Money grabbing Microsoft

[Melanth]

XP was a system, not a perfect system, but it could be persuaded to work most of the time, even if you spent a few hours gouging nail marks into the desk or yelling at the monitor.

Then came Vista. To the general welcome of a fart in a crowded elevator.

Workable by itself, arguably more user friendly. Works with absolutly NOTHING from the earlier generations, which is most of everything, and has an attitude problem the size of Mt Everest. Good luck using the search. Also known as the Jedi system; "these arent the files you are looking for...."

And now we have MORE to look forwards to. Oh joy. The anticipation is killing me, or is it the sudden lack of a will to live?

Seems that Vista was so badly recieved that Microsoft, (no doubt rubbing their dirty little mits with lustful glee) just had to go and, entirely out of the goodness of their hearts, make an entirely new OS that will be available to everyone for a modest fee of about a billion pounds, dollars or currency of choice. Purportedly it will work with most of XP and most of Vista. Probably. Maybe. Hopefully.

Why is this not surprising? and why will it be even less surprising when everyone has to spend another load of hard earned cash getting new drivers, systems and programs when the new OS (that will no doubt become the base for EVERYTHING, making XP and Vista obsolete) refuses to work with either. Gees, you would think that a company with an annual turnover that rivals most of sub Saharan Africa would be able to keep their grabbing little hands in their pockets for a couple of years, but it just isnt to be. Microsoft wants your money and if they have to beat you over the head with a big stick to get it they will! never mind that the price of food has gone up and petrol might as well have 9 carat stamped on the side, all powerful overlords of microsoft need more money for their bloated expense accounts.

All hail comrad Stali- Bill Gates! *insert accompanying marching soundtrack and parade footage here*

[Steelclaw]

You seem like you might have enough patience and uhm... the mindset to go about running Linux as a desktop OS.

With hardware accelerated OpenGL libraries (usually bundled in the vendor-supplied driver for your video card), you can expect to see gaming performance comparable to what you'd get on Vista.

As far as Hori- Istaria goes, it runs a heck of a lot better on Linux (with Wine) than it does on Vista. You just need to be a little creative with patching.

[pevil2000]

heh ah come on, it happens with EVERY windows release... though some of course are actually better than others *misses the days of 98 though xp is ok* But really, M$ suck, I won't argue with you on that one! Trouble is I, unlike Steelclaw, don't have the patience for Linux (hate the thing) and would love a Mac but most games don't work on it and I can't be bothered with emulators to run most of my programs *sigh*

I do find it amusing that my silly flatmate (who is in debt...) bought Vista. Mwahahaha. Silly, silly man.

[Drakkon]

The horrible thing is M$ is doing junk like making DX10 Vista only, and stopping selling XP to force people into Vista. I'm personally dual booted because XP doesn't use all my new hardware, need Vista 64 for that, but a few of my programs will not run on Vista and there's no update.

[RuneDragoon]

XP was a system, not a perfect system, but it could be persuaded to work most of the time, even if you spent a few hours gouging nail marks into the desk or yelling at the monitor.

Then came Vista. To the general welcome of a fart in a crowded elevator.

...

Also known as the Jedi system; "these arent the files you are looking for...."

My dad fell off his work chair laughing. Thank you Melanth.

[Melanth]

the simple fact of the matter is that if you dont upgrade your system with the new release OS then you cant actually get anything new. Every time M$ releases a new OS the old one is left to rot. People are only just getting used to Vista and now theyre throwing out another one, that no doubt everyone will have to upgrade to after spending all their money on stinking Vista? its not even as if M$ needs th money in any case, but thats the start and th end if it. Microsoft; in your computers, stealing your moneys *fury*

[Sigi]

All hail comrad Stali- Bill Gates! *insert accompanying marching soundtrack and parade footage here*

A really good rant, funny too (though it is a serious problem) But to say Bill is a "comrad" (communist type) is weird while he is the prime example of a free market driven capitalist.

[LOVWYRM]

Thy Melanth, for this rant.
Talking about Vista- at least YOU made us smile.

Noone pays us for our time fighting with it, when Flame and me bought
our new pc`s.

[Melanth]

to say Bill is a "comrad" (communist type) is weird while he is the prime example of a free market driven capitalist.

Thanks ^^ and i used that because the soviet state basically wanted to own you wholesale, which is what microsoft seem to be trying to do very successfullywith the software industry and because they have essentially a momopoly, they are free to fix prices at ridiculous levels and expect people to pay them. Yay for corporate facism >___>

[Sigi]

Thanks ^^ and i used that because the soviet state basically wanted to own you wholesale, which is what microsoft seem to be trying to do very successfullywith the software industry and because they have essentially a momopoly, they are free to fix prices at ridiculous levels and expect people to pay them. Yay for corporate facism >___>

The soviet state indeed used fixed prices and limited choice in products but they didn't ask ridiculous high prices, certainly not for base products (and an OS is a base product). Those fixed prices were to ensure base products were obtainable for everybody and would prevent exactly what Gates is doing, asking a ridiculous high price. The high prices and blowing your concurents out of the market really is capitalistic and not communistic . Monopoly is the capitalist game . Sadly there is no law (as far as I know) against monopolism (lol, I guess that would be called a commi-law by some).

[Zexoin]

Sadly there is no law (as far as I know) against monopolism (lol, I guess that would be called a commi-law by some).

Wasn't M$ condemned by the EU court for that ?

[Sigi]

Wasn't M$ condemned by the EU court for that ?

Yes, you are right And I also forgot about the antitrust laws and such (stupid me )

[Dhalin]

Microsoft does suck, and I really wish game companies could afford to switch over to total Linux. It will never happen though, if Microsoft keeps paying people just the right money and such. *grumbles*

Windows XP was actually a good OS, even when it was first released. Not the best, no, but... it was better than its predecessor (WindowsME, dare I even utter that piece of crap's name), and better than its successor (Vista).

Sorta like Win98SE, no? Better than 95 or FE, but better than ME. *grins* Vista is turning out to be another WinME, to be honest.

And me? I build all of my computers from parts, and currently, WindowsXP does everything I need it to do. Sure there's that 3.5GB RAM limit, and DX9 limit, but... none of these limits affect any of the games/applications I have plans of working with anytime soon, so guess what? Micro$uck hasn't gotten any of my money for years. I've been running the same two installations of WindowsXP for the last several years, just re-installing when needs be, but using the same license. They aren't getting any of my money, nor will they until they give me an OS that is worth using.

Oh, and I use Linux on my laptop, since it does nothing but text/browser/IM/email/etc. Linux is easier than ever to use, give them some time, maybe game developers will slowly move towards it. With all of the bugs that Microsuck's new OSs have, who knows. Maybe there'll be a mass rebellion when more and more people learn just who has the better OS.

That, and if more people went to Linux... then maybe Apple/Mac would learn to stop making grossly overpriced computers. I can literally make a computer just as strong as anything Apple can put out, for a fraction of the price, all I have to do is stick Linux on it. PCs aren't inherently bad; it is the stupid OS that is on 90% of them. The fault is purely with Windows and Micro$uck. That's the only reason why Apples/Macs are "Better" than PCs. Get rid of Micro$uck, and PCs will outdo Macs in simple economics.

I mean.... why would you Ever spend upwards of $2500 on a tower you could easily build yourself for $800....?

[Shur]

The problem with Linux is that it's open source. It's great for home use, if you have the knowhow, because it's free and infinitely flexible. It's terrible for business use because it is open source, and thus anyone who care to do so can just sit down and dig throught hte code for exploits or even write their own in if they have the right access.

[Steelclaw]

You can argue that some applications are poorly coded or supported, however, saying that access to source code makes a system more insecure is flawed.

First, not having access to source code doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities that can be exploited. It doesn't mean that such exploits are harder to find too. Consider the track record of exploits for IE (a closed source browser) versus Firefox (open source).

Second, having many eyes looking at source code tends to weed out problems and produce a more robust application. Look at OpenSSH, OpenSSL, and MIT Kerberos. Those applications and libraries are open source and are used to provide access and authentication for electronic commerce as well as sensitive systems that contain things like financial data and medical records.

Third, open source means that a company can perform independent review of the code they're going to use. This means, among other things, that the company can prove to themselves that the application is secure, rather than take some vendor's word for it. Hint: NO vendor is going to say "Our product is not really secure. See, we took a few shortcuts here and there, wrote our own encryption algorithms that our programmer conceived on the back of a dinner napkin, and didn't bother to consult any security experts over our design.".

Fourth, if you honestly believe that exposing the source code for a program would make it less secure, then you must also believe that there are vulnerabilities in that program. Why would you want to use something that you believe has vulnerabilities (and is flawed)? Or, to put it another way, if you're afraid to reveal some part of the source code because it may contain vulnerabilities, it's probably broken and needs to be fixed.

Sorry for the rant. It's that mentality ("the source must be kept secret") and the acceptance of it that leads to the trivialization of computer security (and security in general) and all the problems that stem from trusting a broken procedure.

[Vahrokh]

I don't mind giving out the sources of the programs I do (programmer for a living), and they'll usually pay you more for that.

Unlike Microsoft, I have nothing to be ashamed of and hide, in the code I make.

[Dhalin]

The problem with Linux is that it's open source. It's great for home use, if you have the knowhow, because it's free and infinitely flexible. It's terrible for business use because it is open source, and thus anyone who care to do so can just sit down and dig throught hte code for exploits or even write their own in if they have the right access.

.....yeah, and that's why the number of Windows/IE viruses greatly outnumber the number of Linux/Firefox viruses.....

In fact, to AVOID viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/malware, I am using an open-source, free web browser (Firefox). Horizons is the ONLY thing I dare open IE for, and that is only to make a new character. Once I get the character started, I use the launcher for everything else. Heck, I even use Firefox to manage my account where possible, the only thing IE is required for, is starting the game to create a new character.

So, eh, where again do you get that Open-Source is bad?

Open-Source is...

1). FREE! ($0 to download and install Linux, vs, what, $120+ for Windows Vista?)

2). More Stable, Better, as people program it to make a good product, Not, because they want to make the most hype and money.

3). More Stable, and less CPU-intensive, and less RAM-hogging, as the people who program this stuff, actually use it themselves. Of the people, By the people and For the people, as the saying goes. that doesn't apply to JUST government, it applies to computer programming too. If I program something for my own use, I'm going to program it Good and Right. Every time I've used an open-source, free alternative to paid ones, it was always more stable, and used up less resources, whether it is Firefox vs IE, or Linux vs Windows, or AVG vs Norton.

4). Easier to modify/tweak for your own needs. Windows gives you so few options (without having to dig into Registry files and such, for which there is little to no official documentation for) to fully customize your OS installation. Linux, however, gives you tons of customization, nearly every program has downloadable documentation, that tells you nearly everything you need/want to know about it, assuming you've the computer smarts to understand it. During Linux's installation, it allows you to hand-pick what applications you want/don't want, and once you've installed it, it allows you to automatically install things that were missed, automatically updates Everything that's on your computer, etc, etc. I could write volumes about this, really.

5). More Secure. Whether it is the Root Password system, or the many other security-related things that Linux has within it, it is a lot more secure than the dozens of security flaws found in Windows. Linux isn't impossible to hack, it is just quite a bit harder to. Viruses are a lot less common, and a lot more difficult to deliver and get running on a Linux-based machine.

So... what does Windows got over Linux?

Um.... um... eh.... well, eh.... its... easier to install, if you're a newbie? Well, I can't even say That anymore, I installed the latest Stable version of Debian with very little knowledge of how Linux truly works. Its install walked me right through it, step-by-step just like Windows does! It even offers to keep me updated on programs without even touching Aptitude, this convenient little icon on my desktop that NOTIFIES me (not INSISTS on Downloading Right there and Then!) when new updates are available. Oh, and hey... unless it is a Kernel update, I don't have to restart the computer! Everyone knows that every time you scratch your rear, Windows wants a restart...

So eh... really, what DOES Windows have over Linux? Eh.... well....

Yeah, that's my point.

The only reason to use Windows right now, is because game programmers insist on using Windows. And as WINE/Cedega/etc get better at allowing you to use Windows Apps on Linux, maybe soon, that won't even be a very good reason.

Here's hoping we can finally get rid of Microsoft and Windows, eh?

[RuneDragoon]

.....yeah, and that's why the number of Windows/IE viruses greatly outnumber the number of Linux/Firefox viruses.....

In fact, to AVOID viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/malware, I am using an open-source, free web browser (Firefox). Horizons is the ONLY thing I dare open IE for, and that is only to make a new character. Once I get the character started, I use the launcher for everything else. Heck, I even use Firefox to manage my account where possible, the only thing IE is required for, is starting the game to create a new character.

Same here.

I live in a shared homestay type house and any new students coming in who have computer problems I am asked to resolve.

Every person thus far has not had anti spyware and antivirus software.

So I usually end up installing AVG, Ad Aware, and firefox, explaining in the most basic way why you have to use them.

For those who dont have office but need to read .doc files, I get them open office. Personally, I've switched to OO myself. I love open source, its a magificent concept... Another great example of an open source project is Planeshift. I have not checked up on it in a long while, but pretty sure it is flourishing.

[Steelclaw]

And to complete the derailment of this thread, check out Google docs as an alternative to Open Office Writer or Word.

Yes, you kind of need an internet connection, but your files are backed up, go wherever you have a connection, and they can be collaboratively edited in real-time. (I've done this before, it's just cool!)

[Shur]

i seem to have been thoroughly misunderstood (or perhaps am terrible at communication). it is not that open source software is inherently insecure, it is that it will be viewed that way by anyone looking for business software.

also, in the business environment, Linux is a bad choice in terms of continuity. there are so many linux distributions available that two companes who do a lot of business with each other might wind up with vastly different implementations of linux, and thus be faced with having to have people who know both environments. sometimes flexibility is a bad thing.