Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: anphanax on 21 March 2004, 00:43
-
Paul's site doesn't have a direct link at the moment to this, but if you're interested in seeing all the stuff Microsoft is putting into SP2, this site
should be informative:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_sp2_preview2.asp (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_sp2_preview2.asp)
(http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/xp_sp2_no_firewall.gif)
[ March 20, 2004: Message edited by: anphanax ]
-
That firewall balloon sounds like a spam e-mail or something you may find in a pop-up commercial.
-
IMO the Security Center and the Windows Firewall GUIs look really cheesy.
quote:
There are just two (major) problems: XP's Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) isn't enabled by default and it isn't particularly configurable; assuming you can find the place to turn it on in the first place, all you get was a simple check box: It is either on or off. The Advanced Settings for ICF--where you can configure which services the firewall allows through--is even harder to find.
:rolleyes:
-
Well I just read the entire article and "it sounds" to me that they are addressing a variety of the issues that are discussed here and other forums. Example: IE upgrades (to compete with Firefix...lol) , blah,blah Im not going to list what you can read yourself. Point being that they seem to be implementing a variety of good steps. Ya im sure that the people who get illegal copies of XP are NOT going to like it for obvious reasons but hey nobody likes to get ripped off, not even billionaires.
I myself cannot break away from XP...and wont. I also run Fedora c2 but I have to run alot of windows apps and Im not going to run wine because to me its not a good alternative ...at this point in the game. So what im doing is just keeping my XP offline.... no more worries if its not accessing the internet. Will I update to SP2? nope. Why? well I just cant do that... ;)
As soon as a solid, totally functional windows layer is implemented into linux I will continue to run my workstation on my XP drive and my EvilPenguin on my other drive.
[ August 06, 2004: Message edited by: DV8R ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
That firewall balloon sounds like a spam e-mail or something you may find in a pop-up commercial.
Hmm. I've been working on an article (a little too education oriented to post on this site unfortunately) that kind of takes a look at how Windows goes out of its way to interrupt the user, instead of letting him create. Anyway, it's a whole rant about how Windows' corporate/structural origins causes it to discourage creativity and reenforce conformity. A prime example is crap like this. A more overt one would be the grammar check in Word, and its subconscious effect on young writers who begin shaping their styles after what Microsoft suggests is correct.
You've given me motivation to go back and start working on it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by bedouin:
Hmm. I've been working on an article (a little too education oriented to post on this site unfortunately) that kind of takes a look at how Windows goes out of its way to interrupt the user, instead of letting him create.
By all means, we need articles! (http://smile.gif)
-
Service pack 2 is old news. Just like past service packs it promises to fix the problems that plauge windows. Instead I've seen it slow down XP (Making it unstable) or it breaks something. Just like the previous patches before this one.
Same ol same ol.
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn:
Service pack 2 is old news. Just like past service packs it promises to fix the problems that plauge windows. Instead I've seen it slow down XP (Making it unstable) or it breaks something. Just like the previous patches before this one.
Same ol same ol.
LOL! Solaris YES, :D
winbloze sux and M$ jus kep on thinkin of wayz to make is sux even more!
dey invist all der time and muny in thinkin bout filin wiv mor bugz and shit.
dey say to demselvs oh fuck it how can we mak it easy for de kick ass virus riter?
letz giv it sum new xploits, that wud be fun now more peple wil by it. LOL!
Y not giv it fire worl to burn up da dopey scunk.
MS blazin tripin YO, masiv sux shit cox.
i wil continu 2 by der stuf if itz mor unstalbe.
kule. (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
-
Aloone, God damn but I hope you're stoned.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Aloone, God damn but I hope you're stoned.
You can't argue with a pupet that repeats everything that M$ says. To him their god and everything they do is 100% right even though facts and evedence state otherwize.
He's just upset when I debunked his FUD in the apple form.
If he is mature enough, he'll get over himself.
(http://smile.gif)
[ August 07, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn ]
-
Lol!
Linux roolz
Winbloze drulez
I agree with you Solaris, what's your problem?
-
If it longhorn takes such a high requirment I wonder how big its service packs are going to be?
-
I never knew that fixing ones mistakes was such a bad thing.
[sarcasm]
I guess M$ (<-- note my clever use of the dollar sign) must not fix all the bloated, insecure, unstable code, Because they ONLY can make it worse!
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, this Service Pack fixes a ton of stuff that people like you were complaining about. I don't see what the problem with fixing bugs is.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
I never knew that fixing ones mistakes was such a bad thing.
[sarcasm]
I guess M$ (<-- note my clever use of the dollar sign) must not fix all the bloated, insecure, unstable code, Because they ONLY can make it worse!
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, this Service Pack fixes a ton of stuff that people like you were complaining about. I don't see what the problem with fixing bugs is.
Because it does not fix the things that I complain about, thus I continue to complain about them. I need them to close holes, decrease the bloat. Bascially do what they say that they are going to do. But rather, just like all the other service packs before it.
Brings instability issues by bringing the machine to a crawl. By breaking important applications and with all of that NOT fix the hole but instead try to cover it up. Thats why when someone writes an exploit of M$ windows. All that has to change is maby a few command lines. Everything else stays the same.
Its also why we have things like MyDoomW32.worm a b c d..... etc.
Pluse there is the fact, knowing all of this that, its huge to download and impliment anyways.
Seriously. To pach an M$ system to get the same result as that of an infeccted mashine that the patch is supposed to prevent. You might as well leave it unpatched and at least your shit will work for a while and its not you thats fucking things up by believeing in the M$ PR Machine.
-
Service packs are defiantly a good thing, they are an indication that MS is trying to fix their bugey operating system. I must admit that in the past, one service pack contained a bug that was responsible for a new exploit, but the net result of using it was good, as it fixed other exploits.
Despite what some people say, Windows has improved a lot over the last decade, I would admit that these improvements have not been good enough.
Windows 3.1 was the first reasonably mature version, and it has only seen 2 major upgrades. Windows95 & Windows 2000, both of these have been a significant improvement on the previous.
I can give technical details as to why each major upgrade of Windows is significantly better to the previous, when all that some people can come up, are BS accounts of their personal experiences and similar here say.
MS does not release services packs and upgrades for no reason, they don't do it to fuck your computer up!
They do it for a good reason.
I know Linux has improved at faster rate than Windows but this doesn't mean that Windows has stood still.
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
[qb]Service packs are defiantly a good thing,
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.
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,
Well at least you acknowledge the problem.
quote:
but the net result of using it was good, as it fixed other exploits.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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,
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.
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 (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,
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 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/24/1030052995857.html?oneclick=true)
quote:
they don't do it to fuck your computer up!
Read above!
quote:
They do it for a good reason.
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.
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 ]
-
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.
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.
-
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. (http://tongue.gif)
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
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. (http://tongue.gif)
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
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.
-
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.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
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. 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.
I'll try to clear myself up.
I was not debating that
"If X is true and Y is in the same class as X, then Y is true, e.g. you can see where this logic falters."
I was just stating the argument that so many m$ zealots like to repeate.
That is, that because M$ is producing these pateches then they are doing what many of us complain about.
Which is infact wrong. What they do is change things that do not need changing or when they fix things, do it in such a way that a simple two line exploit can just become three and the problem arises again. Plus when said patch IS installed then the machine has all the ear marks of that of an infected machine. The very thing that you installed the patch to avoid in the first place.
You are right these arguments are not new. Far from it. They are very old. But the problems of M$ patches are old since the problem that they produce covers the entire windows family of OS'es and not just present on older windows then solved in newer up comming versions.
The problem covers the entire spectrum. One is because the monoculture that M$ is in. Second is the use of re hashed code that I don't think m$ themselves understand. Or the problems would have been at least fixed years ago! Third is that M$ is built and ran by PR and has no interest or idea for that matter about the buisness of Operating Systems.
One really does not care for the techinical aspect of things. They just wan their stuff to work. When one is left continually fixing things because of patches etc... then that to me is NOT what I call a 'good OS' on any standards if I'm into actual computing.
[ August 08, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
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.
He assumend that I was a zealot just because I am making a valid argument?
If he can say such an assuption I can definnatly point out why he may be fitted to that definition more than me.
-
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. (http://tongue.gif)
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
True.
Solaris,
Give up, and shut the fuck up!
I've done this before; arguing about something when you
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
[QB]
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
True.
Solaris,
Give up, and shut the fuck up!
I've done this before; arguing about something when you
-
At the moment there is no way to disprove his postings. SP2 is still new and we have yet to see any new vulnerabilities. At this point and time there is no way to prove wether it is going to do any good or not. He is posting that it isn't any good with no proof to back the statement up whatsoever.
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Solaris is arguing that Windows hasn't improved since 95 and that there is no benefit in using any of the previous patches.
We all know he is wrong and there also is a lot of technical evidence to prove him wrong too, so there's no point in trying to argue with him.
As you have already stated Solaris is a Linux zealot, even if LongHorn is really good (although very unlikely), he will still continue to ague that it's no better than XP.
-
Roll-up, roll-up! Get yer Service Packs here!
http://bannedmusic.org/albums/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU-exe.torrent (http://bannedmusic.org/albums/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU-exe.torrent)
-
Or...how about a direct link from microsoft.com?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b076b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe (http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b076b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe)
Many at Slashdot said the torrents were slow. Besides, why save MS on bandwidth? (http://tongue.gif)
-
Actually, Solaris, I don't support Apple anymore. I Have a Mac and OS X, but it certainly isn't my #1 thing anymore.
I support Linux and Windows.
Linux because it's the next big thing. Windows because, for me anyway, it just works, the same way OS X does.
Now, first, let's point out the problems with your "debate style"... and I use that phrase loosely. This is how I present my argument.
"I find Linux and Windows XP to both be equal in quality. In stability, security, and software/hardware support."
Your rebuttal:
"YOU A LIE!! Windows cannote be goode becas it is Micrasoft! The bloat and bloat and virus and bloat and IE and bloate and bloat and security and bloat!"
My reponse to you:
"I said that I have found this to be true. Your mileage my vary. For me, there have been no problems."
Your tirade:
"BUT WINDOWSE CANT'E BE GOOD! MIRCOSOFT DOES EVERTHING WRONG FOR TEH MONEY!! THE PR MACIHNE!! THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT! BILL GATES! BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT!! DRIVERS AND BLOAT!! BLOATED DRIVERS!! SECURITY BLOAT!!"
What is your personal stake in this? How is your life affected by what OS somebody runs? Somebody you'll never meet. What did Microsoft Corp. ever do to you to make you so damn hostile?
Chill the fuck out and shut your mouth. We're tired of you hijacking and ruining threads with your PR MACHINE.
SP 2 was designed to address all the things you constantly bitch about.
1) Security. Service Pack 2 includes numerous security updates. These range from revamped versions of IE and OE, to the new comprehensinve firewall, to low-level architectural changes that protect system memory.
2) Compatibility. SP 2 does break some things, particularly older (pre-Win98) apps, but what's more important to you? Running that decade-old calendar app, or security? For newer apps, compatibility is better, as SP 2 benefits from two more years nearly of compatibility development over SP 1.
3) Networking and hardware. SP 2 has greatly enhanced support for network hardware, especially wireless. Configuring wireless networking is now as brain-dead simple as it is on OS X.
4) New Microsoft Shut The Hell Up XP. I hear they put that in just for you, Solaris.
Here's a screenshot using the "Star Trek" theme in the app.
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/sulustfu.jpg)
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]
-
Okay, I just installed it. First boot was kinda slow, but it always is after an update.
One curious thing... I dunno if it's some sort of graphics optimizer, or if they've simple changed a setting, but the fades on menus are MUCH faster. Menu fade-in and menu-item fade out both move much faster. About 3/4 the time. Apps seem much quicker to start and execute.
As for the firewall, it's already caught a piece of spyware that AdAware missed.
Add/Remove Software is faster now, as it seems to have gotten a nice revamp. It automatically hides system updates, which greatly unclutters the list and speeds up its generation.
It's good so far.
-
Wow... is Solaris retarded?
-
Very likely so!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
At the moment there is no way to disprove his postings. SP2 is still new and we have yet to see any new vulnerabilities. At this point and time there is no way to prove wether it is going to do any good or not. He is posting that it isn't any good with no proof to back the statement up whatsoever.
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
You use what has happened in the past!
Service Packs have been around a long time!
They have not worked.
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000135 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000135)
http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=64283 (http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=64283)
http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22patch+for+a+patch%22+%2B%22Microsoft%22&spell=1 (http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22patch+for+a+patch%22+%2B%22Microsoft%22&spell=1)
The evedence is there. You choose to ignore it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Solaris is arguing that Windows hasn't improved since 95 and that there is no benefit in using any of the previous patches.
We all know he is wrong and there also is a lot of technical evidence to prove him wrong too, so there's no point in trying to argue with him.
Npo, you THINK i'm wrong. That does not mean that I AM wrong.
quote:
As you have already stated Solaris is a Linux zealot, even if LongHorn is really good (although very unlikely), he will still continue to ague that it's no better than XP.
Know what a zealot is before you lable someone with it. You have NO idea what your talking about.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
[qb]Actually, Solaris, I don't support Apple anymore. I Have a Mac and OS X, but it certainly isn't my #1 thing anymore.
I support Linux and Windows.
ok.
quote:
Linux because it's the next big thing. Windows because, for me anyway, it just works, the same way OS X does.
ok good for you. I however do not feel the same way.
quote:
Now, first, let's point out the problems with your "debate style"... and I use that phrase loosely. This is how I present my argument.
ok lets look....
quote:
"I find Linux and Windows XP to both be equal in quality. In stability, security, and software/hardware support."
That is your opinion. However arguing to me that Windows has supirior support over Linux IS incorrect.
quote:
Your rebuttal:
"YOU A LIE!! Windows cannote be goode becas it is Micrasoft! The bloat and bloat and virus and bloat and IE and bloate and bloat and security and bloat!
No thats YOUR rebuttel. Not mine.
quote:
My reponse to you:
"I said that I have found this to be true. Your mileage my vary. For me, there have been no problems."
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that.
quote:
Your tirade:
"BUT WINDOWSE CANT'E BE GOOD! MIRCOSOFT DOES EVERTHING WRONG FOR TEH MONEY!! THE PR MACIHNE!! THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT! BILL GATES! BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT!! DRIVERS AND BLOAT!! BLOATED DRIVERS!! SECURITY BLOAT!!"
No, That is YOUR blabering there.
quote:
What is your personal stake in this? How is your life affected by what OS somebody runs? Somebody you'll never meet. What did Microsoft Corp. ever do to you to make you so damn hostile?
What hostility. Oh no! He runs Linux and says it has good driver support! He does not believe in M$'es FUD, he MUST be a zealot. He MUST be evil Linspire blah blah blah.......
I couldn't care less what OS anyone runs. What you run is your own choice. But to state that windows has the same quailty in security and design is laughable.
quote:
Chill the fuck out and shut your mouth. We're tired of you hijacking and ruining threads with your PR MACHINE.
You should really count yourself in that sentence since you've been trolling since day one. All you do is 'hijack' threads with 'STFU,' whinners or some sort of immature complaints and or rants that don't make any sense.
So I'll give that advice to you. Unless you have somthing constructive other than complaining about a member STFU!!!
quote:
SP 2 was designed to address all the things you constantly bitch about.
So far it has not. I've tested it and so far it HAS done the same thing as before. Which is breaking applications, slowing down the machine etc...
quote:
1) Security. Service Pack 2 includes numerous security updates. These range from revamped versions of IE and OE, to the new comprehensinve firewall, to low-level architectural changes that protect system memory.
So far the memory managment seems to be the same since I do not see any performance increase in XP. Secondly, like you said its still being tested. So I'll say it is 'secure' when it is in the real world and not because M$ says so.
quote:
2) Compatibility. SP 2 does break some things, particularly older (pre-Win98) apps, but what's more important to you? Running that decade-old calendar app, or security?
If M$ was patching properly then such a question would never matter.
quote:
For newer apps, compatibility is better, as SP 2 benefits from two more years nearly of compatibility development over SP 1.
I've run new database as well as financial software. M$ Money for exsample which stopped working because of this pacth. The fire wall still does not provide a proper level of protection towards trojans as far as I can see and because of the added firewall and antivirous software, brings instability into the OS. Something that such companies Zone Alarm has already taking care off.
But then why on earth does a software fire wall or antivirus application currupt windows in the forst place. Just because one simply updates a .dat file should not constitute the machine for instabillity.
quote:
3) Networking and hardware. SP 2 has greatly enhanced support for network hardware, especially wireless.
All one needs is the setup file for the hardware that they need. It does not change the fact that it still has flaky driver support to which the system becomes unstable just because he or she has installed a driver onto the system.
quote:
Configuring wireless networking is now as brain-dead simple as it is on OS X.
plugs wireless card in. Installes driver. Windows fails to initialize the driver and now freezes up. Uninstalls driver. Looks into the control pannel. Reinstalls driver. Same problem persists But this time there is two copies of the same driver. Tries to remove driver. Register becomes currupt.....
quote:
4) New Microsoft Shut The Hell Up XP. I hear they put that in just for you, Solaris.
You mean for you since ALL you do is complain at everyone. Oh solaris is so mean.......
quote:
Here's a screenshot using the "Star Trek" theme in the app.
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/sulustfu.jpg)
Yes, it fits someone like you nicely! (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
Wow... is Solaris retarded?
So I do not agree with the FUD that viper and aloone spread.
That makes me retarted. I think its time you looked up that definnition.
-
We do know what a zealot is... YOU. If you don't like the label (not "lable") then change your ways.
You expect us to go along with whatever you say. We say "I've never had a problem with insert thing here."
You flame back, "Your supid for you are say something diffrent from what i say! Insert thing here is made by insert evil company here and hase to be badd becos is is not Lunix!"
You NEVER back up your claims, because you ALWAYS PRESENT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS THOUGH IT IS "THE ONE TRUE WAY". You saw things go bad, and therefore it must always be so. The rest of us be damned. Our personal experience doesn't mean jack shit next to great Solaris, the wise and genius sage.
Shut up.
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:
So I do not agree with the FUD that viper and aloone spread.
That makes me retarted. I think its time you looked up that definnition.
Oh, let me clarify; I meant your spelling and grammer skills and use of [qb] and tags makes you look like you're still studing "Language Arts" in elementary school.
This program will help you:
http://www.openoffice.org (http://www.openoffice.org)
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
We do know what a zealot is... YOU. If you don't like the label (not "lable") then change your ways.
A zealot spreads fantasies repeated by that of a company instead of facts and or experiences he or she has. Sorry I do not fit into that catagory since I do not believe something just because a major corperation says its fine. Expecially if that corperation has been wrong many times before.
quote:
You expect us to go along with whatever you say.
no! YOU expect ME to go along with whatever you say since its YOU that are labling me a 'zealot' just because I do not agree with M$'es FUD.
quote:
We say "I've never had a problem with insert thing here."
And I have. So....
quote:
You flame back, "Your supid for you are say something diffrent from what i say! Insert thing here is made by insert evil company here and hase to be badd becos is is not Lunix!"
No thats YOU who continues on with that. But then you would.
quote:
You NEVER back up your claims, because you ALWAYS PRESENT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS THOUGH IT IS "THE ONE TRUE WAY".
I have. See links that I posted to viper! Just because my experience is not the same as yours does NOT mean that you are automatically right and Linux has terrable support.
quote:
You saw things go bad, and therefore it must always be so.
No. I responded to Aloone who constantly states that Linux is bad at driver support when in fact it is not.
I then responded here that SP2 is the same as all the others BECAUSE the symtoms ARE the same! I have posted links and explained my thoughts on this. Don't worry though. I know thats too much for you to understand. If people don't agree with you then they MUST be wrong. They must be evil.
quote:
The rest of us be damned. Our personal experience doesn't mean jack shit next to great Solaris, the wise and genius sage.
Well, thanks for the compliment. But I did account for your experience. If you find that SP2 helped then good for you! That does not mean that SP@ is the absolute holy grail of the perfect M$ windows.
quote:
Shut up.
yes, do that!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
Oh, let me clarify; I meant you spelling, grammer and use of [qb] and tags.[/b]
So. Just because of my use of such tags you can lable me as such?
Don't think so! Besides I'm not a troll. I do not look at peoples use of grammer or spelling mistakes as an exuse. I actually have a point in my message.
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:
So. Just because of my use of such tags you can lable me as such?
Don't think so! Besides I'm not a troll. I do not look at peoples use of grammer or spelling mistakes as an exuse. I actually have a point in my message.
Here we go agian with the "you are a troll" scenario
-
It seems strange that I would come back with something like "YOU A LIE!! Windows cannote be goode becas it is Micrasoft! The bloat and bloat and virus and bloat and IE and bloate and bloat and security and bloat!", as I support the opposite viewpoint.
quote:
However arguing to me that Windows has supirior support over Linux IS incorrect.
Because your opinion is fact? Oh, yes. I forgot that... no matter what anybody says and how much authority or support their argument has... your statement ALWAYS overrules and is ALWAYS right.
I'll remember that next time.
quote:
What hostility. Oh no! He runs Linux and says it has good driver support! He does not believe in M$'es FUD, he MUST be a zealot. He MUST be evil Linspire blah blah blah.......
I couldn't care less what OS anyone runs. What you run is your own choice. But to state that windows has the same quailty in security and design is laughable.
Then why don't you answer the question? Why don't you say:
"I have no personal stake and I don't care, so I'm gonna stop making claims that I can't support."
No, instead, you take the time to dish out more ad hominem attacks. "To state your opinion that Windows has the same quality is laughable". Oh, yes, that's another thing I forgot. My opinions are worthless compared to yours, almighty Solaris.
quote:
You should really count yourself in that sentence since you've been trolling since day one. All you do is 'hijack' threads with 'STFU,' whinners or some sort of immature complaints and or rants that don't make any sense.
Strange... there seem to be plenty where I haven't done that.
BTW, don't bother digging up "evidence" for your side.
quote:
Secondly, like you said its still being tested.
Incorrect. I said that time will tell. It's not "still being tested"... it was released today.
quote:
posted August 10, 2004 08:47 PM Profile for kn0wn / BOB Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote (http://redface.gif) riginally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
[qb]Actually, Solaris, I don't support Apple anymore. I Have a Mac and OS X, but it certainly isn't my #1 thing anymore.
I support Linux and Windows.
ok.
Linux because it's the next big thing. Windows because, for me anyway, it just works, the same way OS X does.
ok good for you. I however do not feel the same way.
quote:Now, first, let's point out the problems with your "debate style"... and I use that phrase loosely. This is how I present my argument.
ok lets look....
"I find Linux and Windows XP to both be equal in quality. In stability, security, and software/hardware support."
That is your opinion. However arguing to me that Windows has supirior support over Linux IS incorrect.
quote:Your rebuttal:
"YOU A LIE!! Windows cannote be goode becas it is Micrasoft! The bloat and bloat and virus and bloat and IE and bloate and bloat and security and bloat!
No thats YOUR rebuttel. Not mine.
quote:My reponse to you:
"I said that I have found this to be true. Your mileage my vary. For me, there have been no problems."
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that.
quote:
Your tirade:
"BUT WINDOWSE CANT'E BE GOOD! MIRCOSOFT DOES EVERTHING WRONG FOR TEH MONEY!! THE PR MACIHNE!! THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT! BILL GATES! BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT!! DRIVERS AND BLOAT!! BLOATED DRIVERS!! SECURITY BLOAT!!"
No, That is YOUR blabering there.
quote:
What is your personal stake in this? How is your life affected by what OS somebody runs? Somebody you'll never meet. What did Microsoft Corp. ever do to you to make you so damn hostile?
What hostility. Oh no! He runs Linux and says it has good driver support! He does not believe in M$'es FUD, he MUST be a zealot. He MUST be evil Linspire blah blah blah.......
I couldn't care less what OS anyone runs. What you run is your own choice. But to state that windows has the same quailty in security and design is laughable.
quote:Chill the fuck out and shut your mouth. We're tired of you hijacking and ruining threads with your PR MACHINE.
You should really count yourself in that sentence since you've been trolling since day one. All you do is 'hijack' threads with 'STFU,' whinners or some sort of immature complaints and or rants that don't make any sense.
So I'll give that advice to you. Unless you have somthing constructive other than complaining about a member STFU!!!
quote:
SP 2 was designed to address all the things you constantly bitch about.
So far it has not. I've tested it and so far it HAS done the same thing as before. Which is breaking applications, slowing down the machine etc...
quote:1) Security. Service Pack 2 includes numerous security updates. These range from revamped versions of IE and OE, to the new comprehensinve firewall, to low-level architectural changes that protect system memory.
So far the memory managment seems to be the same since I do not see any performance increase in XP. Secondly, like you said its still being tested. So I'll say it is 'secure' when it is in the real world and not because M$ says so.
quote:2) Compatibility. SP 2 does break some things, particularly older (pre-Win98) apps, but what's more important to you? Running that decade-old calendar app, or security?
If M$ was patching properly then such a question would never matter.
quote:For newer apps, compatibility is better, as SP 2 benefits from two more years nearly of compatibility development over SP 1.
I've run new database as well as financial software. M$ Money for exsample which stopped working because of this pacth. The fire wall still does not provide a proper level of protection towards trojans as far as I can see and because of the added firewall and antivirous software, brings instability into the OS. Something that such companies Zone Alarm has already taking care off.
But then why on earth does a software fire wall or antivirus application currupt windows in the forst place. Just because one simply updates a .dat file should not constitute the machine for instabillity.
Another problem is you don't seem to understand how things work.
Part of SP 2 is... are you listening? I'm only going to say it once... here it is... architectural changes. What does that mean? I'm glad you asked...
Memory protection - This doesn't have jack to do with performance. It's about sheltering memory from being overwritten improperly. The new protection concepts used in XP SP2 are devised to protect memory from being overwritten by outside sources. This essentially ELIMINATES THE BUFFER OVERRUN EXPLOIT.
Execution protection (NX) - This protects your computer by not allowing program code that exists in data memory to be executed. It fully separates program code and data so that virii cannot write malware code to unprotected data memory and have it be executed.
quote:
All one needs is the setup file for the hardware that they need. It does not change the fact that it still has flaky driver support to which the system becomes unstable just because he or she has installed a driver onto the system.
For the love of Christ, will you ever drop that?
You can't discuss anything intelligently because whenever something comes up, all you do is throw out one of your catch phrases...
Solaris's Catch Phrases
Bloat bloat bloat!
Buggy drivers that make the system unstable!
Microsoft PR Machine!
And Many More!
quote:
plugs wireless card in. Installes driver. Windows fails to initialize the driver and now freezes up. Uninstalls driver. Looks into the control pannel. Reinstalls driver. Same problem persists But this time there is two copies of the same driver. Tries to remove driver. Register becomes currupt.....
Yes, this is obvisously how it works every time. All those people who use wireless LAN all the time... they're living in a delusion. Their drivers don't actually work, and their systems are really just constantly showing a BSOD... they've been brainwashed by Big Brother Gates and the Microsoft PR Machine!
-
quote:
Just because my experience is not the same as yours does NOT mean that you are automatically right and Linux has terrable support.
That's rich. I never said it had terrible support. I said...
"Linux can have a hard time with bad drivers."
The same goes for:
Windows 9x
Windows NT
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X
OPENSTEP
Be OS
Amiga
ReactOS
BSD UNIX
AT&T System V UNIX
SCO UNIX
Minix
VMS
Shall I continue?
Any OS can get a buggy driver, smart guy.
-
To clarify my position. I have tested XP pro with SP2. I've used the trojan Optix Pro to see if the fire wall would block it.
It did not. Passed right on through. When I was installing a wifi card. A Dlink DWL-650+ AirPluse card, it also had truble detecting and installing the drivers for said card. This IS MY experiance with XP SP2! YOURS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT!
As I have said before. After rebooting with SP2 installed the machine was all of a sudden sluggish which was not present before the patch. Also some programs such as M$ money faild to work.
That is MY experiance. From past news stories and other peoples experience out there (osnews.com), seems to be the same tale as previous service packs.
Of course your experiance may be different. But I have already explained my take to why M$ might not be improving or why this service pack does not help much.
http://nwc.securitypipeline.com/network/26100978 (http://nwc.securitypipeline.com/network/26100978)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1415267,00.asp (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1415267,00.asp)
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;jsessionid=VVPFIRZXAVGHYQSNDBESKHA?articleId=23905071 (http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;jsessionid=VVPFIRZXAVGHYQSNDBESKHA?articleId=23905071)
This is not FUD! Just because I do not agree with you DOES NOT mean that SP2 will not work for you. But I have printed some articles in hopes to at least clarify where the hell I am comming from. The complaints that I have with windows ARE VALID. If you choose to ignore them then, hey that is your decision.
-
quote:
Solaris: retarted; terrable; truble
So declaring people as a troll gives you the right to misspell?
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
That's rich. I never said it had terrible support. I said...
"Linux can have a hard time with bad drivers."
The same goes for:
Windows 9x
Windows NT
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X
OPENSTEP
Be OS
Amiga
ReactOS
BSD UNIX
AT&T System V UNIX
SCO UNIX
Minix
VMS
Shall I continue?
Any OS can get a buggy driver, smart guy.
I'll stop responding to you since I don't feel like feeding the troll.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
So declaring people as a troll gives you the right to misspell?
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]
I have the 'right' to mispell?
I had no Idea that spelling was a right
-
My 'rents XP box downstairs that had started to BSOD more than it did before, do you know who I blame?
D-Link.
The only change I did was to add in a cheap-o wireless card from D-Link, with shitty, unsigned, drivers.
the box was rock solid, and up-to-date, after I added the card it was less stable, BSODing once every two weeks.
I un-installed the driver, removed the card. Re-installed the driver and put the card back in.
It was fine.
for some reason, D-link made their drivers so you had to install them first, then physically install the card. Incredibly stupid on D-Link's part, if you ask me.
I just installed service pack 2 on it, run great!
-
I'm liking it so far. The firewall doesn't go off as much as they say it does, but then, I don't use many network apps.
It's definitely more resilient. I did a few things that would kill the Explorer, and they no longer do :-D
I'm so happy!
-
LOL! I'm spreading FUD? FUD = Fear, uncertainy and doubt. As far as I know I'm not spreading any of the latter.
Anywho, I installed SP2 today and so far it is working well. Nice speed improvements, the firewall is doing a great job(I disabled my other firewalls to test it), some of my apps and games are running even better than they were before(they were already running well) and I've tried a few things that would normally crash explorer and they no longer crash it.
I do not like how it nags you if you disable automatic updates but that is ok. I'll just leave auto updates enabled until I figure out how to remove that nag baloon. I understand why they included that nagger though. Because most people do not manually update nor do the know how to manually update. MS is targeting the nags for the computer illiterates who are the most likely to have thier system unpatched making thier computers part of DOS attacks and/or the spreader of viruses/worms.
I can't say that SP2 sucks because of something designed to make the digital world safer by guiding the idiots.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Actually, Solaris, I don't support Apple anymore. I Have a Mac and OS X, but it certainly isn't my #1 thing anymore.
I support Linux and Windows.
Linux because it's the next big thing. Windows because, for me anyway, it just works, the same way OS X does.
Now, first, let's point out the problems with your "debate style"... and I use that phrase loosely. This is how I present my argument.
"I find Linux and Windows XP to both be equal in quality. In stability, security, and software/hardware support."
Your rebuttal:
"YOU A LIE!! Windows cannote be goode becas it is Micrasoft! The bloat and bloat and virus and bloat and IE and bloate and bloat and security and bloat!"
My reponse to you:
"I said that I have found this to be true. Your mileage my vary. For me, there have been no problems."
Your tirade:
"BUT WINDOWSE CANT'E BE GOOD! MIRCOSOFT DOES EVERTHING WRONG FOR TEH MONEY!! THE PR MACIHNE!! THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT THE BLOAT! BILL GATES! BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT!! DRIVERS AND BLOAT!! BLOATED DRIVERS!! SECURITY BLOAT!!"
What is your personal stake in this? How is your life affected by what OS somebody runs? Somebody you'll never meet. What did Microsoft Corp. ever do to you to make you so damn hostile?
Chill the fuck out and shut your mouth. We're tired of you hijacking and ruining threads with your PR MACHINE.
SP 2 was designed to address all the things you constantly bitch about.
1) Security. Service Pack 2 includes numerous security updates. These range from revamped versions of IE and OE, to the new comprehensinve firewall, to low-level architectural changes that protect system memory.
2) Compatibility. SP 2 does break some things, particularly older (pre-Win98) apps, but what's more important to you? Running that decade-old calendar app, or security? For newer apps, compatibility is better, as SP 2 benefits from two more years nearly of compatibility development over SP 1.
3) Networking and hardware. SP 2 has greatly enhanced support for network hardware, especially wireless. Configuring wireless networking is now as brain-dead simple as it is on OS X.
4) New Microsoft Shut The Hell Up XP. I hear they put that in just for you, Solaris.
Here's a screenshot using the "Star Trek" theme in the app.
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/sulustfu.jpg)
GenSTEP Founder ]
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
LOL!
(http://forum.microsuck.com/ubb/user_ratings_5.gif)
-
Just Doonloded SP2 an it sux shit cox, the fire worl lets throo orl the shit worms my copoputer is more slew and reterded. M$ just done it to make muny and shit theu kep spreding FUD, just like you JimyJames, Vipr and Alone. Your liers for sayin tha SP2 works, I will stop feeding the trols now, so I will starve to deth.
-
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
-
quote:
some of my apps and games are running even better than they were before
I noticed this with Rise of Nations, jDOOM, and Crimson Skies.
All of these improvements are because MS integrated stuff from Longhorn... could it be... Longhorn will be... dare I say... good?
If these few little trickles are any indication, perhaps so!
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I noticed this with Rise of Nations, jDOOM, and Crimson Skies.
All of these improvements are because MS integrated stuff from Longhorn... could it be... Longhorn will be... dare I say... good?
If these few little trickles are any indication, perhaps so!
All I know is, they start talking about that Palladium bullshit again, count me out for good. I'm *NOT* having some dipshit pencil pusher reading MY private files. That's right, MINE. As in, NOT HIS TO READ (or hers as the case may warrant). I'm already using RH9, "deprecated" as some people seem to think it to be, to hedge my bets. I'm not taking any chance with my corporate information, thanks. (http://smile.gif)
-
Um... Palladium never granted them the ability to *view files*... only manipulate system settings (via updates), which is something that's already done.
As for RH9, how could it be depreciated when Fedora hasn't even seen a "final" release yet?
-
The idea behind Palladium is that *you* won't be able to view your own files, nevermind anyone else.
-
Flap, Jimmy, thanks for clearing that up a bit for me. ;)
That being said, my initial point remains. MY drive, MY files, MY BLOODY RULES (and if they don't like it they can bloody well piss off). When these major corporations start buying me my components, they can tell me what to do with them. Until then, MY money dictates what *I* do with MY files. End of story.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
As for RH9, how could it be depreciated when Fedora hasn't even seen a "final" release yet?
It never will see one. It is only a platform for developing the next Red Hat Desktop / Enterprise [A|E|W]S release.
-
Palladium can even be turned off. It's the same thing as FileVault on OS X. It's a "trusted" area. Your whole system isn't "Palladiumized". Only things that run in it are affected. You can select certain files to be protected, and some to not be.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
It never will see one. It is only a platform for developing the next Red Hat Desktop / Enterprise [A|E|W]S release.
Not so. Fedora core 1 has been around for a year almost and Fedora Core 2 is out as well. I believe that they are testing FC3 now.
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora)
I took the plunge after I talked to you guys about it since I myself was also confused with Red HAts decission. In the end I think their desission was correct. Debian is a community driven distro and it has been great. Like wize the community driven atmosphere of fedora has also done well in its development.
FC1 is just as stable and usable as the rest of the Red Hat familiy. The only thing that has changed is support. Instead of coming from Red Hat it will come from the fedora community. Also the life cycle is different. But that really doesn't mean much. I run RH9 and I STILL get up to date packages and it still does its job. I've tested FC1 on the server and I am very impressed with it. I get the updated packages I want and I do not need to 'upgrade' to FC2 if I do not want to.
-
Yeah? Well, that's your opinion.
-
Everyone who agrees with the fact Solaris is stupid, and is still going through grade 6, please put this into your sig:
Dear Solaris,
STFU
Sincerely,
The Internet
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:
Not so. Fedora core 1 has been around for a year almost and Fedora Core 2 is out as well. I believe that they are testing FC3 now.
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora)
I took the plunge after I talked to you guys about it since I myself was also confused with Red HAts decission. In the end I think their desission was correct. Debian is a community driven distro and it has been great. Like wize the community driven atmosphere of fedora has also done well in its development.
FC1 is just as stable and usable as the rest of the Red Hat familiy. The only thing that has changed is support. Instead of coming from Red Hat it will come from the fedora community. Also the life cycle is different. But that really doesn't mean much. I run RH9 and I STILL get up to date packages and it still does its job. I've tested FC1 on the server and I am very impressed with it. I get the updated packages I want and I do not need to 'upgrade' to FC2 if I do not want to.
The label 'final' will never be put on a Fedora release.
Fedora isn't a product per se. It is a rolling testbed for bleeding-edge stuff that will eventually make it's way into RedHat's stable and supported product lineup. A blue collar enterprise IT buyer does not consider something with a 3 per year release cycle a stable or final product to roll out on hundreds or thousands of machines.
This is who RedHat is selling to, they don't give a flying fuck about you because you have no money.
I wasn't making any slight on the usability of Fedora. I also understand perfectly what RedHat has done and why they have done it, thank you very much. I have understood from the start and I've been tracking the Fedora project from the start.
Also will you please relaise that _what_you_think_ is not the be all and end all of any matter. So stop making your opinions and extrapolations on real life sound as if they are bona fide fact. This is the reason why people misunderstand you and you cause so much trouble here.
Opinions are like arsholes, everyone has them and they all stink.
- Put this in your notepad please.
and on that note, what i've just said is to a fair extent just my take on things (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
Everyone who agrees with the fact Solaris is stupid, and is still going through grade 6, please put this into your sig:
Dear Solaris,
STFU
Sincerely,
The Internet
I agree with the all of the above, but don't do this as it will get this thread binned.
Canadian Lover, I could say the same about you, as you aren't learning from your mistakes or the mistakes of others. Two threads with a similar message to this have already been binned but they were pointless in the first place, and as this thread has a purpose it shouldn't be binned.
-
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
-
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Yeah? Well, that's your opinion.
o.k.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
The label 'final' will never be put on a Fedora release.
Hmmm, then why does Fedora have test candidates. I.E Fedora RC1, RC2?.....
quote:
Fedora isn't a product per se. It is a rolling testbed for bleeding-edge stuff that will eventually make it's way into RedHat's stable and supported product lineup.
I Agree that it isn't a normal product to which is sold off the shelf. But I believe a product that is set differently by a drive of a community rather than that of warrenties and support that you would get out of a normal box setup. So I agree you are right on that. What I meant was tha t even though redhat may be incorperating what fedora has. Fedora stands appart from redhat as that of a seperate product and is not nessessarily a testbed for redhat
quote:
A blue collar enterprise IT buyer does not consider something with a 3 per year release cycle a stable or final product to roll out on hundreds or thousands of machines.
I guess that depends on the I.T. Just because Fedora does release frequently doesn't mean that all of those machines will run the latest greates t version. My webservers for exsample only run on FC1 and not FC2 and probably not even FC3.
quote:
This is who RedHat is selling to, they don't give a flying fuck about you because you have no money.
Well actually they do. Even though Fedora is a separate product they do contribute allot of their time and energy into Fedora so they do as you say 'give a flying fuck.'
quote:
I wasn't making any slight on the usability of Fedora.
No, I know. I thought it would have been a good exsample that many companies don't just upgrade because there is a new verson out. Thats all.
quote:
I also understand perfectly what RedHat has done and why they have done it, thank you very much.
I never said you didn't. I just told you where I got my information since I myself was confused when Red Hat announced it.
quote:
I have understood from the start and I've been tracking the Fedora project from the start.
Thats great.
quote:
Also will you please relaise that _what_you_think_ is not the be all and end all of any matter. So stop making your opinions and extrapolations on real life sound as if they are bona fide fact.
I do not. Let me clear myself up. If you stated that M$ has 'supirior' driver support over Linux , I will disagree with you. Mainly because Linux has come along way and the amount of hardware it does support is amazing. Not only x86 but PPC and Sparc just to name a few. I know that some drivers do not work with linux. But my point was that even though some drivers do not work I found that most drivers do not work with windows. At least I find that Linux was in fact improving and wasn't saying things just for the sake of saying it.
Of course ALL OS'es are not perfect and ALL have hardware problems one way or another. But just because I do not buy in what M$ is stating without seeing any kind of hard facts does make me some sort of evil linows user.
Also I have never used lindows in my life and really don't know much about it other than the fact that its users are very happy using it. So they must be doing something right.
When it comes to SP2. I have installed many patches before promissing exsactly what SP2 promises now. Of course it could benefit. But as I see it now and given my past experiance its the same things that I have seen before with the same problems.
Also people will have different experiances with it. I run database and financial software as well as my hardware did not work very well with SP2. Like one person has already stated.
'Your milage may very.'
Of course everyone here can explain technicaly why any service pack is good. But people don't care for the technical side of things. They just want their shit to work.
Its not to say that their experiances are not positive. BUT to dismiss everybody that does have probles with it and does not buy into what M$ is saying as some sort of zealot is childish. No I will NOT agree that M$ is taking steps in the right direction since I have not seen those steps been taken yet. But who knows. Perosnally I think that if they have not got it right with XP, with the length of time they have been in business then they will not get it at all. Again thats just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
quote:
This is the reason why people misunderstand you and you cause so much trouble here.
I agree. But being this is a forum its easy to missunderstand something. I find it happens everyday with telephone conversations. Why? because we are not physically able to fully communicate and thus we may miss interperate what we were trying to say in the first place and come out in error. I guess such a thing will be human given our different experiance, backgrounds, values and beliefs on any topic.
quote:
Opinions are like arsholes, everyone has them and they all stink.
- Put this in your notepad please.
LOL I like that one. Very true!
and on that note, what i've just said is to a fair extent just my take on things (http://smile.gif) [/QUOTE]
-
quote:
I do not.
I'd say you do. If you didn't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
quote:
Let me clear myself up. If you stated that M$ has 'supirior' driver support over Linux , I will disagree with you.
Funny thing is, nobody ever said it did. They simply said that it isn't as bad as what you say. We said that it hasn't fucked up for us. Some of us even said that Linux has been known to fuck up. Because we said this, you started a jihad against people for saying that "Windows had better driver support", when nobody ever said such a thing.
quote:
Mainly because Linux has come along way and the amount of hardware it does support is amazing.
No shit. But, also remember that while many pieces of hardware are supported... many are not. You word your claims in such a way that this is what we get from you:
"Linux is perfect in every way. If you say you had a problem with it, you're lying and you've been brainwashed by the 'MS FUD machine'!"
Whether or not you mean to communicate that is irrelevant. This is the way you ACTUALLY come across.
quote:
Not only x86 but PPC and Sparc just to name a few. I know that some drivers do not work with linux. But my point was that even though some drivers do not work I found that most drivers do not work with windows.
I stated the opposite, that most do. In my experience, I've never had one driver to fuck up. I've never had a Linux driver fuck up on me. I've known people who had Windows drivers fuck up. I've known people that had Linux drives fuck up. I had an OS X driver fuck up.
quote:
At least I find that Linux was in fact improving and wasn't saying things just for the sake of saying it.
Just as Windows has. I've seen a definite improvement in quality since 1994 when I started using Windows. 3.1 was god awful, then 95 came out and it was quite amazing. Win98 turned me off of 9x completely, though, and I jumped ship to NT4. Around the same time, I started fiddling with alternative OSes. OS/2 3.x, Linux, and I got my first Mac, a then fairly new Power Mac 7200 and I ran OS 8.5 (which I gladly paid $100 for).
I went from NT 4 to 2000, but didn't get XP when it came out. By that time, I was sold on OS X, and waited until the end of summer '01 and got an iMac 500 with OS X. I used that until the beginning of summer '04, at which time I got a PC so I could run XP and Red Hat.
XP was greatly enhanced from what I remembered of 2000. It was noticably faster, it was more polished, more attractive (fuck you guys, I like the way it looks), and better than 2000.
Now, with SP2, I can say that it's gotten even better, as nearly all of the glaring problems have been dealt with.
Kudos to the Windows boys at MS. They're finally doing their job.
-
Lier Lier!
FUD FUD and more FUD.
Windo$e hasn't improoved atorl, SP2 made it worse.
Your a M$ pupet you repette everythings M$ say your Windows zeolot.
The XP skeme is play skule and so are you for liking it.
How dare you disagre with me!
Me Solaris roolz and everytihnfg I say is true, and all you say is Lies, FUD and M$ talk.
You bullshit!
LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
:D :D :D
-
Okay, now you're starting to get on my nerves. Really, isn't it hard enough trying to decipher Solaris' quips without you interjecting your mockery every chance you get? This quote bears repeating here: if you don't feed the trolls, they go back in there holes; but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you deadites start chomping on this board.
*loads shotgun* Refalm, help pick off some deadites! :D
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: Midnight Candidate/BOB ]
-
quote:
I'd say you do. If you didn't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
You are having that conversation. I've moved on.
quote:
Funny thing is, nobody ever said it did. They simply said that it isn't as bad as what you say. We said that it hasn't fucked up for us. Some of us even said that Linux has been known to fuck up.
Each pearson does have their own experiance. But like you have stated. Just because you yourself hav not seen windows fuck up does not mean that for the majority it works fine.
quote:
Because we said this, you started a jihad against people for saying that "Windows had better driver support"
,
Jihad means to strife. Or to make difficult. How the heck does 'jihad' fit into it?
You mean I started yelling at people......
compared to Linux it does not. But thats from what I have seen. Maby the next version will be better. Who knows.
quote:
when nobody ever said such a thing.
Aloone. The one that stated that Windows had better driver support than Linux as it was fact. If that was the case. My D-Link card would work.
quote:
No shit. But, also remember that while many pieces of hardware are supported... many are not. You word your claims in such a way that this is what we get from you:
Ah. So there is wher the misscommunication is. I believe some are not. Correct. But at least for Linux it is improving.
quote:
"Linux is perfect in every way. If you say you had a problem with it, you're lying and you've been brainwashed by the 'MS FUD machine'!"
No. Linux has flaws just like any other OS out there. But when it comes to computing. Then yes they are doing a good job. I have yet to see M$ make a diffrence out there. But who knows for the future.
quote:
Whether or not you mean to communicate that is irrelevant. This is the way you ACTUALLY come across.
Well I appologize if thats the way I have come accross.
quote:
I stated the opposite, that most do. In my experience, I've never had one driver to fuck up.
Which was great. So I can see why you would find windows helpful.
quote:
I've never had a Linux driver fuck up on me. I've known people who had Windows drivers fuck up. I've known people that had Linux drives fuck up. I had an OS X driver fuck up.
True. Same here. I've eventualy have gotten Linux to work and once they work they stay working. Unfortunatly I've never had that much of a positive experiance. Even if I could get the driver to work in windows it seemed to revert back to its previous problem, happend with my radeon 7500. But I'm glad things worked out for you at least.
quote:
Just as Windows has. I've seen a definite improvement in quality since 1994 when I started using Windows. 3.1 was god awful,
I agree. Couldn't stand windows 3.1.
quote:
then 95 came out and it was quite amazing. Win98 turned me off of 9x completely,
I went from wni95, 98SE to ME (Never tried 98 and alot of people that had, said the same thing as you)and I found that they did a good job over all. They ran the programs that they were supposed to run and I could at least get some things to work. Which was great for me. I agree that It was a step in the right direction after windows3.1
quote:
though, and I jumped ship to NT4. Around the same time,
I first came accross NT4 when I was hired as an admin. It didn't handle to well on stability and I found it awful compared to 9x.
quote:
I started fiddling with alternative OSes. OS/2 3.x, Linux, and I got my first Mac, a then fairly new Power Mac 7200 and I ran OS 8.5 (which I gladly paid $100 for).
Hay, thats cool. I've never got into MACS. but its cool that you got into them.
quote:
I went from NT 4 to 2000, but didn't get XP when it came out.
Yea, I took the same path. We got slogged by viruses and such under NT4 and we thaught that Windows2000 would be a great upgrade. So we went for it. In the end we got clobbered again by the same stuff that affected NT4.
So I see that our experiances differ in that point.'
We then upgraded our desktops to XP to which ran fine for a while. About 4 months or so up untill these latest rash of infections. We had updated them to run into the same problems as the previous versions. By this time we had enough over at the server department which some of them had just got 2003 to work and decided to go over to linux. I started off with an old distro (Caldera Linux eDesktop 2.2.14 I believe) to see how it felt then moved up. Currently its a mixture of Red Hat and SuSE. I never got into the macs but my friends that do use them love them.
quote:
By that time, I was sold on OS X, and waited until the end of summer '01 and got an iMac 500 with OS X. I used that until the beginning of summer '04, at which time I got a PC so I could run XP and Red Hat.
Well I'm actually learning alot from you. What made you switch to PC?
quote:
XP was greatly enhanced from what I remembered of 2000. It was noticably faster, it was more polished, more attractive (fuck you guys, I like the way it looks),
Hmmm I guess some people would like that kind of GUI. I like the skins on KDE myself. I've never used XP as a personal desktop. Only in corperations. Unlike 2000 it seemed to me to be heavy and alot of people complained on the slowness of the apps, that it took to long to login or something as simple as the start menu would take a few minutes to popup.
I did find the KDE 1 and 2 were limited but KDE3.x has been amazing. I don't see the need do higher that 3.1 since I can do what I want with that version but I have heard that KDE has gotten faster than its previous versions.
quote:
and better than 2000.
Well I'm glad that you find it so.
quote:
Now, with SP2, I can say that it's gotten even better, as nearly all of the glaring problems have been dealt with.
Kudos to the Windows boys at MS. They're finally doing their job.
Well I have yet to see SP2 solve the things that it has promised. It hasn't worked for me. But I'm glad it at least worked for somebody. No harm in that.
Thanks Jimmy James for sharing your experiance. One of the best posts you have made.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Okay, now you're starting to get on my nerves. Really, isn't it hard enough trying to decipher Solaris' quips without you interjecting your mockery every chance you get? This quote bears repeating here: if you don't feed the trolls, they go back in there holes; but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you deadites start chomping on this board.
*loads shotgun* Refalm, help pick off some deadites! :D
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: Midnight Candidate/BOB ]
just ignore him.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Okay, now you're starting to get on my nerves.
Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Really, isn't it hard enough trying to decipher Solaris' quips
LOL!
True.
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
without you interjecting your mockery every chance you get?
I sometimes just can't help myself. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
This quote bears repeating here: if you don't feed the trolls, they go back in there holes
Ok, I will stop feeding the troll!
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
; but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you deadites start chomping on this board.
I will exercise some self control in future.
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
*loads shotgun* Refalm, help pick off some deadites! :D
Please don't shoot me... I've said sorry! (http://graemlins/scared.gif)
-
quote:
What made you switch to PC?
Not the OS or the hardware. It was Apple, the company. If you think that MS is "evil", then you should look at Apple. They expect you to buy a new machine every year to run the recent upgrade of their OS!
BTW, "jihad" is an Arabic term, from the Quoran meaning "holy war".
-
After installing SP2 after it taking nearly 24 hours to download on my shitty 5k/second connection, everything is well, it seems to be good open office seems to run a bit faster. Windows took a bit longer to boot up the first time as it still needed to finish the installation, but even after a reboot it still took a bit longer, I rebooted again and it got faster, this is an example of the pre-emptive booting feature in action. I would say that overall SP2 has been a sucess.
Linux vs Windows driver support.
I was arguing that when hardware companies don't provide details of their products to Linux driver developers it often results in semi-functional drivers. When I mean semi-functional I don't mean bad as in system fucking up bad, I mean it works but some of the important features are missing, for example a graphics driver that doesn't support the hardware accelerator. Bad Linux drivers are often closed source and the company doesn't put the same amount of time and effort into their Linux driver as most people use Windows.
Open source Linux drivers where the manufacture has either released their hardware details or written the driver themselves, are often better than Windows drivers due to the usual open source advantages that you are all aware of.
Windows drivers are normally quite good, MS releases most of the Windows API, I would dare say that they're too honest and also release all the exploits and bugs too. MS' monopoly position forces manufactures to write drivers for Windows and as they want to keep their market share the quality of the driver is as important as the hardware. There is no reason why any manufacture would release good Mac drivers and poor Windows drivers. I would suspect that this situation is more likely the other way round, because of MS' monopoly they would be more likely to spend more time developing Windows drivers.
Oh, as I mentioned hidden APIs:
Often some APIs are hidden because they are only called by Windows, and if MS published them and developers used them, it would screw up compatibility even more, as they might not be used by future Windows versions. If MS released them it would mean that they would have to be included in all future versions, thus creating more bloat and legacy code problems.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS X has hidden APIs and functions. You have a look at the instruction set for the 8086 and many of it's successors and you will find many
-
OS X will never come to x86 PC because it would kill Apple's hardware sales. While they sell more iPods by volume than Macs, they still make a much higher profit on computers than they do MP3 players.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Not the OS or the hardware. It was Apple, the company. If you think that MS is "evil", then you should look at Apple. They expect you to buy a new machine every year to run the recent upgrade of their OS!
This seems odd to me. A lot of people talk about how OS X keeps getting faster. You're the only person I hear saying it gets slower.
I think your iMac just sucks or something. I mean, a G3 500mhz machine with no fan... :D Just kidding. ;)
-
but it has convection cooling :-D
-
You mean like the Apple II? (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Not the OS or the hardware. It was Apple, the company. If you think that MS is "evil", then you should look at Apple. They expect you to buy a new machine every year to run the recent upgrade of their OS!
BTW, "jihad" is an Arabic term, from the Quoran meaning "holy war".
OS X 10.3 officially runs on any G3 with built-in USB; it unofficially runs on any G3, or machine with a G3 upgrade card with help from XPostFacto. So the very first iMac, which is six years old now, can officially run Panther. Will it be the most pleasurable experience? Perhaps not, but neither is Windows XP on a PC from 1998.
My PowerMac is over two years old, and has gone from 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3, getting faster with each upgrade; it will probably last a couple more years with comfortable performance, though I plan to upgrade the CPU soon. I wouldn't be surprised if this machine is still usable for another four years. Likewise, my G3 iBook is doing just fine.
If anything, Macs have a history of NOT requiring extensive upgrades to run the latest software. OS X, and the switch from old to new-world put a slight kink in that pattern, but it was necessary. Your claim is largely FUD.
And Jihad is not Arabic for holy war, it just means struggle. The word itself predates the time that Islam even entered Arabia, or there could be anything 'holy' applied to it (the areas was filled with pagans before Islam).
-
i would expect tiger to be faster on a g3 after that big lawsuit against apple.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
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. you can see where this logic falters.
So far, I have never seen a single post you made that didn't make you look like complete noob.
-
quote:
Your claim is largely FUD.
Sure, it's "FUD", whatever you say, buddy boy. After all, you didn't sink $1200 into a Mac, after being promised "full support by 10.1" only to learn that AltiVec was the dividing line between first-class and second-class citizen.
Sorry, but I remember the promise of "Rhapsody for all PCI Power Macs". Hell, I remember the promises of Copland for all Power Macs.
I felt disappointed, felt that I'd been ripped off by Apple, and that my computer had been depreciated faster than it should have been.
I'm sorry if I pissed you off by the fact that I felt let down. I apologize if I don't worship the ground that Steve Jobs walks on.
It's my damn choice, and my reasons. If my personal feelings are "FUD", then I have an idea for you...
Fuck off.
-
But the thing is, still - how did OS X get slower for you when it got faster for so many others? Like bedouin's Power Mac from 2 years ago has gotten faster with each release. What is your machine missing?
quote:
Sorry, but I remember the promise of "Rhapsody for all PCI Power Macs". Hell, I remember the promises of Copland for all Power Macs.
Why does that matter so much to you? The first Power Mac came out in 1995, why would an OS from 2001-2003 run on that? Especially from Apple, with their love of GUI and nothing else.
Your machine is from 2001...it probably has some feature missing that's killing it.
-
quote:
Sure, it's "FUD", whatever you say, buddy boy. After all, you didn't sink $1200 into a Mac, after being promised "full support by 10.1" only to learn that AltiVec was the dividing line between first-class and second-class citizen.
Before I begin let's have a look at your original post, where you stated that Apple, "[expects] you to buy a new machine every year to run the recent upgrade of their OS!"
Throughout Apple's history they've tended to support machines for a reasonable amount of time. Machines like the IIx (manufactured in 1988) can run up to OS 7.5 (released in I believe 1995). That's a machine supported with an up to date OS for about 7 years; not bad. Or take the Quadra 700, a 68k machine released in 1991, that supports up to OS 8.1 (released in 1998). So that machine (and similar models) were supported for 7 years as well, and during a major architectural shift from 68k to PPC -- when Apple could have easily abandoned them.
Your claim, as interpreted by most, is that Apple releases OS updates and then forces its users to purchase new hardware, on a regular (you claimed yearly) basis. Something any seasoned Mac user knows is untrue.
Now, if you're upset because your early G3 system was partially supported by early versions of OS X, then perhaps you should have stated that, and not exaggerated your claims beyond it.
And for the record, I have an 800mhz G4 and an 800mhz G3 machine. For most tasks I notice no difference between the two, so AltiVec is hardly the dividing line between first-class and second-class citizens. There's plenty of people perfectly happy with OS X on their B&W G3s.
quote:
Sorry, but I remember the promise of "Rhapsody for all PCI Power Macs". Hell, I remember the promises of Copland for all Power Macs.
The shift from classic to OS X was drastic. In those days MacOS was beginning to lag behind even Windows. Big changes had to be made, and they also had to be made fast (Windows 2000 was around the corner; NT already existed). It's unfortunate that some machines did not receive full support during this transition, but it was necessary due to time constraints and a lack of resources. Apple may have made promises, but I'm doubtful that even they realized the exact path they were going to take with OS X -- Rhapsody and Copland are just prime examples of that. In the end, if scrapping complete support for a few machines meant a quality OS, then it was worth it.
quote:
I felt disappointed, felt that I'd been ripped off by Apple, and that my computer had been depreciated faster than it should have been.
Just to clear this up for non-Mac users who may not know: There's a group of G3 Macs (beige PowerMacs, clamshell iBooks, iMacs, and early PowerBooks) manufactured between 1997 and 1999 that did not have hardware DVD playback, or graphics acceleration in OS X. That meant to watch a DVD you'd need to boot into OS 9, and that Aqua was a bit sluggish on machines with only 2MB of VRAM. Put this into perspective though: a PC from 1997-98 with 2MB of onboard video and a low mhz rating probably wouldn't make a great XP machine either. I think it's unrealistic to expect Apple to completely support some of these machines in OS X.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
But the thing is, still - how did OS X get slower for you when it got faster for so many others? Like bedouin's Power Mac from 2 years ago has gotten faster with each release. What is your machine missing?
It's missing a decent graphics card. If the Mac he owns/owned is the original iMac, it had anywhere from 2-6 MB of video ram -- which given OS X's intense GUI, no amount of driver hacking can really make speedy. On top of that, the machine has a 266mhz CPU and a 66mhz bus. The beige G3s had similar problems, however you can upgrade the graphics card and CPU in those.
In all likelihood his machine would continue to get faster with each OS X update, but not as noticeably as one with a reasonable graphics card (since it can't take advantage of Quartz Extreme, which requires at least 16MB of video ram).
quote:
Your machine is from 2001...it probably has some feature missing that's killing it.
You hit the nail on the head basically. But some people feel they were promised speedy OS X machines, when in reality I'm not sure that they were promised anything more than a machine capable of eventually running OS X, which they do.
Since Apple users are used to getting years out of their hardware, the shift from OS 9 to OS X took a lot of people by surprise. It's really a case of evolution, and I don't think Apple planned to screw anybody over.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
-
quote:
On top of that, the machine has a 266mhz CPU and a 66mhz bus.
Jimmy's iMac is 500Mhz.
-
quote:
Throughout Apple's history
There you go... in the past. This is not the past. I still run my 7200 with OS 9.1... the OS released SEVEN YEARS after the machine.
As for my machine? It's hardly an "early G3"...
iMac Summer 2001 500MHz
Rage 128 Pro AGP4x graphics
1GB RAM
I also ran an 800MHz G4 (Quicksilver) until I sold it to buy a G5 (WORST MISTAKE EVER). The G4 was plenty pokey.
Let me point out that neither machine was *slow* in OS X. The UI was quite, quite pokey, though. Even with QE enabled on the G4 it was slow.
The G5 was unusually laggy, as well. Seems very telling.
Let me point out to you that I was a fan of OPENSTEP before anybody ever dreamed of Rhapsody, and I know how quick it was. The only real change with OS X was Quartz. The OS itself certainly didn't get slower.
And since the release of OS X, Apple has held graphics over our head like the 6th grade bully holding the candy that he stole from the 2nd grader way over his head. Then, when the crappy little free apps started requiring a 500MHz G4, and then a 1GHz G4... things got absurd.
In the last year, Apple has IMHO, gotten BAD. Yeah, they're just tryin' to make a buck, but here's their take on doing that from my point of view.
Get people to buy a Mac. Milk 'em for all they're worth before they realize that next month's software won't run on the computer they bought last month. Repeat process.
Before the end of the year, I plan on having me another Mac. Will it be new? No. Will I run OS X? Probably. Will I run Tiger? Probably not. I bought Jaguar and Panther. I'm not about to shell out again. I'll wait for the next release.
If it runs on the hardware I get.
-
quote:
iMac Summer 2001 500MHz
Rage 128 Pro AGP4x graphics
1GB RAM
Um...what? lol, no wonder. I figure even an FX 5200 would be a lot faster than that thing. You've noticed yourself that XP runs well on slow machines with a good graphics card...I don't think that a Rage 128 quite makes the cut. ;)
-
You're right. It's only a 128-bit 16MB card on AGP4x.
There's no reason I should expect it to have better-than-shit 2D acceleration.
Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways.
-
But this is OS X we're talking about - lots (too much) of stuff to be 2D-accelerated. More than that card can take, probably. It might run XP fine, I don't know, but XP even is lighter than OS X is.
AFAIK, the Rage 128 is about equivalent to the original GeForce...GF2-MX at the very most. How that's a 128-bit ( :confused: ) 16MB, AGP 4x card...god knows, they probably just stuck the old chipset on a newer board. (http://redface.gif)
-
I hate M$ simply because IMO they are a sub branch of the NSA....or worse. Why maintain an OS that is capable of multiple exploits????
Why would a company do this I wonder. Best way to maintain computer surveillance is to produce an OS that is soooo completely open to as many exploits as can be gotten away with that it would be easy to monitor what the user does. Back in the mid to late 90's a bill (cant recall its name) was presented to the US congress togive the feds and others the authority to enter premises etc etc to confiscate a users system on the slimmest of evidence. It was narrowly defeated, fortunately.
Sp2 is only another way to secretly plant further means to allow exploits. Remember in win95 the *.nsa extension and many thought it was an NSA thingy. Even if it wasn't the concern was there then.
I did install the sp2 and deleted it the same day as a piece of shit. ms dont fix bugs they are ordered to create them.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
There you go... in the past. This is not the past. I still run my 7200 with OS 9.1... the OS released SEVEN YEARS after the machine.
Yeah, and people are running 10.3 on 5 year old B&W G3s; Tiger will likely run on the same machine. Nothing has changed.
quote:
I also ran an 800MHz G4 (Quicksilver) until I sold it to buy a G5 (WORST MISTAKE EVER). The G4 was plenty pokey.
The same machine I'm using now, which is far from 'pokey.' It wasn't even pokey when I was using its stock 32mb Radeon card (it currently has a 128mb GeForce4 Ti 4600). Its certainly managing to drive dual displays with no noticeable lag.
My basis of comparison would be any PC running XP made within the past two years.
quote:
The G5 was unusually laggy, as well. Seems very telling.
Many others would beg to differ. You do realize you've gone from claiming Apple intentionally forces users to upgrade their hardware for new OS releases, to saying you believe Macs have an inherently slow GUI? That's a quite different claim.
quote:
Then, when the crappy little free apps started requiring a 500MHz G4, and then a 1GHz G4... things got absurd.
You're really getting to the point where I wonder if you're even serious. What 'crappy little free apps' are you referring to? I'm assuming the iApps, such as iMovie and iDVD. In that case iMovie, iTunes, and iCal require nothing more than a G3 or better processor. Garageband requires a 600mhz or better G3. The most intensive of the bunch, iDVD, requires a 733mhz G4, and considering what it does I think that's reasonable. Those real-time previews require some horsepower.
And each one of those apps (except iCal and iTunes) are pretty intensive multimedia apps, not simple calculator and notepad programs. Which 'crappy free app' requires a 1ghz G4?
quote:
Get people to buy a Mac. Milk 'em for all they're worth before they realize that next month's software won't run on the computer they bought last month. Repeat process.
More exaggeration and zero facts. And BTW, you've now gone from saying Apple forces people to upgrade their hardware and buy new operating systems, to saying Apple (though, they only make a fraction of Mac software) increases their software requirements and forces people to buy new machines. Figure out which one.
quote:
Before the end of the year, I plan on having me another Mac. Will it be new? No. Will I run OS X? Probably. Will I run Tiger? Probably not. I bought Jaguar and Panther. I'm not about to shell out again. I'll wait for the next release.
If it runs on the hardware I get.
Well, you'll be waiting quite some time for an OS after Tiger, since Apple has declared there will be no more major upgrades after it. Apparently it's a grand conspiracy by Steve Jobs to force you into buying more 2 year old machines second hand off eBay so you can['t] run the latest version of OS X.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
-
Thank you, Mr. I'm a 50 post n00b.
Like I said, I could care less about your opinion. When you start saying that I'm "wrong" for having mine, though, it's time for you to fuck off.
Macs rule.
Apple sucks shit.
Nothing you say will change my mind, son.
-
MEGA GOOD
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Thank you, Mr. I'm a 50 post n00b.
Like I said, I could care less about your opinion. When you start saying that I'm "wrong" for having mine, though, it's time for you to fuck off.
It's not that you have an opinion, it's that you spread untruths. If you would have stated, "I prefer Redhat 9" and left it at that you'd have no issue with me; instead you make up a list of fictitious complaints against Apple. Lying, or speaking in an uninformed manner, is not the same as having an opinion.
So far you've made the following acquisitions; all of which are untrue.
- Apple forces users to purchase new machines 'every year' to run the latest version of OS X
Not true. The latest version of OS X runs on iMacs dating back to 1998, and has gotten constantly faster with each upgrade.
- You were not given 'full support' on your iMac and were 'ripped off'
Initially I assumed you were the owner of an early G3, and possibly felt ripped off, perhaps justifiably so given the class-action lawsuit's outcome. However it turns out you were not part of this group, and your Mac was fully supported by Apple, and continues to be. Many people are using your same machine comfortably with OS X.
- Apple has a history of supporting machines for approximately seven years, but ceased to do so with OS X
As stated already, OS X has become speedier on older hardware and runs on machines that are 6 years old; in some cases even older machines are running OS X with the help of XPostFacto.
- The iApps collectively require at least a 500mhz G4 processor; an unnamed iApp requires a 1ghz G4. Apple intentionally increases the requirements for the iApps so they do not run on older machines.
Blatantly false as only two of the iApps (Garageband and iDVD) require anything above a 600mhz G3; iDVD being the most demanding requires a 733mhz G4, and rightfully so. Also keep in mind that Garageband didn't appear until iLife '04, and considering what it can do even 600mhz is a modest requirement.
- Mac users are 'milked for all they're worth'
Yet on average we keep our machines longer than most PC users do, and make less hardware upgrades.
- OS X is actually fast, but suffers from a sluggish GUI
A quite different claim than your original, which in case you forgot, was that Apple refuses to support older machines. Nonetheless it's a subjective claim that many would disagree with.
[/list]
The content of your writing is better determined by the facts contained within it, not how many posts you have made -- whether it be 2000 or 15. Some how I will learn to deal with my 'newbie' status knowing that I don't intentionally spread mistruth and act like a general ass when proven wrong. Thanks for trolling though.
-
In an attempt to put this thread back on track after so many people have tried their best to derail it...
quote:
I hate M$ simply because IMO they are a sub branch of the NSA....or worse. Why maintain an OS that is capable of multiple exploits????
So Tom Ridge is cooking up Windows, eh? Whatever you say, conspiracy man.
quote:
Why would a company do this I wonder. Best way to maintain computer surveillance is to produce an OS that is soooo completely open to as many exploits as can be gotten away with that it would be easy to monitor what the user does. Back in the mid to late 90's a bill (cant recall its name) was presented to the US congress togive the feds and others the authority to enter premises etc etc to confiscate a users system on the slimmest of evidence. It was narrowly defeated, fortunately.
Did you know that things like that come up in Congress all the time?
OH NO THE GUBMIT IS GUNNA TAKE OVER!!!!
quote:
Sp2 is only another way to secretly plant further means to allow exploits. Remember in win95 the *.nsa extension and many thought it was an NSA thingy. Even if it wasn't the concern was there then.
I never knew anybody that thought that. My friends and I always thought it was funny, though. We got a good laugh making fun of people who would think that it had something to do with THA GUBMIT.
quote:
I did install the sp2 and deleted it the same day as a piece of shit. ms dont fix bugs they are ordered to create them.
(http://www.ecsyle.com/jimmyjames/media/lol.jpg)
-
This thread is about SP2, not Apple. Go to the Apple section to bitch about them, or I'll have to bin this mofo.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: Fett101 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
AFAIK, the Rage 128 is about equivalent to the original GeForce...GF2-MX at the very most. How that's a 128-bit ( :confused: ) 16MB, AGP 4x card...god knows, they probably just stuck the old chipset on a newer board. (http://redface.gif)
No way man. The Rage isn't even comparable to a TNT2 M64(the low end TNT2). It is nowhere near a GeForce 2 MX(that is where the Radeon 7500 steps in).
Earlier in this thread people were talking about drivers fucing up in OSes. Now if you want to talk about OS driver fuck up look no further than installing a Radeon in Linux. I have not been able to get the Radeon drivers to work in any distro so far. I'm not the only one as most people do not have much success taking thier Radeon past the generic Vesa driver in Linux. It is ashame because alot of people own a Radeon.
-
I think we can all agree that ATI writes bad drivers.
now If there were kernel modules by these guys (http://www.omegadrivers.net/) that would kick major ass.
but The only drivers for my old Radeon 7000 were the generic VESA ones, which were ok.... for glxgears. But RTCW:ET looked like a slideshow on it.
-
Well it looks like IE will no longer automatically download files(without a user knowing) therefore will not automatically download spyware from sites. If you click on that bar you can choose to install what was blocked.
Image scaled down so peole don't bitch (http://tongue.gif)
(http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/sp2IEsecurity.jpg)
[ August 14, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
This does a far better job:
(http://www.neilturner.me.uk/shots/firefox/ffox1.jpg)
-
I have firefox. I still like IE better because of better website compatibility. Speedwise they are both fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Firefox is a nice browser, it just doesn't have all of the written for IE site compatibility.
If I want tabs in IE all I have to do is use MyIE2.
(eidt)Luna? Yuck. (http://tongue.gif)
[ August 14, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
I have firefox. I still like IE better because of better website compatibility. Speedwise they are both fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Firefox is a nice browser, it just doesn't have all of the written for IE site compatibility.
If I want tabs in IE all I have to do is use MyIE2.
(eidt)Luna? Yuck. (http://tongue.gif)
I don't get these problems because I don't use any MSIE-only sites, and if I need to I will just use MSIE. The only way MSIE beats Firefox for speed, is the time it takes to load, as MS IE is always in memory, and because of this Firefox (or any other non-MS browser) takes up more memory as it means loading another program.
I have find Firefox a lot faster than MSIE, I might notice this more than you because I have a shitty 5k connection.
For me security and features are more important than compatibility.
Normally MSIE-only sites are badly written and are thus shit.
-
Security isn't much of an issue to me with IE. I have a good hardware firewall on top of a good Software firewall that blocks all popups(NPF 2004) on top of a decent software firewall(Windows firewall).
I don't stray to porn and warez sites either so that means I'm less likely to pick up the spyware + I don't go to many stes that I don't already normally visit so I'm not very likely to stray to a malicious site that tries to explot IE or infect with a JS virus.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
At the moment there is no way to disprove his postings. SP2 is still new and we have yet to see any new vulnerabilities. At this point and time there is no way to prove wether it is going to do any good or not. He is posting that it isn't any good with no proof to back the statement up whatsoever.
[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
The whole idea of sevice packs is bad.
Why is it so difficult for MS to show everything what's in it.
You get 2 choices:
*Blindly accept everything.
*Fuck off and leave your system unprotected.
-
Yes! Fuck Mozilla!
It dosn't support scrollbar CSS witch is a W3C standard!
IE has many great MS only tags hence it's the only browser that can render proper html.
-
Nice flamebait, think if you leave it out there long enough ya might get a couple nibbles?
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
The whole idea of service packs is bad.
I disagree, it shows that MS is fixing their buggy OS. I would hope that SP 2 took so long to release because MS is learning form its mistakes. In the past MS has rushed the release of service packs and other software thus cutting corners and fucking it up. This could also be the reason why the release of Long Horn keeps getting delayed.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Why is it so difficult for MS to show everything what's in it.
I take it you mean the packages and not the source code.
MS only knows.
Because Windows users are retarded and they want to ensure that SP 2 is
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Nice flamebait, think if you leave it out there long enough ya might get a couple nibbles?
LOL!
Let the flambait continue
(http://erudition.illhostit.com/images/smiles/violent5.gif)
-
quote:
Now if you want to talk about OS driver fuck up look no further than installing a Radeon in Linux. I have not been able to get the Radeon drivers to work in any distro so far. I'm not the only one as most people do not have much success taking thier Radeon past the generic Vesa driver in Linux.
Have you tried the generic "ati" or "radeon" drivers? (And (http://graemlins/fu.gif) ATI for outsourcing their driver work.)
-
It has been a really long time since I've encountered an Internet Explorer only site, and even then I just force Safari to identify itself as IE, which usually works fine.
In my experience the Gecko engine is even better at dealing with IE-only sites than KHTML.
Seriously though, if a company/service isn't professional enough to test their site on a variety of browsers/platforms, they don't deserve your business. And it's really not that hard nowadays, especially since the most popular browsers are cross-platform and MacIE is dead.
BTW: Are Konqueror and Safari pretty close when it comes to rendering, since they're both based on KHTML?
-
quote:
Originally posted by bedouin:
It has been a really long time since I've encountered an Internet Explorer only site, and even then I just force Safari to identify itself as IE, which usually works fine.
I think Viper means the truetype fonts.
You need to add them manually for legal reasons.
-
quote:
kn0wn / bob: windows 3.1 to 95 is not a decade! There HAS BEEN NO improvments if THE SAME PROBLEMS ARE present in ALL OF THEM!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/wmx/win95demo_300.asx (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/wmx/win95demo_300.asx)
If you're not closed minded, you would watch this, Solaris.
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]
-
You might want to get a snack first...
I must say after reading all this controversy I can't help but join in. I have used windows ever since 3x came out and replaced dos and have surfed the internet (3.11 for workgroups) on it and must say that there is a big difference. Same goes for Linux. Id have to say that for a personal computer for the average joe, windows is a better choice, and for the average joe ISP or network server, nix based systems are better. Most of the people that flame either side here are missing the big picture.
Windows had siezed the opportunity long ago to dominate the market by clever use of resources (xerox) and marketing strategy toward the average person. This is where linux has failed in the past, as you can see it is mainly used by gurus and the development of it has branched off into dozens of different distros made by individuals and companies in hopes of gearing it toward certain tasks and specific people in mind, none of which has interested joe blo. Plus, funding for development usually relies on donations. Linux seems to be doing significantly better in the last couple of years.
To virus and crapware writers, having two choices: write a virus that will spread to 20% of the globe, or write one that will spread to 80%, the choice is clear. Everyone using the same system makes it easier to spread, so windows becomes a target. Linux has had thier share of exploits and bugs which have had patches. Writing an exploit for linux would be fundamentally easier because it is open source and the secret entrances are exposed, but again, the hunger for world domination of the virus writer would not be fulfilled, and would probably not even make the media turn its head.
I bet this is a surprise to M$ haters that the first working virus was developed and tested on unix. Here is a snippett:
On November 3, 1983, the first virus was conceived of as an experiment to be presented at a weekly seminar on computer security. The concept was first introduced in this seminar by the author, and the name 'virus' was thought of by Len Adleman. After 8 hours of expert work on a heavily loaded VAX 11/750 system running Unix, the first virus was completed and ready for demonstration. Within a week, permission was obtained to perform experiments, and 5 experiments were performed. On November 10, the virus was demonstrated to the security seminar.
Viruses dont give a crap who has what, and have even been getting into cellphones now that they are getting software with more features and becoming more like a personal computer. Viruses will ALWAYS be around getting into whatever is new, just like biological viruses will always affect humans until we convert ourselves to metal someday, and then we will be constantly backing up our brain for fear of electronic viruses. Its the yin for the yang, the mayo on your(at least mine) hot dog.
As for people who complain about windows being bloated and running slow on thier computer causing instability, this is true for YOUR computer. Anyone who has used assembly and know what compiling is, knows that it takes a lot of code to do even the simplest thing like adding two numbers. 3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed. Linux used to fit on a floppy but you wouldnt be doing much. Doing more shit takes more code, and automating things so that you dont have to compile everything and know where every path is, the exact driver you need, recompile your kernel, ect. also takes code. This is fine because it is geared toward people that dont know how to do any of that and never will no matter how much you try to beat linux into thier heads. If your machine cant handle it, maybe its time to stop upgrading windows and upgrade your machine, because software utilizes the current hardware available as of its release.
I wont say linux will never be as easy but it hasnt yet, so my grandma will not be using it. She would also rather pay for and drive a car than use the free bus in town because there are less stops along the way. You get what you pay for, and paying next to nothing means more work for you and less for the programmer.
Browser wars: This crap gets annoying. People are so bent up over mozilla, opera, firefox, and IE and which is better. When the internet first blossomed, the two leaders, IE and Netscape tried to make thier own versions of HTML to section off the web basically, so you could make your website viewable to one or the other, or both if you had the time. The w3 stepped in and made a standard for everyone to use and stop the fighting. IE has gone along with this and has even added extra things like being able to color the user's scrollbars on a web page, while others seem to lack support for some of the w3 standards and a lot of javascript. Point being the best browser for windows is the one that came with windows because it was designed to work that way, but people claim it is open to exploits and that is thier reason for switching. News flash: Exploits are written for whatever is popular so if everyone in the world were to switch to say, opera, sploits would come out of the woodwork asap. If you like other browsers and thats what it takes to get you on the internet go ahead, there are dozens of choices out there for out fat nacho-computer-screen-staring-at asses to enjoy, and keep in mind that computers have never been used before they were invented so we have no history in some past life to tell programmers what problems are going to arise, and the more diverse plugins and programs become will lead to even more diverse problems on an individual basis AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE FORSEEN by these code spewing humans.
the lesson learned here is:
you cant please everyone
ok im getting carpal tunnel now
-
quote:
3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed.
3.0 is 7 DD floppies, and 4 HD ones (I have the HD set). 3.1 is 6 HD - with multimedia support being the only new thing. I can see that being an extra full disk...but two?
I run 3.0 on an old 25Mhz 386 laptop. It flies. There should be more simplicity these days than there is, since my 386 laptop is faster than my Pentium 4 desktop. ;)
[ September 13, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
Nice posts. Being nitpicking, I would like to argue some Brandon's points:
Originally posted by Brandon - [A+/?]:
You might want to get a snack first...
I must say after reading all this controversy I can't help but join in. I have used windows ever since 3x came out and replaced dos and have surfed the internet (3.11 for workgroups) on it and must say that there is a big difference. Same goes for Linux. Id have to say that for a personal computer for the average joe, windows is a better choice, and for the average joe ISP or network server, nix based systems are better. Most of the people that flame either side here are missing the big picture.
"Average joe" definition is relative hence the danger of generalization. The problem is the lack of education and knowledge of each system. You said Windows is better because this OS came pre-installed on many PC hence the illusion for easy install. Now that Linux distros evolved, the " Windows is a better choice" is no more a valid argument unless you are a gamer.
Windows had siezed the opportunity long ago to dominate the market by clever use of resources (xerox) and marketing strategy toward the average person. This is where linux has failed in the past, as you can see it is mainly used by gurus and the development of it has branched off into dozens of different distros made by individuals and companies in hopes of gearing it toward certain tasks and specific people in mind, none of which has interested joe blo. Plus, funding for development usually relies on donations. Linux seems to be doing significantly better in the last couple of years.
In this case, the failure paid off because individuals and companies learned from their mistakes by getting supports not only from developers, by users and community.
To virus and crapware writers, having two choices: write a virus that will spread to 20% of the globe, or write one that will spread to 80%, the choice is clear. Everyone using the same system makes it easier to spread, so windows becomes a target. Linux has had thier share of exploits and bugs which have had patches. Writing an exploit for linux would be fundamentally easier because it is open source and the secret entrances are exposed, but again, the hunger for world domination of the virus writer would not be fulfilled, and would probably not even make the media turn its head.
Difference between Windows and Linux distros are the diversity i.e users can choose among Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Mandrake, Suse or other distros.
I bet this is a surprise to M$ haters that the first working virus was developed and tested on unix. Here is a snippett:
Some Microsoft haters because you can't put all different eggs on the same basket. Now the virus you mentionned is 20 years old and you just mentionned what was done for academic demonstrations unlike the current modern virus.
Anyone who has used assembly and know what compiling is, knows that it takes a lot of code to do even the simplest thing like adding two numbers. 3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed. Linux used to fit on a floppy but you wouldnt be doing much. Doing more shit takes more code, and automating things so that you dont have to compile everything and know where every path is, the exact driver you need, recompile your kernel, ect. also takes code. This is fine because it is geared toward people that dont know how to do any of that and never will no matter how much you try to beat linux into thier heads. If your machine cant handle it, maybe its time to stop upgrading windows and upgrade your machine, because software utilizes the current hardware available as of its release.
I have to argue on this one. First error is to assume all Linux distros are the same. Sure they are based on the same kernel, but the whole packages are different. The reasons why current Linux distros come with CD are from the extra packages in addition to the kernel. You can still install a Linux kernel (2.4) from floppy drive but that decision belong to the individual. Second, no one has seen the source code of Windows without NDA agreement. Because of this, no one can check the Windows problem which is why Microsoft are so slow for fixing their products.
I wont say linux will never be as easy but it hasnt yet, so my grandma will not be using it. She would also rather pay for and drive a car than use the free bus in town because there are less stops along the way. You get what you pay for, and paying next to nothing means more work for you and less for the programmer.
I guess you haven't try Linux distros such as Xandros or Linspire. What is your grandma's need? This argument is now obsolete.
Browser wars: This crap gets annoying. People are so bent up over mozilla, opera, firefox, and IE and which is better. When the internet first blossomed, the two leaders, IE and Netscape tried to make thier own versions of HTML to section off the web basically, so you could make your website viewable to one or the other, or both if you had the time. The w3 stepped in and made a standard for everyone to use and stop the fighting. IE has gone along with this and has even added extra things like being able to color the user's scrollbars on a web page, while others seem to lack support for some of the w3 standards and a lot of javascript. Point being the best browser for windows is the one that came with windows because it was designed to work that way, but people claim it is open to exploits and that is thier reason for switching. News flash: Exploits are written for whatever is popular so if everyone in the world were to switch to say, opera, sploits would come out of the woodwork asap. If you like other browsers and thats what it takes to get you on the internet go ahead, there are dozens of choices out there for out fat nacho-computer-screen-staring-at asses to enjoy, and keep in mind that computers have never been used before they were invented so we have no history in some past life to tell programmers what problems are going to arise, and the more diverse plugins and programs become will lead to even more diverse problems on an individual basis AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE FORSEEN by these code spewing humans.
Another point you didn't mentionned is Internet Explorer come included on Windows package which was not the case with Netscape. By including Internet Explorer as part of Windows, Microsoft sustemically destroyed that browser competition. When there is no competition, company have a tendance to stagnate their products while other innovated.
[ September 14, 2004: Message edited by: zao ]