...and then there's the trash you write on slashdot.
I expect we could keep throwing links and at each other all week long, so i'll cut this one short...see my last statement above from my previous comment.
Until then, I'm sure someone here will listen to your rantings.
Again, at best you've proved that Windows popularity has fallen and that Linux "could make inroads". "Could", if for example, it started selling.
Mac sales are up true, in the US mainly and this has slightly dented Vista sales.
Now, i'm not going to be disingenuous here; the OLPC and the eePC are doing well; almost in their own category, but even they run Windows now.
And what of the server end? Well, Windows seems to be gaining there too; let's be honest, if there's one area Windows could do better in, it's the server.
And you know what, I hope Linux does do better in the desktop to be honest. FireFox was one hell of a kick up the arse for Microsoft, and we all resulted in better browsing experiences for everyone because of it. Something similar in the desktop arena won't be unappreciated, but, putting it politely, progress is slow in that area right now.
When you can give me hard evidence desktop Linux is installed even at 5% market share globally, then you may be onto something.
and yet, what I find intriguing is OSS has capitalised on this "failure" exactly 0% with regards to desktop coverage; or no noticeable difference anyhow.
Apple may have gotten more popular because of Vista, but I've not seen any figures to suggest OSS is making any dents in the Windows market.
Shouldn't the focus be it being "good" rather than "GPL"? Maybe you can get both in the same criteria, but I'm just surprised the primary objective is that it's GPL - you might find proprietary is the way forward; would that be a road block? Sounds to me like it would be in this scenario.
Twist words however you will Symbolset, but what you cannot deny is that despite Vista "sucking so hard" like you so vehemently claim AND Linux being perfectly ready to replace windows.....it hasn't. And remember, Macs have for many years been available through retail, and still even they remain a margin. What does that tell you? It tells you people don't mind Windows, and it works well enough to be on 90% of PC's worldwide.
Vista may not be to your liking, but it works have no doubt and is getting better all the time.
"You should not be considered a savior as you try to dig the world out of the mess you created."
It's not that simple. 10 years ago, would you have designed a driver model bearing in mind that now you'd want to want 3d graphic viewports to seamlessly interact and overlap together; for 2d plains to be treated the same as 3d? That's what Vista does now, and not even Linux does that; it's a completely different way of programming, and required a different model of driver therefore.
There are reasons the earlier versions of Vista sucked, and like Balmer said, are still work in progress. To summarise the three main points I see:
-Actual security (UAC); breaking a shed-load of applications that would write to C:\Windows and think nothing of it
-64 bit. It's the first serious consumer Windows that's 64 bit. XP 64 bit is rare at best; Win2003 isn't for consumers.
-New driver architecture. Video, audio, and network driver stack has been re-written from the ground up after nearly 10 years to being more or less the same. New changes are worthwhile too; a bad video driver should (in theory) never be able to bring a system crashing down like in XP, for instance.
All these things had to be done; all these things broke stuff. They are massive and necessary changes, and in the long run will pay off, but in the short run have been a bit of a system-shock.
Things are changing though; but Vista has been as much a change from XP under the hood as 98 -> 2000 migration was in my opinion.
One big lie in an effort to dupe other people and I called you out on it.
You can go on and on about the real problems with Linux gaming but that was not your original point which turned out to be a complete failure. No, my point has always been that it can't play mainstream games you buy in shops; it's right next to where I said "popular apps" - meaning apps you too can buy in the shops. Name me one game available in shops you can play in Linux; my point remains.
Sure Linux can do 3d accelerated graphics + sound + networking no problem; I've never said it couldn't, but thanks for the pedantry flaming anyway.
that all the major games producers (unfortunately) don't write for a single flavour of the many Linux distros available. It's not even a market-share thing, as there's plenty of main-stream games for the Mac - http://www.apple.com/games/ - which the most optimistic figures i've seen put at only 7% share.
That will stop mass uptake of Linux at home, in my opinion.
Your problem is that it will never be good enough for you because you just keep coming back with more and more ridiculous complaints. Your problem is that you can't take genuine criticism of your favourite toy and choose to respond with flames instead of proper dialogue. There's plenty of areas where Linux far excels Windows, but being a gaming platform isn't one of them.
And how many of them have, say, made it into the top 100 selling games of any year? Any awards perhaps?
Ok, so actually, I have even played some of them, being partly aware of OSS games. But the point is the gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and how many games are supported on any flavour of Linux? None. Why do you think this is, considering Linux is "ready for mass adoption on the desktop"?
The point is Linux has strong points, but games isn't one of them.
For people at home, Linux can't run games or popular apps. For the enterprise, Linux has no Active Directory equivalent making large-scale networks difficult to manage as effectively.
Apart from that, it's totally ready.
Please provide evidence to the contrary if you have any.
This algorithm has been trained, through analysis of 300 rock, pop, country and jazz songs, to recognize fragments of melody and chords that work well together, as well as chords that complement each another. The irony being that just after this process, it slaps 18 layers of DRM on so no-one can hear it anyway.
All your points about Vista simply point out that all those increases in capability are solely to allow Vista to run. No, my point is Vista is using hardware you've paid for more than XP does, and possibly Linux too; and not at the expense of other applications. For example, SuperFetch will dump memory as needed when you play games to ensure the game runs as fast as it can.
I know about 3d Linux, and while it's great it can do similar stuff to Aero; it's still not the same. Because of the driver-model change in Vista, 3d effects in one application can no directly interact with the 3d output in another. It's a true advancement.
It makes sense to keep XP for low-powered machines, especially in light of the inroads Linux has been making, but what people here don't seem to realise is Vista is designed for a different class of machine that XP was; one with 2Gb of memory (SuperFetch), one with competent 3d capability (Areo + composite 3d/2d GUI), and one with a tonne of disk-space (indexing).
I mean, Vista's just not designed for slow machines, as many of you have so politely have pointed out. But then, all machines sold now have 2Gb of RAM as standard, decent 3d graphics, and a hard-disc that could've hosted the entire internet 10 years ago.
I fail to see the surprise?
Add some misconceptions that you're memory is supposed to be as free as possible (instead of say, using it to speed up the system), actual security checks are irritating (I for one want to know when stuff wants to make system-wide changes), and you have yourself plenty of fuel for the Vista FUD fires.
Microsoft extending XP's life is obvious when you think about it; Vista was never designed for anything seriously low-powered, despite what the marketing people may tell you.
Vista is progression at least because it will make better use of new hardware that XP cannot. For example:
I have a stack of RAM, I want it used to speed up loading-times. I have a ninja 3d card, I want it used to render the desktop faster (tasks being offloaded to the GPU as they are) I have a tonne of data, I want to find it quicker.
Is it just me that hates the idea of a touch screen keyboard? I like feeling keys bounce back; it's not healthy for your fingers to not have some cushioning at the very least.
1. Post statement bashing Microsoft/Vista. 2. Don't provide any evidence 3. Predict the downfall of Microsoft in X years. 4. [optional] Add reference to glorious "Year of the Linux desktop". 5. Profit?!
Keep a copy of the Windows setup folder locally and setup from there; that'll solve that problem. Visual Studio asks you if you want to use online as default first time you goto help, and it's in the options.
From what I've understood from the/. crowd, Microsoft have had their last '3 years minimum' for at least 10 now, which naturally would explain their sky-rocketing share-price.
Slashdot Mirror
...and then there's the trash you write on slashdot.
I expect we could keep throwing links and at each other all week long, so i'll cut this one short...see my last statement above from my previous comment.
Until then, I'm sure someone here will listen to your rantings.
Again, at best you've proved that Windows popularity has fallen and that Linux "could make inroads". "Could", if for example, it started selling.
Mac sales are up true, in the US mainly and this has slightly dented Vista sales.
Now, i'm not going to be disingenuous here; the OLPC and the eePC are doing well; almost in their own category, but even they run Windows now.
And what of the server end? Well, Windows seems to be gaining there too; let's be honest, if there's one area Windows could do better in, it's the server.
And you know what, I hope Linux does do better in the desktop to be honest. FireFox was one hell of a kick up the arse for Microsoft, and we all resulted in better browsing experiences for everyone because of it. Something similar in the desktop arena won't be unappreciated, but, putting it politely, progress is slow in that area right now.
When you can give me hard evidence desktop Linux is installed even at 5% market share globally, then you may be onto something.
and yet, what I find intriguing is OSS has capitalised on this "failure" exactly 0% with regards to desktop coverage; or no noticeable difference anyhow.
Apple may have gotten more popular because of Vista, but I've not seen any figures to suggest OSS is making any dents in the Windows market.
Shouldn't the focus be it being "good" rather than "GPL"? Maybe you can get both in the same criteria, but I'm just surprised the primary objective is that it's GPL - you might find proprietary is the way forward; would that be a road block? Sounds to me like it would be in this scenario.
Jesus, if you've got to resort to games this early on in marriage, that's not a good sign.
Sexual deviance, man! That's what you need to try; your "find the sausage" game sounds like a good start. You're married, it's ok to do that now!
Twist words however you will Symbolset, but what you cannot deny is that despite Vista "sucking so hard" like you so vehemently claim AND Linux being perfectly ready to replace windows.....it hasn't. And remember, Macs have for many years been available through retail, and still even they remain a margin. What does that tell you? It tells you people don't mind Windows, and it works well enough to be on 90% of PC's worldwide.
Vista may not be to your liking, but it works have no doubt and is getting better all the time.
"You should not be considered a savior as you try to dig the world out of the mess you created."
It's not that simple. 10 years ago, would you have designed a driver model bearing in mind that now you'd want to want 3d graphic viewports to seamlessly interact and overlap together; for 2d plains to be treated the same as 3d? That's what Vista does now, and not even Linux does that; it's a completely different way of programming, and required a different model of driver therefore.
You'll also notice I said "consumer Windows". NT was never for the general consumer; XP is the cloest consumer 64 bit OS in the Windows line.
There are reasons the earlier versions of Vista sucked, and like Balmer said, are still work in progress. To summarise the three main points I see:
-Actual security (UAC); breaking a shed-load of applications that would write to C:\Windows and think nothing of it
-64 bit. It's the first serious consumer Windows that's 64 bit. XP 64 bit is rare at best; Win2003 isn't for consumers.
-New driver architecture. Video, audio, and network driver stack has been re-written from the ground up after nearly 10 years to being more or less the same. New changes are worthwhile too; a bad video driver should (in theory) never be able to bring a system crashing down like in XP, for instance.
All these things had to be done; all these things broke stuff. They are massive and necessary changes, and in the long run will pay off, but in the short run have been a bit of a system-shock.
Things are changing though; but Vista has been as much a change from XP under the hood as 98 -> 2000 migration was in my opinion.
You can go on and on about the real problems with Linux gaming but that was not your original point which turned out to be a complete failure. No, my point has always been that it can't play mainstream games you buy in shops; it's right next to where I said "popular apps" - meaning apps you too can buy in the shops. Name me one game available in shops you can play in Linux; my point remains.
Sure Linux can do 3d accelerated graphics + sound + networking no problem; I've never said it couldn't, but thanks for the pedantry flaming anyway.
That will stop mass uptake of Linux at home, in my opinion. Your problem is that it will never be good enough for you because you just keep coming back with more and more ridiculous complaints. Your problem is that you can't take genuine criticism of your favourite toy and choose to respond with flames instead of proper dialogue. There's plenty of areas where Linux far excels Windows, but being a gaming platform isn't one of them.
And how many of them have, say, made it into the top 100 selling games of any year? Any awards perhaps?
Ok, so actually, I have even played some of them, being partly aware of OSS games. But the point is the gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and how many games are supported on any flavour of Linux? None. Why do you think this is, considering Linux is "ready for mass adoption on the desktop"?
The point is Linux has strong points, but games isn't one of them.
For people at home, Linux can't run games or popular apps.
For the enterprise, Linux has no Active Directory equivalent making large-scale networks difficult to manage as effectively.
Apart from that, it's totally ready.
Please provide evidence to the contrary if you have any.
There's nothing like a good healthy session of rampant whore bashing and unadulterated cop mashing in GTA to dampen my desires to do it for real.
Thank god we have games; they're the only thing keeping me out of jail.
*twitches*
I know about 3d Linux, and while it's great it can do similar stuff to Aero; it's still not the same. Because of the driver-model change in Vista, 3d effects in one application can no directly interact with the 3d output in another. It's a true advancement.
"using bitchin' hardware to the max"
Oh, you want to go the other way?
It makes sense to keep XP for low-powered machines, especially in light of the inroads Linux has been making, but what people here don't seem to realise is Vista is designed for a different class of machine that XP was; one with 2Gb of memory (SuperFetch), one with competent 3d capability (Areo + composite 3d/2d GUI), and one with a tonne of disk-space (indexing).
I mean, Vista's just not designed for slow machines, as many of you have so politely have pointed out. But then, all machines sold now have 2Gb of RAM as standard, decent 3d graphics, and a hard-disc that could've hosted the entire internet 10 years ago.
I fail to see the surprise?
Add some misconceptions that you're memory is supposed to be as free as possible (instead of say, using it to speed up the system), actual security checks are irritating (I for one want to know when stuff wants to make system-wide changes), and you have yourself plenty of fuel for the Vista FUD fires.
Microsoft extending XP's life is obvious when you think about it; Vista was never designed for anything seriously low-powered, despite what the marketing people may tell you.
Vista is progression at least because it will make better use of new hardware that XP cannot. For example:
I have a stack of RAM, I want it used to speed up loading-times.
I have a ninja 3d card, I want it used to render the desktop faster (tasks being offloaded to the GPU as they are)
I have a tonne of data, I want to find it quicker.
If the above don't apply to you, use XP.
Is it just me that hates the idea of a touch screen keyboard? I like feeling keys bounce back; it's not healthy for your fingers to not have some cushioning at the very least.
For those looking to shorten their life-span due to stress; program in JavaScript over HTTPS with URL rewriting.
Satan would be proud.
Well, say what you want, but this happened during the Vista release - http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D5=0&D3=0&D4=1&ViewType=0&Symbol=MSFT&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&CE=0&C9=1&DisplayForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CP=0&PT=8 ...and profits have been boosted by Vista and Office - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-profit-boosted-vista-office/story.aspx?guid=%7B46D585CE-B7D5-4F18-A19F-7EA2202FC200%7D
1. Post statement bashing Microsoft/Vista.
2. Don't provide any evidence
3. Predict the downfall of Microsoft in X years.
4. [optional] Add reference to glorious "Year of the Linux desktop".
5. Profit?!
Keep a copy of the Windows setup folder locally and setup from there; that'll solve that problem. Visual Studio asks you if you want to use online as default first time you goto help, and it's in the options.
But yeah, a apt/yum for Windows would be tasty.
Sort of; http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=890cd06b-abf8-4c25-91b2-f8d975cf8c07&displaylang=en
From what I've understood from the /. crowd, Microsoft have had their last '3 years minimum' for at least 10 now, which naturally would explain their sky-rocketing share-price.