Microsoft releases and update that breaks this chrome frame addin? What is google going to do about it then?
Somehow this seems oddly similar to the Apple / Palm merry-go-round. You write something that uses my software, then I break it, then you fix it, then I break it, ad infinitum.
Well considering how much was changed, "many months" doesn't constitute time to enough. The fact is that most of the problems that are found with Vista derive from other companies work (drivers, "vista fix" patches, etc) that are not up to snuff. I mean to be completely honest, I beat the crap out of my machines, and I havent had any problems. So if a person like myself, with a completely custom, high end, overclocked PC, with half of my components no having mature enough drivers to work completely in any OS, I find serious issue with the supposed number of people that have problems. OEM's arent dumb. They dont release computers without at least SOME driver maturity.
So I guess if you want the cliff notes version, take this away: Not ALL (or most) of the Vista problems are actually attributed to Microsoft bugs (which are there) but instead immature drivers and middle-ware, and the fact there seems to be so many problems is simply because the most vocal people are heard. I would be willing to bet that apart from the people on here and other forums (a couple thousand AT MOST) most people with Vista are just chugging along completely unaware of much of this heated debate.
I find Vista no more of a resource hog than any other OS is. It runs smooth on my 1.4 GHz Pentium M with 768 MB of memory and it runs smooth on my overlocked C2D with 2 GB. If you go by the resource monitor sure it SAYS its using alot of CPU or resources, but it sure does seem to give them back the minute you are actually doing something thats needs it.
I bet you if you timed the opening of any program or any sort of user interactivty, you would find it as fast or faster than it was on XP.
The real fact of the matter from those of us that use Vista everyday is that fact that it works just fine. My games play the same or better than they did in XP, my development tools run just fine, and the UI for once is actually nice to work with. Now call me crazy, but I don't find Vista bad at all.
As a software developer myself I realize the fact that OS's are large and complicated and they all have some issues. I use Linux, I use OS X, and I use Vista. Each has their own merits and their own problems. The problem is that now, just like it was popular in the 80s and 90s to hate IBM, its popular to hate Microsoft. News writers see this as a bandwagon they can use to get articles read and website hits. The real fact is that Vista has no more problems than any other OS at this point in its life cycle.
I truly wish that for the good of all of the tech industry, people would see that every piece of software, and every OS has its place. Vista does a lot of things well... It just happens to have a few flaws and a few "features" that just seem to go against the grain of the most vocal people in the geek world (i.e. DRM) and thus we see articles like this that are ridiculous and inflammatory simple for being as such.
Another few things... Mirrored boot-disks in windows? Don't you have to pay extra to do that in software, if that's even possible? If you want to run virtual servers to reduce the number of machines for non-cpu hungry apps you don't have to buy vmware, just use KVM...
Mirror disks, RAID 5, etc, all available point and click through the Disk Management.
For Virtual Servers you have the FREE Virtual Server 2005 Product as well as Virtual PC if you want to run it locally. Both are just as good if not better than VMWare IMHO.
Not picking a side here, just stating some facts....
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft releases and update that breaks this chrome frame addin? What is google going to do about it then?
Somehow this seems oddly similar to the Apple / Palm merry-go-round. You write something that uses my software, then I break it, then you fix it, then I break it, ad infinitum.
Well considering how much was changed, "many months" doesn't constitute time to enough. The fact is that most of the problems that are found with Vista derive from other companies work (drivers, "vista fix" patches, etc) that are not up to snuff. I mean to be completely honest, I beat the crap out of my machines, and I havent had any problems. So if a person like myself, with a completely custom, high end, overclocked PC, with half of my components no having mature enough drivers to work completely in any OS, I find serious issue with the supposed number of people that have problems. OEM's arent dumb. They dont release computers without at least SOME driver maturity.
So I guess if you want the cliff notes version, take this away: Not ALL (or most) of the Vista problems are actually attributed to Microsoft bugs (which are there) but instead immature drivers and middle-ware, and the fact there seems to be so many problems is simply because the most vocal people are heard. I would be willing to bet that apart from the people on here and other forums (a couple thousand AT MOST) most people with Vista are just chugging along completely unaware of much of this heated debate.
I find Vista no more of a resource hog than any other OS is. It runs smooth on my 1.4 GHz Pentium M with 768 MB of memory and it runs smooth on my overlocked C2D with 2 GB. If you go by the resource monitor sure it SAYS its using alot of CPU or resources, but it sure does seem to give them back the minute you are actually doing something thats needs it. I bet you if you timed the opening of any program or any sort of user interactivty, you would find it as fast or faster than it was on XP.
The real fact of the matter from those of us that use Vista everyday is that fact that it works just fine. My games play the same or better than they did in XP, my development tools run just fine, and the UI for once is actually nice to work with. Now call me crazy, but I don't find Vista bad at all.
As a software developer myself I realize the fact that OS's are large and complicated and they all have some issues. I use Linux, I use OS X, and I use Vista. Each has their own merits and their own problems. The problem is that now, just like it was popular in the 80s and 90s to hate IBM, its popular to hate Microsoft. News writers see this as a bandwagon they can use to get articles read and website hits. The real fact is that Vista has no more problems than any other OS at this point in its life cycle.
I truly wish that for the good of all of the tech industry, people would see that every piece of software, and every OS has its place. Vista does a lot of things well... It just happens to have a few flaws and a few "features" that just seem to go against the grain of the most vocal people in the geek world (i.e. DRM) and thus we see articles like this that are ridiculous and inflammatory simple for being as such.
Another few things... Mirrored boot-disks in windows? Don't you have to pay extra to do that in software, if that's even possible? If you want to run virtual servers to reduce the number of machines for non-cpu hungry apps you don't have to buy vmware, just use KVM...
Mirror disks, RAID 5, etc, all available point and click through the Disk Management. For Virtual Servers you have the FREE Virtual Server 2005 Product as well as Virtual PC if you want to run it locally. Both are just as good if not better than VMWare IMHO. Not picking a side here, just stating some facts....