Great. We need another blind basher of Microsoft around here.
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Windows Vista
- Thread starter Ian Taylor
- Start date
Blind? I've been using their products for 7 bloody years, I'm not blind thank you very much.
Just because the whole world doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're all blind.
Everything I said is indisputable fact, now deal with it.
Just because the whole world doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're all blind.
Everything I said is indisputable fact, now deal with it.
Let's break down all your "facts", shall we?
Those speak for itself. Yes, I know you were exaggerating and being sarcastic. But it's quite a ridiculous claim.
This can in no way be confirmed. What benefit would Microsoft get out of creating an insecure operating system? Exactly, none.
Again, no more factual than an opinion.
Code:
Minimum System Requirements
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
Recommended
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.Perhaps because everything runs on Microsoft and because it is by far the best desktop operating system.
Uhhh pardon? Are you calling me a liar?
Like talking to yourself? They have heaps of benefits. They make it insecure so they can sell security software, etc.
And that's besides the point, their software engineers are incapable of making it secure, which was my point.
That's not an opinion, that's fact. Why don't you do some reading, all the major AV vendors are pissing off at Microsoft for this exact reason.
Uhhh no. Clearly, you know nothing about computers, as you so wrongly think minimum requirements actually mean something.
Simcity 4's minimum requirements are 1ghz cpu and 256mbs of ram. And recommended is 2ghz 512mb. Yet that is a joke, as anyone who knows simcity4 well, will tell you it needs a 3ghz+ and at the very least 2gbs of ram, and likewise same thing here.
The large majority of servers run on Linux, because it's by far the most stable OS. Google runs their 200,000 servers on Linux. Most webhosts run linux servers. You should know, just by being on FWS.
As for desktop, windows is a completely joke. Ubuntu is infinitely better AND easier to use than windows.
Of course not. I'm simply stating that that cannot be confirmed as "fact" by people on this forum.
Exactly. It's all a big conspiracy. And people who went to school for over 4 years studying programming and OS theory are completely incompetent of putting together a world-class OS.
I haven't done any reading, so I can't make any sort of witty retort.
Yes, let's create an assumption about someone you have never met based on an opinion of yours over one thing. Quite logical, good move sir. I have a degree in computer science from Brigham Young University and am MCSE, CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certified. I know enough about computers to know that you cannot base anything off of one problem with one program, on one platform.
Yes they do. They run it because it is indeed stable. I agree with this statement. While I prefer Linux to Windows for a server environment, Windows does an acceptable job when properly handled.
Oh yes. That would completely explain why I could find one instance of a Fortune 500 company using anything other than Windows.
Well thats their problem.
They have proved so, with the number of security exploits in every version of windows.
Then I suggest you make sure you know the facts next time, before referring to facts as opinions.
Well laa-dee-daa. All that didn't stop you from posting minimum and recommended requirements as said by microsoft, as proof that, that is actually all you need, now did it?
It was an example. The same principle applies to most pieces of software. I don't know if you've tested it, but people who have, told me it runs slow even on a a Intel core duo with 1gb.
Why should people have the need to spend extra time to "properly handle" windows, only to have it do an "acceptable" job, while linux, without any effort whatsoever, does an outstanding job?
It's all one big mob of money spending. There may be many reason why a company doesn't want to switch.
Regardless, the stupidity of any amount of people doesn't make windows any better than Linux.
The average PC user doesn't have the skills or the time to properly deal with viruses, hackers, spyware, adware, constant crashes, constant updates, problems, incompatibilities, etc.
With Linux, all they have to do is install it, and use it .They don't have to worry about anything you would on windows.
Want to browse the net? Bam, best browser in the world pre-installed. Want to check email? Bam, best mail client re-installed. Want to write a document? Do some database work? Analyse the costs of running a company? Well, you have the best Office Suite pre-installed.
It's all free, it's all easy to use, it's all secure, it's all open source.
How can Microsoft match this? How many software engineers does M$ employ? A few thousand high-school dropouts? All the best ones already left M$ for google, so how can M$ compete with millions of programmers worldwide fixing bugs and security issues in open source software?
The answer is....they simply can't.
Tree, stop blindly looking for ways to make it look like windows is better without knowing the facts. It's your opinion that some of what he said is opinion, but in fact most of them are facts.
When people use their computers nowadays to do whatever they want, the thing they're (usually) most concerned about is security of their data. Therefore security should be top of the list on any OS. It's too early to tell whether Vista is secure, from early reports it's not doing too good, but one thing's for sure - XP wasn't.
So you can stop praising Vista until it's been out for a good year and has had very little security bugs.
Also, they don't make it insecure on purpose. That'd just be stupid. They do it because they can't make it secure.
When people use their computers nowadays to do whatever they want, the thing they're (usually) most concerned about is security of their data. Therefore security should be top of the list on any OS. It's too early to tell whether Vista is secure, from early reports it's not doing too good, but one thing's for sure - XP wasn't.
So you can stop praising Vista until it's been out for a good year and has had very little security bugs.
Also, they don't make it insecure on purpose. That'd just be stupid. They do it because they can't make it secure.
Im not going to quote like all the rest of you cool cats, but wanted to point out something about the AV thing. You are NOT locked out from running other forms of anti-virus. I beta test Trend Micro products and have been testing a version of their AV designed for Vista on a vista test machine for months now.
I would also like to point out, that the arguement, is pointless anyway.
Linux is better at somethings
Microsoft is better at others
At the end of the day you cant really argue with numbers ( an while i respect all your opinions) you cant deny that microsoft covers just about 80% of the IT market online or not.
This has turned into a microsoft hater session, and its not really fair to argue about the effectiveness of a product most of us havent even used. Give Vista the chance it deserves, try it for yourself, then come to your own conclusions.
Linux is better at somethings
Microsoft is better at others
At the end of the day you cant really argue with numbers ( an while i respect all your opinions) you cant deny that microsoft covers just about 80% of the IT market online or not.
This has turned into a microsoft hater session, and its not really fair to argue about the effectiveness of a product most of us havent even used. Give Vista the chance it deserves, try it for yourself, then come to your own conclusions.
My sound card isn't supported yet 
:lol:
I've had Vista for about over a month now running on my AMD 64 Single Core 4000+, with a Nvidia 660GT, 1 GB RAM hehe
it's not all that bad,
:lol:I've had Vista for about over a month now running on my AMD 64 Single Core 4000+, with a Nvidia 660GT, 1 GB RAM hehe
it's not all that bad,
[ih]Demetris
New Member
Theres always gonna be someone who loves linux over Windows and trust me i like it i dual boot with both windows and linux but lets face Microsoft is a Multi Billion dollar corporation and they have literally thousands of engineers working under them. They have the money and the resources to invest into cutting edge technology. The large problem with linux that i have seen in the time that ive been using it (7years) is its not very user (avg pc user) friendly. I mean have you tried to set up Nvidia on a linux box..grr that can take forever..lol. it boils down to this MONEY. MS has it so they can afford to invest millions into their product development. Just my 2 cents..
P.S. - It will be a while before they stop updating and patching XP theres still alot of major corporations floating around that either hasnt upgraded or refuses to..
P.S. - It will be a while before they stop updating and patching XP theres still alot of major corporations floating around that either hasnt upgraded or refuses to..
Last edited:
They aren't completely locked out, but AVs use windows' kernel for real-time protection, and now they aren't able to.
Nay, Linux is good at everything, Microsoft is bad at everything....well maybe except ripping features Linux had for ever, and branding them as "new" in their next OS :lol:
How much does it cost?? Ive heard that its pretty good, someone actually told me it was a lot more like some of the mac OS than previous windows products.
I have to say i think windows is going on a bit of a copy drive at the moment, their new IE is REMARKABLY similar to FF.
i do like the new windows media player, very stylish
sorry that was all a bit off topic,
thats ok since ff pretty much copyed opera
Windows is 4 n00bs
It's Linux 4 teh win!!!!
It's Linux 4 teh win!!!!
so you're running linux I assume?
basicaly, windows is worst than linux because most people say it. I agree too, but it doesn't mean windows is that bad. Otherwise, it wouldnt be so popular all of this time
The huge major whacking great asscracking flaw of linux is this:
software.
(and ms proper gander)
I have experienced both of these OS's and i can safely say that if i buy a piece of software it will WORK with windows, sadly the same cannot be said for linux.
While it truly is an exceptional desktop it cannot compete with microsofts millions which allows it to create contracts.
If commercial software was released for linux more often and linux came bundled on more pcs it would be more popular, lets be honest for your average computer user the thought of doing a reformat or a partition and installing a new OS is quite a scary one.
Now back on topic:
XP does fine for me, i see no need to upgrade, the difference doesn't look the money. However I'm buying a new laptop come next year so no doubt that will come bundled with vista.
software.
(and ms proper gander)
I have experienced both of these OS's and i can safely say that if i buy a piece of software it will WORK with windows, sadly the same cannot be said for linux.
While it truly is an exceptional desktop it cannot compete with microsofts millions which allows it to create contracts.
If commercial software was released for linux more often and linux came bundled on more pcs it would be more popular, lets be honest for your average computer user the thought of doing a reformat or a partition and installing a new OS is quite a scary one.
Now back on topic:
XP does fine for me, i see no need to upgrade, the difference doesn't look the money. However I'm buying a new laptop come next year so no doubt that will come bundled with vista.
There's some paid distros out there, and also commercial software for linux, not as much as for windows, but there is.
Also, some ACER portables are bundled with Linux to save costs, justlike in India with some budget PCs
Back on topic again, Windows XP can work in very slow computers and very fast ones, it's all in customization. That's why Vista will be a failure if it asks too much out of a computer
