worst. Linux is so much better than windows it's unreal.
Pirated Corsairs
13-01-2009, 15:35
Wait, you actually thing that's a good system? Wow. I have no words.
The only reason you think Windows shortcuts are good is because it's what you are accustomed to, really. I think a lot of the emacs commands, for example, make a lot of sense, even if I'm still taking a bit of time to get used to them.
What do you do that macs are useless and windows isn't?
...I mean, really, macs can now do most things windows can so if osx is useless then windows probably is too and you should just get linux like a sensible person.
At least OSX is, at it's core, still UNIX. But I heartily endorse switching to GNU/Linux distributions. It's not even like it's difficult anymore. I mean, Ubuntu is very user friendly.
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 15:41
So all recent UK keyboards do not have #, but this is beside the point when you want to bitch about macs?
This right here tells me that you are either not a serious computer user at best or incompetent at worst. Linux is so much better than windows it's unreal.
Linux is incompetent for approximately 100% of the tasks I am use my computer for. The GIMP is an awful raster image editor. There are no adequately powerful vector editors. There is no equivilent of Corel Painter for Linux. Without cumbersome editing of configuration files deep within an stupidly designed directory heirarchy system, it is not possible to use a 64 character WPA2 key in the latest release of Ubuntu (which is the default setting for new BTHomeHub2s). Linux, in all its forms, does not just "work" when installed. It should. Linux is good for programming, only if you program for Linux, or for platform independant systems which is pointless as by definition you could code those on any other system. Saying that Linux is good for programming Linux applications is just as stupid as saying Windows is good for programming Windows applications.
There is nothing good about Linux. From your language I'm going to assume you're a fanatic of the worst sort; you will not see sense. So I won't even bother arguing.
Pirated Corsairs
13-01-2009, 15:42
I would not be able to do my work on a windows machine. Fortunately, my work computer runs Fedora and the terminal window where I can ssh to my work computer is much more stable in os x than it is on xp running cygwin. For me, windows is only useful because I occasionally have to open a file that some nitwit has made in the new version of office and open/neo office programmers haven't caught up to being able to open the damn things. Stupid proprietary bastards at microsoft.
Question though: is there a way to write documents in LaTeX in windows without going through cygwin?
Indeed. Proprietary software is a major problem. If somebody sends me a .docx or any other file that I am unable to open, I will send them an email explaining that I am unable to open their file and request that they send it in a format that people using free software can open.
The UK keyboard layout on a macbook pro has no # key. Neither does any UK layout mac keyboard released in recent years. But that's besides the point. Macs are still shit, Linux is even worse.
okay, in what ways is Windows a better OS than Linux or OSX?
Linux is good for programming, only if you program for Linux, or for platform independant systems which is pointless as by definition you could code those on any other system. Saying that Linux is good for programming Linux applications is just as stupid as saying Windows is good for programming Windows applications.
I don't write applications. I write programs that do science. I don't know any physicists or astronomers who don't use linux, whatever their preferred programming language. Linux is amazing for science.
From your language I'm going to assume you're a fanatic of the worst sort; you will not see sense. So I won't even bother arguing.
You're the one who complained that the lack of a # key on a mac was a sign of the mac sucking and then stated that the fact that no recent UK keyboards include this is beside the point. And I'm a fanatic?! You know what you do when your keyboard doesn't include the keys you want? You buy a new keyboard which contains the keys you want or you remap your keys. I have access to three different operating systems and I use them all from time to time, so I'd hardly call myself a fanatic. And I used to really like windows... until I started to use linux. Lately, the only time I've used my windows machine is when I have to open things that I can't otherwise open or get a file that I want that's stored on there.
...also GIMP is sweet if you take an hour to figure it out.
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 16:08
I don't write applications. I write programs that do science. I don't know any physicists or astronomers who don't use linux, whatever their preferred programming language. Linux is amazing for science.
You're the one who complained that the lack of a # key on a mac was a sign of the mac sucking and then stated that the fact that no recent UK keyboards include this is beside the point. And I'm a fanatic?! You know what you do when your keyboard doesn't include the keys you want? You buy a new keyboard which contains the keys you want or you remap your keys.
...also GIMP is sweet if you take an hour to figure it out.
Nope, GIMP is shit. There's really no arguing that. I didn't mean to say that it not having a # key was besides the point, I meant that your keyboard had one was besides the point - because the UK ones don't. You know what you do when you own a mac that doesn't have a # key? Sell it to an idiot and buy two PCs.
EDIT: Admittedly, it's been about four years since I last used the GIMP, and if they've fixed the shitty interface then perhaps it's not as bad now as I remember. But still, on a Linux system, I would be unable to complete my work. On a Mac, I could complete my work, but I'd be complaining about it deliberately being slightly shitty. On Windows I could complete my work with minimal problems. I don't think Windows is great, I just think it's better than the alternatives.
EDIT2: Looks like they've largely fixed the interface problems.
Nope, GIMP is shit. There's really no arguing that.
...No, GIMP can do some amazing things, it just takes a little googling to figure some things out as they aren't exactly intuitive. Furthermore, if you have a preferred windows program, there's always wine.
How do I write a document in LaTeX on a windows machine without using cygwin?
I didn't mean to say that it not having a # key was besides the point, I meant that your keyboard had one was besides the point - because the UK ones don't. You know what you do when you own a mac that doesn't have a # key? Sell it to an idiot and buy two PCs.
You still cited the lack of the # key on a mac keyboard as a sign that it is shitty. If no keyboards have it, then it's not really a mac thing, is it?
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 16:20
...No, GIMP can do some amazing things, it just takes a little googling to figure some things out as they aren't exactly intuitive. Furthermore, if you have a preferred windows program, there's always wine.
How do I write a document in LaTeX on a windows machine without using cygwin?
You still cited the lack of the # key on a mac keyboard as a sign that it is shitty. If no keyboards have it, then it's not really a mac thing, is it?
No, GIMP is still shit, even with the interface improvements. I am an illustrator. I work in the print industry. GIMP does not support Pantone colour schemes, anything beyond 8-bit floating point images (Photoshop manages up to 32-bit). GIMP doesn't even support CMYK properly! Completely fucking useless.
Why is this relevant?
What are you talking about? UK keyboards have a # key. UK mac keyboards don't.
UNIverseVERSE
13-01-2009, 16:22
Wait, you actually thing that's a good system? Wow. I have no words.
What's a good system? Emacs? Of course I do, it's powerful, logical, sensible, and extensible.
I would not be able to do my work on a windows machine. Fortunately, my work computer runs Fedora and the terminal window where I can ssh to my work computer is much more stable in os x than it is on xp running cygwin. For me, windows is only useful because I occasionally have to open a file that some nitwit has made in the new version of office and open/neo office programmers haven't caught up to being able to open the damn things. Stupid proprietary bastards at microsoft.
Question though: is there a way to write documents in LaTeX in windows without going through cygwin?
Answer: yes. A little wiki work reveals at least: TeXnicCenter, Texmaker, WinShell, MeWa, and ProTeXt.
Linux is incompetent for approximately 100% of the tasks I am use my computer for. The GIMP is an awful raster image editor. There are no adequately powerful vector editors. There is no equivilent of Corel Painter for Linux. Without cumbersome editing of configuration files deep within an stupidly designed directory heirarchy system, it is not possible to use a 64 character WPA2 key in the latest release of Ubuntu (which is the default setting for new BTHomeHub2s). Linux, in all its forms, does not just "work" when installed. It should. Linux is good for programming, only if you program for Linux, or for platform independant systems which is pointless as by definition you could code those on any other system. Saying that Linux is good for programming Linux applications is just as stupid as saying Windows is good for programming Windows applications.
There is nothing good about Linux. From your language I'm going to assume you're a fanatic of the worst sort; you will not see sense. So I won't even bother arguing.
Bolded is a claim I seriously doubt, as I cannot see why Ubuntu would not have included wpa support in their graphical front end. Despite that, 'deep within' is inaccurate, as is 'stupidly designed'. The directory system is arranged to group things logically, and does a fairly good job of that, considering the many years of tweaks and cruft it has acquired. In this case, the relevant files are /etc/wpa_suppulicant/wpa_supplicant.conf and /etc/network/interfaces. They both live in /etc because they are configuration files. /etc/network/interfaces is the file that lists the network interfaces and their setup, hence its location. /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf is the configuration file for wpa_supplicant, and therefore sits in its directory.
The GIMP is different, but improving with every release. There is vector software - Xara Xtreme, for example, has a native Linux release. You reveal a complete lack of knowledge about programming - the development toolchain available on any Unix system is far more powerful, flexible, and configurable than the Windows offering.
Regardless, it is true that Linux is currently more of a techie OS. It's really more for Morlocks than for Eloi (c.f. Neal Stephenson). But that is its greatest strength, and why it will never be destroyed, rather than a weakness.
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 16:25
Oh, Ubuntu has a fairly comprehensive GUI frontend. It just doesn't allow you to enter keys longer than 63 characters. This is why my opinion of Linux is so low: things that should just work, don't. And what's worse is that the community of fanatics surrounding it will say "oh, oh, but you CAN get that working if you do x y and z!" That is beside the point. Windows just works. Even Macs just work.
Hairless Kitten
13-01-2009, 17:00
I have Windows Vista for some months.
Is it better than previous versions?
A little.
Can I do more with Vista than with my old 80ties home computer?
No, it looks only better now.
In a way, it’s sad that the old Windows95 interface is still kept.
14 years of progress and we are still working with the same faces.
So Windows7 Beta will be no much different as Vista, I assume.
The Alma Mater
13-01-2009, 18:16
Question though: is there a way to write documents in LaTeX in windows without going through cygwin?
Yep - MikTeX (http://miktex.org/) is a distribution for windows.
There are also plenty of graphical frontends available as well, like
texniccenter (http://www.texniccenter.org/) (free), WinEDT (http://www.winedt.com/) (shareware) and Winshell (http://www.winshell.de/) (free).
Or you could of course use emacs for windows ;) Open Office can export to not-that-good LateX.
You will also want Ghostscript and Ghostview: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
UNIverseVERSE
13-01-2009, 18:57
Oh, Ubuntu has a fairly comprehensive GUI frontend. It just doesn't allow you to enter keys longer than 63 characters. This is why my opinion of Linux is so low: things that should just work, don't. And what's worse is that the community of fanatics surrounding it will say "oh, oh, but you CAN get that working if you do x y and z!" That is beside the point. Windows just works. Even Macs just work.
In which case someone should (and probably has) filed a bug report against the package, for someone to extend it.
Of course, from my point of view, tweaking a couple config files is "just works". So again, this comes down to the disconnect between our views of computers - I am a Morlock (c.f. Neal Stephenson again). And why can Windows not do SSH out of the box? Sure as heck doesn't "just work" there.
And if that's giving you a low opinion of Linux, I'm not quite sure why you're a fan of Windows, which still hasn't managed to understand that an operating system should be secure without needing third-party addons. Of course, if you allow them, then SELinux (the NSA built, open source, secure front end) still leaves no competition.
The Mindset
13-01-2009, 19:17
In which case someone should (and probably has) filed a bug report against the package, for someone to extend it.
Of course, from my point of view, tweaking a couple config files is "just works". So again, this comes down to the disconnect between our views of computers - I am a Morlock (c.f. Neal Stephenson again). And why can Windows not do SSH out of the box? Sure as heck doesn't "just work" there.
And if that's giving you a low opinion of Linux, I'm not quite sure why you're a fan of Windows, which still hasn't managed to understand that an operating system should be secure without needing third-party addons. Of course, if you allow them, then SELinux (the NSA built, open source, secure front end) still leaves no competition.
No, there is no bug report, I checked. It is not considered a bug by the devs because the WPA2 standard only allows for <63 ascii character keys. However, Windows, along with BT and probably many other vendors break this standard. De facto standards are what should be followed. Strict fascist application of standards inevitably leads to the incompatibility they strive to avoid.
Why can't Windows do SSH or provide functionality similar to third party products? Well, quite simply, because they wouldn't be allowed to due to anti-trust legislation. And contrary to your implication, Vista is generally very secure if kept up to date and maintained. I do not run any third party security software. I have Windows firewall enabled and do not open dodgy files. I have never, ever experienced any problems with viruses or malware of any kind. As usual, the problems you speak of lie between the keyboard and the chair.
And as I've already stated, I am not a fan of Windows. It's simply better than the alternative.
Pure Metal
13-01-2009, 19:29
No, GIMP is still shit, even with the interface improvements. I am an illustrator. I work in the print industry. GIMP does not support Pantone colour schemes, anything beyond 8-bit floating point images (Photoshop manages up to 32-bit). GIMP doesn't even support CMYK properly! Completely fucking useless.
indeed, GIMP isn't as powerful as a professional needs. though you can get adobe's CS(2) working on linux with WINE, iirc, but the support wasn't 100% when i last looked. not sure about corel products as i stopped using them a while back and haven't checked
another reason why i stick with windows, at least professionally.
ps: PuTTY is a good SSH client for windows (and nix), and takes seconds to install
UNIverseVERSE
13-01-2009, 19:33
No, there is no bug report, I checked. It is not considered a bug by the devs because the WPA2 standard only allows for <63 ascii character keys. However, Windows, along with BT and probably many other vendors break this standard. De facto standards are what should be followed. Strict fascist application of standards inevitably leads to the incompatibility they strive to avoid.
Why can't Windows do SSH or provide functionality similar to third party products? Well, quite simply, because they wouldn't be allowed to due to anti-trust legislation. And contrary to your implication, Vista is generally very secure if kept up to date and maintained. I do not run any third party security software. I have Windows firewall enabled and do not open dodgy files. I have never, ever experienced any problems with viruses or malware of any kind. As usual, the problems you speak of lie between the keyboard and the chair.
And as I've already stated, I am not a fan of Windows. It's simply better than the alternative.
Ah, I see. You're complaining because Ubuntu is standards compliant. Let me just file that one in the nice round floor level filing cabinet I have.
I am not complaining about Windows failing to provide functionality that third party products do. I am complaining that, after 20+ years in the operating systems business, Microsoft have still not realised that an operating system should be inherently secure. They still lack true access and privilege controls, proper network security, and many other glaring flaws. Combine that with shoddy programming (when comments in the source code include "kernel backdoor for Word" you know there's a problem) and a wide install base, and there is a recipe for disaster.
Similarly, Windows cannot do SSH because it is, at heart, a single user operating system for unnetworked microcomputers. They ended up nicking half their TCP stack from BSD, because they couldn't program an effective one for themselves. Even Vista is yet another layer of cruft and patches on a fifteen year old heart, and the design flaws present from the very beginning are still apparent.
Pirated Corsairs
13-01-2009, 21:27
I do have to point out something that vaguely amuses me. The argument made by The Mindset that Windows "Just works" and that with linux you have to tweak all sorts of files and things and make it work...
This sounds exactly like the argument that Mac users often make that brings out responses along the lines of "What, don't you know how to use a computer? Do you need your computer to baby you or something?" from Windows users.
Just thought I'd share that this amused me.
<snip>
Well, unless you're lucky enough to have compatible hardware getting Linux to run is a major headache.
I've spent last two-three days trying to install various distros to a laptop...Most of the time starting X just blanks the screen or dies. The reason is...uncertain, but if I plug a normal CRT monitor to the laptop X usually manages to start OK assuming I run with VESA drivers, which kinda destroys the idea of a laptop.
Only three distros - Slax, TinyMe & DSL (+ FreeBSD) - recognized the display and integrated graphics (integrated Intel) card ok on the first run. Too bad they and other distros I managed to tweak up lacked either proper regional customizations (TinyMe had eg. American Samoa but not any of Scandinavian Countries or eg. France), proper HD install (Slax - Coincidentally the distro that worked by far the best) or had some other detail - like package management - or ultimately speed (2 Ghz laptop with 256MB ram) that sucked big time.
For some odd reason some distros report errors on the LiveCD (RW) as well even though it scans OK on my main machine. Another oddity is the wild range of boot times (LiveCD): From few minutes to half-an-hour...HALF-AN-HOUR, really wtf? Then there's the mystery that hitting enter advanced the splash bar on some distros...usually those who took 15+ minutes to start...often to a blank screen, without xdriver=vesa or CRT tube connected.
Well, I'm not actually surprised because I ran into similar difficulties when installing linux to a desktop - Display & GPU configuration is by far the biggest obstacle between Linux & User Friendly desktop. edit: another is the widely varying customs between distros: Sure, getting the distro you want is a good thing but sudo/su/login as root or dpkg-reconfigure, XFdrake, nano /etc/X11/xorg.conf, whatever it was in Ubuntu (<- all of those xorg configs should be obsolete anyways) or apt-get, slapt-get, aptitude etc... pointless differences (userwise) make things unnecessarily complex even from a perspective of someone who's not particularly afraid of the console.
For that matter, I'd welcome some sort of Linux Compatible(tm) branding to hardware.
UNIverseVERSE
13-01-2009, 22:00
Well, unless you're lucky enough to have compatible hardware getting Linux to run is a major headache.
I've spent last two-three days trying to install various distros to a laptop...Most of the time starting X just blanks the screen or dies. The reason is...uncertain, but if I plug a normal CRT monitor to the laptop X usually manages to start OK assuming I run with VESA drivers, which kinda destroys the idea of a laptop.
Only three distros - Slax, TinyMe & DSL (+ FreeBSD) - recognized the display and integrated graphics (integrated Intel) card ok on the first run. Too bad they and other distros I managed to tweak up lacked either proper regional customizations (TinyMe had eg. American Samoa but not any of Scandinavian Countries or eg. France), proper HD install (Slax - Coincidentally the distro that worked by far the best) or had some other detail - like package management - or ultimately speed (2 Ghz laptop with 256MB ram) that sucked big time.
For some odd reason some distros report errors on the LiveCD (RW) as well even though it scans OK on my main machine. Another oddity is the wild range of boot times (LiveCD): From few minutes to half-an-hour...HALF-AN-HOUR, really wtf? Then there's the mystery that hitting enter advanced the splash bar on some distros...usually those who took 15+ minutes to start...often to a blank screen, without xdriver=vesa or CRT tube connected.
Well, I'm not actually surprised because I ran into similar difficulties when installing linux to a desktop - Display & GPU configuration is by far the biggest obstacle between Linux & User Friendly desktop.
For that matter, I'd welcome some sort of Linux Compatible(tm) branding to hardware.
So would I. The likely cause of the issue, I would think, is problems detecting the appropriate settings for your display. Are you willing to use a commandline for a bit? If so, you could try chucking debian on, and then pulling in X and configuring it afterwards.
However, I did buy an Eee for a reason - I wanted a laptop that would work easily with Linux. And I got one.
(Edit: All these complaints are linked to X. You might be amused to note that I said X was the greatest technical obstacle to Linux on every desktop quite a few posts back)
Hydesland
13-01-2009, 22:36
Linux is an amazing OS, but it's incredibly impracticable also for many things. And it's not for computer n00bs. So little hardware is compatible or easy to get to work with Linux that it is a nightmare sometimes, not the sort of OS you want for academic word processing and spreadsheet sort of work either (and Wine is still unreliable). Mac is also awesome for some things (music production, doesn't have the retarded kernels that windows has, like Kmixer), but shit for others. Windows is shit for loads of things, but awesome for others (GAEMS, plus loads of hardware and software is compatible with it). There is no one universally good and practice OS, it depends what you need.
So would I. The likely cause of the issue, I would think, is problems detecting the appropriate settings for your display.
I'm uncertain...I'll have to do some more tests with the CRT plugged in before I can say for sure it's the display configuration that's bugging out (eg. wrong sync rates, also for some reason 24 bit mode blanks the screen as well) rather than the graphics driver.
Next with Sidux :)
However, I did buy an Eee for a reason - I wanted a laptop that would work easily with Linux. And I got one.
Yeah, a friend has one of those Linux mini-laptops and it runs perfectly.
..which is probably one reason why I thought Linux + laptop would make a good combo.
One thing I've learned is that there's a big performance gap betwixt distros at least on (way) below average hardware.
(Edit: All these complaints are linked to X. You might be amused to note that I said X was the greatest technical obstacle to Linux on every desktop quite a few posts back)
Probably only too true. :)
I'm amazed people with macs have made a post here without it breaking down.
Pirated Corsairs
13-01-2009, 22:57
I'm amazed people with macs have made a post here without it breaking down.
Cute. I'm amazed Windows users got here without BSODing. ;)
Cute. I'm amazed Windows users got here without BSODing. ;)
Well, Linux users must be typing in Lynx because X would've hanged already... :tongue:
Soleichunn
13-01-2009, 23:23
Cute. I'm amazed Windows users got here without BSODing. ;)
I'm amazed that the thread managed to discuss the situation with so little bickering.
UNIverseVERSE
13-01-2009, 23:42
Linux is an amazing OS, but it's incredibly impracticable also for many things. And it's not for computer n00bs. So little hardware is compatible or easy to get to work with Linux that it is a nightmare sometimes, not the sort of OS you want for academic word processing and spreadsheet sort of work either (and Wine is still unreliable). Mac is also awesome for some things (music production, doesn't have the retarded kernels that windows has, like Kmixer), but shit for others. Windows is shit for loads of things, but awesome for others (GAEMS, plus loads of hardware and software is compatible with it). There is no one universally good and practice OS, it depends what you need.
In my fields, Linux/Unix is the OS for academic word processing. While LaTeX runs on Windows, it is a much more natural and powerful fit on Unix systems.
On the n00bs thing, I direct everyone in the thread to In The Beginning Was The Command Line (http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html), an essay by Neal Stephenson on computers. A little dated now - it was written back in the days of BeOS - but many of its points are timeless. He draws a distinction not between experienced users and newbies, but between 'Morlocks' and 'Eloi'. Morlocks are the engineers, the people who keep things running and invent new things. Eloi are users, nontechnical people who seek simplicity and a lack of confusion. Linux is inherently for the Morlocks.
If nothing else, it's worth reading for the fantastic analogies he produces, and for his cunning analysis of 'metaphor shear' - what happens when the metaphor the system is using breaks down. Great read.
FreeSatania
14-01-2009, 01:03
But the Morlocks were evil - but generally us Command Line users are smart and nice :)
If it were the real world the Eloi would be dumb stupid and mean. Seem that it's usually a winning combination :(
Ferrous Oxide
14-01-2009, 01:16
In a way, it’s sad that the old Windows95 interface is still kept.
14 years of progress and we are still working with the same faces.
They spent that fourteen years switching to a new kernel and away from the absolutely horrible DOS-based system. And even then, people are having a shitty because their decade old software and hardware doesn't work any more.
FreeSatania
14-01-2009, 01:48
Ironically if you want to run dos software today the best way would be to use a VM with Dos running it. That goes for vista, linux, mac - modern machines are so fast it work pretty damn well. I know a guy who runs a C&C router on a linux box with some ancient C&C software running in a dos box. He's still stuck on an old P4 because he need an ISA slot & the computer he was using before that was a 386!
Ironically if you want to run dos software today the best way would be to use a VM with Dos running it.
DOSBox ftw.
I'm uncertain...I'll have to do some more tests with the CRT plugged in before I can say for sure it's the display configuration that's bugging out (eg. wrong sync rates, also for some reason 24 bit mode blanks the screen as well) rather than the graphics driver.
I think I managed to get the thing working (Sidux)...
Dpgk-reconfigure xserver-xorg no longer does anything useful and I most certainly didn't want to touch xorg.conf manually (archaic config.sys editing if you ask me) so in case someone else has issues with Intel 82845G Graphics Controller here's how I did it:
...adding xdriver=i810 framebuffer to boot string (menu.lst, GRUB) did the trick.
The only oddity remaining is that booting goes much faster if I tap space key while Linux is firing up...well, infact Sidux doesn't boot up at all unless I tap some key once in a while - For some reason it gets "stuck" unless I perform the taps (and eventually throws a clocksync or something error) :confused: :D
The only oddity remaining is that booting goes much faster if I tap space key while Linux is firing up...well, infact Sidux doesn't boot up at all unless I tap some key once in a while - For some reason it gets "stuck" unless I perform the taps (and eventually throws a clocksync or something error) :confused: :D
btw. It does that at shutdown as well.
FreeSatania
14-01-2009, 16:45
Odd. It could be a problem with sleep. Interpreting some 'interrupt' as time to go to sleep and then waking up when you hit a key might be an indicator of something weird going on with sleep.
The Alma Mater
14-01-2009, 16:54
To answer my own earlier question on Windows 7 damaging mp3s:
There is an update for that, which windows update will gladly install for you ;)
PartyPeoples
14-01-2009, 16:58
So how is Windows 7 going for anybody that's used/using it?.. The um promotional stuff that I've seen for it looks very underwhelming - although under the hood it is apparently what Vista should have been. I haven't used it myself although I was playing with the idea of giving it a go but *shrug* looks so much like Vista...
Odd. It could be a problem with sleep. Interpreting some 'interrupt' as time to go to sleep and then waking up when you hit a key might be an indicator of something weird going on with sleep.
Apparently it was skewed clocksource...noticed that clock was running horribly slow if running on battery while not connected to 'net and that running hwclock reported date in the 1980s after reboot... :D
Adding - yes - even more stuff to GRUB seems to have done the trick (clocksource=jiffies).
Now I only have one minor problem: acer-wmi: no or unsupported WMI interface...Which I gather has something do with special Acer laptop key functionality.