Microsoft names new system Vista

[Lord Kalthorn]

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.

Crazy... but eitherway, I am still sure MSN is the Number One Homepage, I read it somewhere... can't remember where... haha.

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

Not everybody, what about the people who view the Internet? They want their things to work properly in Internet Explorer, and they far outnumber those who recognise the W3C.

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.

How does that seem unfair? Microsoft makes up lots of standards that everybody and their Dog recognise, why should the Internet be otherwise?

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

Haha. Vista has enough improvements in it Considering that XP was released barely 18 months after 2000 and Me, and the advancements have kept it great until now and for a long time yet.

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.

They don't support 2000 because they don't want to have to patch it, and they only ever have a 5 year Support base on all their Operating Systems. The want upgrades so it is easier, and quicker for the consumer, to patch the Operating Systems they should be patching and Supporting. And indeed, to build Vista on time. Even as a tactic to Force Upgrades, what is wrong with that? Linux don't support old Operating Systems at all, nor many new ones if I am correct? The very fact they support Operating Systems 5 years down their line is quite remarkable. It won't be long now, only Christmas next year, before they stop XP's Support

If somebody doesn't want to upgrade from 2000, they won't. They don't have to. They just have to decide whether using an Operating System that is unpatched is worth it.

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

Yeah, but Microsoft has done that now for ten years How long have Gnome and KDE supported Icons?

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.

Normal people can't use Linux safely, flexible or not, without a Licencing System anyway Open-Sourcing just leaves the doors open for Scum (different, malicious, not the normal Linux-writing Scum) to supply users bugged Operating Systems.

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

Yeah, it probably is. Even if you did just show me a page obviously hosted on a Windows Server Linux is only very popular in China because it is a new market... 34% increases in Operating System sales are nothing in China.

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

It could be... but I doubt it, or Linux would be stable

 

[x0r515t]

Crazy... but eitherway, I am still sure MSN is the Number One Homepage, I read it somewhere... can't remember where... haha.

Well I remember reading from somewhere google was the number one homepage...haha It would make sense considering the fact that google is the worlds number one search engine.

Not everybody, what about the people who view the Internet? They want their things to work properly in Internet Explorer, and they far outnumber those who recognise the W3C.

I'm obviously speaking of developers there, not end-users. If MS would pay more attention to W3C, every page would render properly in IE...as well as every other browser. So what I meant was that all developers recognise the W3C as the standard. If all developers(mainly MS)would abide by the W3C there would be no rendering issues. I know your thinking "but IE is the standard" well no it isn't. Just go ask MS it's the W3C.

How does that seem unfair? Microsoft makes up lots of standards that everybody and their Dog recognise, why should the Internet be otherwise?

M$ makes no "standards" they make proprietary formats. M$ actually avoids standards hence the .doc format for example, highly proprietary. M$ cannot be trusted, I mean they limit competition. For example if you visit microsoft.com on any browser other than IE, M$ will intentionally send your browser bad code so the page appears to only render properly in IE. Also, this reminds me of a recent M$ scam with hotmail and opera. If you are checking your hotmail e-mail account with opera, the option to delete spam messages will be disabled because your running Opera. This is not because of a lack of ActiveX or anything like that either, it's in their HTML code to send different information to other browsers. Don't take my word for it read about it:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2005/msft/02-hotmail.html

They don't support 2000 because they don't want to have to patch it, and they only ever have a 5 year Support base on all their Operating Systems. The want upgrades so it is easier, and quicker for the consumer, to patch the Operating Systems they should be patching and Supporting. And indeed, to build Vista on time. Even as a tactic to Force Upgrades, what is wrong with that? Linux don't support old Operating Systems at all, nor many new ones if I am correct? The very fact they support Operating Systems 5 years down their line is quite remarkable. It won't be long now, only Christmas next year, before they stop XP's Support

If somebody doesn't want to upgrade from 2000, they won't. They don't have to. They just have to decide whether using an Operating System that is unpatched is worth it.

Well I have no idea what your talking about when you say that
"linux doesn't support any old OS's at all"
How do you figure that? Since Linux is source based(along with just about everything else in the Linux world)you can simply download the newest Linux kernel from kernel.org and compile your new kernel yourself. Your window manager is out-of-date? Well you can go to the WM's site and download the sources for their most recent build and compile it yourself. You can take even the oldest versions of Linux and upgrade them to -current, something you can't do in windows or mac. You have a poor argument here indeed. The thought that M$ would drop support for XP so soon is just sick, things like that is why I say M$ instead of MS.

Yeah, but Microsoft has done that now for ten years How long have Gnome and KDE supported Icons?

....and Apple has been supporting icons for at least 21 years.....

Normal people can't use Linux safely, flexible or not, without a Licencing System anyway Open-Sourcing just leaves the doors open for Scum (different, malicious, not the normal Linux-writing Scum) to supply users bugged Operating Systems.

You would have to be an idiot to install a distro made a spyware writer or something like that....interesting idea though.

Yeah, it probably is. Even if you did just show me a page obviously hosted on a Windows Server Linux is only very popular in China because it is a new market... 34% increases in Operating System sales are nothing in China.

Linux is definetaly more popular than windows, with the chinese government anyways or if not; soon will be.

It could be... but I doubt it, or Linux would be stable

haha, I wouldn't be to surprised if windows was someday unix based. You know how the saying goes "If you can't beat them, join them"

 

[Tulsileaf]

the problem with this thread is that if you are away for a few days, you fall behind.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Well I remember reading from somewhere google was the number one homepage...haha It would make sense considering the fact that google is the worlds number one search engine.

Who makes a search engine a Homepage? What people need as their Homepage, is MyMSN. That is a damned good site...

I'm obviously speaking of developers there, not end-users. If MS would pay more attention to W3C, every page would render properly in IE...as well as every other browser. So what I meant was that all developers recognise the W3C as the standard. If all developers(mainly MS)would abide by the W3C there would be no rendering issues. I know your thinking "but IE is the standard" well no it isn't. Just go ask MS it's the W3C.

If W3C paid attention to how it is done and has been for years, every page would render properly in every Browser. Lots of other browsers use the Internet Explorer way of doing things. Not just Internet Explorer. Just because one browser has decided it doesn't like Microsoft and wants to render their pages another way, doesn't mean every other browser should change. And - if all Developers (mainly Open-Source Anarchistic ones) were to code their pages properly, there would be no rendering issues

Internet Explorer is the standard; whether Microsoft believes it (officially) or not, it is. I don't know how you see the word 'standard' but if you were asked, what is the standard way of rendering a page in HTML, how would you answer?

M$ makes no "standards" they make proprietary formats. M$ actually avoids standards hence the .doc format for example, highly proprietary. M$ cannot be trusted, I mean they limit competition. For example if you visit microsoft.com on any browser other than IE, M$ will intentionally send your browser bad code so the page appears to only render properly in IE. Also, this reminds me of a recent M$ scam with hotmail and opera. If you are checking your hotmail e-mail account with opera, the option to delete spam messages will be disabled because your running Opera. This is not because of a lack of ActiveX or anything like that either, it's in their HTML code to send different information to other browsers. Don't take my word for it read about it:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2005/msft/02-hotmail.html

The .doc Format is still something touted by a number of companies in how they can support it though? Hence a standard in Office Documents. Haha, hype my good man People will always make it. Microsoft.com renders just the same in Firefox and Internet Explorer for me. I notice no difference, I get no lack of use. Sometimes the fonts are a little crazy, but simple Zoomin fixes that. Code problems will always happen on huge sites like Hotmail and Microsoft.com. Especially when browsers try to be rebelious and Microsoft have to fix the problem other Browsers cause.

Well I have no idea what your talking about when you say that
"linux doesn't support any old OS's at all"
How do you figure that? Since Linux is source based(along with just about everything else in the Linux world)you can simply download the newest Linux kernel from kernel.org and compile your new kernel yourself. Your window manager is out-of-date? Well you can go to the WM's site and download the sources for their most recent build and compile it yourself. You can take even the oldest versions of Linux and upgrade them to -current, something you can't do in windows or mac. You have a poor argument here indeed. The thought that M$ would drop support for XP so soon is just sick, things like that is why I say M$ instead of MS.

Yeah... you could But if you could do that, you wouldn't need Support at all! I am talking about Support, for those who need things fixed for them Patches... help doing something... help installing something... Allowing people to download and compile and new Kernal is not help, it is a hinderence if it is the only way to fix something... If your Window Manager is out of date, you want it to be fixed And you don't want to be bothered while it does it itself. Windows does this... Linux? I doubt it.

....and Apple has been supporting icons for at least 21 years.....

Ah, well rather great at everything, than the best at one or two things. If anything, that merely downgrades the Icon support of Linux, rather than downgrading the Icon support of Windows.

You would have to be an idiot to install a distro made a spyware writer or something like that....interesting idea though.

Ah, but lots of people are idiots Especially when they don't download it, they have it installed on a PC they get from a ComputerShop for a good price. People like this are people you want to use Linux... Open-Source is not a model these people can use. It would create a world of fear where people don't buy Computers, because they fear the Anarchistic Scum who write the code for their Computers.

Linux is definetaly more popular than windows, with the chinese government anyways or if not; soon will be.

Probably, they are anarchistic crazy people. Linux will fit in perfectly with them. But only the Government. Microsoft will win the people.

haha, I wouldn't be to surprised if windows was someday unix based. You know how the saying goes "If you can't beat them, join them"

How could that happen? It wouldn't be Windows if it was Unix based It would have a different Kernal and wouldn't support any Drivers! It would be Lindows all over again...

 

[Tulsileaf]

Who makes a search engine a Homepage? What people need as their Homepage, is MyMSN. That is a damned good site...

no it isn't.

If W3C paid attention to how it is done and has been for years, every page would render properly in every Browser. Lots of other browsers use the Internet Explorer way of doing things. Not just Internet Explorer. Just because one browser has decided it doesn't like Microsoft and wants to render their pages another way, doesn't mean every other browser should change. And - if all Developers (mainly Open-Source Anarchistic ones) were to code their pages properly, there would be no rendering issues

The rendering issues are due to Microsoft's blatent disregard for every convention and standard created.
W3C is jointly administered by MIT (with offices on the fifth floor of the Gates Tower in the Stata Center), ERCIM (in Sophia Antipolis, France), and Keio University (in Japan).

Internet Explorer is the standard; whether Microsoft believes it (officially) or not, it is. I don't know how you see the word 'standard' but if you were asked, what is the standard way of rendering a page in HTML, how would you answer?

Standards are a set of properties a product should have. The standards for HTML are set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
The standards set by W3C are internationally recognized. The supposed standards set by MS are only followed by Anglicized nations. There is a racial divide behind it.

The .doc Format is still something touted by a number of companies in how they can support it though? Hence a standard in Office Documents.

Which .doc format of Microsoft's are you refering to? MS has changed it so many times in an attempt to force people to upgrade. The .doc format also is a source of spyware. Anyways, many governments are adopting more open document formats so that they do not become dependant on MS.

Haha, hype my good man People will always make it.

I'm not good. I'm a bad, wicked man, or so that teenage lesbian nympho keeps telling me in emails.

Microsoft.com renders just the same in Firefox and Internet Explorer for me. I notice no difference, I get no lack of use.

The pages do load differently in IE and Firefox. Want to see? click the link: http://www.freewebs.com/tulsileaf/ievsfirefox.html

Sometimes the fonts are a little crazy, but simple Zoomin fixes that. Code problems will always happen on huge sites like Hotmail and Microsoft.com. Especially when browsers try to be rebelious and Microsoft have to fix the problem other Browsers cause.

Code problems occur because MS programmers are inferior and sloppy.

Yeah... you could But if you could do that, you wouldn't need Support at all! I am talking about Support, for those who need things fixed for them Patches... help doing something... help installing something... Allowing people to download and compile and new Kernal is not help, it is a hinderence if it is the only way to fix something... If your Window Manager is out of date, you want it to be fixed And you don't want to be bothered while it does it itself. Windows does this... Linux? I doubt it.

Doubt no longer.

Ah, well rather great at everything, than the best at one or two things. If anything, that merely downgrades the Icon support of Linux, rather than downgrading the Icon support of Windows.

Your rating of an os depends strongly on the gui, not the actual quality of the system itself.

Ah, but lots of people are idiots

maybe. these must obviously be the people who watched "Titanic" to see how it ended.

Especially when they don't download it, they have it installed on a PC they get from a ComputerShop for a good price. People like this are people you want to use Linux... Open-Source is not a model these people can use. It would create a world of fear where people don't buy Computers, because they fear the Anarchistic Scum who write the code for their Computers.

Or fear fascist scum who try to take over their computers.

Probably, they are anarchistic crazy people. Linux will fit in perfectly with them. But only the Government. Microsoft will win the people.

yes, stupid people may be. The whitehouse servers do not run Windows. I suppose the whitehouse is filled with anarchists

How could that happen? It wouldn't be Windows if it was Unix based It would have a different Kernal and wouldn't support any Drivers! It would be Lindows all over again...

ewww...Lindows.....
DOS is based on UNIX, Windows is based on DOS.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

no it isn't.

Well Google and Yahoo and other sites think so. Who invented the MyMSN Feed button that turned into Yahoo Feed Button and even a CNet Feed Button... Sites that could generate RSS information and show it in usercontrollable Bits. MyMSN rules in this for one simple reason. MyMSN actually does what Google and Yahoo try to do. You can drag the Boxes around, rearrage them at will. You can rearrange them in Yahoo, but it involves clicking, not dragging. That is the genius of MyMSN.

The rendering issues are due to Microsoft's blatent disregard for every convention and standard created.
W3C is jointly administered by MIT (with offices on the fifth floor of the Gates Tower in the Stata Center), ERCIM (in Sophia Antipolis, France), and Keio University (in Japan).

Oh well, if a lot of fancy Universities came up with it Microsoft are battle hardened Web Designers, if there is anything to know about Web Development, at least one person at Microsoft who does Internet Explorer and their sites know about it and have learnt about it and from it.

Standards are a set of properties a product should have. The standards for HTML are set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
The standards set by W3C are internationally recognized. The supposed standards set by MS are only followed by Anglicized nations. There is a racial divide behind it.

Nope, Windows and Internet Explorer is in a vast number of Countries, Middle Eastern, Asian, African, South American and Australian. Anybody with access to a computer has access to the power of the Internet Explorer standards that should be recognised as the over all standards.

Which .doc format of Microsoft's are you refering to? MS has changed it so many times in an attempt to force people to upgrade. The .doc format also is a source of spyware. Anyways, many governments are adopting more open document formats so that they do not become dependant on MS.

As far as I can tell, Word 2003 Version .doc Formats are actually XML. The rest are even more, in the next version of Office, all of them.The .doc Format is no more a source of spyware than any other format. A lot of Document Versions can be used for spyware, doesn't make them bad, it makes some people bad and we should be on the look out for those types of files. Governments have the money to adopt their own Operating System for their systems... and more than enough HUman Resources. They use Windows because it is the best, and is easier for their Workers. Just as they use Word 2003 and will continue to in reasonable countries where Interoperability is required.

I'm not good. I'm a bad, wicked man, or so that teenage lesbian nympho keeps telling me in emails.

Hmmm... you'll have to give me her e-mail. She sounds interesting.

The pages do load differently in IE and Firefox. Want to see? click the link: http://www.freewebs.com/tulsileaf/ievsfirefox.html

Well you see, there is one browser in the wrong here isn't there Firefox. It seems to take Grey to mean Gray. Now it could just be me, but Grey is the second name of a nobleman who makes posh Tea (early Grey) Gray is the proper way to say the Hexidecimal representation of #888 (check it out here).

Which is wrong then? The one that confuses a misspelt word and points out that something is wrong when you view it; or the one that takes the misspelt word and doesn't ever tell you?

Code problems occur because MS programmers are inferior and sloppy.

Code problems occur in Linux In fact, while it shouldn't happen, many Microsoft programmers work on Linux also. Microsoft Programmers have managed to create the most stable under pressure software you will ever see Microsoft Programs operate perfectly in everyday situations under more load than you could get a Linux Program to run with at all

Doubt no longer.

Are you saying, however subtly, that Linuz patches its Operating Systems for up to five years after it was originally released without any help from the User?

Your rating of an os depends strongly on the gui, not the actual quality of the system itself.

It does, because that is one large part of an Operating System. Although of course, what Windows suffers in a day on all its systems and stands up to in all but a few score computers a day, Linux has never been tested in. Nor will it ever be.

maybe. these must obviously be the people who watched "Titanic" to see how it ended.

Nobody did that. They watched it to see Kate Winslet's Boobs.

Or fear fascist scum who try to take over their computers.

Windows doesn't take over your Computer. It merely tries its best to save you from yourself, most if not all the things you can't do with Windows are dangerous for anybody but a few professionals who in which case are fully capable of getting around it.

yes, stupid people may be. The whitehouse servers do not run Windows. I suppose the whitehouse is filled with anarchists

Nah, because the White House Servers don't actually run Linux either They run some kind of crazy Capitalist Evil Operating System built t save money as much as possible.

ewww...Lindows.....
DOS is based on UNIX, Windows is based on DOS.

Ah, but is MSDOS? I'm not too sure myself...

 

[x0r515t]

Who makes a search engine a Homepage? What people need as their Homepage, is MyMSN. That is a damned good site...

Let's try to stick to the facts, since neither of us seems to be able to find an official source telling the number one homepage, let's just forget it.

I don't know how you see the word 'standard' but if you were asked, what is the standard way of rendering a page in HTML, how would you answer?

I would just say check the W3C for compliance of course

The .doc Format is still something touted by a number of companies in how they can support it though? Hence a standard in Office Documents. Haha, hype my good man People will always make it. Microsoft.com renders just the same in Firefox and Internet Explorer for me. I notice no difference, I get no lack of use. Sometimes the fonts are a little crazy, but simple Zoomin fixes that. Code problems will always happen on huge sites like Hotmail and Microsoft.com. Especially when browsers try to be rebelious and Microsoft have to fix the problem other Browsers cause.

Other browsers cause? If you really think that, you obviously didn't read over this link:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/200...02-hotmail.html
M$ was actually sending different code to Opera than it would to other browsers. If you ask me, behavior like this is simply inexcusable. The Opera developers even informed M$ of the problem and how to fix it, and M$ ignored it.

Yeah... you could But if you could do that, you wouldn't need Support at all! I am talking about Support, for those who need things fixed for them Patches... help doing something... help installing something... Allowing people to download and compile and new Kernal is not help, it is a hinderence if it is the only way to fix something... If your Window Manager is out of date, you want it to be fixed And you don't want to be bothered while it does it itself. Windows does this... Linux? I doubt it.

We have two different definitions of 'support' then
Although now that I think of it, there is "patches" released for the linux kernel, check kernel.org for yourself. Allowing people to download and install a new kernel is a kind of support, it allows one to update their system. After all, Linux could be like M$ and screw all their users to use the same old kernel forever

As for your window manager comment, during the M$ support phase yes that's true, windows update can take care of that. Linux does the same thing depending on the distro, for instance I think red hat uses up2date and SuSE uses YaST for instance. However this is all irrelevant, because I was talking about what you can do with your OS once it's "unsupported" by the manufacturer. For example, if you have windows 98 installed and want to be "supported" again your screwed. Your only choice is to upgrade to a newer windows version, which means buying a costly upgrade and most likely a total loss of all the data on your HD. With Linux you can simply compile yourself a newer kernel, and compile a newer window manager. If your apps are out-of-date you can simply install newer ones. Thats whats so cool about Linux, you can for example install an old version of slackware say slack 7 and upgrade it to -current manually without actually going through an actual OS change. You can even manually upgrade xorg or xfree to current. In the windows world, such drastic upgrades would require you to install a whole new OS.

Ah, well rather great at everything, than the best at one or two things. If anything, that merely downgrades the Icon support of Linux, rather than downgrading the Icon support of Windows.

First of all Linux really has no icon support, after all it's just a kernel. This issue would mainly be on KDE/Gnome, although I really don't see your point as both these WM's support icons. Although icons are very "old school" if you will. Why have icons cluttering your desktop? thats what /home is for
As for me, I'll stick to my icon-less fluxbox setup. All that eye-candy/bloat is sickening anyways. Why have a file manager anyways? Ever heard of

ls cd mv rm chmod tar chown

Ah, but lots of people are idiots Especially when they don't download it, they have it installed on a PC they get from a ComputerShop for a good price. People like this are people you want to use Linux... Open-Source is not a model these people can use. It would create a world of fear where people don't buy Computers, because they fear the Anarchistic Scum who write the code for their Computers.

Your right, many people are complete morons. But if Linux was as popular as windows to end-users, their would be big "trusted" names such as Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo to name a few. I would hope that most people would be smart enough to only install trusted distros. But then again, since most people buy PC's with the OS pre-installed, a trusted or official distro would already be installed on their PC.

Probably, they are anarchistic crazy people. Linux will fit in perfectly with them. But only the Government. Microsoft will win the people.

Linux isn't for "anarchistic crazy people" it's for people who want control

How could that happen? It wouldn't be Windows if it was Unix based It would have a different Kernal and wouldn't support any Drivers! It would be Lindows all over again...

Well "mac is still mac" and it is now unix based...besides it wouldn't have to be a linux based kernel, it could be a custom MS unix based kernel.

 

[Tulsileaf]

hehe, Microsoft Linux comes to mind

 

[dyserq]

hehe, Microsoft Linux comes to mind

This comes to mind

 

[Tulsileaf]

dyserq, you sir have risen greatly in my book of ranks and taxonomies.