7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
393 replies, posted
I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate, and I love it.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17319626]I understand that partial isn't complete. But what I'm saying is that when it is partial is is still there. Like IE6 supports PNG, but not transparency in the PNG. You wouldn't said it doesn't support PNG.[/QUOTE]
Right, but you wouldn't say IE8 passes the Acid3 test just because it passes more than one percent either. So you can say it's partially interoperable, you can't say it's interoperable because the latter logically means fully.
[QUOTE=dtoporowski;17324053]ughh
this is so funny.
also windows 7 is nearly out![/QUOTE]
Feels weird to hear that when you've been using it for a few weeks.
[QUOTE=gparent;17335792]Right, but you wouldn't say IE8 passes the Acid3 test just because it passes more than one percent either. So you can say it's partially interoperable, you can't say it's interoperable because the latter logically means fully.[/QUOTE]
But not always.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17336930]But not always.[/QUOTE]
When you're talking about interoperability, or standards-compliance, or about certifications, it does imply it. If you want people to understand you, you'll want to start using the right terminology.
[QUOTE=gparent;17339554]When you're talking about interoperability, or standards-compliance, or about certifications, it does imply it. If you want people to understand you, you'll want to start using the right terminology.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't imply it. If you say file x works in programs y and z, but it has features missing in both programs, it is still interoperating.
it's funny watching an idiot try to argue with someone who for the most part knows what they're doing.
[QUOTE=limulus54;17345575]it's funny watching an idiot try to argue with someone who for the most part knows what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
And which one is which?
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17345512]It doesn't imply it. If you say file x works in programs y and z, but it has features missing in both programs, it is still interoperating.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it has nothing to do with being interoperable. You're confusing two completely different definitions. They both "operate" on the file, but that has no relationship with the "interoperable" term and how it applies to software development.
Re-read my earlier posts several times until you understand that Excel and OOo Calc are NOT interoperable, they merely support a tiny shared fraction of the ODF format. Just like IE8 doesn't pass the Acid3 test even though it supports some of its tested featureset partially, and just like GNU/Linux isn't completely POSIX-compliant even though it supports a majority of the POSIX standard, and so on, and so on.
[QUOTE=limulus54;17345575]it's funny watching an idiot try to argue with someone who for the most part knows what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
Since I consider myself the one who actually has a clue what he's talking about in this thread, I'd say it's not really nice to call Dr. Egg an idiot. He might be stubborn and/or really, really confused, but he's actually trying to argue instead of what you usually see on Facepunch.
He's basically having the same problem as someone who confuses open source (having the source code available) with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source]Open Source (the philosophy).[/url]
I'm talking about [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=17268526&postcount=254]interoperability[/url], and he's talking about the simple fact that some software can read some little fraction of another software's file format. Which is a completely different thing. But when you're talking about software, my definition of it is the one that's the widely accepted standard, not his. And that's what I'm trying to explain to him, and that he refuses to believe even though I've presented substantial proof, explanations, and evidence. Now that can be considered idiotic, but I'm not feeling mean.
[QUOTE=gparent;17347177]Yes, but it has nothing to do with being interoperable. You're confusing two completely different definitions. They both "operate" on the file, but that has no relationship with the "interoperable" term and how it applies to software development.
Re-read my earlier posts several times until you understand that Excel and OOo Calc are NOT interoperable, they merely support a tiny shared fraction of the ODF format. Just like IE8 doesn't pass the Acid3 test even though it supports some of its tested featureset partially, and just like GNU/Linux isn't completely POSIX-compliant even though it supports a majority of the POSIX standard, and so on, and so on.
Since I consider myself the one who actually has a clue what he's talking about in this thread, I'd say it's not really nice to call Dr. Egg an idiot. He might be stubborn and/or really, really confused, but he's actually trying to argue instead of what you usually see on Facepunch.
He's basically having the same problem as someone who confuses open source (having the source code available) with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source]Open Source (the philosophy).[/url]
I'm talking about [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=17268526&postcount=254]interoperability[/url], and he's talking about the simple fact that some software can read some little fraction of another software's file format. Which is a completely different thing. But when you're talking about software, my definition of it is the one that's the widely accepted standard, not his. And that's what I'm trying to explain to him, and that he refuses to believe even though I've presented substantial proof, explanations, and evidence. Now that can be considered idiotic, but I'm not feeling mean.[/QUOTE]
The fact that it can read it to me is interoperable. You agreed it was partially interoperable, to me that means it is, but in this case it isn't the full thing. Interoperable isn't a test, so managing everything doesn't mean you can't say it doesn't happen. You can go on and on about how you think I am being stubborn and that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Does an Office ODF file work in OOo? Yes. It's not without it's complications, but it works, so it is interoperable.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17353760]The fact that it can read it to me is interoperable.[/QUOTE]
And this [b]exactly[/b] is why you're wrong. Because you can't realise the simple fact that being able to read a file and print some meaningless (due to context) information is nowhere close to the [i]correct, software development definition[/i] of interoperability. By your definition, notepad is interoperable with .vtf texture files. That makes it a pretty wrong and completely irrelevant definition now, isn't it?
[quote]Interoperable isn't a test, so managing everything doesn't mean you can't say it doesn't happen.[/quote]
No, but if you were to test interoperability, the one between Office and OOo Calc would obviously fail since it doesn't handle the most important part of the damn spreadsheet. It would not be called "interoperable" at all, just like IE8 wouldn't be "Acid3-compliant" if that were a standard too. Even a child could see the logic behind this.
[url=http://www.detailz.ca/images/window/beforeafter/larges/Black-Car-After-Detailz.jpg]Is this car yellow?[/url] Of course not, you say, that's ridiculous. But wait! It has yellow turn signals! Therefore it's yellow!
The above claim is just as wrong and illogical as your claim that OOo Calc and Office are interoperable because they support a tiny, minor subset of the ODF file.
[QUOTE=gparent;17353969]And this [b]exactly[/b] is why you're wrong. Because you can't realise the simple fact that being able to read a file and print some meaningless (due to context) information is nowhere close to the [i]correct, software development definition[/i] of interoperability. By your definition, notepad is interoperable with .vtf texture files. That makes it a pretty wrong and completely irrelevant definition now, isn't it?[/quote]
Not really. You can still get information out of it, and the actual data is being interpreted and massaged into something useful, which wouldn;t be the case with notepad opening a vtx
[quote]No, but if you were to test interoperability, the one between Office and OOo Calc would obviously fail since it doesn't handle the most important part of the damn spreadsheet. It would not be called "interoperable" at all, just like IE8 wouldn't be "Acid3-compliant" if that were a standard too. Even a child could see the logic behind this.
[url=http://www.detailz.ca/images/window/beforeafter/larges/Black-Car-After-Detailz.jpg]Is this car yellow?[/url] Of course not, you say, that's ridiculous. But wait! It has yellow turn signals! Therefore it's yellow!
The above claim is just as wrong and illogical as your claim that OOo Calc and Office are interoperable because they support a tiny, minor subset of the ODF file.[/QUOTE]
Again, that isn't what I'm saying. Interoperabilty isn't a test. If it were a test between Excel and Calc then sure if would fail, but it isn't. It opens, you can actualy gather information out of the file, both can save and read it, it's interoperable. And the car example doesn't work. It depends on the context.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17359424]If it were a test between Excel and Calc then sure if would fail,[/QUOTE]
Duh. This is why the real definition of interoperability doesn't call the shitty Excel <-> OOc Calc ODF support interoperable.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17359424]Not really. You can still get information out of it, and the actual data is being interpreted and massaged into something useful,[/QUOTE]
Look. According to the [i]real[/i] definition, the one that's logical and that [i]people actually use[/i], you need complete interoperability to call two programs interoperable. Either your program fits that, or it doesn't. Your definition of it is not the one that is widely accepted, so you can either fix it and be factually correct, or you can put it in context whenever you use it so people understand what you're actually talking about, or you can keep being wrong and look a bit dumb whenever you use it without doing either of the above. You'll probably pick the third option, obviously, since you don't seem to actually want to be right. Oh well.
[QUOTE=gparent;17353969][url=http://www.detailz.ca/images/window/beforeafter/larges/Black-Car-After-Detailz.jpg]Is this car yellow?[/url] Of course not, you say, that's ridiculous. But wait! It has yellow turn signals! Therefore it's yellow![/QUOTE]
The turn signals are amber :v:
How did this discussion start again and can someone give me a quick summary of what the heck it is about?
[editline]05:28PM[/editline]
Oh it's about the definition of interoperability.
[quote=wikipedia]
the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged.[1][/quote]
Now done.
[QUOTE=gparent;17347177]I'd say it's not really nice to call Dr. Egg an idiot. [/QUOTE]
well I'm not a nice person.
[QUOTE=gparent;17360345]Duh. This is why the real definition of interoperability doesn't call the shitty Excel <-> OOc Calc ODF support interoperable.
Look. According to the [i]real[/i] definition, the one that's logical and that [i]people actually use[/i], you need complete interoperability to call two programs interoperable. Either your program fits that, or it doesn't. Your definition of it is not the one that is widely accepted, so you can either fix it and be factually correct, or you can put it in context whenever you use it so people understand what you're actually talking about, or you can keep being wrong and look a bit dumb whenever you use it without doing either of the above. You'll probably pick the third option, obviously, since you don't seem to actually want to be right. Oh well.[/QUOTE]
I'll go with the definition that the ODF alliance uses then.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17378531]I'll go with the definition that the ODF alliance uses then.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.odfalliance.org/press/Release20090519-microsoft-odf-support.pdf]Sure, that sounds about right.[/url]
Case is closed.
[QUOTE=gparent;17381040][url=http://www.odfalliance.org/press/Release20090519-microsoft-odf-support.pdf]Sure, that sounds about right.[/url]
Case is closed.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It's interoperable.
[QUOTE=gparent;17381040]Case is closed.[/QUOTE]
Case has been closed about six times already according to you.
[QUOTE=Flicker;17397076]Case has been closed about six times already according to you.[/QUOTE]
This time his own proof states verbatim that the ODF files aren't interoperable, so I don't really care much.
EDIT: more specifically it says the ods and odt ones are non-interoperable, so before you make a dumb reply saying "But they said GREATER interoperability therefore its interoperable!!!111", make sure to realise they're talking about interoperability as a whole. They do claim the current spreadsheet files aren't interoperable. You just proved yourself wrong. Good job.
[QUOTE=gparent;17401890]This time his own proof states verbatim that the ODF files aren't interoperable, so I don't really care much.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1591163277.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
Relevant.
[QUOTE=gparent;17401890]This time his own proof states verbatim that the ODF files aren't interoperable, so I don't really care much.
EDIT: more specifically it says the ods and odt ones are non-interoperable, so before you make a dumb reply saying "But they said GREATER interoperability therefore its interoperable!!!111", make sure to realise they're talking about interoperability as a whole. They do claim the current spreadsheet files aren't interoperable. You just proved yourself wrong. Good job.[/QUOTE]
Except they do also say it's interoperable in the same document. So yeah.
Can you not read your own proof correctly? This is correct and I've never claimed it wasn't correct:
[quote]The OpenDocument Format (ODF) Alliance today cautioned that serious deficiencies in Microsoft's support for [b]ODF[/b] needed to be addressed to ensure [b]greater interoperability[/b] with other [b]ODF[/b]-supporting software.[/quote]
So okay, ODF is meant to be interoperable with the 2007 office suite, and some programs manage that purpose. But they're talking about the Office suite as whole, and by "greater interoperability", they mean that not every part of office is currently ODF interoperable. They indirectly mention Word/Excel here:
[quote]“Unfortunately, serious shortcomings have been identified in Microsoft's support for ODF. Putting potentially millions of ODF files into circulation that are [b]non-interoperable and incompatible[/b] with the ODF support provided by other vendors is a recipe for fragmentation.”[/quote]
Now, since you're going to spout something like "It says potentially! They're talking about what-would-happen-if-ms-was-not-interoperable!". [url=http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf]Well, no, they aren't:[/url]
[quote]When reading an [b]ODF spreadsheet[/b], MS Office Excel 2007 strips out formulas, [b]breaking spreadsheet interoperability[/b] with all other ODF-supporting applications. While adequate for viewing, Microsoft's support for ODF spreadsheet collaboration is practically worthless.[/quote]
By the way, in that last PDF, they also point out how Excel does not, in fact, conform to ODF 1.1.
I know I've said this about a hundred times, but I'm not going to reply to this issue in here again (for real) if you just keep being stupid and ignore the hard facts that you linked yourself. Still claiming that Excel is interoperable would be just childish and stupid at this point. I've kept arguing for so long because I knew I was right but didn't have documents from a real authority, but now you've brought me that and therefore there's no point in me posting anymore.
Have fun.
I'm just going to stay out of this one. :buddy:
Case is NOT close after all.
[quote][b]Upgrading From Windows XP Requires a Clean Install[/b]
If you’re a Windows XP user, upgrading isn’t as easy as inserting a disc and running the installation. Instead, you must back up your applications and files, wipe your hard drive and perform a clean install of Windows 7. After getting Windows 7 up and running, you must either manually reinstall your software and repurpose your file library or trust Microsoft’s Easy File Transfer to migrate your files for you.[/quote]
Oh fuck no, I'm sticking to Windows XP now.
None of the reasons in OP apply to me.
[QUOTE=Lt Kyle;17418279]Oh fuck no, I'm sticking to Windows XP now.[/QUOTE]
Use Migrate instead of Upgrade. I wouldn't recommend Upgrade to anyone for any reason.
[QUOTE=gparent;17411215]Can you not read your own proof correctly? This is correct and I've never claimed it wasn't correct:
So okay, ODF is meant to be interoperable with the 2007 office suite, and some programs manage that purpose. But they're talking about the Office suite as whole, and by "greater interoperability", they mean that not every part of office is currently ODF interoperable. They indirectly mention Word/Excel here:
Now, since you're going to spout something like "It says potentially! They're talking about what-would-happen-if-ms-was-not-interoperable!". [url=http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf]Well, no, they aren't:[/url]
By the way, in that last PDF, they also point out how Excel does not, in fact, conform to ODF 1.1.
I know I've said this about a hundred times, but I'm not going to reply to this issue in here again (for real) if you just keep being stupid and ignore the hard facts that you linked yourself. Still claiming that Excel is interoperable would be just childish and stupid at this point. I've kept arguing for so long because I knew I was right but didn't have documents from a real authority, but now you've brought me that and therefore there's no point in me posting anymore.
Have fun.[/QUOTE]
I know it says all that. Hence why I said also in my previous post. But it does also say it is interoperable. Also what they say that makes Office 2007 non conformant with the standard is actually not what the standard itself says, and if you follow the standard, Office 2007 is compliant.
I've touched that in my post. You still obviously can't read, and I'm sure everyone else can tell you're wrong, so I won't take the time to ridicule your post. Stop by PM if you care to know why, but I'm sure you've done it purposely so it won't matter.
[QUOTE=Plastical;17413905]Case is NOT close after all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, it is. I'm not going to argue the issue any longer.
[QUOTE=Lt Kyle;17418279]Oh fuck no, I'm sticking to Windows XP now.[/QUOTE]
It's not that hard to reinstall your OS. As Panda said, the Migrate tool works well. I thought it was uselessly long to do it that way, though, so I just copy the relevant folders from Application Data, wipe the partition and reinstall over it. I keep my documents on a separate partition so I don't lose anything but programs.
[QUOTE=nVidia;17418554]None of the reasons in OP apply to me.[/QUOTE]
Even the cost of the upgrade? I'm lucky to have MSDN access and not have to pay for it, but the majority of consumers get to live with that one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.