[design219]

Users petition to keep Windows XP - CNN.com

This really makes me chuckle.

Apple should be incorporating the imminent demise of XP into it's advertising.

[starman]

Say what you want, but XP is a damn good OS as far as Windows goes. I think MS made the OS TOO good. Now everything is going to be compared to it. Vista sucks and it's going to take a lot for me to ever consider switching to it for my gaming machine. DX10 isn't enough.

[Tomchu]

People said the same thing about Windows 2000. Now it's archaic and the installation CD won't even boot on some newer systems. The same thing will happen to XP.

I cryeth. I really hate Vista's annoying UI, and I know that I'll eventually be asked to provide tech support for Vista-"enabled" systems.

[Chuckit]

Consider the alternative.

[paul w]

Having worked with folks as late '04 who refused to switch from os 9 to os x I believe it.

[starman]

Yeah, but the jump to OS X from 9 wasn't the same as XP->Vista. Vista's a piece of sh*t. People that didn't jump from OS 9 probably didn't want to stop using old software or something.

[paul w]

No, it was just knee jerk - I know how to use this software and I'm too lazy to learn new stuff. The hardware we were using - g4 powermacs - were more than capable enough.

The point is - OS X 10.2 was a refined, very usable OS at the time, a signifigant upgrade and people still gave it no respect. In comparison Vista has no chance.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

People said the same thing about Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 was actually a damned good OS itself, - very stable. Many were right to keep it around until XP was up to speed.

Even so, the first XP versions didn't suck ass as bad as Vista sucks out of the gate. The thing is just a hardware killer. To me, compared to XP, it feels like taking brand new hardware and -performance wise- dragging it back in time several years. Until Vista improves, I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to keep XP around.

[anthology123]

Think of Windows Vista as the new "Windows Millenium Edition" It was made to work bad on purpose so the upcoming Windows 2000 system would appear to work so much better. Before Vista hit the shelves, MS has already announced a new OS to replace Vista by 2010 or 2011?

[osiris]

I imagine we'll see fewer Windows 7 early adopters as a result of the Vista situation.

I wish those XP fans luck, I hope they get a reprieve.

[ghporter]

The simple fact is that Vista is a resource hog that is not "intuitive" for an XP user to pick up and often causes problems because it's not as smooth as it needs to be. Comparatively, XP is lightweight, uses an established UI that is fairly easy to grasp (it ain't that different from OS X's interface), and provides a relatively simple method of managing and using the whole computer. I hope XP DOES stay around for quite a while.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Having worked with folks as late '04 who refused to switch from os 9 to os x I believe it.

Quark holdovers?

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Consider the alternative.

Linux. Ugh.

*gun to head*

[ghporter]

Some Linux distros aren't bad for Windows users. Linspire, for example, is perfect for non-technical people who want to do what they did with Windows. But the "buffet" style Linux distro model just doesn't work for non-technical users. It's still an enthusiast's niche market.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by starman 

Say what you want, but XP is a damn good OS as far as Windows goes. I think MS made the OS TOO good.

Really? How come Mac users never said that before Vista came out? I still think XP sucks, just a little less than Vista.

[@pplejaxkz]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

I cryeth. I really hate Vista's annoying UI, and I know that I'll eventually be asked to provide tech support for Vista-"enabled" systems.

I feel the same way. I hate the UI so much, but I know eventually I will have to provide support for it. So I installed a fresh copy on my Macbook and scrapped it in a day or two. I hate it so much and it was wasting HD space. Yuck

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

Linux. Ugh.

*gun to head*

Nothing wrong with Linux now, even for some die hard windows fans. It was my step in the right direction towards freedom.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Some Linux distros aren't bad for Windows users. Linspire, for example, is perfect for non-technical people who want to do what they did with Windows. But the "buffet" style Linux distro model just doesn't work for non-technical users. It's still an enthusiast's niche market.

I used Linspire for a bit and I agree that it was very user friendly. I think a decent amount of Linux Distros are becoming more user friendly. Ubuntu is a real popular one and just came out with a new release I believe. My first distro was Suse. Those were fun times.

--------

But back to the topic, my mother just recently received her Laptop from Dell and has had nothing but problems with Vista. Just like that commercial "Sending a request; Accept or Deny." She even had problems shutting the darn thing down, which was weird. I offered to reformat her HD and place XP back on there.

[voodoo]

Vista is the best version of Windows I have ever used. The UI is reminiscent of a mix between Gnome and Mac OS X. A detail I just love is that the ugly Windows mouse-pointer has been replaced with a far more pleasant mouse-pointer.

XP is leaps and bounds faster though, Vista seems to bring all hardware to its knees - much like OS X did back in the day.

Speed issues aside, Vista is plagued by bad or missing drivers. Both these things solve themselves inevitably with time.

The fact is, from the point of view a Mac user, Vista is the far most pleasant Microsith OS yet.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Really? How come Mac users never said that before Vista came out? I still think XP sucks, just a little less than Vista.

strawman.

[Lateralus]

I personally don't understand the hatred of Vista.

From a UI standpoint, I think Aero is gorgeous. From a reliability standpoint, I have only had a few more issues with Vista than I had with XP. And that's only because XP had received so many shots in the arm by the time Vista was released.

If you're gonna judge Vista by XP, at least do it properly. Compared to how XP was received and how it behaved during the first year after its release, Vista is at least as good if not better.

Sure, Vista isn't everything MS promised it to be. But in this industry, few products ever live up to the expectations set by their designers and by the media.

As for being a resource hog... I threw together my relatively meager PC back in November for $600 and it runs Vista wonderfully. And for something that was built from parts/technologies that had, at the time that I built the machine, already been on the market for a year or longer...

[Rumor]

I think one of the biggest reasons people are recoiling from Vista is that is was in development for a very long time (longer than XP by far), and has not shown a terrible improvement over their last OS (XP).

Yes, the first release is generally shaky, but to be in development for that long and still no bring anything that says wow is disappointing.

[Max_Doubt_M'Wham]

I used OS 7/8 a lot but decided to swap to XP rather than try to learn the new OS X way (my son had a lot to do with it, what with all of his school friends being on XP). After getting used to XP (and thoroughly enjoying it) I fell head over heels for the white iMac G5 20" model I saw in the window of the local AppleStore. I just new the time was right to cross back over to Macs again and this was a Mac to die for ....

I must admit that I think my time spent using XP sorta paved the way for my being able to deal with 10.4 better than I expected. I think that installing apps the Mac OS X way was the only bit I couldn't get my head around.

Now I consider myself to be equally comfortable using both XP/Mac OS X and from what I've seen of Vista (the Business Edition), I absolutely feel that I could get very used to the GUI based on my time spent on Mac OS X ... weird isn't it ... like a full circle sorta ... except I won't ever stop using Macs again, I'm hooked big time

[@pplejaxkz]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The UI is reminiscent of a mix between Gnome and Mac OS X.

I do agree with the UI, I like how it is setup. I think I am going to be giving Vista another shot, but I must say I am biased because I grew up on 95, 98, and XP. Out of those 3 I would choose XP hands down. But that's all before I ventured into Linux and the Mac OS.

From a UI standpoint, I think Aero is gorgeous.

When I saw screenshots of Vista with the Aero theme before it came out I was very excited. I would use themes like that when I was on my XP machine. After I got Leopard I fell in love with the grey tones. My brother who runs Vista on his Dell XPS loves the Aero theme.

I won't ever stop using Macs again, I'm hooked big time

Me too! There is a slim chance of me going back!

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I personally don't understand the hatred of Vista.

For me it's almost all political.

1st, the little c***sucker stole CMP modified the source 21% so the courts couldn't
nab him and sold the thing to IBM as "MicroSoft DOS". He did basically the same
thing with BASIC.

2nd, he had a huge influence on redefining the business model for OS and Software
venders industry wide. (in a bad way)

3rd, the f*** used industrial espionage, bribes, and what any fair court would rule
as unfair business practices to establish and maintain a strong-arm monopoly.

4th, the puss-bucket started getting involved in eugenics in a very big way. How
many billions (with a "B") has he given for "free abortions" of black women in Africa
and towards the propaganda campaigns there to get them to accept and even want
them? 8 last I checked in 2006. More by now I'm sure. This is all together just too
reminiscent of MS's mother company IBM, who involvement themselves in "organizing"
the extermination of human beings in Germany just a generation or two ago.

5th, their products are quite uninspired and even plagiaristic still even today. The
distinguishing features that remain are all detriments to end users. Basing a myriad
of complex settings and control vectors on a common registry file might have been
OK in 1985 under NT4 or 3.66 but even then it was limiting and problematic. Today
it's just lame and ridiculous.

6th, The help and documentation are so poor and misguided that alone is reason
enough to boycott the OS even if all these other things mentioned here weren't a
factor in my reasoning.

[starman]

If I had to pick one reason why I hate Vista:



Gone are the days of just installing sh*t and walking away (except to change CDs). Now you have to sit there like a jackass and press that f'n "C*ntinue" button all the time.

[Lateralus]

You do know you can turn that off, right?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

You do know you can turn that off, right?

Which completely defeats the purpose of that "feature".

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

For me it's almost all political.

1st, the little c***sucker stole CMP modified the source 21% so the courts couldn't
nab him and sold the thing to IBM as "MicroSoft DOS". He did basically the same
thing with BASIC.

The little c***sucker (I assume this is Bill Gates you are talking about) did no such thing.

Time for a little history lesson:

86-DOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

86-DOS was an operating system developed and marketed by Seattle Computer Products for its Intel 8086-based computer kit. Initially known as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) the name was changed to 86-DOS once SCP started licensing the operating system.
86-DOS had a command structure and application programming interface that imitated that of Digital Research's CP/M operating system, which made it easy to port programs from the latter. The system was purchased by Microsoft and developed further as PC-DOS and MS-DOS.

Origins
86-DOS was created because sales of the Seattle Computer Products (SCP) 8086 computer kit, demonstrated in June 1979 and shipped in November, were languishing due to the absence of an operating system. The only software which SCP could sell with the board was the stand-alone Microsoft BASIC-86, which Microsoft had developed on a prototype of SCP's hardware. SCP wanted to offer the 8086 version of CP/M that Digital Research had announced, but its release date was uncertain. This was not the first time DRI had lagged behind hardware developments; two years earlier it had been slow to adapt CP/M for new floppy disk formats and hard disks. In April 1980 SCP assigned 22-year-old Tim Paterson to develop a substitute for CP/M-86.

Paterson designed 86-DOS with the same API and most of the user commands of CP/M. At the same time he made a number of changes to address what he saw as CP/M's shortcomings. CP/M cached file system information in memory for speed, but this required a user to force an update to a disk before removing it; if the user forgot, the disk would be corrupt. Paterson took the safer but slower approach of updating the disk with each operation. CP/M's PIP command, which copied files, supported several special file names that referred to hardware devices such as printers and communication ports. Paterson built these names into the operating system as device files so that any program could use them. He gave his copying program the more intuitive name COPY. Rather than implementing CP/M's file system, he used BASIC-86's FAT filesystem to maintain compatibility with systems that SCP had already shipped.

Creation of PC-DOS
Microsoft purchased a nonexclusive license for 86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products in December 1980 for $25,000. In May 1981, it hired Tim Paterson to port the system to the IBM-PC, which used the slower and less expensive Intel 8088 processor and had its own specific family of peripherals. IBM watched the developments daily, submitted over 300 change requests before accepting the product and wrote the user manual for it.

In July 1981, a month before the PC's release, Microsoft purchased all rights to 86-DOS from SCP for $50,000. It met IBM's main criteria: it looked like CP/M, and it was easy to adapt existing 8-bit CP/M programs to run under it, notably thanks to the TRANS command which would translate source files from 8080 to 8086 machine instructions. Microsoft licensed 86-DOS to IBM, and it became PC-DOS 1.0. This license also permitted Microsoft to sell DOS to other companies, which it did. The deal was spectacularly successful, and SCP later claimed in court that Microsoft had concealed its relationship with IBM in order to purchase the operating system cheaply. SCP ultimately received a 1 million dollar settlement payment.

Intellectual property dispute
When DRI founder Gary Kildall examined PC-DOS and found that it duplicated CP/M's programming interface, he wanted to sue IBM, which at the time claimed that PC-DOS was its own product. However, Digital Research's attorney did not believe that the relevant law was clear enough to sue (he now believes that later legal developments would have made this easier). Nonetheless, Kildall confronted IBM and persuaded them to offer CP/M-86 with the PC in exchange for a release of liability.

Controversy has continued to surround the similarity between the two systems. Perhaps the most sensational claim comes from Jerry Pournelle, who claims that Kildall personally demonstrated to him that DOS contained CP/M code by entering a command in DOS that displayed Kildall's name;[2] as of 2006 Pournelle has not revealed the command and nobody has come forward to corroborate his story. A 2004 book about Kildall says that he used such an encrypted message to demonstrate that other manufacturers had copied CP/M, but does not say that he found the message in DOS;[3] instead Kildall's memoir (a source for the book) pointed to the well-known interface similarity. Paterson insists that the 86-DOS software was his original work, and has denied referring to or otherwise using CP/M code while writing it.[4] After the 2004 book appeared, he sued the authors and publishers for defamation.[5] The court ruled in summary judgement that no defamation had occurred, as the book's claims were opinions based on research or were not provably false.[6]

By 1982, when IBM asked Microsoft to release a version of DOS that was compatible with a hard disk, PC-DOS 2.0 was an almost complete rewrite of DOS, so by March 1983, very little of QDOS remained. The most enduring element of 86-DOS was its primitive line editor, EDLIN, which remained the only editor supplied with Microsoft versions of DOS until the June 1991 release of MS-DOS 5.0, which included a TUI-based editor, MS-DOS Editor based on QBasic. EDLIN can still be used on contemporary machines, since it is bundled with the emulated DOS environment up to Windows Vista.

I also have no idea what you are on about implying that Bill Gates somehow ripped off BASIC as:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The designers of the language decided to make the compiler available free of charge so that the language would become widespread.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I personally don't understand the hatred of Vista.

From a UI standpoint, I think Aero is gorgeous.

A lot of people don't spend all that much time looking at the "pretty colors" and admiring icons, interface FX and other useless ****. I personally use computers (Mac or PC) to get work done, and I use applications, not spend my time admiring the OS itself. A machine that takes a performance hit just to draw windows and menus with pretty translucent effects, throws up spinning little 'I'm working on it... slowly' graphics all the friggen time, is slower rendering actual work because of greater OS overhead, dims the screen while it pops up braindead dialog boxes, and other useless crap, is wasting my time, in the long term costing me money, and squandering my hardware capability compared to an XP machine that simply does the job faster.

If you're gonna judge Vista by XP, at least do it properly. Compared to how XP was received and how it behaved during the first year after its release, Vista is at least as good if not better.

For most computer users that do nothing but surf the web and read their email, and look at the "pretty colors" it might be "at least as good". But even at that, I have to disagree- I've reinstalled a huge number of friends systems with XP after they couldn't take the crawling speed of Vista anymore, even with even simple tasks like the web, and (heaven forbid) trying to print something.

When people notice their "new" computer is slower at things than the clunker it replaced (and I've seen more people say exactly that than I've ever seen with other OS changeovers)- Houston, we have a problem. XP initially had some hiccups, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as Vista has started off.

[voodoo]

I remember the hysteria of Peezoid users when XP was released, but this time around it's even stronger.

By SP2 of Vista people will have forgotten XP ever existed. (<-- my prediction and I'm never wrong)

[starman]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

You do know you can turn that off, right?

I do. You do know that turning it off pretty much sets up the machine for attacks, right?

[Lateralus]

You do know that's why you can install security software of your choosing, right?

[Railroader]

...

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The little c***sucker (I assume this is Bill Gates you are talking about) did no such thing.

Time for a little history lesson:

I don't give a tinker's damn what any site says on-line I was there! I know exactly what
happened! I don't need any other interpretation of the events. But thank you anyway!

I also have no idea what you are on about implying that Bill Gates somehow ripped off BASIC as:

Of course you don't. How old are you? What were you doing in the 70's?

[ghporter]

Please define "there" in the context of your above post. I know what I was doing in the 1970s-starting to program in HP-Basic on one of their "desktop calculators". Kinda young then, too.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I don't give a tinker's damn what any site says on-line I was there! I know exactly what
happened! I don't need any other interpretation of the events.

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Of course you don't. How old are you? What were you doing in the 70's?

Irellevant. BASIC was meant to be spread, thus anyone could create their own for whichever system they needed it for. Which is what Bill Gates and Paul Allen did with Altair Basic, and later with Microsoft Basic.

I'm no fan of Microsoft or Bill Gates - but there's no need to INVENT crap about them.

[design219]

Ohhhh, I'm putting on some popcorn for this one.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

You do know that's why you can install security software of your choosing, right?

Oh I see. $400 for Vista Ultimate and another $100 for anti-virus. Brilliant!

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Irellevant. BASIC was meant to be spread,

Bahahahaaa... you must be Marsh's alter ego.

I guess your ignorance is forgivable though you probably shouldn't try and
tell me what happened when I was there. Kinda silly of you don't you think?

[- - e r i k - -]

You were there were you? Perhaps you are Jerry Pournelle's alter ego then?

Being "there" does not make you more knowledgeable, it just makes you more biased.

[Tesselator]

Explain how that works?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Explain how that works?

Explain how you "were there".

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Explain how you "were there".

Yeah, I started to post my resume but thought better of it. "I was there" means just exactly that.
But I was asking e r i k....

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I don't give a tinker's damn what any site says on-line I was there! I know exactly what
happened! I don't need any other interpretation of the events. But thank you anyway!




Of course you don't. How old are you? What were you doing in the 70's?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Please define "there" in the context of your above post. I know what I was doing in the 1970s-starting to program in HP-Basic on one of their "desktop calculators". Kinda young then, too.

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Explain how you "were there".

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Yeah, I started to post my resume but thought better of it. "I was there" means just exactly that.
But I was asking e r i k....

You are still being vague. You were where? Redmond? Home? Texas? On vacation? What?

[- - e r i k - -]

You were asking me what? How does that work? Psych 101 my friend. If you actually were Jerry Pournelle or Gary Kildall or even Bill Gates himself your perceptions of the events would be heavily clouded by your emotions at the time and staying unbiased would be much harder.

Now for you to explain how you "were there" or to back gracefully out of this debate.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Maybe you've got some interesting stories, Tesselator. Spill.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You are still being vague. You were where?

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Palo Alto, California
Seattle, Washington

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Maybe you've got some interesting stories, Tesselator. Spill.

I already spilled. Read up.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You were asking me what? How does that work? Psych 101 my friend. If you actually were Jerry Pournelle or Gary Kildall or even Bill Gates himself your perceptions of the events would be heavily clouded by your emotions at the time and staying unbiased would be much harder.

Oh, that's funny!!! I'll remember that in the next court case I'm involved in.
Hey judge! That guys' eye-witness testimony doesn't count! He was there...
So he's biased. Don't listen!

Man those shrinks can get anyone to believe anything just by publishing it.

Hello?

[- - e r i k - -]

It's just not Psych 101. It's common sense. Maybe you should look into acquiring some.

[Cold Warrior]

Let's cut out the personal insults and stay on what's left of the topic.