All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows XP Service Pack 2 Build 2082
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
[qb]Service packs are defiantly a good thing,
--- End quote ---
I agree. IF THEY WORKED! If one was to use a patching process on any other OS. That patch would solve the problem that was there in the first place. The ONLY OS that this is not true is with Microsoft, Thus they are the ones that get heavily critisized. This pluse the fact that they have the most market share and have been out for a long time now, they should now what they are doing. They do not!
quote:
they are an indication that MS is trying to fix their bugey operating system.
--- End quote ---
Covering up a hole rather than actually fixing it is NOT an indication of them fixing the problem.
quote:
I must admit that in the past, one service pack contained a bug that was responsible for a new exploit,
--- End quote ---
Well at least you acknowledge the problem.
quote:but the net result of using it was good, as it fixed other exploits.
--- End quote ---
Code Red, Nimda, my doom ... Just to name a few, pluse the agrivation to what those patches caused (Slow downs, crashes etc... ) If that shows a net result of using these patches are good.....
quote:
Despite what some people say, Windows has improved a lot over the last decade.
--- End quote ---
windows 3.1 to 95 is not a decade! There HAS BEEN NO improvments if THE SAME PROBLEMS ARE present in ALL OF THEM!
quote:
I would admit that these improvements have not been good enough.
--- End quote ---
Well, they haven't improved at all. The only thing that has changed is their PR and the FUD campain has been more intense. when it comes to the actual performance to the OS, it has not changed since the days of windows 95!
quote:Windows 3.1 was the first reasonably mature version,
--- End quote ---
I'd say windows 95. Even with those instability and security problems that continue in ALL M$ OS'es anyways.. You can install alot of software that was available at that time. Pluse it had some sort of hardware detection process where it would ask for a driver. Where as windows 3.1 didn't even have that much!
quote:and it has only seen 2 major upgrades. Windows95 & Windows 2000, both of these have been a significant improvement on the previous.
--- End quote ---
I agree. That windows 95 was better than windows 3.1. Pluse windows 2000 was better than NT4. BUT in the current scheme of things windows XP, 2k3 et all have been a vast disapointment and annoyance!
quote:
I can give technical details as to why each major upgrade of Windows is significantly better to the previous,
--- End quote ---
Of course you can. But thats all BS when in the end ALL OF THEM HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS!
quote:
when all that some people can come up, are BS accounts of their personal experiences and similar here say.
--- End quote ---
You mean when YOU say that people are stating BS. When infact allot of these complaints have been in the news, forums and even from regular windows users!
Its even reconized by M$ themselves.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=b997cc5f-4483-4edc-a17e-6f659a033b0d&DisplayLang=en
You can NOT discount the majority of complaints when pritty much everyone that uses M$ software in some way have the same complaints!
They are not there to look at the technical aspect. They want their shit to work and to give the enduserbadhardwaresoftware exuse all the time is not fixing the problem!
quote:MS does not release services packs and upgrades for no reason,
--- End quote ---
Of course not. When they release a service pack for WMP. Instead of fixing the actual problems in the software. They added stronger DRM that nocked off some codecs Causing more problems to the end user.
This is news on WMP9. But a pach has autmatically downloaded and installed to do the same thing in Windows Media player 7 and 8 as well via auto update.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/24/1030052995857.html?oneclick=true
quote:
they don't do it to fuck your computer up!
--- End quote ---
Read above!
quote:
They do it for a good reason.
--- End quote ---
Yes, for their own benifit and reason!
quote:
I know Linux has improved at faster rate than Windows but this doesn't mean that Windows has stood still.
--- End quote ---
If you mean that little sentence of windows 95 being better than windows 3.1 and windows 2000 being better than NT4 then yes agree they have not stood still! But when it comes to the actual progress of M$.
Windows 95 to Windows 2k3 then yes they have! The only thing that is different is their tight intergrating has gotten alot tighter over the years.
But that reflects M$ stratagy for the up comming Longhorn where software (Including the OS) is rented rather than owned. and the GUI of M$ windows. Meaning that its now skinnable. Somthing that has been done in KDE since version 1.
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
skyman8081:
Solaris, your logic in this debate is wrong.
You have not provided any new information at all, which changes this from debate to argument/flamewar.
your logic is: If X is true and Y is in the same class as X, then Y is true, e.g.
quote:If some of the class "Windows Patches" causes crashes, then ALL instances of that class cause crashes.
--- End quote ---
you can see where this logic falters.
I apologise if that is not your intent. However, that is that implication of the choice of words that you used.
nlother logical error that you are making is that you base your arguments that your main point is unrevocably true and any contradicting evidence is wrong., e.g. if X is true and Y contradicts X, than Y is wrong. While this is not incorrect per 'se you fail to provide evidence foryou claims, assuming that the reader knows exactly what you mean.
Again, I apologise if that is not your intent. That is just the assumption that you lead the reader to make.
Zombie9920:
Solaris is just one of those blind zealots who one can't debate with. Every OS has its' blind zealots(Windows/MacOS/Linux/Unix,etc.).
Nothing that MS does will ever be good to him because he is a blind zealot. He acts as if non-=MS software doesn't have problems/bugs/holes/bloat(even though it does...nothing is perfect).
Anyways, there is no reason to debate with him because you will get nowhere.
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Solaris is just one of those blind zealots who one can't debate with. Every OS has its' blind zealots(Windows/MacOS/Linux/Unix,etc.).
Nothing that MS does will ever be good to him because he is a blind zealot. He acts as if non-=MS software doesn't have problems/bugs/holes/bloat(even though it does...nothing is perfect).
Anyways, there is no reason to debate with him because you will get nowhere.
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
--- End quote ---
Such as yourself. no! I have VALID arguments when it comes to M$. If you agree or disagree that is your opinion. But if I was wrong then those thousands of complaints, news stories etc... would not exist. We ere talking about patching and aloone stated that M$ was patching to solve a problem. I stated that this was incorrect then that problem would go away and not perpetuate into a bigger problem or have things fixed that really don't need fixing.
Of course other OS'es have their flaws. Even OpenBSD has flaws! The fundemental difference is that Microsoft is driven by Marketing and PR! This is hwo Microsoft was born and survived. They have not done nothing like all other OS manufactures have done. That is make a quality OS with the people in mind.
However. Like I've continually stated in the past M$ has its place. As a hobby OS where writting viruses and discovering how trojans and spyware works is great for M$ boxes since its easy for newbies wanting to know such information to understand it.
Viper. If you want to count anyone as a zealot. Count yourself since zealots would make things up in mid air "Linux does not follow any standards."
We have come to the conclusing of microsoft, not because of JUST absolut FUD. But by their own actions that contradicts the FUD that they spread.
skyman8081:
And that would be argumentum ad hominem.
Instead of disproving his postings, you say that they are wrong because it was Viper who said it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version