Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-12-2009, 05:23 AM   #21
ToastyCheesy
Senior Member
 
ToastyCheesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The 9th Sage View Post
Hm, actually...you said you tried the beta, correct? How is Windows 7 anyway? I'm kind of thinking about it, if it gets rid of/fixes what made Vista annoying. Mostly because there is an app or two I have that would benefit from DirectX10 (such as PCSX2).
I'm fulltime running Windows 7 on all my computers. The main ones at least. I'm left with a low-low end emachine celeron to use until I can get my laptop replaced. it CLAIMS to be vista ready..... oh no, don't even try. it even came with stock 512MB ram.... I upgraded it to 2GB and the cpu still lagged too much for comfort in vista. Windows 7 is definitely faster, and far more compatible with my system. The ui is more consistent, Explorer shortcuts are useful, I think Microsoft got it right this time around.
ToastyCheesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 05:25 AM   #22
The 9th Sage
Senior Member
 
The 9th Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NY State in the US
Posts: 17,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToastyCheesy View Post
I'm fulltime running Windows 7 on all my computers. The main ones at least. I'm left with a low-low end emachine celeron to use until I can get my laptop replaced. it CLAIMS to be vista ready..... oh no, don't even try. it even came with stock 512MB ram.... I upgraded it to 2GB and the cpu still lagged too much for comfort in vista. Windows 7 is definitely faster, and far more compatible with my system. The ui is more consistent, Explorer shortcuts are useful, I think Microsoft got it right this time around.
So, from what you all are saying, it IS really what Vista should've been. I'll have to look into it. It's too bad it's so expensive. I know that it's an OS, but jeez.
__________________
Just can't wait to bomb some Dodongos.
---
http://www.xanga.com/zeldadd

Twitter
The 9th Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 05:51 AM   #23
shawn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,941
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The 9th Sage View Post
So, from what you all are saying, it IS really what Vista should've been. I'll have to look into it. It's too bad it's so expensive. I know that it's an OS, but jeez.

An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.
shawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 06:59 AM   #24
VT-Vincent
Senior Member
 
VT-Vincent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.
Microsoft actually has made a lot of progress in the pricing of their OSes, particularly with Windows 7. A few weeks back, there was actually an offer where you could pre-order Home Premium for $49.99 and Professional for $99.99. They also will be introducing a family pack similar to what Apple does for users with multiple computers.

In the end though, I think it's Microsoft's right to set the price to whatever they please - it's their product. At the same time, I as a consumer also have the right not to buy their product and use an alternative. I think a lot of the litigation against Microsoft has really just penalized them for their success. Look at OS X, Apple bundles their own media store, browser and multiple other applications AND they lock their users in to their hardware. The powers that be in the US and EU have had nothing to say about this just due to one basic reason - they have not had the same commercial success as Microsoft.
__________________


Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
VT-Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2009, 10:58 PM   #25
Fla Flash
Staff (News -- Rom Hacking)
 
Fla Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.
Not for nothing, but with still a majority of apps being released for Windows over the Mac OS's, coming out with a new OS every two or three years that you threaten to stop supporting (see Vista release/XP warning) when a new one comes out seems like Gestapo tactics to me.

Especially when the damned things are over a hundred bucks...

Somebody, (a professional repairman, no less) once commented about the Windows OS's,
"if it doesn't have PRO on the end, it's not finished".

Heh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VT-Vincent View Post
In the end though, I think it's Microsoft's right to set the price to whatever they please - it's their product. At the same time, I as a consumer also have the right not to buy their product and use an alternative. I think a lot of the litigation against Microsoft has really just penalized them for their success. Look at OS X, Apple bundles their own media store, browser and multiple other applications AND they lock their users in to their hardware. The powers that be in the US and EU have had nothing to say about this just due to one basic reason - they have not had the same commercial success as Microsoft.
While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.

Last edited by Reaper man; 08-14-2009 at 11:54 PM. Reason: post merge, use multi quote next time, k?
Fla Flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 06:01 AM   #26
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fla Flash View Post
While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.
You do seem to be looking for an OS that doesn't need security and stability updates every week or so, but you're never going to find one because that's not how software works. Software has bugs, the bugs result in security and stability problems, the updates fix them. Until the day that programmers become superhuman beings that don't make mistakes, we will need these patches to remain somewhat secure.
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 11:44 AM   #27
InVerse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest, U.S.
Posts: 1,489
Default

In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.
InVerse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 04:02 PM   #28
VT-Vincent
Senior Member
 
VT-Vincent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fla Flash
While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.
This is a tough one. As mentioned before, security necessitates frequent updates but I do see where you're coming from. I think it's important to take into account whether the company that creates the software has taken reasonable steps to ensure proactive security based on a general overview of the threats available rather than directly judge them by the number of updates that are released.

An example of this is Windows XP - it is arguably the most insecure consumer OS ever created. It has seen more exploits than any other version of Windows in history and still to this day continues to be insecure due to it's architecture. That OS was built in a different time, in a time when nobody saw a problem with leaving a computer on a broadband connection directly connected to the internet with no firewall in place. Security was obviously a secondary concern in it's design and that's largely Microsoft's fault for not seeing the changing climate and adapting the OS to suit it.

Fast forward to Vista/7. Both operating systems were made in today's era where security concerns as well known and they are now the primary concern when designing pretty much any type of software. While Microsoft has taken steps to solve these issues from lessons learned in the past, I don't think they have gone nearly far enough. In realty, we're still on the same architecture we were back in XP's era (and even it's predecessors) and all they've really done is apply a few band-aids.

In the end, I think Windows needs a fundamental change in architecture to really combat these issues. That's something that could take a very long time to create and also cause a lot of "growing pains" for anyone switching over. If things continue as they do, we'll have no option but to have updates applied this frequently and even then they will not be secure. Just think about how many people actually work on the security side of Windows vs. how many people are out there trying to discover new exploits. With those numbers, I think any company would have a difficult time to say the least.
__________________


Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
VT-Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 04:24 PM   #29
Isildur
Senior Member
 
Isildur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InVerse View Post
In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.
That reminds me, my father once described to me how back in the early and mid 60s, when he used computers for some classes and internships, there were ladies at the labs with whom you would drop off your program, and whose job it was to manage the scheduling of the jobs, feed the cards into the machine, and file the output for you to come back later and pick up. If I recall correctly, he said those ladies were often black, because in those days most other secretarial/clerical-type jobs at universities and large companies were closed to black women; that job was an exception.
__________________
Holding out for Hostess Snack Cakes...
Isildur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 04:34 PM   #30
Fla Flash
Staff (News -- Rom Hacking)
 
Fla Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InVerse View Post
In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.
Uh, desk drawer locks hadn't been invented yet. We just put no trespassing signs on the door and made sure the power was turned off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillymon View Post
You do seem to be looking for an OS that doesn't need security and stability updates every week or so, but you're never going to find one because that's not how software works. Software has bugs, the bugs result in security and stability problems, the updates fix them. Until the day that programmers become superhuman beings that don't make mistakes, we will need these patches to remain somewhat secure.
I dunno about that...I guess I am more patient with Linux because they're all advertised as builds, not a finished product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VT-Vincent View Post
An example of this is Windows XP - it is arguably the most insecure consumer OS ever created.
Hehheh. You've never heard of Windows ME, apparently.
Fla Flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.