Any idiot that spammed Digg with this nonsense or agreed with it should really consider removing their lips from their mothers teat. If you ever wondered how childish and ignorant Internet users can be, then you have your example.
I only buy AMD processors for multiple reasons and don't particularly prefer to buy Intel products. If Apple were to purchase AMD, I would not be very happy. I am not an Apple fan. The two merging would make me sick to my stomach.
As if anyone actually WANTS to go to Add/Remove Programs to install an application. When in the life of Windows has anyone used that feature to "Add" a program? I never have. That's what the SETUP.EXE is for. Sheesh.
I've been saying for a long time that Linux would be a technical support nightmare for Dell/anyone. I got flamed. Now Slashdot says that very thing. Go figure.
OO gets the job done and it's free, but Microsoft Office is still a better product.
It could be an easy solution and I'm not saying it's a bad idea to include the open source software on Dell computers, but some people will still prefer Microsoft Office after using OO. The price difference may make take a big chunk off the price tag and that is a big deal, sure.
As long as I have access to MS Office, I'm not using OO. I don't buy Dell, so I don't count. The problem I see is, if I can't stand OO, then the typical user is going to have an even worse opinion of it. Us "gurus" forget what it's like to be clueless and assume everything is easy for everyone else. If something slightly annoys me, it's going to really piss them off.
This new idea of placing open source products on Dell and other computers may eventually hurt open source. I see it coming.
First off, no one cares what you or anyone else thinks about my grammar, so stop wasting your time. Second, I would like you to point out these "rotten" grammar errors.
If you choose an OS based on a user's grammar, you have issues and do nothing more than prove the point that I've been making for years; alternative OS users have nothing more than invalid reasons to use other operating systems AND have ego issues.
I almost feel sorry for you and many other, but then again I could care less.
Haha. Typical. Bash a commenter while complaining about his or her "grammar" skills, of which almost no errors exist and avoid the real point and facts at hand; your alternative OS doesn't stand up to the hype.
Those of us who actually understand how a PC, it's software and hardware actually work OR at least don't formulate wild, obviously incorrect opinions on an operating system based on a foundation of misconstrued "facts" and misunderstandings of the fundamental "workings" of the system, will actually use our PC without problems and enjoy it. I know I do. While I sit laughing at those running for the hills in fear to an inferior product which lacks so much functionality it's laughable.
I find every single one of those examples hilarious. Learn to use the operating system and stop blaming the OS for problems that software itself creates too.
I'm not even going to get into telling you what is wrong with everything you have said, cause it isn't worth my time, but I'll point one thing out to you for your benefit. If you don't like what Adobe Reader does, bitch at Adobe or quit using it. Stop blaming it on your operating system.
That is the problem with you people. You blame everything on your operating system, when in fact 99.9% of these "problems" you experience are not even caused by the OS. Not to mention when Linux has just as many "little stupid issues" that IT actually causes instead of the software it runs.
I personally, have experienced various distrobutions of Linux over the past 7 years ranging from Red Hat, Fedora, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Gentoo and others. The time that I have given Linux a chance to become a viable alternative is more than compliant to what anyone would consider "enough time" to form a valid opinion and decide whether or not Linux is an option.
The answer, no matter whether I spend 30 minutes in Linux or 7 days, is always the same. It's not a solution and won't be for a very very long time nor do I see it ever becoming a real solution unless considerable changes are made not only in the current state of these distros, but in what the Linux community considers a "real solution/alternative".
I won't be switching anytime soon or in the next ten years. In the 7 years that I've experimented with Linux, it's never served any purpose at a satisfactory level for me and I do everything with a PC you can possibly imagine from graphics, video, games, programming, web design, chat, email, office tasks, research, etc. Windows is an always has been better, just as stable or more stable (yes, Linux will crash on you, contrary to what everyone is led to believe - and will do so on occasion after the first 30 minutes of being installed) and this is especially true with the release of XP and now Vista.
Another truth is that anyone having issues with XP or Vista, usually (almost always) lack very basic knowledge of how to use a computer -- CONTRARY to what they will CLAIM. I personally have never had more than a few problems with XP or Vista. I've used Vista since the day it was released without a single issue, except with manufacturer's lack of ability to release drivers in a more than sufficient time frame. As I said I do everything in Windows and it all works. It's always stable. My hard drive does not "chug" -- I suggest you get a new hard drive, it's about to die if it's making so much racket.
It works. It does the job. It does it well. It's not ugly like every distro of Linux. It's not very hindering in day to day activities and it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, your problem isn't your operating system, it's you.
We really have some complete morons writing articles about Vista out there. It never ceases to amaze me. Especially the ones that have problems with Vista. I installed it in no more time than it took to install XP, was immediately connected to the Internet after installing Nforce drivers (onboard ethernet), starting installing all the software I wanted, was on the Internet, using instant messaging, emailing, doing whatever the hell I wanted with no problems.
Best way to describe people that can't get on the Internet with Vista? Stupid and should be barred from technology.
>The slashbots are excited because this, *this* will be the thing that makes people go to desktop Linux.
And they have been saying this for how many years now, and Linux is still where in the entire scheme of things? The same place it was 7 years ago with a few geeks singing it's praise and the rest of us sticking with what actually does the job.
"Efficiency" in the UI in Vista is an improvement over XP. I find anyone that says otherwise has a bias opinion.
Though the changes to Explorer may take a little getting used to, they are nothing more than changes. If you can not adjust to changes, this does not amount to a UI or a non-user friendly user interface.
I do miss the drop down menu allowing me to select a drive/partition though as opposed to clicking in the left pane. You may be able to enable that in Vista. If so, I haven't checked on that. Either way, it's a few seconds of my life that I lose. Big deal.
Friendliness and efficiency is much improved over XP. One vast improvement that I absolutely love over XP is that you can copy a directory/folder structure into a similar structured set of folders and it will ask you how you want to do it. You have the option of writing over any existing files, but not destroying the entire existing structure of that folder and it's subfolders. This was not the case in XP.
Also, for example if you are deleting all files in your temporary folder and several files can not be deleted, because they are in use, you have the option of just skipping those files. The entire process does not bomb out forcing you to try again while not selecting the files that are in use (as you would in XP - which was an inconvenience and a bit retarded). It's lack of features such as this in XP that made me drop to a command prompt and use my DOS skills from the early days, because it was so much easier and faster to work with files in DOS (for some things) than any GUI has come close to in any GUI operating system. Of course, a lot of file work is easier with GUI, but certain things I can do 10x faster in DOS. Wildcards are a god-send in DOS.
You might want to use Vista first. It does not do that in my experience. They fixed any issues partially through a file delete/copy/move causing the entire process to bomb. I love the features in Vista as far as that goes. VAST improvement over XP in that area.
>If older people and children who are mostly computer illiterate can use Linux, I don't see why Dell customers can't.
All I can do is LOL over that one.
To a point this is a very idiotic move. Anyone who wants to use Linux is most likely not going to purchase a Dell (odds are they build their own). If they did, they would most likely want to install the OS themselves. Any poor soul that purchases a Dell with Linux on it, will most likely do it thinking they are getting a some kind of deal. They will get the PC and be very confused which in the end will cause a huge technical support headache for Dell and result in nothing but a pissed off customer because technical support doesn't know what Linux is. Much less how to use it. In the end the customer has a computer they can barely use cause they can't figure out Linux. If they had the technical ability to figure it out themselves they wouldn't have purchased a Dell (most likely - I'm going by the "odds" here).
Be honest. How many of you Linux users would actually purchase a Dell? How many of you would purchase a Dell with a pre-installed Distro of Linux? I didn't think so.
>Sony rootkit, Blaster, Melissa, Backdoor - any of these ring a bell?
All of which never infected me. So, your point IS?
>No offense, but the "market share = target size" argument just doesn't hold water.
>Windows will not only continue to be the largest target...
Hypocritical statements much??
>Long gone are the days where you can blame the user for every issue they encounter on their pc.
Again, I must call utter bullshit. The user is always to blame. The user is always the one that invites the problem into their system. I don't see you drinking the blood of an AIDS patient do I? So, why do every single one of you refuse to stop doing the things I described before... opening attachments named "freesex.exe", clicking yes on every dialog box on the web, among other asinine things.
If you want to use a Mac or Linux, by all means go for it, but don't spread lies that most people will believe for the very reason they have problems -- their idiots.
That is because the a-holes that create the malware and viruses you get on a PC could care less about your Mac or Linux.
You wanted to get away from the crime of the big city, so you moved to the country. There are benefits of living in the big city, so why did you move? You could have just put better locks on your door and used a security system, but instead, you chose to run away and hide in a secluded area that no one cares about. You had bad habits of venturing through dangerous neighborhoods to wave hello and shake hands with every badly dressed drug selling gangster-wannabe you saw on the street and eventually you got shot and ended up in the hospital for a week in ICU, yet you blame the mayor for bad crime instead of yourself for making obvious bad nonsense decisions. Had you just stayed the fark away from the bad areas and not decided to make conversation with obviously dangerous people, you would have been fine. Does this make sense? Of course not. Would anyone do such a thing? Not in their right minds.
I normally never use AV software, I don't use a firewall, and I don't turn off HTML emails. Viewing emails never hurt anyone. Unless you have some pretty ignorant settings turned on or open every attachment you receive in emails when the bad ones are always obvious by looking at the filename.
Sure, you could say I am a hypocrit for not using as much protection as you chose to, but the difference between myself and everyone with all these issues that are "Microsoft's fault" is that I don't do such obviously stupid things as opening executable email attachments or clicking Yes to every dialog box that appears in IE or FF.
I've proven for years that you don't even need AV software if you just use common sense. I do whatever the hell I want online and don't have any problems. You could say "well you don't open attachments". Sure I do. I open plenty. The bad ones are obvious. Why would I want to open an attachment named "sexfree.exe"?
As far as the firewall goes. Why don't I use one? I hate software firewalls. I prefer hardware (a Cisco PIX or at least a Linksys).
If you are/were having problems fighting viruses/malware/etc then it was your problem. I never, not once, ever have a problem with any of them. Ever. It's more about you not going to ever porn site on the Internet looking for goat and midget porn and not clicking every link that says "click here!!!!!! free!!!!".
It's not Windows that was your problem. It was you. It is everyone else. I tried to explain this to my father, because I got sick and tired of being asked to fix his PC every two weeks and he would not listen, just as all of you will not listen. If I can use the Internet with no issues whatsoever for years and years then so can you. Fact. End of story.
To say that Microsoft makes it "easier" to get malware is the most asinine comment I've ever heard. Always comes from someone who has no clue.
Sure Microsoft could concentrate harder on security, but the common sense truth always is Microsoft is the main target for all malware AND spam. If that alone doesn't clear things up for you and the brainwashed attitude most of you have, nothing ever will and you live a sad life, seeing things in life so blindly.
And no one said "you must upgrade to Vista on your crappy machine" either. If you do so, it's your own fault that you don't own a system that is up to the challenge. Instead everyone wants to cry and bicker, because their stone age hardware won't run an operating system they never needed and they can't get the new eye candy.
Fact is, if you have any use for Vista whatsoever then you should be upgrading anyhow or purchasing a new system. For example, if your a gamer that wants to run the newest and greatest DX10 games, you don't pull out your 486 and bitch when it doesn't work. You obviously need a new system to do the newest and greatest things. It's a fact of life and not Microsoft's problem.
The machine I have Vista on is running 2GB of RAM with everything default from the initial install and it performs just as well or better overall compared to XP. When you say 1.6GHz I assume you are referring to an Intel processor which is somewhat outdated and you can't expect to much from it in Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Any idiot that spammed Digg with this nonsense or agreed with it should really consider removing their lips from their mothers teat. If you ever wondered how childish and ignorant Internet users can be, then you have your example.
I only buy AMD processors for multiple reasons and don't particularly prefer to buy Intel products. If Apple were to purchase AMD, I would not be very happy. I am not an Apple fan. The two merging would make me sick to my stomach.
As if anyone actually WANTS to go to Add/Remove Programs to install an application. When in the life of Windows has anyone used that feature to "Add" a program? I never have. That's what the SETUP.EXE is for. Sheesh.
>>>A better analogy would be a sailboat changing tacks, with gravity acting as a wind and magnetic field as water resistance.
Sure, then when we have a gay space ship.
I've been saying for a long time that Linux would be a technical support nightmare for Dell/anyone. I got flamed. Now Slashdot says that very thing. Go figure.
OO gets the job done and it's free, but Microsoft Office is still a better product.
It could be an easy solution and I'm not saying it's a bad idea to include the open source software on Dell computers, but some people will still prefer Microsoft Office after using OO. The price difference may make take a big chunk off the price tag and that is a big deal, sure.
As long as I have access to MS Office, I'm not using OO. I don't buy Dell, so I don't count. The problem I see is, if I can't stand OO, then the typical user is going to have an even worse opinion of it. Us "gurus" forget what it's like to be clueless and assume everything is easy for everyone else. If something slightly annoys me, it's going to really piss them off.
This new idea of placing open source products on Dell and other computers may eventually hurt open source. I see it coming.
First off, no one cares what you or anyone else thinks about my grammar, so stop wasting your time. Second, I would like you to point out these "rotten" grammar errors.
If you choose an OS based on a user's grammar, you have issues and do nothing more than prove the point that I've been making for years; alternative OS users have nothing more than invalid reasons to use other operating systems AND have ego issues.
I almost feel sorry for you and many other, but then again I could care less.
Haha. Typical. Bash a commenter while complaining about his or her "grammar" skills, of which almost no errors exist and avoid the real point and facts at hand; your alternative OS doesn't stand up to the hype.
Those of us who actually understand how a PC, it's software and hardware actually work OR at least don't formulate wild, obviously incorrect opinions on an operating system based on a foundation of misconstrued "facts" and misunderstandings of the fundamental "workings" of the system, will actually use our PC without problems and enjoy it. I know I do. While I sit laughing at those running for the hills in fear to an inferior product which lacks so much functionality it's laughable.
I find every single one of those examples hilarious. Learn to use the operating system and stop blaming the OS for problems that software itself creates too.
I'm not even going to get into telling you what is wrong with everything you have said, cause it isn't worth my time, but I'll point one thing out to you for your benefit. If you don't like what Adobe Reader does, bitch at Adobe or quit using it. Stop blaming it on your operating system.
That is the problem with you people. You blame everything on your operating system, when in fact 99.9% of these "problems" you experience are not even caused by the OS. Not to mention when Linux has just as many "little stupid issues" that IT actually causes instead of the software it runs.
I personally, have experienced various distrobutions of Linux over the past 7 years ranging from Red Hat, Fedora, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Gentoo and others. The time that I have given Linux a chance to become a viable alternative is more than compliant to what anyone would consider "enough time" to form a valid opinion and decide whether or not Linux is an option.
The answer, no matter whether I spend 30 minutes in Linux or 7 days, is always the same. It's not a solution and won't be for a very very long time nor do I see it ever becoming a real solution unless considerable changes are made not only in the current state of these distros, but in what the Linux community considers a "real solution/alternative".
I won't be switching anytime soon or in the next ten years. In the 7 years that I've experimented with Linux, it's never served any purpose at a satisfactory level for me and I do everything with a PC you can possibly imagine from graphics, video, games, programming, web design, chat, email, office tasks, research, etc. Windows is an always has been better, just as stable or more stable (yes, Linux will crash on you, contrary to what everyone is led to believe - and will do so on occasion after the first 30 minutes of being installed) and this is especially true with the release of XP and now Vista.
Another truth is that anyone having issues with XP or Vista, usually (almost always) lack very basic knowledge of how to use a computer -- CONTRARY to what they will CLAIM. I personally have never had more than a few problems with XP or Vista. I've used Vista since the day it was released without a single issue, except with manufacturer's lack of ability to release drivers in a more than sufficient time frame. As I said I do everything in Windows and it all works. It's always stable. My hard drive does not "chug" -- I suggest you get a new hard drive, it's about to die if it's making so much racket.
It works. It does the job. It does it well. It's not ugly like every distro of Linux. It's not very hindering in day to day activities and it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, your problem isn't your operating system, it's you.
We really have some complete morons writing articles about Vista out there. It never ceases to amaze me. Especially the ones that have problems with Vista. I installed it in no more time than it took to install XP, was immediately connected to the Internet after installing Nforce drivers (onboard ethernet), starting installing all the software I wanted, was on the Internet, using instant messaging, emailing, doing whatever the hell I wanted with no problems.
Best way to describe people that can't get on the Internet with Vista? Stupid and should be barred from technology.
Of course you mean the job of playing music, word processing and editing video? Leave the rest to a better OS.
>The slashbots are excited because this, *this* will be the thing that makes people go to desktop Linux. And they have been saying this for how many years now, and Linux is still where in the entire scheme of things? The same place it was 7 years ago with a few geeks singing it's praise and the rest of us sticking with what actually does the job.
"Efficiency" in the UI in Vista is an improvement over XP. I find anyone that says otherwise has a bias opinion.
Though the changes to Explorer may take a little getting used to, they are nothing more than changes. If you can not adjust to changes, this does not amount to a UI or a non-user friendly user interface.
I do miss the drop down menu allowing me to select a drive/partition though as opposed to clicking in the left pane. You may be able to enable that in Vista. If so, I haven't checked on that. Either way, it's a few seconds of my life that I lose. Big deal.
Friendliness and efficiency is much improved over XP. One vast improvement that I absolutely love over XP is that you can copy a directory/folder structure into a similar structured set of folders and it will ask you how you want to do it. You have the option of writing over any existing files, but not destroying the entire existing structure of that folder and it's subfolders. This was not the case in XP.
Also, for example if you are deleting all files in your temporary folder and several files can not be deleted, because they are in use, you have the option of just skipping those files. The entire process does not bomb out forcing you to try again while not selecting the files that are in use (as you would in XP - which was an inconvenience and a bit retarded). It's lack of features such as this in XP that made me drop to a command prompt and use my DOS skills from the early days, because it was so much easier and faster to work with files in DOS (for some things) than any GUI has come close to in any GUI operating system. Of course, a lot of file work is easier with GUI, but certain things I can do 10x faster in DOS. Wildcards are a god-send in DOS.
You might want to use Vista first. It does not do that in my experience. They fixed any issues partially through a file delete/copy/move causing the entire process to bomb. I love the features in Vista as far as that goes. VAST improvement over XP in that area.
>If older people and children who are mostly computer illiterate can use Linux, I don't see why Dell customers can't. All I can do is LOL over that one.
I suppose you think variations of Linux desktops (KDE, Gnome, etc) are beautiful?
You think Martha Stewart is where it's at don't you.
>Though, now I realize, you are most likely just trolling.
Every response to a discussion on Slashdot is a "trolling" move, especially when those in the response don't agree.
Then again, most alternative OS users believe their opinion is the only right opinion, therefore making anyone with a different opinion a troll.
To a point this is a very idiotic move. Anyone who wants to use Linux is most likely not going to purchase a Dell (odds are they build their own). If they did, they would most likely want to install the OS themselves. Any poor soul that purchases a Dell with Linux on it, will most likely do it thinking they are getting a some kind of deal. They will get the PC and be very confused which in the end will cause a huge technical support headache for Dell and result in nothing but a pissed off customer because technical support doesn't know what Linux is. Much less how to use it. In the end the customer has a computer they can barely use cause they can't figure out Linux. If they had the technical ability to figure it out themselves they wouldn't have purchased a Dell (most likely - I'm going by the "odds" here).
Be honest. How many of you Linux users would actually purchase a Dell? How many of you would purchase a Dell with a pre-installed Distro of Linux? I didn't think so.
>Sony rootkit, Blaster, Melissa, Backdoor - any of these ring a bell?
All of which never infected me. So, your point IS?
>No offense, but the "market share = target size" argument just doesn't hold water.
>Windows will not only continue to be the largest target...
Hypocritical statements much??
>Long gone are the days where you can blame the user for every issue they encounter on their pc.
Again, I must call utter bullshit. The user is always to blame. The user is always the one that invites the problem into their system. I don't see you drinking the blood of an AIDS patient do I? So, why do every single one of you refuse to stop doing the things I described before... opening attachments named "freesex.exe", clicking yes on every dialog box on the web, among other asinine things.
If you want to use a Mac or Linux, by all means go for it, but don't spread lies that most people will believe for the very reason they have problems -- their idiots.
That is because the a-holes that create the malware and viruses you get on a PC could care less about your Mac or Linux.
You wanted to get away from the crime of the big city, so you moved to the country. There are benefits of living in the big city, so why did you move? You could have just put better locks on your door and used a security system, but instead, you chose to run away and hide in a secluded area that no one cares about. You had bad habits of venturing through dangerous neighborhoods to wave hello and shake hands with every badly dressed drug selling gangster-wannabe you saw on the street and eventually you got shot and ended up in the hospital for a week in ICU, yet you blame the mayor for bad crime instead of yourself for making obvious bad nonsense decisions. Had you just stayed the fark away from the bad areas and not decided to make conversation with obviously dangerous people, you would have been fine. Does this make sense? Of course not. Would anyone do such a thing? Not in their right minds. I normally never use AV software, I don't use a firewall, and I don't turn off HTML emails. Viewing emails never hurt anyone. Unless you have some pretty ignorant settings turned on or open every attachment you receive in emails when the bad ones are always obvious by looking at the filename. Sure, you could say I am a hypocrit for not using as much protection as you chose to, but the difference between myself and everyone with all these issues that are "Microsoft's fault" is that I don't do such obviously stupid things as opening executable email attachments or clicking Yes to every dialog box that appears in IE or FF. I've proven for years that you don't even need AV software if you just use common sense. I do whatever the hell I want online and don't have any problems. You could say "well you don't open attachments". Sure I do. I open plenty. The bad ones are obvious. Why would I want to open an attachment named "sexfree.exe"? As far as the firewall goes. Why don't I use one? I hate software firewalls. I prefer hardware (a Cisco PIX or at least a Linksys).
If you are/were having problems fighting viruses/malware/etc then it was your problem. I never, not once, ever have a problem with any of them. Ever. It's more about you not going to ever porn site on the Internet looking for goat and midget porn and not clicking every link that says "click here!!!!!! free!!!!".
It's not Windows that was your problem. It was you. It is everyone else. I tried to explain this to my father, because I got sick and tired of being asked to fix his PC every two weeks and he would not listen, just as all of you will not listen. If I can use the Internet with no issues whatsoever for years and years then so can you. Fact. End of story.
To say that Microsoft makes it "easier" to get malware is the most asinine comment I've ever heard. Always comes from someone who has no clue.
Sure Microsoft could concentrate harder on security, but the common sense truth always is Microsoft is the main target for all malware AND spam. If that alone doesn't clear things up for you and the brainwashed attitude most of you have, nothing ever will and you live a sad life, seeing things in life so blindly.
And no one said "you must upgrade to Vista on your crappy machine" either. If you do so, it's your own fault that you don't own a system that is up to the challenge. Instead everyone wants to cry and bicker, because their stone age hardware won't run an operating system they never needed and they can't get the new eye candy.
Fact is, if you have any use for Vista whatsoever then you should be upgrading anyhow or purchasing a new system. For example, if your a gamer that wants to run the newest and greatest DX10 games, you don't pull out your 486 and bitch when it doesn't work. You obviously need a new system to do the newest and greatest things. It's a fact of life and not Microsoft's problem.
The machine I have Vista on is running 2GB of RAM with everything default from the initial install and it performs just as well or better overall compared to XP. When you say 1.6GHz I assume you are referring to an Intel processor which is somewhat outdated and you can't expect to much from it in Vista.