windows vista
06-28-2007, 01:54 AM
#61
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by DriverXa
Funny thing is windows has been copying mac since its conception. Lame.
06-28-2007, 04:30 AM
#62
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 643
^ Hahahahaha, o u Windows Fan Boys really crack me up. If u knew the history u would have known what I meant. But anyways I'm done argueing. I will admit that XP is one of the best OS that Windows has produced, a far cry from the Windows 95, 98, n 2000 crap that I've used in the past. And from the looks of it XP is the peak of Windows products. Vista is too much into the wow factor that they didn't put reliability into it, giving you good features for the price, and screwing the little man into buying new equipment n software. From what I've seen Vista is too costly and has high requirements to run it and even then if ur old system meets those requirements it still won't run right. I've been using XP since when it was first released, hell I could of had my system with Win98, but I ordered XP and for a brand new OS it was the only one that gave me the least trouble. Were ther still alot of significant problems? Yes, but they weren't severe as with previous OS. Plus XP works with almost all of my old software and hardware.
But again I've spent another night trying to fix a Windows product with little success. I've spent too much of my time fixing problems with them and I'm pretty fed up. Instead of spending years developing an OS with see through windows, little floating things that tell u the weather, and voice command bs build an OS that's reliable and works right out of the box with no need to constantly dload patches. And to the remark about Steve Jobs, yea no kidding he makes alot. But in ur own post u proved my point. Microsoft is a Monopoly. Gates owns a portion of Apple, which he stole the OS from, and has limited production of products that run Macintosh to in house while Windows just keeps flooding the market and allows anyone who wants to run its OS. Other OS like Linux will never take off like Windows since most of them have come and gone over the years with little impact. Windows had flooded the market early n now pretty much everyone uses Windows and it doesn't make sense to switch over to something new like Linux. A new OS is in order to put Windows and even Apple in check. Again one that is reliable, works right the first time when its released, works with everything, and requires little maintinance. Untill that happens Apple is the closes that meets those criterias, and after I had the privilage of useing a second gen iMac the other day my desire to switch back is even greater.
I've said all that I have to say about the subject. No sense in argueing with a bunch of strangers. I'm out.
But again I've spent another night trying to fix a Windows product with little success. I've spent too much of my time fixing problems with them and I'm pretty fed up. Instead of spending years developing an OS with see through windows, little floating things that tell u the weather, and voice command bs build an OS that's reliable and works right out of the box with no need to constantly dload patches. And to the remark about Steve Jobs, yea no kidding he makes alot. But in ur own post u proved my point. Microsoft is a Monopoly. Gates owns a portion of Apple, which he stole the OS from, and has limited production of products that run Macintosh to in house while Windows just keeps flooding the market and allows anyone who wants to run its OS. Other OS like Linux will never take off like Windows since most of them have come and gone over the years with little impact. Windows had flooded the market early n now pretty much everyone uses Windows and it doesn't make sense to switch over to something new like Linux. A new OS is in order to put Windows and even Apple in check. Again one that is reliable, works right the first time when its released, works with everything, and requires little maintinance. Untill that happens Apple is the closes that meets those criterias, and after I had the privilage of useing a second gen iMac the other day my desire to switch back is even greater.
I've said all that I have to say about the subject. No sense in argueing with a bunch of strangers. I'm out.
06-28-2007, 01:18 PM
#63
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ...Lost Somewhere in Time
Posts: 1,099
DriverXa is correct. The GUI (Graphical User Interface, for the laymen) overlay of a directory-structured file system was initially introduced by Apple/Macintosh. At that point in time, Microsoft was in its infancy, still working on the production of MS-DOS, which was actually an IBM engineer's product that IBM turned down with the claim that it "wasn't worth the money for development." Boy, were they stupid! Go Big Blue! A few years later, they had to purchase licensing from M$ in order to develop their IBM-DOS.
Anyway, Vista is going to have its share of problems due to its incompatibility with a great deal of hardware and software. My advice, from a computer management point of view, is to avoid Vista for a while if you have older hardware/software that you intend to use on a regular basis, or if you are setting up a home/office network with multiple computers that are NOT Vista. XP (Pro if you're setting up a domain) has worked out the majority of its issues and should give you the least amount of trouble of any M$ operating system.
Anyway, Vista is going to have its share of problems due to its incompatibility with a great deal of hardware and software. My advice, from a computer management point of view, is to avoid Vista for a while if you have older hardware/software that you intend to use on a regular basis, or if you are setting up a home/office network with multiple computers that are NOT Vista. XP (Pro if you're setting up a domain) has worked out the majority of its issues and should give you the least amount of trouble of any M$ operating system.
07-01-2007, 04:27 AM
#64
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, Ca.
Posts: 1,501
So....as promised, I sent a link to my dad, and here is his quote...directly, nothing altered.....
"One thing at a time. Let’s talk about Graphical User Interfaces first since that seems to be a passionate subject for Apple fans. Keep in mind I'm speaking as a computer enthusiast and an individual.
Rjj130 is right with regard to interface design and computer science in general. It tends to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary with the best ideas achieving widespread adoption. The user interface for the Scion is composed of elements that were familiar to drivers prior to Scion existing as a division of Toyota and for that matter Toyota existing as an Automobile manufacturer. Turning the front wheels of a car using a steering wheel is an idea that has been used by all car companies since the wheel won out over the tiller at the turn of the century. Foot throttle, brake and clutch are similar having won out over hand controls. The use of a speedometer, electric headlights, water cooling, internal combustion engine, fuel injection and everything else that constitutes a Scion, a Toyota or for that matter a Ford have gained acceptance as components of a commonly accepted pattern for vehicle design. I can’t imagine a world where every manufacturer had an entirely unique interface. This principal seems to be accepted in the automotive world, even by Apple fans.
Apple released a Disk Operating System years after IBM/Microsoft. Does this matter to you? It doesn’t to me. Neither company created TCP/IP but Apple was slow to natively support it compared to Microsoft. Does this make them a copy cat? No, TCP/IP allowed disparate computers and devices to communicate and the entire industry adopted it. We’re all better off as a result. Early Apple computers used MS BASIC prior to the inclusion of Apple BASIC. Did they borrow elements of MS BASIC? So what? I could go on for hours about how much cross pollination goes on in the computer industry but you’ll really just need to accept it as a fact of life.
With regard to computers Apple didn’t invent the Graphical User Interface (GUI). Xerox PARC had a GUI with a mouse pointing device prior to Apple and even that evolved from work done at Stanford. PARC also had windows, buttons and all sorts of other elements that were revolutionary for the time. The GUI gained widespread adoption in the mid 80s. Strangely, Apple fans don’t seem to mind Apple’s “appropriation” of someone else’s work for inclusion in an Apple product. Yes Apple had a GUI several months prior to Microsoft who had one prior to Linux existing as an operating system, UNIX and IBM’s OS/2. Does it matter that Ford vehicles had steering wheels well before Toyota?
If this is your reason for disliking Microsoft I can’t help you and I’m certain I can’t make you change your mind. Will you be upset at Apple when they start natively supporting Microsoft pioneered Web Service standards and protocols like Vista does? (Don’t worry, it will be years out, they’re not even a WS-I member) I wonder if you’ll be as outraged at Apple if, and when, they “Borrow” or “Liberate” Vista’s Aero Glass transparent graphical elements. Somehow I doubt it...
We’ll talk about other issues later as time allows.
Regards,
Michael"
So there you go. Words from a truly wise man.
Say what you will, he will keep an eye on this page...so if you want to ask him any questions or have any comments, feel free.
His username on here is "TheElderBoxy" So if you want, you can also PM him. He didn't post this himself because he hasn't posted 50 posts in order to access the off topic portion of the forum, and doesn't have the time to.
~Stephanie
"One thing at a time. Let’s talk about Graphical User Interfaces first since that seems to be a passionate subject for Apple fans. Keep in mind I'm speaking as a computer enthusiast and an individual.
Rjj130 is right with regard to interface design and computer science in general. It tends to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary with the best ideas achieving widespread adoption. The user interface for the Scion is composed of elements that were familiar to drivers prior to Scion existing as a division of Toyota and for that matter Toyota existing as an Automobile manufacturer. Turning the front wheels of a car using a steering wheel is an idea that has been used by all car companies since the wheel won out over the tiller at the turn of the century. Foot throttle, brake and clutch are similar having won out over hand controls. The use of a speedometer, electric headlights, water cooling, internal combustion engine, fuel injection and everything else that constitutes a Scion, a Toyota or for that matter a Ford have gained acceptance as components of a commonly accepted pattern for vehicle design. I can’t imagine a world where every manufacturer had an entirely unique interface. This principal seems to be accepted in the automotive world, even by Apple fans.
Apple released a Disk Operating System years after IBM/Microsoft. Does this matter to you? It doesn’t to me. Neither company created TCP/IP but Apple was slow to natively support it compared to Microsoft. Does this make them a copy cat? No, TCP/IP allowed disparate computers and devices to communicate and the entire industry adopted it. We’re all better off as a result. Early Apple computers used MS BASIC prior to the inclusion of Apple BASIC. Did they borrow elements of MS BASIC? So what? I could go on for hours about how much cross pollination goes on in the computer industry but you’ll really just need to accept it as a fact of life.
With regard to computers Apple didn’t invent the Graphical User Interface (GUI). Xerox PARC had a GUI with a mouse pointing device prior to Apple and even that evolved from work done at Stanford. PARC also had windows, buttons and all sorts of other elements that were revolutionary for the time. The GUI gained widespread adoption in the mid 80s. Strangely, Apple fans don’t seem to mind Apple’s “appropriation” of someone else’s work for inclusion in an Apple product. Yes Apple had a GUI several months prior to Microsoft who had one prior to Linux existing as an operating system, UNIX and IBM’s OS/2. Does it matter that Ford vehicles had steering wheels well before Toyota?
If this is your reason for disliking Microsoft I can’t help you and I’m certain I can’t make you change your mind. Will you be upset at Apple when they start natively supporting Microsoft pioneered Web Service standards and protocols like Vista does? (Don’t worry, it will be years out, they’re not even a WS-I member) I wonder if you’ll be as outraged at Apple if, and when, they “Borrow” or “Liberate” Vista’s Aero Glass transparent graphical elements. Somehow I doubt it...
We’ll talk about other issues later as time allows.
Regards,
Michael"
So there you go. Words from a truly wise man.
Say what you will, he will keep an eye on this page...so if you want to ask him any questions or have any comments, feel free.
His username on here is "TheElderBoxy" So if you want, you can also PM him. He didn't post this himself because he hasn't posted 50 posts in order to access the off topic portion of the forum, and doesn't have the time to.
~Stephanie
07-02-2007, 05:12 PM
#69
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ...Lost Somewhere in Time
Posts: 1,099
I think covering the GUI opinion was a bit of a cop-out. Everyone has been using some sort of GUI for decades. Who cares?
The basis of a poor opinion of M$, in general, is more related to their global business practices which have earned them a great deal of negative publicity rather than who developed a windows-based GUI first. Their trade practices, as well as their involvement in "squashing the little guy" have really left a foul distaste among the public.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
As for those neat little "transparent graphical elements" that Apple will eventually "liberate" or "borrow" from Vista, perhaps you should take a good look at KDE, Gnome, and XForce. They've been using such niceties for years! ...and did I mention they are entirely customizable to suit the users' liking? Vista's neat little "foreground and background" methods of switching between open programs resembles the very basics of KDE's desktop environment, which can be tweaked to a full-blown 3 dimensional desktop... ...without killing the system's performance to do so, I might add.
Should I even mention IE's recent adoption of "tabbed browsing?" I wonder where they got that idea? *cough* Firefox *cough*
The basis of a poor opinion of M$, in general, is more related to their global business practices which have earned them a great deal of negative publicity rather than who developed a windows-based GUI first. Their trade practices, as well as their involvement in "squashing the little guy" have really left a foul distaste among the public.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
As for those neat little "transparent graphical elements" that Apple will eventually "liberate" or "borrow" from Vista, perhaps you should take a good look at KDE, Gnome, and XForce. They've been using such niceties for years! ...and did I mention they are entirely customizable to suit the users' liking? Vista's neat little "foreground and background" methods of switching between open programs resembles the very basics of KDE's desktop environment, which can be tweaked to a full-blown 3 dimensional desktop... ...without killing the system's performance to do so, I might add.
Should I even mention IE's recent adoption of "tabbed browsing?" I wonder where they got that idea? *cough* Firefox *cough*
07-02-2007, 06:34 PM
#72
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ...Lost Somewhere in Time
Posts: 1,099
Cool. I'm not strictly a M$ basher, though it may seem so based on these posts. The main reason I continually come back to this topic is simply to keep focus on the downfalls I have seen in Vista. Perhaps your father has some insight that would clarify many of the open issues I have experienced with the new OS. I am always willing to take a look at things from a different perspective.
Thanks for not taking my disagreeing posts as a personal attack. It always sucks to have to bow out of an interesting discussion simply because someone else can't argue their points without getting irate and taking things personally. If everyone saw eye-to-eye, life would really be boring, wouldn't it?
Thanks for not taking my disagreeing posts as a personal attack. It always sucks to have to bow out of an interesting discussion simply because someone else can't argue their points without getting irate and taking things personally. If everyone saw eye-to-eye, life would really be boring, wouldn't it?
07-02-2007, 06:49 PM
#73
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, Ca.
Posts: 1,501
If you were personally attacking me, you would have used my or my fathers name. I understand that people have different opinions and views of things. He is at work now, so hopefully he will email me soon, if not when he gets off work!
And yes, I love a good debate, where there are views against views, not people throwing out personal attacks. You are good at debating.
And as stated earlier, my daddy would post here himself, but he doesn't have time to post 50 things before being admitted into the off topic portion of the forum. So I will be quoting him, word for word.
~Stephanie
And yes, I love a good debate, where there are views against views, not people throwing out personal attacks. You are good at debating.
And as stated earlier, my daddy would post here himself, but he doesn't have time to post 50 things before being admitted into the off topic portion of the forum. So I will be quoting him, word for word.
~Stephanie
07-02-2007, 06:50 PM
#74
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, Ca.
Posts: 1,501
TheElderBoxy wrote:
"Someone said to watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley" to discern the "truth" about Apple vs. Microsoft.
Watching a drama that's loosly based on fact is similar to watching Michael Moore's mockumentary "Fahrenheit 911" to learn the "truth" about the war in Iraq? If that's how you form you opinions that's your choice I guess. I'm not so sure I would agree that's the best source. What's your take on this article? http://www.clazh.com/bill-gates-vs-steve-jobs-whos-the-better-person/"
~Stephanie
"Someone said to watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley" to discern the "truth" about Apple vs. Microsoft.
Watching a drama that's loosly based on fact is similar to watching Michael Moore's mockumentary "Fahrenheit 911" to learn the "truth" about the war in Iraq? If that's how you form you opinions that's your choice I guess. I'm not so sure I would agree that's the best source. What's your take on this article? http://www.clazh.com/bill-gates-vs-steve-jobs-whos-the-better-person/"
~Stephanie
07-02-2007, 07:03 PM
#77
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 241
Vista and OSX are completely personal preference if you talking about the average user. When you get in to networking thats when you can decide which is better or worse because there are many ways they vary. Personally I like vista, but I would be willing to bet that alot of people who have only used PC's in there life would find OSX to be much simpler and easy to use. The beauty of OSX is once something is installed there is mainly one folder with one file and a read me file. On XP or Vista thats a whole new ball game, you install a program and there are files going places you don't even know about. Anyway point being that for the average user it is personal preference so no one can really bash the other.
07-02-2007, 07:24 PM
#78
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ...Lost Somewhere in Time
Posts: 1,099
I think it backs up a statement I made in an earlier post about the public opinion of Microsoft based on their performance in the global business community. This is simply an example of it.
For the most part, the public views Microsoft as a monster...continually consuming everything on its way to a new world order with itself as the sole ruler. Since Gates is the CEO of this monster, he, then, must also be a monster, hell-bent on domination as well. You can thank the media for that one.
Public opinion, especially when swayed by the media, is usually contrary to the truth. While M$ does involve some shady practices in its pursuit of dominance in its industry, its behavior cannot, or at least, shouldn't be used as a defining factor for basis of opinions on Gates or any of Microsoft's personnel.
Bottom Line: The public loves an underdog, even if that underdog isn't exactly "under" anything.
For the most part, the public views Microsoft as a monster...continually consuming everything on its way to a new world order with itself as the sole ruler. Since Gates is the CEO of this monster, he, then, must also be a monster, hell-bent on domination as well. You can thank the media for that one.
Public opinion, especially when swayed by the media, is usually contrary to the truth. While M$ does involve some shady practices in its pursuit of dominance in its industry, its behavior cannot, or at least, shouldn't be used as a defining factor for basis of opinions on Gates or any of Microsoft's personnel.
Bottom Line: The public loves an underdog, even if that underdog isn't exactly "under" anything.
07-03-2007, 05:22 AM
#79
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, Ca.
Posts: 1,501
TheElderBoxy wrote:
"UV7,
There were several posts in this thread that were pretty inflammatory that would negate the fact that no one cares about who invented the GUI. With regard to that being a cop out I stated in that article that we'd get to each issues in time. With a more than full time job (software just released into final test and end of the fiscal year) and somewhat of a personal life I really don't have the time to boil the ocean in one fell swoop. It is always amazing to me some of the perceptions people have on commonly established "truths".
I'll respond to this portion of your rather lengthy complaint. Thanks for not making it a personal attack.
How about more details on "questionable business practices" and "squashing the little guy"? This is a little leading, sort of like "I don't like you because you beat your wife". Defending this position even if you're not married is a little tough. How about real life examples. By little guys do you mean Novell, IBM, Sun, Oracle, and Netscape or the munchkins from the Wizard of Oz? You need to work with me here not just toss out comments unsupported by details.
Microsoft is a strong competitor and not afraid to go up against any opponent in any space. That much is true. With regard to ethical business dealing I can honestly say that my view from the inside is that Microsoft is BY FAR the most concerned about the ethical behavior of its employees of ANY COMPANY I've worked in over my 32 year career. Excuse me if I'm a little sensitive but I've not witnessed any unethical acts and I certainly have not participated in any. Quarterly every role within Microsoft receives a list of classes we need to complete by a certain deadline. These classes are sometimes technical but more often deal with ethics. Everything from diversity to handling consumer personal information to ethical dealings with customers and other employees is covered. In each case the consequences of not following ethical behavior is detailed. We work hard and are rewarded well. Your innuendo is a personal affront to me.
If you visit the Microsoft campus at any time of day (say 10 PM) you'll find dedicated employees working hard to get their products right and RTMed. This is that competitive spirit at work. Give me some more info on what exactly you're referring to so I can give you a more direct reply.
Right up front before I go farther, the M$ in you post tends to reveal your bias so I tend to doubt you really want answers. But I'll bite.
"OS Incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software". Other than XP name any OS more compatible with a wide range of hardware and software. The proprietary Mac? What distro of Linux do you think is CLOSE from an HCL perspective or a compatible software perspective? Time marches on. By incompatible hardware and software you mean legacy right? Either those hardware devices who's manufacturers have not released Vista compatible drivers or those software vendors who has not upgraded their software to be Vista compatible? Every bit of .NET code I've written over the past 4 years runs just fine in Vista. The same thing happened years ago when operating systems stopped allowing direct manipulation of hardware and made software go through Hardware Abstraction Layer instead. Some software that used to talk directly to hardware broke but once the new APIs were used stability and compatibility inproved and the OS could control software access to the resource so it could manage resource contention.
Enhanced security in Vista does somewhat change the rules and software has to be designed to take that into consideration. An example is code isolation using Mandatory Integrity Control which limits an applications access to system or other application resources. If your application relied on this it is now probably incompatible. This is one of the things that needed to be done to make Vista, or any OS, more secure. You really don't want your browser process interacting with protected system services do you? Your point about the warning messages is a further example of this protection in action. If an application attempts to do something that requires higher privileges Vista Blocks it and requires user intervention to allow, or disallow the requested action. Reliability and security are enhanced but some older software written for a different OS will no longer work if they do things that are no longer allowed. Note these things were not done to make it more difficult on developers but to enhance user security and safety.
With regard to performance I've run (as has nearly all of Microsoft) Vista for most of a year now. My normal work machine is a 1.8 GHZ / 2 GB RAM Tablet/Laptop I've had for 3 years. (No hardware was replaced or upgraded when I upgraded from XP by the way) (My new machine has been ordered) With this configuration running Vista as my main OS I run all my LOB apps in Vista along with some dev tasks using Visual Studio 2005. Most of my dev work and all my customer development work is in a Virtual PC Windows 2003 Server instance. On both the VPC and my local Vista OS I have a web server(X2), SQL Server 2005 (X2), Visual Studio 2005 (X2), Office 2007 (X2) and many other LOB apps. I'm also running Speech Server for Telephony applications and smart phone emulators in the VPC. Somehow with this puny tablet I run all this server class software as well as a server OS in a VPC. You say it's a resource hog yet the memory management that enables this is somewhat of a miracle to me. If you live in SoCal I can show you my little tablet that I use about 50 hours a week or more. (No blue screens by the way on either the hosting Vista OS or the Windows 2003 VPC image) Performance is just fine. We have several devs with a similar setup and similarly no complaints on performance except for hard drive space. Frankly I can't imagine a normal user using their machines in anywhere near the capacity we do.
Give me some details on your dissatisfaction with Vista performance. By details I mean processor utilization, TTLB of web apps, page faults something concrete. Again innuendo isn't really helpful... I'd be interested in anything to support your 386 comment. We can even pull up some benchmark tests from a 386 if you want to do a legitimate comparison if you really think that's the case. Anyway good talking to you and peace. I'll have Little Boxy post this when she has a chance and I'll talk to you again soon."
~Stephanie
"UV7,
There were several posts in this thread that were pretty inflammatory that would negate the fact that no one cares about who invented the GUI. With regard to that being a cop out I stated in that article that we'd get to each issues in time. With a more than full time job (software just released into final test and end of the fiscal year) and somewhat of a personal life I really don't have the time to boil the ocean in one fell swoop. It is always amazing to me some of the perceptions people have on commonly established "truths".
I'll respond to this portion of your rather lengthy complaint. Thanks for not making it a personal attack.
Originally Posted by UV7
The basis of a poor opinion of M$, in general, is more related to their global business practices which have earned them a great deal of negative publicity rather than who developed a windows-based GUI first. Their trade practices, as well as their involvement in "squashing the little guy" have really left a foul distaste among the public.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
Microsoft is a strong competitor and not afraid to go up against any opponent in any space. That much is true. With regard to ethical business dealing I can honestly say that my view from the inside is that Microsoft is BY FAR the most concerned about the ethical behavior of its employees of ANY COMPANY I've worked in over my 32 year career. Excuse me if I'm a little sensitive but I've not witnessed any unethical acts and I certainly have not participated in any. Quarterly every role within Microsoft receives a list of classes we need to complete by a certain deadline. These classes are sometimes technical but more often deal with ethics. Everything from diversity to handling consumer personal information to ethical dealings with customers and other employees is covered. In each case the consequences of not following ethical behavior is detailed. We work hard and are rewarded well. Your innuendo is a personal affront to me.
If you visit the Microsoft campus at any time of day (say 10 PM) you'll find dedicated employees working hard to get their products right and RTMed. This is that competitive spirit at work. Give me some more info on what exactly you're referring to so I can give you a more direct reply.
Right up front before I go farther, the M$ in you post tends to reveal your bias so I tend to doubt you really want answers. But I'll bite.
"OS Incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software". Other than XP name any OS more compatible with a wide range of hardware and software. The proprietary Mac? What distro of Linux do you think is CLOSE from an HCL perspective or a compatible software perspective? Time marches on. By incompatible hardware and software you mean legacy right? Either those hardware devices who's manufacturers have not released Vista compatible drivers or those software vendors who has not upgraded their software to be Vista compatible? Every bit of .NET code I've written over the past 4 years runs just fine in Vista. The same thing happened years ago when operating systems stopped allowing direct manipulation of hardware and made software go through Hardware Abstraction Layer instead. Some software that used to talk directly to hardware broke but once the new APIs were used stability and compatibility inproved and the OS could control software access to the resource so it could manage resource contention.
Enhanced security in Vista does somewhat change the rules and software has to be designed to take that into consideration. An example is code isolation using Mandatory Integrity Control which limits an applications access to system or other application resources. If your application relied on this it is now probably incompatible. This is one of the things that needed to be done to make Vista, or any OS, more secure. You really don't want your browser process interacting with protected system services do you? Your point about the warning messages is a further example of this protection in action. If an application attempts to do something that requires higher privileges Vista Blocks it and requires user intervention to allow, or disallow the requested action. Reliability and security are enhanced but some older software written for a different OS will no longer work if they do things that are no longer allowed. Note these things were not done to make it more difficult on developers but to enhance user security and safety.
With regard to performance I've run (as has nearly all of Microsoft) Vista for most of a year now. My normal work machine is a 1.8 GHZ / 2 GB RAM Tablet/Laptop I've had for 3 years. (No hardware was replaced or upgraded when I upgraded from XP by the way) (My new machine has been ordered) With this configuration running Vista as my main OS I run all my LOB apps in Vista along with some dev tasks using Visual Studio 2005. Most of my dev work and all my customer development work is in a Virtual PC Windows 2003 Server instance. On both the VPC and my local Vista OS I have a web server(X2), SQL Server 2005 (X2), Visual Studio 2005 (X2), Office 2007 (X2) and many other LOB apps. I'm also running Speech Server for Telephony applications and smart phone emulators in the VPC. Somehow with this puny tablet I run all this server class software as well as a server OS in a VPC. You say it's a resource hog yet the memory management that enables this is somewhat of a miracle to me. If you live in SoCal I can show you my little tablet that I use about 50 hours a week or more. (No blue screens by the way on either the hosting Vista OS or the Windows 2003 VPC image) Performance is just fine. We have several devs with a similar setup and similarly no complaints on performance except for hard drive space. Frankly I can't imagine a normal user using their machines in anywhere near the capacity we do.
Give me some details on your dissatisfaction with Vista performance. By details I mean processor utilization, TTLB of web apps, page faults something concrete. Again innuendo isn't really helpful... I'd be interested in anything to support your 386 comment. We can even pull up some benchmark tests from a 386 if you want to do a legitimate comparison if you really think that's the case. Anyway good talking to you and peace. I'll have Little Boxy post this when she has a chance and I'll talk to you again soon."
~Stephanie
07-03-2007, 05:29 AM
#80
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by ___MmmBoxy___
TheElderBoxy wrote:
"UV7,
There were several posts in this thread that were pretty inflammatory that would negate the fact that no one cares about who invented the GUI. With regard to that being a cop out I stated in that article that we'd get to each issues in time. With a more than full time job (software just released into final test and end of the fiscal year) and somewhat of a personal life I really don't have the time to boil the ocean in one fell swoop. It is always amazing to me some of the perceptions people have on commonly established "truths".
I'll respond to this portion of your rather lengthy complaint. Thanks for not making it a personal attack.
How about more details on "questionable business practices" and "squashing the little guy"? This is a little leading, sort of like "I don't like you because you beat your wife". Defending this position even if you're not married is a little tough. How about real life examples. By little guys do you mean Novell, IBM, Sun, Oracle, and Netscape or the munchkins from the Wizard of Oz? You need to work with me here not just toss out comments unsupported by details.
Microsoft is a strong competitor and not afraid to go up against any opponent in any space. That much is true. With regard to ethical business dealing I can honestly say that my view from the inside is that Microsoft is BY FAR the most concerned about the ethical behavior of its employees of ANY COMPANY I've worked in over my 32 year career. Excuse me if I'm a little sensitive but I've not witnessed any unethical acts and I certainly have not participated in any. Quarterly every role within Microsoft receives a list of classes we need to complete by a certain deadline. These classes are sometimes technical but more often deal with ethics. Everything from diversity to handling consumer personal information to ethical dealings with customers and other employees is covered. In each case the consequences of not following ethical behavior is detailed. We work hard and are rewarded well. Your innuendo is a personal affront to me.
If you visit the Microsoft campus at any time of day (say 10 PM) you'll find dedicated employees working hard to get their products right and RTMed. This is that competitive spirit at work. Give me some more info on what exactly you're referring to so I can give you a more direct reply.
Right up front before I go farther, the M$ in you post tends to reveal your bias so I tend to doubt you really want answers. But I'll bite.
"OS Incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software". Other than XP name any OS more compatible with a wide range of hardware and software. The proprietary Mac? What distro of Linux do you think is CLOSE from an HCL perspective or a compatible software perspective? Time marches on. By incompatible hardware and software you mean legacy right? Either those hardware devices who's manufacturers have not released Vista compatible drivers or those software vendors who has not upgraded their software to be Vista compatible? Every bit of .NET code I've written over the past 4 years runs just fine in Vista. The same thing happened years ago when operating systems stopped allowing direct manipulation of hardware and made software go through Hardware Abstraction Layer instead. Some software that used to talk directly to hardware broke but once the new APIs were used stability and compatibility inproved and the OS could control software access to the resource so it could manage resource contention.
Enhanced security in Vista does somewhat change the rules and software has to be designed to take that into consideration. An example is code isolation using Mandatory Integrity Control which limits an applications access to system or other application resources. If your application relied on this it is now probably incompatible. This is one of the things that needed to be done to make Vista, or any OS, more secure. You really don't want your browser process interacting with protected system services do you? Your point about the warning messages is a further example of this protection in action. If an application attempts to do something that requires higher privileges Vista Blocks it and requires user intervention to allow, or disallow the requested action. Reliability and security are enhanced but some older software written for a different OS will no longer work if they do things that are no longer allowed. Note these things were not done to make it more difficult on developers but to enhance user security and safety.
With regard to performance I've run (as has nearly all of Microsoft) Vista for most of a year now. My normal work machine is a 1.8 GHZ / 2 GB RAM Tablet/Laptop I've had for 3 years. (No hardware was replaced or upgraded when I upgraded from XP by the way) (My new machine has been ordered) With this configuration running Vista as my main OS I run all my LOB apps in Vista along with some dev tasks using Visual Studio 2005. Most of my dev work and all my customer development work is in a Virtual PC Windows 2003 Server instance. On both the VPC and my local Vista OS I have a web server(X2), SQL Server 2005 (X2), Visual Studio 2005 (X2), Office 2007 (X2) and many other LOB apps. I'm also running Speech Server for Telephony applications and smart phone emulators in the VPC. Somehow with this puny tablet I run all this server class software as well as a server OS in a VPC. You say it's a resource hog yet the memory management that enables this is somewhat of a miracle to me. If you live in SoCal I can show you my little tablet that I use about 50 hours a week or more. (No blue screens by the way on either the hosting Vista OS or the Windows 2003 VPC image) Performance is just fine. We have several devs with a similar setup and similarly no complaints on performance except for hard drive space. Frankly I can't imagine a normal user using their machines in anywhere near the capacity we do.
Give me some details on your dissatisfaction with Vista performance. By details I mean processor utilization, TTLB of web apps, page faults something concrete. Again innuendo isn't really helpful... I'd be interested in anything to support your 386 comment. We can even pull up some benchmark tests from a 386 if you want to do a legitimate comparison if you really think that's the case. Anyway good talking to you and peace. I'll have Little Boxy post this when she has a chance and I'll talk to you again soon."
~Stephanie
"UV7,
There were several posts in this thread that were pretty inflammatory that would negate the fact that no one cares about who invented the GUI. With regard to that being a cop out I stated in that article that we'd get to each issues in time. With a more than full time job (software just released into final test and end of the fiscal year) and somewhat of a personal life I really don't have the time to boil the ocean in one fell swoop. It is always amazing to me some of the perceptions people have on commonly established "truths".
I'll respond to this portion of your rather lengthy complaint. Thanks for not making it a personal attack.
Originally Posted by UV7
The basis of a poor opinion of M$, in general, is more related to their global business practices which have earned them a great deal of negative publicity rather than who developed a windows-based GUI first. Their trade practices, as well as their involvement in "squashing the little guy" have really left a foul distaste among the public.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
However, the basis of a poor opinion of M$ products stems from users' experiences rather than from negative publicity. Vista is a prime example. The OS is incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software, is an EXTREMELY ravenous, power-hungry, resource hog, and has a tendency for annoyance with its constant badgering of "Cancel or Allow" messages every time the user attempts to perform some sort of task. It's consumption of resources, especially RAM, leaves a relatively well-stacked and streamlined machine behaving as though it were a 386 trying to run a burn-in test underwater, with its case filled with molasses. Load Xp on the same machine and you'd be screaming fast. But what have we gained with Vista? Is there some sort of a trade-off for its horrible performance? If so, I haven't seen it yet.
Operability and stability are two KEY elements to an operating system in the corporate world. Currently, Vista has neither. This seems to be a common trait for Microsoft's releases. I don't think I want to get started on that topic. SL would ban me for typing a lengthy rival to War and Peace.
Microsoft is a strong competitor and not afraid to go up against any opponent in any space. That much is true. With regard to ethical business dealing I can honestly say that my view from the inside is that Microsoft is BY FAR the most concerned about the ethical behavior of its employees of ANY COMPANY I've worked in over my 32 year career. Excuse me if I'm a little sensitive but I've not witnessed any unethical acts and I certainly have not participated in any. Quarterly every role within Microsoft receives a list of classes we need to complete by a certain deadline. These classes are sometimes technical but more often deal with ethics. Everything from diversity to handling consumer personal information to ethical dealings with customers and other employees is covered. In each case the consequences of not following ethical behavior is detailed. We work hard and are rewarded well. Your innuendo is a personal affront to me.
If you visit the Microsoft campus at any time of day (say 10 PM) you'll find dedicated employees working hard to get their products right and RTMed. This is that competitive spirit at work. Give me some more info on what exactly you're referring to so I can give you a more direct reply.
Right up front before I go farther, the M$ in you post tends to reveal your bias so I tend to doubt you really want answers. But I'll bite.
"OS Incompatible with a wide range of hardware and software". Other than XP name any OS more compatible with a wide range of hardware and software. The proprietary Mac? What distro of Linux do you think is CLOSE from an HCL perspective or a compatible software perspective? Time marches on. By incompatible hardware and software you mean legacy right? Either those hardware devices who's manufacturers have not released Vista compatible drivers or those software vendors who has not upgraded their software to be Vista compatible? Every bit of .NET code I've written over the past 4 years runs just fine in Vista. The same thing happened years ago when operating systems stopped allowing direct manipulation of hardware and made software go through Hardware Abstraction Layer instead. Some software that used to talk directly to hardware broke but once the new APIs were used stability and compatibility inproved and the OS could control software access to the resource so it could manage resource contention.
Enhanced security in Vista does somewhat change the rules and software has to be designed to take that into consideration. An example is code isolation using Mandatory Integrity Control which limits an applications access to system or other application resources. If your application relied on this it is now probably incompatible. This is one of the things that needed to be done to make Vista, or any OS, more secure. You really don't want your browser process interacting with protected system services do you? Your point about the warning messages is a further example of this protection in action. If an application attempts to do something that requires higher privileges Vista Blocks it and requires user intervention to allow, or disallow the requested action. Reliability and security are enhanced but some older software written for a different OS will no longer work if they do things that are no longer allowed. Note these things were not done to make it more difficult on developers but to enhance user security and safety.
With regard to performance I've run (as has nearly all of Microsoft) Vista for most of a year now. My normal work machine is a 1.8 GHZ / 2 GB RAM Tablet/Laptop I've had for 3 years. (No hardware was replaced or upgraded when I upgraded from XP by the way) (My new machine has been ordered) With this configuration running Vista as my main OS I run all my LOB apps in Vista along with some dev tasks using Visual Studio 2005. Most of my dev work and all my customer development work is in a Virtual PC Windows 2003 Server instance. On both the VPC and my local Vista OS I have a web server(X2), SQL Server 2005 (X2), Visual Studio 2005 (X2), Office 2007 (X2) and many other LOB apps. I'm also running Speech Server for Telephony applications and smart phone emulators in the VPC. Somehow with this puny tablet I run all this server class software as well as a server OS in a VPC. You say it's a resource hog yet the memory management that enables this is somewhat of a miracle to me. If you live in SoCal I can show you my little tablet that I use about 50 hours a week or more. (No blue screens by the way on either the hosting Vista OS or the Windows 2003 VPC image) Performance is just fine. We have several devs with a similar setup and similarly no complaints on performance except for hard drive space. Frankly I can't imagine a normal user using their machines in anywhere near the capacity we do.
Give me some details on your dissatisfaction with Vista performance. By details I mean processor utilization, TTLB of web apps, page faults something concrete. Again innuendo isn't really helpful... I'd be interested in anything to support your 386 comment. We can even pull up some benchmark tests from a 386 if you want to do a legitimate comparison if you really think that's the case. Anyway good talking to you and peace. I'll have Little Boxy post this when she has a chance and I'll talk to you again soon."
~Stephanie
