Stop Microsoft
Redmond, WA => I Love Microsoft => Topic started by: yourlife on 19 May 2010, 17:59
-
I realized something, the only OS that I like from MS is XP, reason: Steam. Oh dear Steam is coming to Mac, Well, hmm, will I still love Windows XP then...
Linux is not for me, just does not do enough things! And its not exactly, wonderful to look at.
Mac OS X does not have Steam (Yet) and even then games like Portal, how will that work?? Otherwise it is brilliant, Until you find out its so dead easy to turn off, just open anything that isnt by Apple and BOOM. Obviously if you actually want to turn the Mac off, its another story
So Windows (at the moment) is the only best one. But I'm still probably going to buy a Mac over a Windows computer
-
Mac OS X does not have Steam (Yet) and even then games like Portal, how will that work??
Ever head of OpenGL and SDL?
-
Yess, but I mean right clicking
-
Yess, but I mean right clicking
You dont have to use an Apple mouse on an Apple computer. Unless you're like most Apple users.
Therefore buy an Apple mouse that has a right click, like they all have for the last number of years?
-
Yess, but I mean right clicking
Therefore buy an Apple mouse that has a right click, like they all have for the last number of years?
Or any USB mouse for that matter.
Someone I know rights click all the time on his Mac to play The Sims.
-
ok ok
-
Well there's one thing I like about Windows and miss when I'm using Linux: the fact that Windows enables me to use wild cards in file the selection box. No linux desktop environment I've used does this and I really miss it when I'm using Linux. Wild cards are great, if I have a directory with hundreds of files, I can guess part of the name of the file I'm looking for and narrow my options down to ten or so.
-
I right click all the time in OSX. On a MacBook or MacBookPro or even Magic Mouse, placing two fingers on the trackpad and clicking is equivalent to a right click. Even if you have a single button mouse, holding down the cmd key while clicking will also give you a right click. A Mac will recognize any USB or bluetooth mouse and accept right clicks from it. Actually, it has been possible to right click on a Mac with a single-button mouse for over 10 years, I wish people would stop pretending that is still a hindrance to the platform.
-
it is. it's even more stupid (than not supporting right click at all) to sell hardware that can do a right click by some convoluted means, but it doesn't actually have a right button. it's just dumb. It doesn't make your mouse any bigger to have a right button.
-
I disagree. The only reason Apple even has context menus and right-click availability is to support users from outside the Apple paradigm. Right click support and context menus have been built into OSX since day one, just for migrating Windows users. There's nothing in the context menus that isn't available somewhere else - they're just a convenience. If you want all your right-clicking to be done from the mouse, then bring your own mouse.
-
I disagree. The only reason Apple even has context menus and right-click availability is to support users from outside the Apple paradigm. Right click support and context menus have been built into OSX since day one, just for migrating Windows users. There's nothing in the context menus that isn't available somewhere else - they're just a convenience. If you want all your right-clicking to be done from the mouse, then bring your own mouse.
And are Apple are trying to make an inconvenient experience? I don't know how people can defend Apple here...
convenience = right click on the system for context menus etc, right click button on mouse
inconvenience = anything less.
but utter stupidity = convoluted means of doing a right click on a system that doesn't have a right button.
I always thought the one click button served an agreed historic purpose.
-
Windows XP is a pile of dogshit compared to Windows 7. Only a retarded luddite would disagree. Enjoy not being able to cancel I/O operations dude, and enjoy watching explorer (all of it) hang as a result. Windows XP doesn't thread anything correctly, and because of its deficient kernel it is very unstable.
The following very familiar example is impossible on Vista and Windows 7. A user accesses a network share and is browsing around, and Windows XP has a SMB I/O operation open to the host of the share. Kintaro (me) is the administrator on the host which runs Windows 2003 and it itself has stopped responding to anything but that client accessing a share. I give the server a cold reboot with the reset switch. The XP user suddenly notices his explorer.exe window of the network share will not respond. It could snap out of it, given enough time for the IO operation to time out. The user tries to wait for it but gets very impatient as because of Windows XP's explorer.exe's notoriously maleficent threading, nothing is responding involving it. No start menu, no my computer, or anything. Eventually explorer crashes gracefully and restarts showing only half of the icons in the task bar.
How the fuck does anyone put up with that? Either get Linux, or get Windows 7, or for the love of god get a mac! Nobody should just sit and take it, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/10/teacher-charged-attempted-murder-pupil)
-
actually Luddites would probably shun all computer use so they'd be unlikely to voice a preference between different versions of ms windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
-
Oh yes, the best feature of Windows 7 is the fact that it turns off super fast. You just boot it up the first time and BOOM its off. Then for the reason on MSDN and they say YOUR HARDWARE IS NOT FUCKING COMBATIBLE So I have to go spend even MORE FCUKING MONEY, when I chould just buy Windows XP SP3 which will run on pretty much any machine. Even Microsoft knows this, as during a prank call of mine, I asked what OS they were using, Mr Indian Guy replied "Windows XP". Problem sorted, buy any windows platform, get XP. Unless your getting a new computer, then 7 would be fine, but I'd still downgrade to XP. Or get a Mac.
-
Well, I've never used Windows 7 or Vista before and no one has ever convinced me to do so. Quite frankly, I have better things to spend my money on. I wouldn't even pirate it because in order for my PC to run as fast as it does with XP, I'd probably have to upgrade so it isn't worth it.
I've never used Mac OS either but it does seem retarded having a mouse with one button and having to use the keyboard to emulate another button. I think that would drive me mad, even two button mice piss me off, I have to have a scroll wheel which doubles as a middle button.
-
When the mouse was originally developed at Xerox PARC, it went through a number of development cycles - first 2 buttons, then 3 buttons, and then back to 2 buttons again. When Apple first implemented the idea, they decided that one button would be better, for two reasons. First, it would be easier for people, especially children, to learn. And second, it would be easier for people with a disability to use. Since the first release of the Macintosh, Apple's human interface guidelines have required that all software functions be performable with a single button. Which remains true to this day - any context menus that can be brought up with a right-click are merely shortcuts for tasks that can be performed in other ways. Obviously, though, the Steam port to OSX does not follow those guidelines - which is probably why you can't buy it at the store.
Obviously, other platforms developed along different lines. Microsoft decided pretty early in its borrowing from Apple to go with a 2-button mouse. And XWindows development was based around a 3-button mouse from the very beginning. With a number of people bouncing from platform to platform, and the convergence of a number of computing ideas, it just makes sense that Apple would adopt 2-button support - but in a way that doesn't compromise their 1-button paradigm.
A number of people have decried the 2 simple methods of accessing context menus and other right-click functions on the Mac as convoluted or crazy. I don't find it convoluted or difficult at all. I admit that I haven't used a Mac desktop with an external 1-button mouse in over 10 years, though. But I'm in love with my laptop's trackpad. Apple's multi-finger trackpad gestures are now unconscious to me, and I have a hard time using a trackpad without them. Here at home, I've got two laptop computers. The Thinkpad running Fedora has an external USB 3-button scroll mouse. But for the Mac, the trackpad is more than enough, even when I'm running virtual Windows.
-
Tl;dr, I read this much and thought...
First, it would be easier for people, especially children, to learn. And second, it would be easier for people with a disability to use.
HOW HARD IS IT TO USE TWO FINGERS?
:'(
-
Yes, yes, we all know that there is nothing on this planet that wouldn't be better if Kintaro invented it.
-
Yes, yes, we all know that there is nothing on this planet that wouldn't be better if Kintaro invented it.
How about not calling removing a feature invention. Apple didn't invent the one button mouse, they reduced the usability of the mouse. All Apple really do is make user interfaces stupider and in this post-modern aesthetic dark age morons consider lower usability a value because its 'neater.' Thankfully not all of us are this thick.
Xerox invented the mouse, Xerox invented the icon based GUI among many other things in this area and everyone copied them. All these companies went totally freetard and copied the legacy Xerox had left. Sun, Microsoft, Apple, Amiga, Atari, and so on all produced graphical workstations that copied lessons learned from Xerox. Rather than sneering at them as thieves however it makes more sense to look at what these companies put Xeroxes lessons on top of. Microsoft made a VM and called Windows and even abstracted hardware in 3.x.x meanwhile Apple had this dodgy system where programs often talked directly to hardware though a ROM library or an emulation from it. Despite being built on top of DOS, it was MacOS that was made in the Dark Ages. To top that off, by the time Apple had finally developed OS/X for the consumer market Microsoft had NT which had been in the corporate market for a decade before dumping 9x which was total crap and replacing it with XP around the times of MacOSX.
XP attracted more developers than MacOSX because overall for a developer Windows is the better system. The main reason for this is that writing software for it was very much the same as Windows 98 for a developer. The same couldn't be said about Apple, who had kept a totally shitty system for so long (MacOS) that a lot had to be dumped in terms of the API. Microsoft have been able to retain not only its customers but third parties, the main reason we are stuck with them is because of companies like Apple and others digging themselves into a giant pit in terms of technology adoption. Linux and UNIX systems have the advantage Microsoft have, for the longest time the interfaces for writing services for Linux has remained a constant. The only thing OSX had going for it is that it inherited a small part of this UNIX heritage and will keep it. While OSX as a system has remained much the same since XP, Windows Vista was introduced to start shifting paradigms and Windows 7 has completed that shift.
In terms of innovation at the moment the only system that has had significant changes in its structure is the Windows 6.x family. Linux is still the same old Linux, Apple is much the same, and Windows is expanding as it always does through third parties. The biggest obstacle Microsoft are going to have will be that as Microsoft maintain the current strategy with Windows they could lose developers the same way they used to gain them which is through everyone elses major transitions and paradigm changes. Eventually it will probably start being easier to maintain your product for Linux and Apple OSes instead of Windows with all the changes to Windows they are working on.
Apple seem obsessed with being the gods of small devices. They really are but when it comes to actual software development, OSX is always the last to have new essential developments like adequate stack protection (when you lag by years behind Microsoft in security, the focus clearly is lacking). Surely, if I ever want an MP3 player I'll get an iPod, and if I ever want a useless panel that reduces my words per minute by 75%... I'll buy an iPad.
Yet if I want an OS for my computer I buy Windows 7 because it brings over developers that were writing software in the 90s in a very similar way. Windows has all the developers in the world through commitment alone, and Apple can never match that. It doesn't matter how many silly iPhone apps I can buy, Windows has all the real ones.
-
It also means that it is easier to develop viruses for Windows.
Mac and Linux = almost impossible to get a virus (but it is possible.)
-
It also means that it is easier to develop viruses for Windows.
Mac and Linux = almost impossible to get a virus (but it is possible.)
The only way you should compare security is by comparing the attitudes of the companies towards security.
Windows = Totally fucked it up for years by giving users automatic root accounts, has improved since this time, putting serious investment into developing new relevant technologies.
OS X = Inherited a secure system and takes security seriously but perhaps takes their own security more seriously.
GNU/Linux = Security enthusiasts taking control of the system forever, bugs are dealt with completely transparently, changes are pushed through to users as a first priority.
Those are my biased views. Discuss.
-
Windows = Totally fucked it up for years by giving users automatic root accounts, has improved since this time, putting serious investment into developing new relevant technologies.
I agree, Steve Ballmer took action after, at a family party, someone showed him his spyware ridden laptop.
Only after that, Microsoft took serious action, like default non-administrator accounts in Windows 7, Windows Defender, annoying pop-ups when you don't have a virus scanner, upgrading Internet Explorer out of the 90's, etc.
All too late. The world now has to deal with botnets.
-
Ah yes, botnets, what fun (literally, they are fun xD, oh uh, but I don't have any, obviously :) Seriously, I don't, I could name people that do though)
-
OS X = Inherited a secure system and takes security seriously but perhaps takes their own security more seriously.
.
OSX was the last operating system to introduce stack protection to prevent buffer overflows. They don't care about security at all!
I think another aspect is the the type of folks writing Viruses are 10x more likely to be using a PC and not a Mac. This makes it even more likely they will target Windows. The same folks would need a Mac to test their code.
GNU/Linux = Security enthusiasts taking control of the system forever, bugs are dealt with completely transparently, changes are pushed through to users as a first priority.
What about BSD. I am a major BSD zealot and nothing comes close to OpenBSD on security. Apache is chrooted by default, and the default install hasn't had a root exploit in an extremely long time in comparison the three operating systems you mentioned. OpenBSD's gcc will whine all though a build if strcat() is used and on strlcat() along with numerous other functions that commonly lead to exploits. On top of it all OpenBSD are the masters of code auditing to weed out bugs. At OpenBSD they also have a habit of changing things in libc that make the system harder to hack.