7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
393 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Yumyumbubblegum;17025333][/QUOTE]
It's only a laptop but I prefer the good ol' XP.
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/IUdo0O.png[/img]
[QUOTE=luke7dude;16844955]Windows 7 is cinda like a big update on vista[/QUOTE]
It has an entirely new core, but the same gui.
[QUOTE=gparent;17032106]That's not even theory, that's them not wanting to be compatible. Don't be kidding yourself once more. Just admit the truth instead of dodging around it. If they wanted to follow basic programming practices they would have.[/QUOTE]
Except that isn't part of the standard.
[QUOTE=The_Guy;17043080]It has an entirely new core, but the same gui.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? Windows 7's core was [i]built[/i] on Vista's.
All Windows versions are built on an older version of the NT kernel.
Windows 7 is excellent, and just so you know I hate Vista.
I highly recommend installing Windows 7.
[QUOTE=The_Guy;17043080]It has an entirely new core, but the same gui.[/QUOTE]
ITP: Entirely = hardly.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17044671]Except that isn't part of the standard.[/QUOTE]
Nope, coding like shit isn't part of any standard.
But admitting they did it wrong is the first step. Good job.
[QUOTE=gparent;17056743]Nope, coding like shit isn't part of any standard.
But admitting they did it wrong is the first step. Good job.[/QUOTE]
They haven't done anything wrong. They just haven't followed other non standard conventions, and not implemented an unfinished format.
$120 should get you the full version, not the basic version.
Other than that, not many reasons not to get it.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17057574]They haven't done anything wrong. They just haven't followed other non standard conventions, and not implemented an unfinished format.[/QUOTE]
That's precisely what they did wrong. The only time it was acceptable (and preferable) to do something non-standard, they didn't do it.
[QUOTE=gparent;17057726]That's precisely what they did wrong. The only time it was acceptable (and preferable) to do something non-standard, they didn't do it.[/QUOTE]
Because they were told to follow the standard. Considering OpenFormula and 1.2 will be done eventually, it is a bit pointless to implement the alternative method when everyone else will move on to the actual standard when it is available, and MS will be stuck until the next service pack or Office release.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17063250]Because they were told to follow the standard. Considering OpenFormula and 1.2 will be done eventually, it is a bit pointless to implement the alternative method when everyone else will move on to the actual standard when it is available, and MS will be stuck until the next service pack or Office release.[/QUOTE]
Captain Reality Check here. You are so stuck into believing MS is always right that you forgot how to use basic logic.
What's the point of using ODF on MS Excel? That's right, opening documents written by users of other office suites (such as OOo).
To accomplish that goal, MS obviously needs to use the same defacto-standard that (mostly) every other office suite is currently using. They failed that goal.
Their release schedule is completely irrelevant. Wow, they came out with something useless [i]right on time[/i]. Thank god for that.
They'll still need to rewrite their current, broken implementation when ODF 1.2 comes out. So they'll have to write code twice, anyway. Except now they wrote something useless at first, and something useful after. They could've wrote something useful twice, too.
[QUOTE=gparent;17088598]Captain Reality Check here. You are so stuck into believing MS is always right that you forgot how to use basic logic.
What's the point of using ODF on MS Excel? That's right, opening documents written by users of other office suites (such as OOo).
To accomplish that goal, MS obviously needs to use the same defacto-standard that (mostly) every other office suite is currently using. They failed that goal.
Their release schedule is completely irrelevant. Wow, they came out with something useless [i]right on time[/i]. Thank god for that.
They'll still need to rewrite their current, broken implementation when ODF 1.2 comes out. So they'll have to write code twice, anyway. Except now they wrote something useless at first, and something useful after. They could've wrote something useful twice, too.[/QUOTE]
Except MS is right here. They implemented the ODF standard as told too. OpenOffice can go ahead and extend the standard but MS doesn't have to be compatible with an extension with the standard. The standard should be good enough (it's obviously isn't however, but they shouldn't implement the OOo way for short term compatibility just to strip it out at a later date).
The release scheduling does matter because it make it harder to push out significant updates like ODF 1.2 into Office, I wasn't talking about their current implementation.
It isn't broken when it is supporting ODF 1.x. It's just broken when compared to the alternative "standards" being punted about. Formula conversion is tricky in spreadsheets and I'd rather have a strict nogo on it than a half broken implementation.
Ignore these updates, stay with the friendly XP. The best ever.
How the heck did this idiot journalist get his job? Oh no, I have to [i]choose[/i] how to use my thumbdrive, dear lord, maybe that's because we don't want some dumb OS choosing the same action every time, and instead want a choice of what to do. Hilariously it also turns out that OSX is more insecure than windows.
It reads like a parody of how stupid mac fanboys can be.
[editline]02:16AM[/editline]
So when do we get this mythical 'next gen file system' MS has been talking about for years?
[QUOTE=Hivemind;17093951]How the heck did this idiot journalist get his job? Oh no, I have to [i]choose[/i] how to use my thumbdrive, dear lord, maybe that's because we don't want some dumb OS choosing the same action every time, and instead want a choice of what to do. Hilariously it also turns out that OSX is more insecure than windows.
It reads like a parody of how stupid mac fanboys can be.
[editline]02:16AM[/editline]
[b]So when do we get this mythical 'next gen file system' MS has been talking about for years?[/b][/QUOTE]
next gen.
*crosses fingers*
NTFS 2.0 HERE WE COME.
[QUOTE=Hivemind;17093951]How the heck did this idiot journalist get his job? Oh no, I have to [i]choose[/i] how to use my thumbdrive, dear lord, maybe that's because we don't want some dumb OS choosing the same action every time, and instead want a choice of what to do. Hilariously it also turns out that OSX is more insecure than windows.
It reads like a parody of how stupid mac fanboys can be.
[editline]02:16AM[/editline]
So when do we get this mythical 'next gen file system' MS has been talking about for years?[/QUOTE]
Never.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17093763]They implemented the ODF standard as told too.[/QUOTE]
That's one of my sub-points, actually. I don't know who I'm targeting, because I don't work at MS, but it could be either management or the programmers. If it was a management decision (probable), then it would explain a lot.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17093763]OpenOffice can go ahead and extend the standard but MS doesn't have to be compatible with an extension[sic] with the standard.[/QUOTE]
Did you miss my previous post? They *have* to be compatible with the extension[sic] for the format to be useful at all. By the way, it's not an extension. It's a way of interpreting the standard that has been used by just about every other office suite out there for a few years. That happens a lot in the software world, by the way. It's not new or odd.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17093763]The standard should be good enough (it's obviously isn't however,[/QUOTE]
While you're correct that the standard is lacking, that is no reason to do a bad job at implementing it. They have absolutely no good reason to not implement formulas the way other people have been doing it other than to purposely break interoperability (which is the entire point of implementing ODF in Excel - See previous post). By the way, they don't actually adhere to the standard.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17093763]but they shouldn't implement the OOo way for short term compatibility just to strip it out at a later date).[/QUOTE]Incorrect. They'll still need to support ODF 1.1 once 1.2 comes out. And they're going to have to rewrite some code either way, because their (broken) version of formulas will change once the committee defines it.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17093763]It's just broken when compared to the alternative "standards" being punted about. Formula conversion is tricky in spreadsheets and I'd rather have a strict nogo on it than a half broken implementation.[/QUOTE]What you currently have is a half broken implementation. And once again, the only thing that matters is how their format "compares" to other applications, because those other applications are going to be the one you're going to be interoping with. Not other installs of Excel.
Oh my God, gparent, could you shut the fuck up and stop yelling at everyone who mentions they like Microsoft? You're getting more annoying than a Mac fanboy, not everything in life is free and MS is not the devil for charging people for an OS. If they want to develop a software for use on their OS that decides to make it's own standard, then they can, and people will buy it. That's the way it is, get over it.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097086]Oh my God, gparent, could you shut the fuck up and stop yelling at everyone who mentions they like Microsoft?[/QUOTE]
No, because I haven't done that.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097086]You're getting more annoying than a Mac fanboy, not everything in life is free and MS is not the devil for charging people for an OS.[/QUOTE]Are you high? I've never claimed that.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097086]If they want to develop a software for use on their OS that decides to make it's own standard, then they can, and people will buy it. That's the way it is, get over it.[/QUOTE]Well actually no, people look for interoperability won't buy it because it provides none when it comes down to spreadsheets.
Work on your arguments before typing up angry posts; especially if you're going to interrupt a nice and calm discussion.
You seem to go to every thread that someone mentions they like or support Microsoft and try bitching at them about how shitty or evil MS is. And while you never explicitly said it, you implied it.
The majority of computer users own or have used Microsoft Office, the majority of companies use MS Office, the majority of School use MS Office. Therefore; they're going to use Excel for spreadsheets, Word for text documentation, and Powerpoint for slideshows. If MS doesn't have interoperability and everyone uses OOo to make their spreadsheets, than why is it that OOo is compatible with Excel's documentation, and why didn't Excel have to put in support for OOo's documentation if it's the apparent standard and widely used? Most of the world runs on Windows, and the standard is determined by use. Most of the world uses MS Office, therefore it's the standard, because it's the most widely used. If OOo's documentation was the standard than MS Office would likely include support for it, to increase it's sales. Instead, it's quite the opposite, OOo has to include .doc support and an option to save in .doc to get people to download it, that's the only reason I got it, I needed a cheap office program that was compatible with MS Office because everywhere I went they used it. Yet, OOo still fucked up at that and kept saving files in ODT when I told it to save in .doc.
Everywhere I see you, you're arguing about how free software is better than anything MS makes, yet if this were true, MS would be out of business.You're showing the same ignorance and hatred of MS that a Mac fanboy does, and you, like a Mac fanboy, seem to feel the need to justify your use of Linux by insulting MS and arguing with it's users in an attempt to convert them to Linux. I've tried Linux, I have a computer running Ubuntu 9.04 lying around. It's ok, but I'm more likely to change my primary OS to Mac OSX than Linux, because fewer major companies offer Linux support than Mac support.
Fucking biased article, OP
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]You seem to go to every thread that someone mentions they like or support Microsoft and try bitching at them about how shitty or evil MS is. And while you never explicitly said it, you implied it.
The majority of computer users own or have used Microsoft Office, the majority of companies use MS Office, the majority of School use MS Office. Therefore; they're going to use Excel for spreadsheets, Word for text documentation, and Powerpoint for slideshows. If MS doesn't have interoperability and everyone uses OOo to make their spreadsheets, than why is it that OOo is compatible with Excel's documentation, and why didn't Excel have to put in support for OOo's documentation if it's the apparent standard and widely used? Most of the world runs on Windows, and the standard is determined by use. Most of the world uses MS Office, therefore it's the standard, because it's the most widely used. If OOo's documentation was the standard than MS Office would likely include support for it, to increase it's sales. Instead, it's quite the opposite, OOo has to include .doc support and an option to save in .doc to get people to download it, that's the only reason I got it, I needed a cheap office program that was compatible with MS Office because everywhere I went they used it. Yet, OOo still fucked up at that and kept saving files in ODT when I told it to save in .doc.
Everywhere I see you, you're arguing about how free software is better than anything MS makes, yet if this were true, MS would be out of business.You're showing the same ignorance and hatred of MS that a Mac fanboy does, and you, like a Mac fanboy, seem to feel the need to justify your use of Linux by insulting MS and arguing with it's users in an attempt to convert them to Linux. I've tried Linux, I have a computer running Ubuntu 9.04 lying around. It's ok, but I'm more likely to change my primary OS to Mac OSX than Linux, because fewer major companies offer Linux support than Mac support.[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with you on this point.
Nothing is going to be perfect out of the box. You have to make it work for [i]you[/i] and not the other way around.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]You seem to go to every thread that someone mentions they like or support Microsoft and try bitching at them about how shitty or evil MS is. And while you never explicitly said it, you implied it.[/QUOTE]This has nothing to do with what you said, though. Read your post and mine again. I have nothing against MS selling their OS and making a profit out of it. I only mentioned it because I saw no other logical explanation to Dr. Egg's reaction toward a clearly bad practice. (It's not even positive for MS)[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]-Huge paragraph-[/QUOTE]Nothing to do with what we're talking about, sadly. Read the thread again. We're talking about *how* MS implemented ODF support, not if they should've done it or not. Unless you're suggesting that more than 5 other office suites randomly change their ODF implementation to the broken MS one, in which case you're clearly insane. It doesn't even conform to the standard, even if you ignore the whole formula issue.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]Yet, OOo still fucked up at that and kept saving files in ODT when I told it to save in .doc. [/QUOTE]Because you told it to. The dialog box that comes up is quite clear.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]Everywhere I see you, you're arguing about how free software is better than anything MS makes[/QUOTE]That's a straight up lie. While I consider the freedom of a piece of software beneficial, I've never blindly chosen free software over a better alternative simply because MS made it. I could use MonoDevelop and Mono, but I stick to Visual Studio because it's a far better C# environment.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874], yet if this were true, MS would be out of business.[/QUOTE]Not really. A lot of free software is better than what MS offers (and MS has a few pieces of software I find better than other F/OSS alternatives), but that's not related to how much of that software is actually used. People are naturally scared of change, regardless of how good the new program is. Hell, people have trouble switching between different *versions* of the same product. You think they're going to stop using Windows and Office and Visual Studio and Internet Explorer just because the alternatives are sometimes better? To do that, they need to know about the alternatives, have a viable reason to change, and then man up enough to change. Until they do that, MS stays in business.[QUOTE=DaCommie1;17097874]You're showing the same ignorance and hatred of MS that a Mac fanboy does, and you, like a Mac fanboy, seem to feel the need to justify your use of Linux by insulting MS and arguing with it's users in an attempt to convert them to Linux.[/QUOTE]That's bullshit. First off, I don't use Linux on my desktop. Second, I don't try to convert anyone. If they want to see the advantages of the alternatives and use them, then so be it (Not that this thread has anything to do with it). Third, I wouldn't hate MS if it wasn't from the countless stupidity that we get to see from them in the software world. I've defended the good products of MS several times before, just like I've attacked some shady F/OSS practices before. But you've never going to see me supporting a broken implementation that currently only seems to serve as a way to make MS look good by claiming they are interoperable with ODF, but currently fails to accomplish that very task.
Please check your facts before posting next time. I'm not going to bother responding to your posts anymore if they're flat out lies again.
[QUOTE=he-did-it-->;16835788]I paid £45 for my retail copy of Home Premium. That's $74. Your point is invalid.
Also, getting Snow Leopard requires me having a mac.[/QUOTE]
Hackintosh? Eh! Eh!? Never thought about that did you. It works fine untill you need drivers!
[QUOTE=NeoShinsei;17102722]Hackintosh? Eh! Eh!? Never thought about that did you. It works fine untill you need drivers![/QUOTE]
i lol'd
[QUOTE=gparent;17096136]That's one of my sub-points, actually. I don't know who I'm targeting, because I don't work at MS, but it could be either management or the programmers. If it was a management decision (probable), then it would explain a lot.[/QUOTE]
See a couple of points down
[QUOTE]Did you miss my previous post? They *have* to be compatible with the extension[sic] for the format to be useful at all. By the way, it's not an extension. It's a way of interpreting the standard that has been used by just about every other office suite out there for a few years. That happens a lot in the software world, by the way. It's not new or odd.[/QUOTE]
No they don't. If compatiblity was the issue everyone would have let MS get on with it's own formats which were more or less read by everyone else anyway. Microsoft implemented the open standard and did their own thing with it like OpenOffice did and is fully compliant. As I understand it the legacy OpenOffice way isn't actually documented, and as I said, formula conversion is tricky, and unless MS can get it 100% right, I'd rather have them not do it. And in this specific situation, I think it makes more sense to have a value than can possibly worked out from the spreasheet as opposed to a cryptic formua that can possibly be worked out from the spreadsheet.
[QUOTE]While you're correct that the standard is lacking, that is no reason to do a bad job at implementing it. They have absolutely no good reason to not implement formulas the way other people have been doing it other than to purposely break interoperability (which is the entire point of implementing ODF in Excel - See previous post). By the way, they don't actually adhere to the standard.[/QUOTE]
It isn't a bad job. It's compliant(and it is). And again, formula conversion is tricky. And the point of ODF in Excel was to use open standards, interoping is only implied from that. And see above.
[QUOTE]Incorrect. They'll still need to support ODF 1.1 once 1.2 comes out. And they're going to have to rewrite some code either way, because their (broken) version of formulas will change once the committee defines it.[/QUOTE]
Why? They support 1.1 right now, and because there was no implementation of a soon to be legacy extension, there is no code rewriting. For ODF 1.2 they just need to impement ODF 1.2. 1.1 can stay the same.
[QUOTE]What you currently have is a half broken implementation. And once again, the only thing that matters is how their format "compares" to other applications, because those other applications are going to be the one you're going to be interoping with. Not other installs of Excel.[/QUOTE]
It isn't half broken. It is different. Whether or not more office suites use the OOo prefixing does not change the fact that more spreadsheets use MS/msoxl. Since any deviation in formula interpretaton can be dangerous, does it not make sense that unless MS have a fully documented standard then they should not try to implement it?
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17120587]No they don't. If compatiblity was the issue everyone would have let MS get on with it's own formats which were more or less read by everyone else anyway. Microsoft implemented the open standard and did their own thing with it like OpenOffice did and is fully compliant. As I understand it the legacy OpenOffice way isn't actually documented, and as I said, formula conversion is tricky, and unless MS can get it 100% right, I'd rather have them not do it. And in this specific situation, I think it makes more sense to have a value than can possibly worked out from the spreasheet as opposed to a cryptic formua that can possibly be worked out from the spreadsheet.[/QUOTE]What you have now is a value that breaks your entire spreadsheet once you save. If you think that's better than having a fully working spreadsheet that every other suite reads and writes properly, you're out of your mind.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17120587]It isn't a bad job. It's compliant(and it is). And again, formula conversion is tricky. And the point of ODF in Excel was to use open standards, interoping is only implied from that. And see above.[/QUOTE]No, it isn't compliant. See one of the first links I posted about ODF breaking. Also OOXML is (theorically) an open standard, so it surely wasn't the main idea to add a second one.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17120587]Why? They support 1.1 right now, and because there was no implementation of a soon to be legacy extension, there is no code rewriting. For ODF 1.2 they just need to impement ODF 1.2. 1.1 can stay the same.[/QUOTE]Stop calling it an extension. It's not. It's as much of an extension than MS' broken version of formulas is an extension. The rest of your paragraph just agrees with me, so I'm not sure why that was written. Anyway.[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17120587]It isn't half broken. It is different. Whether or not more office suites use the OOo prefixing does not change the fact that more spreadsheets use MS/msoxl. Since any deviation in formula interpretaton can be dangerous, does it not make sense that unless MS have a fully documented standard then they should not try to implement it?[/QUOTE]Sure, it's different in the sense that other spreadsheet software actually works properly. Deviation from the formula interpretation? That's exactly what they did. They deviated from the common agreement, and came up with a non-compliant and completely useless implementation. Props to them.
Once again, you can't counter the fact that the whole point of adding ODF to MS Excel is interoperability, and right now there is none. That makes it useless and broken.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.