• 7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
    393 replies, posted
The price is the reason why many people turn to warez. I've tried the RC1 and I don't think it should worth $200+ .
[QUOTE=Complicated;16998639]The price is the reason why many people turn to warez. I've tried the RC1 and I don't think it should worth $200+ .[/QUOTE] I think Microsoft actually made a pretty good job on this one and i'm already looking forward to Windows 8. I would understand why people would refrain from buying Vista, but in my opinion, 7 is worth every penny.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;16978041]5. The compatibility they are breaking are just found in OO.o that everyone else copies. MS have followed ODF to th-bla bla bla-[/QUOTE] You're not getting the point. They're completely fucking stupid for breaking a de-facto standard. It's like making a FTP client that doesn't follow the ls -l format for directory listing. There's no good reason to do this other than being evil and breaking interoperability. It *is* a correct, completely valid, reason to avoid a terrible company. Whether it's a good marketing thing to do is irrelevant (it's not, it got them bad press). [QUOTE=Dr Egg;16978041]7. No it isn't. The article says MS has a history of abuse, lists fixing their own (granted broken) operating system and that only MS can fix it. Open Source projects patching faster is only implied if you have prior knowledge about it. Is it not mentioned anywhere and instead only says that other people can check if it is secure.[/QUOTE] Well I was implying faster because it is, but you're right that the only thing they touch is being able to fix the code yourself and not relying on a company that doesn't give a crap. It leads to faster patches, though, and they're entirely right that it's a negative point for MS.
[QUOTE=gparent;17002166]You're not getting the point. They're completely fucking stupid for breaking a de-facto standard. It's like making a FTP client that doesn't follow the ls -l format for directory listing. There's no good reason to do this other than being evil and breaking interoperability. It *is* a correct, completely valid, reason to avoid a terrible company. Whether it's a good marketing thing to do is irrelevant (it's not, it got them bad press). Well I was implying faster because it is, but you're right that the only thing they touch is being able to fix the code yourself and not relying on a company that doesn't give a crap. It leads to faster patches, though, and they're entirely right that it's a negative point for MS.[/QUOTE] 5. No it isn't. If MS is going to be forced to support a standard it should not be "the popular version of the standard". Sure it's a bitch that it doesn't actually work with anything, but I'd rather have MS working off of the actual standard rather than the OOo standard that most other folk copy, since y'know, it's a standard. If you want MS to follow standards then they should have waited until ODF 1.2 is actually approved instead of having them comply to a fundamentaly half arsed standard. And yes it does lead to faster patching, but again the site does not say that. All it says is MS is the only one who can fix it instead of other people and that's it. Which is true and not a bad idea but leaving it at that is stupid. It doesn't say anything other more people are potentially working on it. Again, the implication is this is faster, but when you are trying to educate everyday people unless you spell it out they won't see it.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17004083]5. No it isn't. If MS is going to be forced to support a standard it should not be "the popular version of the standard". Sure it's a bitch that it doesn't actually work with anything, but I'd rather have MS working off of the actual standard rather than the OOo standard that most other folk copy, since y'know, it's a standard. If you want MS to follow standards then they should have waited until ODF 1.2 is actually approved instead of having them comply to a fundamentaly half arsed standard.[/QUOTE] Look up de-facto standard on Wikipedia. It's not about the "standard" and the "OOo" standard. They both use the same one. Like it or not, Microsoft are just being dicks by purposely breaking stuff so it [url=http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html]doesn't work in any other suite.[/url] [QUOTE=Dr Egg;17004083]And yes it does lead to faster patching, but again the site does not say that. All it says is MS is the only one who can fix it instead of other people and that's it. Which is true and not a bad idea but leaving it at that is stupid. It doesn't say anything other more people are potentially working on it. Again, the implication is this is faster, but when you are trying to educate everyday people unless you spell it out they won't see it.[/QUOTE] Maybe it should, then? That's not my point. Speed of patching isn't the only implication it has. It also means that if MS goes down as a company or drops support for one of your products, you're stuck with it. So the point is valid and true on its own.
Ok so Microsoft/Apple is the evil Ganondorf and Linux is Zelda waiting to be saved by Link which in this case is the customers? [editline]01:22PM[/editline] Yeah...
1 reason to avoid this thread. Macfags trolling internet.
[QUOTE=Anzonix;17008537]1 reason to avoid this thread. Macfags trolling internet.[/QUOTE] First of all I'm not a Mac user and secondly it was a fail joke for fuck sakes, don't get butthurt over it.
[QUOTE=gparent;17004263]Look up de-facto standard on Wikipedia. It's not about the "standard" and the "OOo" standard. They both use the same one. Like it or not, Microsoft are just being dicks by purposely breaking stuff so it [url=http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html]doesn't work in any other suite.[/url] Maybe it should, then? That's not my point. Speed of patching isn't the only implication it has. It also means that if MS goes down as a company or drops support for one of your products, you're stuck with it. So the point is valid and true on its own.[/QUOTE] I know what a de facto standard is. I've mentioned it before in this thread :downs: And it pretty much is. OOo has added additonal extensions into it's (current) odf support to get around the gaping holes in the standard. Most other office suites implement this/support it for compatiblity. It isn't part of the current standard and MS has no obligation to support it even when told to be more interoperable. And likewise [url]http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/05/odf-spreadsheet-interoperability.aspx[/url] A reply to that very article. Yes yes it's an msdn blog but it raises very good points. In either case the resulting back and forth between these two writers on their respetive blogs is/was very interesting.
So basically he's saying "We should've used Open Formula all along because we all know it's going to become a standard, but we're MS and won't use it because otherwise it would be oh-so-hard to do unit tests. Oh and let's excuse it with 'it isn't a standard yet'.". Good bullshit excuse. Looks like I'm right, they really didn't want to do it correctly.
I love Windows 7, frankly. I had Vista, which really does suck. Windows 7 is great though!
[QUOTE=gparent;17012973]So basically he's saying "We should've used Open Formula all along because we all know it's going to become a standard, but we're MS and won't use it because otherwise it would be oh-so-hard to do unit tests. Oh and let's excuse it with 'it isn't a standard yet'.". Good bullshit excuse. Looks like I'm right, they really didn't want to do it correctly.[/QUOTE] But it isn't a standard. Why should they implement an unfinished standard that is subject to change for the sake of compatiblity? They've stuck to v1.1, the actual standard, and when the next release of Office is upon us and assuming Open Formula/ODF 1.2 are certified then it can be put in as a standard. Seems reasonable enough to me.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17015698]But it isn't a standard. Why should they implement an unfinished standard that is subject to change for the sake of compatiblity?[/QUOTE] Because compatibility is more important than not using something unfinished. The latter is just lazyness of having to rewrite some code.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOqBCyLtNJ8[/media] I'll just leave this here. Also the person that made the video is a mac user.
[QUOTE=gRuKz;17015957][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOqBCyLtNJ8[/media] I'll just leave this here. Also the person that made the video is a mac user.[/QUOTE] i liked him as soon as he said "i think windows 7 will be better"
SoldierKnowsBest is a cool guy. And not biased, like for example [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtmnwPOerH0[/hd]
[QUOTE=gRuKz;17015957][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOqBCyLtNJ8[/media] I'll just leave this here. Also the person that made the video is a mac user.[/QUOTE] having been a Mac user all my life, I have to say I totally agree with this guy. I have both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. and I like Windows 7 much more than Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard is very nice but not much is new, all they did was change some menus, add some small (but nice) features, open-CL, and add a new quicktime. Windows 7 on the other hand has more features, looks great, and is very user friendly. I still will continue to purchase Macs, but I will always has have a Windows partition for games on any Mac I own.
Price is my biggest beef. If they want multiple versions of the OS that's fine. But make them more different than just a couple programs or control panels. What I'd put out: Windows Basic: Windows about as stripped down as you can get it. All you get is the kernel, window manager, shell, control panels, and windows update. On install, you choose what webbrowser to install. Everything else you have to get from either microsoft for a price, or a third party. I'd say this would be worth about $60. Windows Home: Basically what the Home version of windows is now. $120 Windows Pro: Windows Pro as it is now, but with no aero stuff, and includes basic versions off the Office programs. $200
how about: Windows 7 - Contains everything but the DRM - $99 sounds like a great idea to me
[QUOTE=YodaEXE;16835891]Someone should email the author and ask him how much Apple paid him to write it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2882/fuckyou.png[/img]
[QUOTE=The Pro;17018290]how about: Windows 7 - Contains everything but the DRM - $99 sounds like a great idea to me[/QUOTE] ^this
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;17018349][img]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2882/fuckyou.png[/img][/QUOTE] Perfect. :rimshot:
So pretty much it's all null and void if you're someone like me who waited through Vista to buy an entirely new PC with 7 on it?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17018435]So pretty much it's all null and void if you're someone like me who waited through Vista to buy an entirely new PC with 7 on it?[/QUOTE] I got Vista and ever since Service Pack 1 Im perfectly happy and have no reason to upgrade to 7. I have yet to see what is wrong with Vista, I see all these horrible reviews but mine runs perfectly and better than Windows Xp. Plus I remember Microsoft saying something about Vista having everything 7 will have in regards to DirectX updates and security updates.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;17018490]I got Vista and every since Service Pack 2 Im perfectly happy and have no reason to upgrade to 7. I have yet to see what is wrong with Vista, I see all these horrible reviews but mine runs perfectly and better than Windows Xp. Plus I remember Microsoft saying something about Vista having everything 7 will have in regards to DirectX updates and security updates.[/QUOTE] so what you're saying is that Vista will have everything Windows 7 has which means that people can go buy Vista instead of Windows 7 and have all the same features, and possibly save some money since the price of Vista will go down once Windows 7 is released? that defeats the purpose of making a new OS if Microsoft actually does that.
[QUOTE=Makol;17018558]so what you're saying is that Vista will have everything Windows 7 has which means that people can go buy Vista instead of Windows 7 and have all the same features, and possibly save some money since the price of Vista will go down once Windows 7 is released? that defeats the purpose of making a new OS if Microsoft actually does that.[/QUOTE] Only specific things about W7 are "better", but in regards to Security updates and DirectX, Vista will have the same as W7. The only other upside I can see to an upgrade is maybe the slight performance boost.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;17018582]Only specific things about W7 are "better", but in regards to Security updates and DirectX, Vista will have the same as W7. The only other upside I can see to an upgrade is maybe the slight performance boost.[/QUOTE] ok, so why release Windows 7? it's kind of pointless is only certain things are different, except security and DirectX which are going to be the same in Windows & and Vista? or did i read your post wrong?
Might cause Im tired and not thinking straight or typing this correctly, but those 2 things are pretty basic. And I really didnt notice much of a difference on Windows 7, it just seemed like Vista redone. Microsoft said a while back that Vista would continue to be supported with future Security updates and would have a possible Service Pack 3. They also said Windows 7 will come with Direct X 11 and Vista will have an update for Direct x 11 shortly after. I have a suspicion though that just like Xp to Vista and vista having DX10, W7 may end up with DX12 or something that Vista wont get.
ah ok, that makes more sense now
if you get windows 7... every program you try to run will just open up this. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PmD-25K6EY[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.