Microsoft names new system Vista

[Lord Kalthorn]

these must be the same people who are upset that GTA has hidden adult content.

Haha! Nah there are some seriously dodgey MSN Groups out there using ActiveX to upload images of their genitals and breasts.

well, then i guess virii are part of the standard now eh?

Viruses are not part of the Rendering Standard. They cannot come through in how Internet Explorer Renders pages... which is what the Standard is about They come along when people don't know how to use their computers. I had no problems with Internet Explorer 6 even without SP1 for the first eight, nine months of using XP. Then with SP1, no problems. Even with the Beta of SP2, no problems, with the full SP2 even my sister doesn't have problems. And with Microsoft Antispyware, my Mum is incapable of having problems.

windows programs run faster under wine than under windows.

Probably, but is it seriously noticable?

you turned your back on Windows Applications? Nice to see you turn around.

Haha. If I was using Linux... I am not

MS Office 2003 is like WordStar. I don't intend to go back so fas just to use an unpleasant Operating System

? Isn't that what I said? What the devil is WordStar? Have you ever used Office 2003?

Microsoft would not take Linux as a threat if it were not spreading eating into their profits.

They shouldn't take Linux itself as a threat at all... it isn't as such The threat itself is an Anti-Microsoft feeling that is causing people to use Linux Distributions... and a general Anarchistic feeling going around developers who are obviously to stupid to get a proper Development Job at a proper Software company...

office does use multiple programs.

I know because if it did, it would be inefficient and useless. Having a seperate GUI Engine is an example of that

Linux runs or more.

Probably, but only when companies write Linux for that Processor. On any real general processor, Linux runs on the same number as Windows does. Two. x86 based Processors and Itanium based Processors.

We need to tweak and hack Windows just to make it stable

Haha. I don't need to, why would anybody else?

 

[x0r515t]

The fact it is in MSN Sites makes it less rare than you would presume People do actually use MSN Sites

MSN is insignificant to the rest of the web.

Haha. Well think of it practically. What is a standard, but a general way of something being done. Internet Explorer gives that standard to developers for over 80% of all Internet users, and other browsers still render their stuff very much like it too, so that it looks right in about 95% of browsers. Is that, or is that not, a standard?

Here's a point, other browsers don't render the same as IE. Here's the main difference if you want a page to render properly in IE, you have to design the page for IE. If you want your page to render properly in other browsers, just follow web standards set by W3C. M$ isn't above standards, you should read this:
http://www.alttags.org/archives/2004/04/29/33/
just google "Interent Explorer CSS Hacks" and you'll find one of the many things developers have to tweak just to get IE to work.

WinE is a mongrel code set for people who are hypocritical. If I was running Linux; I could not use Windows Applications, because I had already turned my back on that. Open Office is as good as Office 95, maybe 97. I have gotten used to Office 2003. I don't intend to go back so far just to use an unpleasant Operating System I'd rather use my know how on something important, I expect my stuff to work so that I can get on with those more important things.

Just because you use Linux doesn't mean you turn your back on windows apps, just the windows environment.
I don't see any real reason why anyone would need any office version newer than 2000, what do the newer versions have to offer? Well, they have more eye-candy, but other than that nothing. Hell, I am still trying to figure out why winXP is so popular all it really is, is windows 2000 with a fisher-price interface. Really if you look at win2k and winxp, the two OS's are almost identical other than XP's eye-candy and system restore, which was in winME.

Could they put that Icon on KDE though?

Of course, KDE uses icons by default.

And why would anybody want a second-hand Desktop? The desktop is part of the Operating System, it is more efficient like that It is a bit like having an Office Application that needs another program to give it commands

Much more efficient indeed, after all the stability and security in windows is just great. If anything, M$ desktops are second hand. Considering the fact that M$ only copies others ideas(macintosh anyone?).

One distribution doesn't. Linux, as many distributions, does. Windows, as many versions does run on a number of different hardware architectures.

Any distribution can run on multiple hardware architectures. Since Linux is open source, you can take the source code of the kernel and just compile it for your platform, as well as your other softwares.

Hacks and Tweaks... who wants to bother with Hacks and Tweaks.

The Linux market.

The very advantage of Windows is that you don't need these hacks and tweaks. You have it, and it works.

Yes, as mentioned many times before, windows does a good job of making the computer illiterate folks feel comfortable with their PC. However, windows is designed for those people who don't know much about computers, so of course windows will excel in this area. Although, I do think the macintosh platform is even easier yet than windows. I mean, in macintosh their is no drivers for hardware, as there is in windows which has the potential to confuse some people. The stability in the macintosh environment might scare some windows users though, after all their used to ctrl+alt+delete

 

[elmonomalo]

omg... can we seriously stop with the biased opinions of linux and windows... i see these discussions everywhere i go.

 

[x0r515t]

but it's so much fun, lol

 

[elmonomalo]

lol, ok i understand that part but it's just annoying seeing someone say "windows is better than linux", "linux is better than windows", "Product A Sucks", "Product B Sucks", etc in about every thread i see.

 

[x0r515t]

I'll stop when Lord Kalthorn stops, besides this is a heated debate

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

lol, ok i understand that part but it's just annoying seeing someone say "windows is better than linux", "linux is better than windows", "Product A Sucks", "Product B Sucks", etc in about every thread i see.

We're not really just saying that though, are we? We're within the rules, probably stretching the extreme good side of them We're saying that perhaps... but we also are saying a few hundred words worth of Because! Is that not what we're supposed to do?

MSN is insignificant to the rest of the web.

To the rest of the Web. In both drive space and hits, probably. But if you take off all the sites with 15+ Content Ratings, MSN is significant to the Internet in Hits. It is, after all, the World's Number 1 Homepage.

Here's a point, other browsers don't render the same as IE. Here's the main difference if you want a page to render properly in IE, you have to design the page for IE. If you want your page to render properly in other browsers, just follow web standards set by W3C. M$ isn't above standards, you should read this:
http://www.alttags.org/archives/2004/04/29/33/
just google "Interent Explorer CSS Hacks" and you'll find one of the many things developers have to tweak just to get IE to work.

You can quite happily use CSS and XHTML, without Hacks, or problems, if you write it for Internet Explorer. The Article is based around the assumption that the Standards the W3C want the world to use, are actually the standards people want to use, or need to use. They are not. If you code Websites; you code primarily, if not only, for Internet Explorer. You then hack it for other Browsers. Why would anybody code for a tiny percentage of the Web; then hack it for the rest? The article is good; but it does as I said base its opinions on something it takes for granted. Why should developers as web designers code for a set of standards some old men in a room have decided to think we should use? You code for the real world; and Internet Explorer is the real world. You don't have to use unclean FONT Tags, nor do you have to have any styling information in the Page. Frontpage is quite fine for creating Pages styled purely and completely in CSS. You write the code, and you can preview it. You can indeed, write the code on the Internet with Server Extensions, and have a number of people around the world preview it the moment you have saved even the smallest addition!

Just because you use Linux doesn't mean you turn your back on windows apps, just the windows environment.
I don't see any real reason why anyone would need any office version newer than 2000, what do the newer versions have to offer? Well, they have more eye-candy, but other than that nothing. Hell, I am still trying to figure out why winXP is so popular all it really is, is windows 2000 with a fisher-price interface. Really if you look at win2k and winxp, the two OS's are almost identical other than XP's eye-candy and system restore, which was in winME.

Exactly; Windows XP was a step up from the basic Windows Me's Consumer Version of Windows, and Windows 2000's Professional Version of Windows. Most of that is plumping. The Theme was taken greatly by most people! It was a way of making it look like an upgrade, while nothing was notable. Can you imagine putting two of the biggest Operating Systems together and making them work?! That was the genius of XP.

Of course, KDE uses icons by default.

Ah, well you learn something everyday

Much more efficient indeed, after all the stability and security in windows is just great. If anything, M$ desktops are second hand. Considering the fact that M$ only copies others ideas(macintosh anyone?).

The Designs of Apple are Second Hand also; Microsoft merely got the designs from the same place. What is different is that Microsoft made that design work Apple have made it look good.

Any distribution can run on multiple hardware architectures. Since Linux is open source, you can take the source code of the kernel and just compile it for your platform, as well as your other softwares.

In order to do that, you would need to have a nice stable version of Windows to Compile your Source with Or I suppose a different OS... but you'd need an OS nonetheless. And anyway, what other Architectures are there that are of importance?

The Linux market.

Hence why it is so small; swelled only by a dislike of Microsoft and the anarchistic feelings of Computer-Litterate Youths.

Yes, as mentioned many times before, windows does a good job of making the computer illiterate folks feel comfortable with their PC. However, windows is designed for those people who don't know much about computers, so of course windows will excel in this area. Although, I do think the macintosh platform is even easier yet than windows. I mean, in macintosh their is no drivers for hardware, as there is in windows which has the potential to confuse some people. The stability in the macintosh environment might scare some windows users though, after all their used to ctrl+alt+delete

Haha. Apple is not a great deal more stable And when you consider, as you pointed out, it has no Drivers, and is only ever on one type of Hardware base, it is not nearly as stable as it should be in the situation Not only that, but they are more expensive, and most people don't use Drivers at all anyway on Windows. They buy a Prebuilt PC and have done with it until it stops. A Mac would have done that months before

 

[x0r515t]

To the rest of the Web. In both drive space and hits, probably. But if you take off all the sites with 15+ Content Ratings, MSN is significant to the Internet in Hits. It is, after all, the World's Number 1 Homepage.

I thought google was the number one homepage. Anyways, MSN may have some significance but I don't think this is to critical of a situation. The fact is a small amount of MSN actually requires ActiveX. I have been browsing MSN with firefox and clicking on a few links on the MSN home page. Really if you think about it, a small percentage of MSN does infact require ActiveX, and if this is infact the most ActiveX filled site on the internet, it kind of shows ActiveX's significance. Sure i'm sure ActiveX could be used for usefull things, but hey there's always java.

You can quite happily use CSS and XHTML, without Hacks, or problems, if you write it for Internet Explorer. The Article is based around the assumption that the Standards the W3C want the world to use, are actually the standards people want to use, or need to use. They are not. If you code Websites; you code primarily, if not only, for Internet Explorer. You then hack it for other Browsers. Why would anybody code for a tiny percentage of the Web; then hack it for the rest? The article is good; but it does as I said base its opinions on something it takes for granted. Why should developers as web designers code for a set of standards some old men in a room have decided to think we should use? You code for the real world; and Internet Explorer is the real world. You don't have to use unclean FONT Tags, nor do you have to have any styling information in the Page. Frontpage is quite fine for creating Pages styled purely and completely in CSS. You write the code, and you can preview it. You can indeed, write the code on the Internet with Server Extensions, and have a number of people around the world preview it the moment you have saved even the smallest addition!

But you see that's just the problem, you shouldn't have to write to a specific web browser for a standard. Instead a set of standards is needed so all web browsers render web pages the same. Believe it or not, even microsoft recognizes the W3C as the standard. MS tries sometimes to meet W3C standards. Heres an example of MS at least recognizing the W3C:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dom/domoverview.asp
Even MS themselves do not believe they are the standard over the W3C. If you want a funny and interesting read, check this out:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/

Exactly; Windows XP was a step up from the basic Windows Me's Consumer Version of Windows, and Windows 2000's Professional Version of Windows. Most of that is plumping. The Theme was taken greatly by most people! It was a way of making it look like an upgrade, while nothing was notable. Can you imagine putting two of the biggest Operating Systems together and making them work?! That was the genius of XP.

Well whatever. The fact is Windows 2000 is still fine for most people. It has all the stability and the driver and software support of XP. Ah well any new windows OS will do fairly well just because of the "latest and greatest craze" everyone seems to have. Frankly though I wouldn't want my OS to have any winME technologies, even if it is mixed in with win2k technologies! I will admit I do run windows sometimes, but guess what version? win2k and it is just fine. I have yet to find anything that I can do on XP that I can't on 2000. Although 90% of the time I run Linux The only reason I have a windows box though is so I am still familiar with windows so I can help customers.

Ah, well you learn something everyday

Just to add, Gnome uses icons as well by default. Really only the lightweight window managers don't use icons, but even they can be tweaked if for some reason you want icons on your desktop.

The Designs of Apple are Second Hand also; Microsoft merely got the designs from the same place. What is different is that Microsoft made that design work Apple have made it look good.

Yes they both got the idea of the GUI(desktop, folders)from xerox. The difference though is that Apple licensed the idea from xerox, MS just flat out copied it.

In order to do that, you would need to have a nice stable version of Windows to Compile your Source with Or I suppose a different OS... but you'd need an OS nonetheless. And anyway, what other Architectures are there that are of importance?

Well yeah you would need an OS to compile the software, a liveCD would work fine. What other architectures you ask? Well other than x86, PPC and SPARC are popular architectures, more people use these architectures than you would think. Heres a SPARC compatible linux distro I just found:
http://www.ultralinux.org/
But of course we all know SPARC processors are meant to run SunOS, and PPC Macintosh right?

Hence why it is so small; swelled only by a dislike of Microsoft and the anarchistic feelings of Computer-Litterate Youths.

Maybe it's small in the consumer market, but not the server market.

Haha. Apple is not a great deal more stable And when you consider, as you pointed out, it has no Drivers, and is only ever on one type of Hardware base, it is not nearly as stable as it should be in the situation Not only that, but they are more expensive, and most people don't use Drivers at all anyway on Windows. They buy a Prebuilt PC and have done with it until it stops. A Mac would have done that months before

Have you tried OSX? Mac versions pre-OSX are basically the win9x of the Mac world. OSX is as much of a improvement in stability over previous versions of MacOS as the NT based windows are over win9x.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I thought google was the number one homepage. Anyways, MSN may have some significance but I don't think this is to critical of a situation. The fact is a small amount of MSN actually requires ActiveX. I have been browsing MSN with firefox and clicking on a few links on the MSN home page. Really if you think about it, a small percentage of MSN does infact require ActiveX, and if this is infact the most ActiveX filled site on the internet, it kind of shows ActiveX's significance. Sure i'm sure ActiveX could be used for usefull things, but hey there's always java.

Nah, MSN It is automatic with Intenet Explorer, you have to know how to change it not to go there. Yeah, Java can do most of the things, but there are still things ActiveX can do that JavaScript, because of what it is, will not be able to do. The Internet will have to see more technologies, probably from Microsoft, that do what ActiveX does, if it is ever going to get out of HTML and these limited Pages.

But you see that's just the problem, you shouldn't have to write to a specific web browser for a standard. Instead a set of standards is needed so all web browsers render web pages the same. Believe it or not, even microsoft recognizes the W3C as the standard. MS tries sometimes to meet W3C standards. Heres an example of MS at least recognizing the W3C:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dom/domoverview.asp
Even MS themselves do not believe they are the standard over the W3C. If you want a funny and interesting read, check this out:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/

You shouldn't You should write in the Standard, that which renders in Intenet Explorer, and the other Browsers should conform to it. They don't though do they. The point is, who is in the wrong for not supporting the standards?

Yeah, they do... and I don't agree with them for it Considering market penetration, they should have helped create a new way to code pages for Browsers Years ago and made off with the old stale HTML and CSS...

Well whatever. The fact is Windows 2000 is still fine for most people. It has all the stability and the driver and software support of XP. Ah well any new windows OS will do fairly well just because of the "latest and greatest craze" everyone seems to have. Frankly though I wouldn't want my OS to have any winME technologies, even if it is mixed in with win2k technologies! I will admit I do run windows sometimes, but guess what version? win2k and it is just fine. I have yet to find anything that I can do on XP that I can't on 2000. Although 90% of the time I run Linux The only reason I have a windows box though is so I am still familiar with windows so I can help customers.

Windows 98 is fine for people, were it still patched. Windows XP will still be fine for people for the next half a dozen years, maybe more, the point is companies have to release new software... they can't just keep updating the old Software Linux probably hasn't learnt this point... They did it with Windows Me Technologies because Windows Me was newer than Windows 98 SE, which they would have had to use otherwise.

The point is not that Windows 2000 is fine. You are obviously used to using 'fine' Operating Systems. The point is that Windows XP is better, and people will always want what is better.

Just to add, Gnome uses icons as well by default. Really only the lightweight window managers don't use icons, but even they can be tweaked if for some reason you want icons on your desktop.

I suppose in a way it has to be said Icons are old... but they are what people want to use. And even if they are old; the fact that Linux still only has two Desktops that use the system... is not a good sign for Linux...

Yes they both got the idea of the GUI(desktop, folders)from xerox. The difference though is that Apple licensed the idea from xerox, MS just flat out copied it.

Ah yes, but in the end, who got that GUI to the people and quite obviously started a ball rolling that made Computers what they are today? It wasn't Apple with their Single Computer one system one Operating System approach It was IBM's Hardware and Microsoft's vision, even if that vision was pieced together from other visions, it is still a vision nobody else had.

Well yeah you would need an OS to compile the software, a liveCD would work fine. What other architectures you ask? Well other than x86, PPC and SPARC are popular architectures, more people use these architectures than you would think. Heres a SPARC compatible linux distro I just found:
http://www.ultralinux.org/
But of course we all know SPARC processors are meant to run SunOS, and PPC Macintosh right?

Haha... PowerPC... SPARC... Nah. I know Linux runs on these things. After all, every Virus needs to be able to grow and feast upon other things. Even if it does decide it might as well feast on a carcass.

Maybe it's small in the consumer market, but not the server market.

Ah yes, but as far as I am aware, Microsoft's growth in the Server Market is in double figures... Linuxs' is not.

Have you tried OSX? Mac versions pre-OSX are basically the win9x of the Mac world. OSX is as much of a improvement in stability over previous versions of MacOS as the NT based windows are over win9x.

I can imagine, but such a leap from pre-OSX Mac is still barely the stability of Windows Me It just looks nice, and sometimes seems stable, because it has one possible way of being run. It is easy to make an OS work in an unchanging setup.

 

[x0r515t]

Nah, MSN It is automatic with Intenet Explorer, you have to know how to change it not to go there. Yeah, Java can do most of the things, but there are still things ActiveX can do that JavaScript, because of what it is, will not be able to do. The Internet will have to see more technologies, probably from Microsoft, that do what ActiveX does, if it is ever going to get out of HTML and these limited Pages.

MSN is the default homepage for IE on a clean installation. Most people still buy HP's, Dell's, etc. For these types of pre-built PC's the default homepage on IE is a HP or a Dell site. I know on my friends compaq, the default homepage on IE was a compaq site.

You shouldn't You should write in the Standard, that which renders in Intenet Explorer, and the other Browsers should conform to it. They don't though do they. The point is, who is in the wrong for not supporting the standards?

Well considering the fact that everyone recognizes W3C as the standard, it must be MS.

Yeah, they do... and I don't agree with them for it Considering market penetration, they should have helped create a new way to code pages for Browsers Years ago and made off with the old stale HTML and CSS...

Well thats your opinion. I still think that any new potential web standard should be worked with the W3C in mind for approval. That way with W3C backing, everyone will conform to this new standard and not just one company. I just don't see how a software company that makes web browsers should be the one setting the web standards, seems unfair.

Windows 98 is fine for people, were it still patched. Windows XP will still be fine for people for the next half a dozen years, maybe more, the point is companies have to release new software...

Thats fine they can release new software, but when they do this they shouldn't forget to include improvements!

The point is not that Windows 2000 is fine. You are obviously used to using 'fine' Operating Systems. The point is that Windows XP is better, and people will always want what is better.

But that's just my point. What exactly is "better" about XP compared to 2000? I will give you that XP has more eye-candy, but other than that? Both are based on the same technologies, both OS's are nearly identical. MS is trying to make XP look better lately by not supporting 2000 with their new softwares like IE7. Everyone knows 2000 could run IE7 if XP can, it's just another tactic by M$ to force upgrades.

I suppose in a way it has to be said Icons are old... but they are what people want to use. And even if they are old; the fact that Linux still only has two Desktops that use the system... is not a good sign for Linux...

.....and windows has one desktop that uses icons!

Haha... PowerPC... SPARC... Nah. I know Linux runs on these things. After all, every Virus needs to be able to grow and feast upon other things. Even if it does decide it might as well feast on a carcass.

Just proves my point that Linux does in fact have better hardware support than windows. This is a good example that shows how Linux is one of; if not the most flexible OS to date.

Ah yes, but as far as I am aware, Microsoft's growth in the Server Market is in double figures... Linuxs' is not.

I know in china, linux is very popular:
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/117007.htm
Or even in retail(34% increase):
http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=19565
Plus M$ "Get the facts" ad campaign tells me that M$ is concerned

I can imagine, but such a leap from pre-OSX Mac is still barely the stability of Windows Me It just looks nice, and sometimes seems stable, because it has one possible way of being run. It is easy to make an OS work in an unchanging setup.

That kind of a setup is what makes a mac as we know it. It's not impossible to match the stability of a mac on a changing setup either, just look at linux/*nix. OSX on x86 could be very interesting if Apple decides to bring OSX to any x86 compatible PC, which I doubt they will. One reason OSX may be so stable other than hardware may be due to the fact that it has a *nix base