Switching OS

[Violet]

System 7? Really? You'd think I'd tell you to use an outdated OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7) instead of Vista? Wow - your understanding of my tech-fu is of creationist proportions.

I would certainly hope not However, OS7 was fine, and so is Vista. Fact is: they work.

Now Windows 7, on the other hand... Yes - it is better than Vista, in more ways than one - I like to think of Windows 7 as what Vista should have been. Administrating Vista clients is like pulling teeth - of course, I know you like to troll me

I don't disagree... but he did say that he didn't want to shell out the cash, and it is therefore irrelevant.

Actually, for you, it will not be cheap to keep Vista if you plan to add games and additional applications - Vista is less and less supported as a target and seen more as an after thought, as it is trivial to extend a Windows 7 driver to work on Vista if and only if they do not take advantage of the changes in the Windows API.

And yet, the majority of existing Windows games work on it. Conclusion: one can play plenty of games on it.

To argue otherwise is akin to downing the PS2's game catalogue with the fact that it is now outdated, and some things are no longer available to it. So fucking what? It has plenty of games to keep it a worthy investment.

Basically, XP has gone the route of long term support as a stable API and Windows 7 as the second generation of the new API. For Vista, there is no love.

This i do not disagree with. However, doesn't everything that works with XP 'work' with Vista?

To make the comparison complete on your cluelessness over Vista (the NDIS stack is busted, wtf MS, wtf), you basically advocate it because it works for you right now. That is good - however, placing statements on an internet website between two posting heavyweights (The other being Adrian), a bystander may be persuaded to follow your advice, however poor it may be. I'd prefer to set the record straight - Vista is a poor thing to remain on right now given the options available today.

If you have it: keep using it. If you are not willing to shell out the extra money, there is no reason to switch That is all I say.

Now, about the issue of games (FYI - Windows 7 has a revamped compatibility layer for playing old games and a fixed UAC), yeah - games that are designed for a particular target system most likely will run on it. What a surprise (not). Old games will, probabilistically, run more often than not on the OS they were designed for (XP Ftw!).

<-- Snow Leopard. /argument.

It's fine that Windows 7 can play most of the games... that doesn't matter if the person won't shell out the cash for it.

[Tiberius]

However, OS7 was fine, and so is Vista. Fact is: they work.

They work...for you. For the rest of us who actually do a lot of advanced computer work (astonishingly, there is more to computing than games), Vista was a pile of crap that had numerous security flaws, numerous bugs, and an even more annoying permissions system than any previous version.

Fact is: it doesn't work for most people. There was a very good reason why so many people downgraded to XP, or switched to another OS. This very thread is a testament to the fact that Vista doesn't work as well as you say.

[Autumnlicious]

System 7? Really? You'd think I'd tell you to use an outdated OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7) instead of Vista? Wow - your understanding of my tech-fu is of creationist proportions.

I would certainly hope not However, OS7 was fine, and so is Vista. Fact is: they work.

I certainly don't think System 7 works any more, unless you have the equipment or know how to get it operational again. Even then, it's usage is limited and superseded in every fashion now. Vista - you know, it is tempting to apply the System 7 metaphor to it as well. Name one thing that Vista does that is not beat by anything else.

Now Windows 7, on the other hand... Yes - it is better than Vista, in more ways than one - I like to think of Windows 7 as what Vista should have been. Administrating Vista clients is like pulling teeth - of course, I know you like to troll me

I don't disagree... but he did say that he didn't want to shell out the cash, and it is therefore irrelevant.

There are numerous ways to... obtain it. Easiest is getting the student discount from MS or a friend to give you a hand. And development on Wine [http://winehq.org] does progress ever so onwards.

Actually, for you, it will not be cheap to keep Vista if you plan to add games and additional applications - Vista is less and less supported as a target and seen more as an after thought, as it is trivial to extend a Windows 7 driver to work on Vista if and only if they do not take advantage of the changes in the Windows API.

And yet, the majority of existing Windows games work on it. Conclusion: one can play plenty of games on it.

To argue otherwise is akin to downing the PS2's game catalogue with the fact that it is now outdated, and some things are no longer available to it. So fucking what? It has plenty of games to keep it a worthy investment.

False. Definitely false (cue the hah-I-got-you-now-you-sonuvabitch!)

Most games actually don't work on Vista without tuning the Windows-on-windows (WoW (Yeah, there was a WoW before WoW)) system by hand. In addition, coming from your catalogue argument, I'd like to point out that, by the numbers alone, most games will not work in XP without use of an emulator. Only relatively new games were dedicated to XP (Post 2000-ish) and only even newer were designed for the next API.

Time to give you a little CS history.

Before what you know as MS Windows, there used to be DOS or the Disk Operating System. Microsoft bought a version of DOS, licensed it MS-DOS and managed to con IBM into putting MS-DOS on their machines (why a con? Because IBM thought they were conning MS by paying nearly nothing to them and yet getting away with an OS for their machines when in reality it was MS conning IBM by controlling the software). This was about time of the DOS extenders. DOS extenders were programs that seized the hardware from DOS's control and gave it another program, allowing developers to use the hardware directly. Soon came the craze of making a frame buffer or what you know as an early graphical console (application windows, point and click) and an extender at the core was developed and given the name "Windows 1.0"

As Windows evolved from a simple DOS extender and windowing program into a massive, complex behemoth of a windowing environment, it was hacked together with DOS creating the Windows 9x series, what you know as Windows 95/98/ME (Let us forget MS BOB). Microsoft saw there was an issue with the 9x series and moved to develop the NT series, a complete redesign of Windows as everyone knew it. In the end run, NT has as much commonality with 9x as 9x has with MacOS. To allow for applications to run on NT that were made for 9x, the Windows on Windows framework was developed that mapped and redirected binary calls from what older applications saw and wanted to the correct (in theory) application programming interfaces on Windows NT.

As NT grew and was successively redeveloped, forming Windows 2000 and XP, it began to suffer bit-rot - the coders equivalent of too many cooks spoiling the broth and the broth becoming unmanageably huge and putrid (outdated). So, MS decided to revamp NT without suffering the cost of a total rewrite but paying for most of it anyways. This launched the Longhorn tree of NT's evolution, with the earliest product known as Windows Vista. However, because MS didn't devote enough time to quality control and rushed deadlines, the resultant OS was plagued with performance issues (like the infamous file copy time warp), UI issues (UAC) and the Vista-Capable debacle.

Plain and simple, Vista was buggy and a poor contender. Only a fraction of Vista sales resulted, leading MS to rush Vista Service Pack 1 (shortest time for a Service Pack in all of MS history) in an attempt to stem the bloodloss. With that taken care of, more development and polishing went into what was supposed to be the next iteration of the Longhorn tree, with enough bugfixes and changes to warrant an a significant breakaway from what was originally a fix-up for Vista into a whole new product - Windows 7. During that time, the WoW framework was further developed to address compatibility issues that appeared in Vista.

In all runs, Windows 7 is more capable than Vista and is lighter on resource consumption than Vista. I cannot think of a reason to stay on Vista other than simple inability.

Basically, XP has gone the route of long term support as a stable API and Windows 7 as the second generation of the new API. For Vista, there is no love.

This i do not disagree with. However, doesn't everything that works with XP 'work' with Vista?

As I outlined earlier, sprinkled with little bits for you to research on your own time, no.

To make the comparison complete on your cluelessness over Vista (the NDIS stack is busted, wtf MS, wtf), you basically advocate it because it works for you right now. That is good - however, placing statements on an internet website between two posting heavyweights (The other being Adrian), a bystander may be persuaded to follow your advice, however poor it may be. I'd prefer to set the record straight - Vista is a poor thing to remain on right now given the options available today.

If you have it: keep using it. If you are not willing to shell out the extra money, there is no reason to switch That is all I say.

Now, about the issue of games (FYI - Windows 7 has a revamped compatibility layer for playing old games and a fixed UAC), yeah - games that are designed for a particular target system most likely will run on it. What a surprise (not). Old games will, probabilistically, run more often than not on the OS they were designed for (XP Ftw!).

<-- Snow Leopard. /argument.

No, MacOSX history does not apply here due to the different standards people allow for Apple, as well as the difference in market sizes and relative usages of either. Nice try.

It's fine that Windows 7 can play most of the games... that doesn't matter if the person won't shell out the cash for it.

And that is why I pirated my copy.

Oh - I'd rather you research into the history of things before babbling off - I do happen to know about this area and seeing what was posted earlier tweaked a nerve. Summed up another way:

Don't shit in my taco and tell it to my face it is beef. I know the difference and it ain't beef.

[Eilonnwy]

I love my version of Windows 7 ultimate, and it was free.

[Violet]

They work...for you. For the rest of us who actually do a lot of advanced computer work (astonishingly, there is more to computing than games), Vista was a pile of crap that had numerous security flaws, numerous bugs, and an even more annoying permissions system than any previous version.

Fact is: it doesn't work for most people. There was a very good reason why so many people downgraded to XP, or switched to another OS. This very thread is a testament to the fact that Vista doesn't work as well as you say.

Fact: i didn't say it was the world's greatest operating system. All i said was that it works. Even with the security flaws, bugs, and permissions system: it still works. And it works for a damn lot more people than you think it does. Most people (especially older people, but not limited to just them) use a computer for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Powerpoint, and an email. Beyond that, a number of people want music (check), games (check), facebook (checkity), and news (done and done).

Vista gives all of that. And that is what the public largely wanted. XP happens to do a better job of giving that, and W7 happens to do an even better job. But most people just want those things illustrated above, and Vista (while crappy in many cases) manages to give those things.

---

I certainly don't think System 7 works any more, unless you have the equipment or know how to get it operational again. Even then, it's usage is limited and superseded in every fashion now. Vista - you know, it is tempting to apply the System 7 metaphor to it as well. Name one thing that Vista does that is not beat by anything else.

OS7 works perfectly well on computers it was designed for. I cannot name one thing Vista does better (because it does nothing better)... but that is not my argument. My argument is that it works well enough if you don't want to shell out the cash for anything better.

There are numerous ways to... obtain it. Easiest is getting the student discount from MS or a friend to give you a hand. And development on Wine [http://winehq.org] does progress ever so onwards.

Sure there are plenty of ways. But not all (or any) necessarily apply to Shinylight.

False. Definitely false (cue the hah-I-got-you-now-you-sonuvabitch!)

Most games actually don't work on Vista without tuning the Windows-on-windows (WoW (Yeah, there was a WoW before WoW)) system by hand. In addition, coming from your catalogue argument, I'd like to point out that, by the numbers alone, most games will not work in XP without use of an emulator. Only relatively new games were dedicated to XP (Post 2000-ish) and only even newer were designed for the next API.

Time to give you a little CS history.

Before what you know as MS Windows, there used to be DOS or the Disk Operating System. Microsoft bought a version of DOS, licensed it MS-DOS and managed to con IBM into putting MS-DOS on their machines (why a con? Because IBM thought they were conning MS by paying nearly nothing to them and yet getting away with an OS for their machines when in reality it was MS conning IBM by controlling the software). This was about time of the DOS extenders. DOS extenders were programs that seized the hardware from DOS's control and gave it another program, allowing developers to use the hardware directly. Soon came the craze of making a frame buffer or what you know as an early graphical console (application windows, point and click) and an extender at the core was developed and given the name "Windows 1.0"

As Windows evolved from a simple DOS extender and windowing program into a massive, complex behemoth of a windowing environment, it was hacked together with DOS creating the Windows 9x series, what you know as Windows 95/98/ME (Let us forget MS BOB). Microsoft saw there was an issue with the 9x series and moved to develop the NT series, a complete redesign of Windows as everyone knew it. In the end run, NT has as much commonality with 9x as 9x has with MacOS. To allow for applications to run on NT that were made for 9x, the Windows on Windows framework was developed that mapped and redirected binary calls from what older applications saw and wanted to the correct (in theory) application programming interfaces on Windows NT.

As NT grew and was successively redeveloped, forming Windows 2000 and XP, it began to suffer bit-rot - the coders equivalent of too many cooks spoiling the broth and the broth becoming unmanageably huge and putrid (outdated). So, MS decided to revamp NT without suffering the cost of a total rewrite but paying for most of it anyways. This launched the Longhorn tree of NT's evolution, with the earliest product known as Windows Vista. However, because MS didn't devote enough time to quality control and rushed deadlines, the resultant OS was plagued with performance issues (like the infamous file copy time warp), UI issues (UAC) and the Vista-Capable debacle.

Plain and simple, Vista was buggy and a poor contender. Only a fraction of Vista sales resulted, leading MS to rush Vista Service Pack 1 (shortest time for a Service Pack in all of MS history) in an attempt to stem the bloodloss. With that taken care of, more development and polishing went into what was supposed to be the next iteration of the Longhorn tree, with enough bugfixes and changes to warrant an a significant breakaway from what was originally a fix-up for Vista into a whole new product - Windows 7. During that time, the WoW framework was further developed to address compatibility issues that appeared in Vista.

In all runs, Windows 7 is more capable than Vista and is lighter on resource consumption than Vista. I cannot think of a reason to stay on Vista other than simple inability.

Hmmm, very well /concede

As I outlined earlier, sprinkled with little bits for you to research on your own time, no.

*giggle*

No, MacOSX history does not apply here due to the different standards people allow for Apple, as well as the difference in market sizes and relative usages of either. Nice try.

That was actually a joke about how much i hate not having compatibility with the Classic Environment...

And that is why I pirated my copy.

Oh - I'd rather you research into the history of things before babbling off - I do happen to know about this area and seeing what was posted earlier tweaked a nerve. Summed up another way:

Don't shit in my taco and tell it to my face it is beef. I know the difference and it ain't beef.

Why bother when you can set me straight right here? Seems a waste of time

I am not upset in the slightest that I tweaked a nerve

[Tiberius]

Evidently you have a much looser definition of "working" than most people. Perhaps it's the computer scientist in me, perhaps it's the computer user in me, or perhaps (more likely) it's the computer security student in me but Vista was an abomination. In this day and age, with so much focus on security and virus protection, the mistakes Microsoft made in Vista are more than just a minor oversight...they are irresponsible and unforgivable.

[Autumnlicious]

They work...for you. For the rest of us who actually do a lot of advanced computer work (astonishingly, there is more to computing than games), Vista was a pile of crap that had numerous security flaws, numerous bugs, and an even more annoying permissions system than any previous version.

Fact is: it doesn't work for most people. There was a very good reason why so many people downgraded to XP, or switched to another OS. This very thread is a testament to the fact that Vista doesn't work as well as you say.

Fact: i didn't say it was the world's greatest operating system. All i said was that it works. Even with the security flaws, bugs, and permissions system: it still works. And it works for a damn lot more people than you think it does. Most people (especially older people, but not limited to just them) use a computer for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Powerpoint, and an email. Beyond that, a number of people want music (check), games (check), facebook (checkity), and news (done and done).

Vista gives all of that. And that is what the public largely wanted. XP happens to do a better job of giving that, and W7 happens to do an even better job. But most people just want those things illustrated above, and Vista (while crappy in many cases) manages to give those things

The market begs to differ with you - see the downgrade to XP scenario, Vista-capable lawsuit and sales. Hell, even Word, Excel and email were rather broken on Vista before several bugfixes.

The public wanted a working computer. Most got a half working one. They either downgraded, migrated or stuck it through to the next product. Those who got most of their functionality have upgraded if they could, leaving a small group of people stuck in Vista-land.

Why bother when you can set me straight right here? Seems a waste of time

I am not upset in the slightest that I tweaked a nerve

Because I'd rather type out short tiny ass posts conveying as little as possible and relax instead of being pissed into writing a short history for people who can't be bothered to research their claims when called out on it.

[leo-rcc]

Ignoring the whole Vista/W7 discussion:

Ubuntu 10.4 (latest) is immense.

How does it compare with Mint? Easier to use?

I'm installing Linux for my sister, on her old PC. She only uses her computer for Email and a bit of surfing, and is computer illiterate

Would the new Ubuntu be easier for her?

Mint comes with more useful add-ons like codecs straight from the ISO/CD that Canonical doesn't because it wants to keep it's base install free from any non open source stuff. In the older versions of Mint with older hardware I found it a bit annoying that you had to load the entire Live CD first before you could start installation where as in Ubuntu you can start the installation right away, but I hope this is now resolved. Apart from that, there is not that much difference between the two.

[fr0d0]

The public wanted a working computer. Most got a half working one.

lol

Welcome to IT

[Autumnlicious]

The public wanted a working computer. Most got a half working one.

lol

Welcome to IT

Tell me about it - I spent six hours working on restoring two internet connections for multiplexing and learned that the culprit was a bad nat configuration that was keeping me from finishing.