yay and ning (even though I'm going, so g'bye)
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 21 May 2008, 16:57,
archived)
Fucking Vistaasking me every 2 minutes for approval. Whiney bastard.
(
NinjaBadger hides in the bushes and gives you TB.,
Wed 21 May 2008, 16:59,
archived)
just got a new laptopand turned down the chance to have vista. I seem to have made the right choice... but I still think I'll end up regretting it.
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:00,
archived)
Only when everything stops being XP compatible NinjaBadger hides in the bushes and gives you TB.,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:02,
archived)
No you didn't really.Vista is fantastic. It's just different and takes some getting used to. Also some people have not learned to have a partition for the OS and the OS only and then to install everything else on another partition. The OS partition is well protected against data loss and so every program that has to write to that partition needs permissions which are not the default. Install it all on a second partition and no more permission woes.
Since SP1 there really is no reason not to use it. I have Ultimate 64 bit and 32 bit on 2 machines and XP pro on another, the XP machine now does nothing more than run BOINC 24 hours.
I get pissed off at people slagging things off when they clearly have little knowledge of them or worse they are too dumb to use them correctly.
(Since SP1 there really is no reason not to use it. I have Ultimate 64 bit and 32 bit on 2 machines and XP pro on another, the XP machine now does nothing more than run BOINC 24 hours.
I get pissed off at people slagging things off when they clearly have little knowledge of them or worse they are too dumb to use them correctly.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:05,
archived)
This is a nonsense.Windows is supposed to be easy to use. You shouldn't have to be expected to know how to partition a disk in order to use it with less hassle.
The fact is, Windows just isn't easy for people to use. That's why people get frustrated with PCs and think they're prone to crashing or being fucking awkward. It's usually not the PC but the Microsoft OS.
I'm not saying that other OSes don't crash or that you need to have some technical knowledge to use, but I think it's cheeky to charge so much money for something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
(The fact is, Windows just isn't easy for people to use. That's why people get frustrated with PCs and think they're prone to crashing or being fucking awkward. It's usually not the PC but the Microsoft OS.
I'm not saying that other OSes don't crash or that you need to have some technical knowledge to use, but I think it's cheeky to charge so much money for something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:10,
archived)
I don't knowwhere the idea that OS's are supposed to be easy to use comes from. I know Microsoft's mission is to make them easier and more trouble free for the end user but at the end of the day they are a complicated piece of kit and need technical know-how to operate properly, that goes for Ubuntu, OSX or Windows.
Windows Vista happens to be far superior to XP in terms of end user friendliness.
regardless of the cost of an OS, it is common knowledge that you don't have to pay for one if you don't want to.
(Windows Vista happens to be far superior to XP in terms of end user friendliness.
regardless of the cost of an OS, it is common knowledge that you don't have to pay for one if you don't want to.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:16,
archived)
Wellyou do have to pay for Windows if you're running a business or you're in trouble if FAST or whoever want to audit you.
Microsoft have always implied that their products are easier to use, secure and stable. The security and stability bits are blatant lies. The implication of user-friendliness is suspect. They spend millions of dollars a year on 'user friendliness', but always seem to be a year or so behind other software developers (both commerical and open source) that actually do improve the interfaces.
Take IE for example. Everyone else used tabs in the browser because they're more efficient and intuitive. However Microsoft's response (before adding them to IE) was that "if users wanted tabs in their browser, they would have told us." Which is bizarre considering how much they're meant to spend on research into interfaces rather than just sitting there waiting for people to demand new features.
Have they even introduced virtual workspaces yet? They increase desktop efficiency, but they weren't implemented even in XP.
(Microsoft have always implied that their products are easier to use, secure and stable. The security and stability bits are blatant lies. The implication of user-friendliness is suspect. They spend millions of dollars a year on 'user friendliness', but always seem to be a year or so behind other software developers (both commerical and open source) that actually do improve the interfaces.
Take IE for example. Everyone else used tabs in the browser because they're more efficient and intuitive. However Microsoft's response (before adding them to IE) was that "if users wanted tabs in their browser, they would have told us." Which is bizarre considering how much they're meant to spend on research into interfaces rather than just sitting there waiting for people to demand new features.
Have they even introduced virtual workspaces yet? They increase desktop efficiency, but they weren't implemented even in XP.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:30,
archived)
I was talking about the OSand IE is a browser. Virtual desktops have been available since the first power toys release for XP.
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:35,
archived)
IEis an integral part of the Windows OS these days.
But the research into human/computer interfaces they spend all that money on includes the Windows OS too, and has very little to show for all the time and money.
XP may have introduced virtual desktops, but they've been available for at least a decade more than that on other OSes.
I'm not advising people not to use Windows. As you say, other OSes also need some (or a fair amount of) technical knowledge too. It's just that Microsoft don't seem to realise that their product is somewhat crap.
(But the research into human/computer interfaces they spend all that money on includes the Windows OS too, and has very little to show for all the time and money.
XP may have introduced virtual desktops, but they've been available for at least a decade more than that on other OSes.
I'm not advising people not to use Windows. As you say, other OSes also need some (or a fair amount of) technical knowledge too. It's just that Microsoft don't seem to realise that their product is somewhat crap.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:40,
archived)
NonsenseYou shouldn't need different partitions. The system files should just belong to root and the user should not have a root account. Unix has had it right for decades, but MS still fucked up at copying it.
The Vista start menu is terrible, they messed up explorer, notepad still can't deal with unix line endings, You still get that retard "Find program using web service" dialog when you open a file with an unknown extension, it churns through the hard disk like crazy for no apparent reason etc. etc.
(,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:28,
archived)
The Vista start menu is terrible, they messed up explorer, notepad still can't deal with unix line endings, You still get that retard "Find program using web service" dialog when you open a file with an unknown extension, it churns through the hard disk like crazy for no apparent reason etc. etc.
I think most of thatis personal issues with you not liking the way things are done. You only know of different ways by using different products.
It works fine for me. When I can have every piece of software I need and use running perfectly on my unix box I might start treating it as more than an interesting experiment.
You don't need separate partitions, I'm just stating that this is a way of making Vista less annoying by it requiring permissions from you before it does something that might be harmful on the root disk.
(It works fine for me. When I can have every piece of software I need and use running perfectly on my unix box I might start treating it as more than an interesting experiment.
You don't need separate partitions, I'm just stating that this is a way of making Vista less annoying by it requiring permissions from you before it does something that might be harmful on the root disk.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:40,
archived)
If they did copy Unix's permissions systemno old Windows software would work at all. That wouldn't go down well.
The Vista start menu (and in a similar fashion, Firefox 3's bookmarking system) is far superior to XP's in my experience. So much so that I had to install Launchy on XP because the Start Menu seems so backward.
(The Vista start menu (and in a similar fashion, Firefox 3's bookmarking system) is far superior to XP's in my experience. So much so that I had to install Launchy on XP because the Start Menu seems so backward.
Kamikaze Stoat £4.09,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:42,
archived)
damn, that really pissed me off...had to turn off that feature after 20 mins of getting my new pc
( theoriginalsteve <this space intentionally left blank>,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:01,
archived)
