Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X and Windows Vista...some random thoughts...
- Thread starter qtip919
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While we're on the subject, did anyone catch how they're making windows draw on Vista? Microsoft is making it so that if an application does hang, it won't "make a mess" of the workspace. Meaning that you're not going to see a blank white window that failed to re-draw because it hung, you'll just see a message on the titlebar saying your fux0red. So hilarious. Instead of working on making it look purdy, why don't they work on some catches that prevent the damn thing from hanging in the first place?
BTW, Vista will come with new games bundled like Chess! Finally Chess!! And they look gorgous too. But of course not a whole lot else has changed. Sadly.
BTW, Vista will come with new games bundled like Chess! Finally Chess!! And they look gorgous too. But of course not a whole lot else has changed. Sadly.
thirdkind and Randall, you both missed the point of my post. You both found things to argue with me about, when I really don't think it's worth debating because I'm not going to be able to change you minds.
To make you happy, I was in a BJ's wholesale club today and was playing with a PC that cost $799. I was running Home, and had 512 MB RAM. It actually worked (extremely fast as far as response goes - much faster than my G4)! Which made me smile. If I could take it home, add the few apps I need, get online, and it still worked just as good, then I'd be a split Windows/Mac user (obviously favoring my Macs
). Having the convenience of a Windows machine would be nice at times, assuming using it wasn't painful. However, it seems the minute you mess around with the computer just a tiny bit, everything goes awry.
To make you happy, I was in a BJ's wholesale club today and was playing with a PC that cost $799. I was running Home, and had 512 MB RAM. It actually worked (extremely fast as far as response goes - much faster than my G4)! Which made me smile. If I could take it home, add the few apps I need, get online, and it still worked just as good, then I'd be a split Windows/Mac user (obviously favoring my Macs
). Having the convenience of a Windows machine would be nice at times, assuming using it wasn't painful. However, it seems the minute you mess around with the computer just a tiny bit, everything goes awry. 
thirdkind said:
Well right, the security model is Windows' fatal flaw, IMO -- the one big bug that looms larger than 100 small ones. Microsoft could have built in more safeguards, but they haven't, and they've manufactured major vulnerabilities, like ActiveX.
Microsoft designed and heavily promoted Windows to the corporate world of
IT system administrators, CIO's and advertisers, deliberately empowering them with the privledge of monitoring every single move you make on your computer.
It didn't take long before others figured out how to take advantage of this briiliant plan and now look at the mess they've created.
If the corporate world had any guts what so ever, they would scrap Windows and back charge Microsoft for all the billions they've wasted
trying to keep their systems secure.
IT system administrators, CIO's and advertisers, deliberately empowering them with the privledge of monitoring every single move you make on your computer.
It didn't take long before others figured out how to take advantage of this briiliant plan and now look at the mess they've created.
If the corporate world had any guts what so ever, they would scrap Windows and back charge Microsoft for all the billions they've wasted
trying to keep their systems secure.
Plymouthbreezer said:
Sometimes it's important simply to get the ideas out there, even if the other party isn't interested in hearing them. If someone misrepresents Windows' capabilities, I'll respond because there are others viewing the thread besides the participants and they need to see the other point of view for the sake of fairness and accuracy.
To make you happy, I was in a BJ's wholesale club today and was playing with a PC that cost $799. I was running Home, and had 512 MB RAM. It actually worked (extremely fast as far as response goes - much faster than my G4)! Which made me smile. If I could take it home, add the few apps I need, get online, and it still worked just as good, then I'd be a split Windows/Mac user (obviously favoring my Macs
Well, I wouldn't touch that piece of junk
I don't know what you're talking about as far as messing with the computer "just a tiny bit", but I've never owned a Windows box where "everything goes awry" because I actually used it. That's just silly.
You guys get your ideas about Windows from box pushers like Dell, HP, etc. That's a company's version of what a PC should be. Don't forget that, unlike a Mac, you can roll your own. I've never had a problem with XP on the machines I build. Find a knowledgeable person to build you a PC and stay away from the big manufacturers.
FFTT said:
I'm ignorant of the inner workings of OS X, so maybe you can answer this. Would OS X allow the same sort of detailed monitoring by IT staff while also providing the same solid security it does in its default configuration?
Besides, IT staff are made aware of the fact that securing Windows is their responsibility. That's what they're there for. Keep in mind that many Windows security "patches" only change default settings to close things that were shipped open. It's not really a bug being corrected, just a bad decision. XP SP2 was designed to make Windows security more Mac-like by disabling/enabling things that used to be configured in an insecure way. Vista will be the same way.
I may not like the idea of my company watching my computer use, but it's perfectly within their right to monitor such activity, especially when people at my company have been busted storing massive amounts of MP3s and porn (of all things) on PUBLIC share drives
MS was smart to go after corporate America. That's how they got so rich.
thirdkind said:
You should watch the "you guys" stuff. The first and only PC I've ever personally owned I personally built. One of the things I learned from this experience is that box-building is not for everyone. In fact, it's hardly for anyone but genuinely technically savvy people. Those of us who are technically savvy tend to forget that the vast majority of people are not technically savvy, and that this is not their fault. The simple facts: of the PCs in use today, the overwhelming majority were built by OEMs like Dell and HP. So I think it does no good at all to suggest that these products don't accurately represent the PC-using experience.
thirdkind said:
Microsoft got so rich by having a virtual monopoly dropped into their laps, and then by having no qualms about expanding that monopoly by illegal means.
IJ Reilly said:
It's not Microsoft's fault they have to support a real userbase with thousands of different hardware configurations while Apple forces you to choose among a grand total of three Power Macs at any given time.
Much easier to give the impression of perfection and stability when you close the architecture.
Then why isn't Bill Gates in jail?
Actually, I believe it is their fault. If they wanted to setup a stricter set of hardware configurations, they could have, but they decided security and stability were not as important as actually making a good product.thirdkind said:
They have one of the best legal teams in the world.thirdkind said:
thirdkind said:
Fine, but this doesn't respond to my point in the least.
thirdkind said:
Is this a serious question? Microsoft has been hauled up on antitrust charges in just about every nation in the western world. They have lost consistently and have paid out huge sums and been slapped with numerous restraints on their behavior. You have heard about all of this, have you not?
EricNau said:
Not really. Their great legal team loses just about every antitrust case they face.
It's OK. Way too much transparency, and the black with grass background is kinda ugly. Here's to hoping that Microsoft will force people to use something not so ugly!
True, I forgot that all of those cases were ended with large amounts of money being paid, not Microsoft actually winning.IJ Reilly said:
I don't usderstand why Windows users always bring this up as a Mac fault. It should be quite apparent that this "terrible downfall" you (and many others) point out does not really bother the Mac population at the least. Only people like you.thirdkind said:
Again, what is so wrong with that?
thirdkind said:
You obviously do not have long enough technical background. Please stop blaming hardware manufacturers about Windows' flaws, as you should very well know that it is Microsoft who has created most instability of the whole IT industry.
I have installed every single Windows version since 1.0 and I only regret I didn't have access to betas before that. So far I have only seen two such Windows versions that have succeeded to have uptime of 1 year in a randomly selected hardware; those two are NT4 (with service pack three) and Windows 2003. You know how many different Windows versions are out there, and only two of them are "not bad". Count the percentage if you have the guts.
On the other hand, I can have confidence that every single UNIX installation (including OSX versions, mind you) on a supported hardware can succeed in as much uptime than the hardware itself can handle. That is, if there are not absolutely mandatory kernel updates to be done.
But yes, you're right: Windows is the operating system. It just fails in delivering reliability and security, and therefore "everything IT guys vomit all over it" has become Microsoft's problem that they have shown to be unable to handle. If only they had guts to not support sub-standard hardware, they might have a chance, but as they have chosen to support what shouldn't even exist, they have effectively made that "vomit" their problem. So yes, you CAN and you SHOULD blame them.
20 years of instability is not an accident.
IJ Reilly said:
I see a lot of pending litigation and payouts, but where is this endless string of losses? When you make billions, it's easier to pay than it is to fight. Welcome to the American legal system.
MS is huge, so they get smacked. I bet if you dug into Apple's business practices, you'd find some big ugly skeletons in there. Don't even try to tell me that Jobs' ego isn't big enough to shove other people around, legal or not.
And so what if the Europeans fine MS? Is there an American action or institution Europeans don't whine about these days?
I think it burns you that the world economy seems to be chugging along just fine despite running on this pile of crap called Windows created by an evil, twisted American corporation bent on world domination.
JFreak said:
My new Power Mac has required three hard restarts in as many months. I still like it a lot, but lumping it in with other UNIX operating systems is crazy. Try to sell a UNIX sysadmin on an OS that locks up once a month and he'll laugh in your face.
I seem to remember decades of Mac operating systems that could barely get through a single day, let alone months and months of uptime. Macs only became synonymous with stability when OS X hit the market. Excuse me--when OS X was updated for the second time.
Sounds pretty similar to XP.
How did you guys come up with a longer yardstick with which to measure MS than you do Apple? You should patent it. Quite an invention.
thirdkind said:
You seem to enjoy putting words into people's mouths. Please don't. I prefer to express my own ideas. Okay?
The simple fact is, Microsoft hasn't won a single antitrust action taken up against them. By one estimate I've seen, they've already paid around $9 billion in settlements. This is not because they are "big" (a lot of companies are big), but because they break the law. They've been doing this for over 20 years now.
IJ Reilly said:
You go, you! Think different! Or, if grammar matters to you, "differently".
You can also enclose the period at the end of that sentence within the quotation marks if you prefer traditional American style.
IJ Reilly said:
A drop in the bucket.
No one cares what Apple does because they're small. You think they've spent the last 20 years playing by the book? Please.
Still loving my Power Mac, by the way
thirdkind said:
And this means what, exactly? Approximately?
thirdkind said:A drop in the bucket.
No one cares what Apple does because they're small. You think they've spent the last 20 years playing by the book? Please.
Still loving my Power Mac, by the way
The size of the bucket and the number of drops are immaterial. Plenty of people care about what Apple does; in fact they are being challenged on antitrust grounds as we speak. But the fact is Microsoft has been sued and lost for anticompetitive practices, often. This is because they break the law, as a matter of habit. It's Microsoft's philosophy that eliminating a competitor by illegal means and then paying a penalty is cheaper in the long run than competing with them. This isn't a matter of size, speculation, buckets or drops. It's just a fact. You should read up on this history of Microsoft. You'd be surprised -- apparently.
Isn't the anti-competitive practice they keep getting sued ("often") over the fact that they include Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player as part of the OS?IJ Reilly said:
I know Microsoft did some real shady things in the 90's (like threatening to pull the license from OEMs that removed the IE shortcut from new computers' desktops, and offering rebates to OEMs to encourage them to only produce Windows machines), but when it comes to getting sued often, it always seems to roll back to IE and WMP being included as part of Windows.
aristobrat said:
Partly. The first time they were sued for anticompetitive practices was in the 1980s. They lost the case, but the company that sued them (Stac) went away so Microsoft really won. From this they learned a lesson: Eliminate competitors by any means necessary. It's cheaper in the long run to pay a settlement for breaking the law than to compete. They've been applying that lesson to their business practices ever since.
The FTC began investigating complaints against Microsoft in the early '90s but deadlocked on bringing charges. Then the Department of Justice took over. After years in the courts, this case resulted in the issuance of an extensive Finding of Fact document by a federal judge. This document is over 100 pages long, and reads as quite an indictment of the way the company does business, from how they strong-arm OEMs to the use of illegal product tying to defeat competitors.
The Finding of Fact was essentially gutted by the Bush administration when they took over as far as government remedies were concerned, but the findings were used by a long list of companies to support civil antitrust suits against Microsoft. Included were AOL, Be, IBM, Apple, Caldera, Sun, Novell... a virtual who's who of technology companies were able to demonstrate damages from Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Microsoft has had to fork out billions to settle them.
Now they are facing fines from EU for similar reasons.
Interesting Wikipedia article on this issue. So in 1993, Microsoft was found to have unwillingly infringed on the patents of a company that had stolen technology from Microsoft. Nice.IJ Reilly said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics