Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Bazoukas on 29 October 2002, 07:09
-
Give me a fucking brake.
Even though KDE has more eyecandy that you can handle, i use Gnome. And the way I customized Gnome beats the shit out of MS's GUI.
FUNCTIONALITY people. Right now am doing coding under Windos (dont ask, I need to use it for VB) and I it pisses the shit out of me.
No shading, no stackin layers, no multiple Desktops. I realy wonder how I ever thought that Windows is a serious OS.
Give me a fucking brake you Fisher Price generation teenagers and get a real man's/woman's
OS.
For Fucks sake already!!!
[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]
-
like Mac OS X... or even better, the classic Mac OS. it was the height of GUI functionality, no matter what appearance scheme it had... be it the old System 7 look, Apple Platinum, or any other theme, it was the best, and always will be. hands down.
OS X uses Quartz, which is the most badass fucking graphics layer on the planet. Classic Mac OS's graphics layer, QuickDraw isn't any more or less advanced than Windows' GDI... but it does show you how behind MS (and everyone else) is with something as crucial as the display framework. Quartz is device and resolution independent because it's PDF based. It could drive a 400DPI plasma display as easily as a 72DPI CRT or LCD.
let's see XP's shitty bitmapped engine do a transform on a window the way OS X does the genie, or zooms windows out of icons. let's see XP use OpenGL to render the UI, let's see XP support multiple displays simply by plugging them in. Let's see XP in major production studios like Lucasfilm, and have motion pictures like Star Wars or Moulin Rouge edited with Windows.
You won't. Windows might have a good kernel, but the rest of the OS sucks cock. From the UI implementation to the shit eater GDI layer, to the half-ass multimedia support... Windows is the worst software platform for doing video and heavy graphics. UNIX, and now primarily OS X will be the king of the hill there. Better core, and better support systems.
At school, we had both G4s and some Dells in the video lab. Which ones do you think people used first? They went to the Dells, thinking "Macs suck"... they soon realized the truth. Stuttery video with garbled sound and dropped frames isn't good for your grade. It doesn't look good, and it's not acceptable. Fuck MS and their shitty multimedia support that they stole from Apple and bastardized.
Windows Media sucks ass, GDI sucks ass, Windows XP sucks ass, NT sucks ass. Bill Gates and all his cronies like Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer all suck juicy ass goo.
Quicktime rules, Quartz rules, Mac OS X rules, UNIX rules. I rule, too because I just blew up and ranted about how much Windows sucks. You may all bow down before me now. :D
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob ]
-
Thank you for the entertainment bazoukas.
-
well for functionality i keep going back to XFce.
it has never crashed on me, like KDE and GNOME (particularly GNOME) do, and it is much easier to get your head around and customise than KDE, GNOME or even iceWM.
If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob:
like Mac OS X... or even better, the classic Mac OS. it was the height of GUI functionality, no matter what appearance scheme it had... be it the old System 7 look, Apple Platinum, or any other theme, it was the best, and always will be. hands down.
OS X uses Quartz, which is the most badass fucking graphics layer on the planet. Classic Mac OS's graphics layer, QuickDraw isn't any more or less advanced than Windows' GDI... but it does show you how behind MS (and everyone else) is with something as crucial as the display framework. Quartz is device and resolution independent because it's PDF based. It could drive a 400DPI plasma display as easily as a 72DPI CRT or LCD.
let's see XP's shitty bitmapped engine do a transform on a window the way OS X does the genie, or zooms windows out of icons. let's see XP use OpenGL to render the UI, let's see XP support multiple displays simply by plugging them in. Let's see XP in major production studios like Lucasfilm, and have motion pictures like Star Wars or Moulin Rouge edited with Windows.
You won't. Windows might have a good kernel, but the rest of the OS sucks cock. From the UI implementation to the shit eater GDI layer, to the half-ass multimedia support... Windows is the worst software platform for doing video and heavy graphics. UNIX, and now primarily OS X will be the king of the hill there. Better core, and better support systems.
At school, we had both G4s and some Dells in the video lab. Which ones do you think people used first? They went to the Dells, thinking "Macs suck"... they soon realized the truth. Stuttery video with garbled sound and dropped frames isn't good for your grade. It doesn't look good, and it's not acceptable. Fuck MS and their shitty multimedia support that they stole from Apple and bastardized.
Windows Media sucks ass, GDI sucks ass, Windows XP sucks ass, NT sucks ass. Bill Gates and all his cronies like Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer all suck juicy ass goo.
Quicktime rules, Quartz rules, Mac OS X rules, UNIX rules. I rule, too because I just blew up and ranted about how much Windows sucks. You may all bow down before me now. :D
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob ]
Very well said!! I agree with you 100%!!
I bow before you!! :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum-21.2:
If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?
Well, if you run OSX, you could surely run XFce on it. (provided it is compiled for PPC as oposed to x86).
You could either run it over OSX Aqua, or run it "pure" in darwin mode. I love OSX :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum-21.2:
If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?
Of course you can, provided that you have OS X and X Windows installed as psyjax wrote.
Go here (http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/Xwin.html) for a list of X windows apps that you can run in OS X and X windows!
-
I bow down before
The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob
Member
Member # 1563
also. I love Mac OS X too, but I wish I could use the platinum interface with it. Aqua is nice, but sometimes I feel like staring at nice, neutral grays.
Windows XP is ridiculous (my personal opinion). Microsoft's ad campaign touted it as having a completely new interface, which shows that to them this term means applying a new color scheme that resembles toys made for toddlers. Mac OS X has eye candy, too, but manages to keep the professional appearance, with more blues, whites and grays instead of huge green and orange buttons.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Very well said!! I agree with you 100%!!
I bow before you!! :D
I second that!
When I'm in Linux I prefer Enlightenment. Does anyone else here like it?
Although Enlightenment does look rather aged compared to Gnome 2 or KDE 3...
-
Enlightenment is too clever for me :( I get lost and am not kidding.
-
Make liberal use of your right and middle mouse buttons in Enlightenment and older window managers.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Make liberal use of your right and middle mouse buttons in Enlightenment and older window managers.
Like I said...it is considered and "older" window manager :(
-
Originally posted by bazoukas:
[QB]No shading, no stackin layers, no multiple Desktops. I realy wonder how I ever thought that Windows is a serious OS.
Well, it sure looks like I have multiple desktops, transparency, shadows outlining my Windows, etc in Windows XP. I also notice that the icons in my taskbar aren't all boxed up with a square outline. The only time you will ever see an ugly boxed outline around an icon or a window bar in XP is if you hover over it with your mouse(and it will unbox if the pointer leaves the icon/window bar space) or if you have the window selected. Also, I don't have a big, ugly, clunky looking clock in my taskbar(I can't stand the way icons and the clock looks in the Linux Window Managers).
I don't think my Windows VS looks like fisher price either(it looks more like Chrome ;P). BTW, you can make Windows look however you want(nobody says you have to use Windows Explorer either..you have options like LiteStep available too). Personally, I think Linux Window managers look terrible and I think the usability of the Linux Window managers is terrible compared to Windows too. Stuff that is easily done in Windows is usually a chore in Linux. It is no wonder that Lycoris and Lindows tries to imitate the feel and ease of Windows. From what I hear(I don't know if it is true though cause I've never used Redhat 8) Redhat is becoming more and more like Windows too.
Linux emulates and imitates, it doesn't innovate.
Looks pretty slick, ehhh? Also notice that I have different transparency levels for each Window(one is more transparent than the other and one of them is solid).
http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/wgui.jpg (http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/wgui.jpg)
[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by mr_nobody:
also. I love Mac OS X too, but I wish I could use the platinum interface with it. Aqua is nice, but sometimes I feel like staring at nice, neutral grays.
With a program called Duality you can change the look and feel of OSX.
Go to www.resexcellence.com (http://www.resexcellence.com) for all of your OSX Themes and Modifications. The customizability is endless.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax v6.9 /Dave:
With a program called Duality you can change the look and feel of OSX.
Go to www.resexcellence.com (http://www.resexcellence.com) for all of your OSX Themes and Modifications. The customizability is endless.
Theres one thing I can say about OSX. I really like the way it looks, I like it's interface, etc. I just don't like the machines that I have to run it on and I don't like it's lack of mainstream games.
(edit)Back on topic...Linux looks and feels generic and shitty. =0P
[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
what a shame, zombie 90210 hat most of your recent comments concerning which system is better are based on two things. firstly market share, which i have already dealt with a number of times, but which you still hold up as some sort of proof that there's nothing more important than the almighty buck, and this latest pet of yours, the GUI.
a GUI does not the system make. microsoft are notorious for showing off their GUIs while cunningly steering prospective buyers clear of the vast minefields of bugs and holes in their products. Unfortunately for progress, that has spawned a generation (of which you seem to be a part) that takes these bugs for granted, convinced that they must be there, little realising that while software must contain bugs to begin with, they can always be worked out of a product (well nearly always, depending on how backwards compatible you want to be). People like you accept computer bugs that were around years ago, as if you must just live with them. It's a shame that windows users don't make more of a hullabaloo about the real issues, instead of trumpetting off about what nice pretty pictures microsoft can draw on their screens this year.
i refer you to my comments on this page (http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000426&p=3).
-
oh yes, and as for apple, it has always been ahead of microsoft in the GUI stakes. This machine here (http://apple2history.org/images/apple2std.gif) was brought out in 1978, and you can see here (http://apple2history.org/images/visicalc.gif) and here (http://www.emuunlim.com/doteaters/VisiCalc.jpg) some pictures of VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet program, also out in 1978, running on it. The Apple II was a colour machine, and was devised as such so that Breakout (http://www.computerspielemuseum.de/breakout.jpg) and (http://www.classicgaming.com/vault/gifs/appleiiroms/rescue.gif) other (http://www.nwlink.com/~adamv/wasteland/nomads-o.gif) games (http://www.classicgaming.com/vault/gifs/appleiiroms/questron2.gif) could be played on it in colour. To me, this pisses in the eye of those 'windows is much better than macs for gaming' pillocks. They should open their minds a bit. (and stop giving so much of a shit about computer games for a start, but that's anopther story)
here (http://www.safelink.net/danrose/images/ss-dos/perfect-filer123.gif), here (http://www.safelink.net/danrose/images/ss-dos/vp-planner10.gif), and here (http://www.bricklin.com/02084c00.gif), you can see microsoft's attempts to compete, and remember, these screenshots are not contemporary to the Apple II (here's what Gates and Allen were producing software for at about this time (http://www.gaby.de/xzentrix/altair.jpg)). These microsoft DOS screenshots date to a few years later, and that's a long time in the microcomputer business. That last one, incidentally, is the DOS port of VisiCalc.
Just thought we might be interested in the roots of nice looking GUIs... Apple has been ahead of microsoft since the GUI was invented (but never capitalised on) by Xerox at PARC. Incidentally, it turns out that they also invented the PC (the Xerox Alto) and the 10Mbps network cable too, but never marketed them.
[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Calum-21.2 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b 2.1:
Fuck Aqua... its not open source it must be crap...
Interestingly backed up argument! Jeese! :eek: And please, do, whenever possible, avoid such stupid remarks about something you have never used before.!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum-21.2:
what a shame, zombie 90210 hat most of your recent comments concerning which system is better are based on two things. firstly market share, which i have already dealt with a number of times, but which you still hold up as some sort of proof that there's nothing more important than the almighty buck, and this latest pet of yours, the GUI.
a GUI does not the system make. microsoft are notorious for showing off their GUIs while cunningly steering prospective buyers clear of the vast minefields of bugs and holes in their products. Unfortunately for progress, that has spawned a generation (of which you seem to be a part) that takes these bugs for granted, convinced that they must be there, little realising that while software must contain bugs to begin with, they can always be worked out of a product (well nearly always, depending on how backwards compatible you want to be). People like you accept computer bugs that were around years ago, as if you must just live with them. It's a shame that windows users don't make more of a hullabaloo about the real issues, instead of trumpetting off about what nice pretty pictures microsoft can draw on their screens this year.
i refer you to my comments on this page (http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000426&p=3).
The GUI may not make the system, but the GUI does make the system it sits on more attractive. If the system looks attractive and is easy to use it is going to be preferred by most people(that is Humans are). Most people want something that isn't going to be painful to look at and they want something that is easy to use(not everybody likes spending alot of time dicking around with stuff). Sure MS products have holes and bugs but so does Open Source software. The only reason the millions of bugs that have been tracked in Linux weren't made publicly known is because less than 1% of the world uses Linux so most people don't really care. Why make a big public deal out of something that most people don't use? Market share makes a big difference in how hard some people try to exploit bugs for the popular system, tries to write malicious software to destroy that system, etc. That market share makes a big difference in what OS app/game programmers write thier software for and it also makes a big difference for what OS hardware makers choose to write thier drivers for. Most hardware and software companies do not even waste thier time porting thier software and drivers to Linux(why should they, they aren't going to make much profits off of Linux).
Software developers aren't very interested in writing software for Linux because it isn't popular...and more importantly, because Linux people tend to think that the source code of thier software needs to be made publically available(which means any Joe Dick in the Linux community can easily steal what those developers worked hard for to create).
When will people realize that this world doesn't revolve around free stuff. Hell no, people and companies want to make $$$. Open Source software will never be big simply because there is a lack of interest in it(a.k.a. there isn't much money to be made making stuff for it).
-
hmm so thats why oooohhh I dont know, the big Hollywood companies are using Linux for their graphics.
Hmm geeeezzz yeah, closed source lets you modify your app in any way you want right?
Get over it man. Most programs out there that are ported for Windows dont do anything more than the apps writen for Linux.
Please, I BEG YOU infact, to give me an example of how and where the GUI functionality of Windows is superior compared to Gnome or KDE.
And I also BEG YOU to show me a more rapid rate of development of that of the OS community. ANd please remember the OS does not have the big bucks that MS has.
And there are programs out there that are closed source for Linux, and I dont see anybody bitching about it. Infact the programs that are closed source are programs that were designed for HEAVY DUTY graphics or server tasks.
I dont know if you like Star Wars, but if you do and you already have watched Star Wars Episode II, just think of Linux when you watch the graphics.
Oh how much money did the movie make? I believe millions and millions of dollars. Same applies for Titanic, Little Stuart and so on and so on.
Oracle's prefered platform is Linux. So that should tell you something. And ORacle is Closed Source as well.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Most people want something that isn't going to be painful to look at and they want something that is easy to use(not everybody likes spending alot of time dicking around with stuff).
those people should get a mac, that's what it's for. quote:
The only reason the millions of bugs that have been tracked in Linux weren't made publicly known is because less than 1% of the world uses Linux so most people don't really care.
(http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jchap/pics/rubbish.gif) You speak utter rubbish there, my funky friend, most of the bugs and holes in open source software *HAVE* been found, and that's why open source software kicks bum while microsoft plods on creating a range of software designed to keep people buying the same old claptrap without anything new ever actually being developed. quote:
Why make a big public deal out of something that most people don't use? Market share makes a big difference in how hard some people try to exploit bugs for the popular system,
those people must be V E R Y S T U P I D. Do they think market share equals users? have they heard of timesharing? have they heard of a licence that allows a single copy of a program to be copied and redistributed infinitely, with no 'market share' ever being involved? quote:
tries to write malicious software to destroy that system, etc.
actually i think you will find that people don't write malicious software for a system that they have no hope of ever breaking into, hence people write malicious software for windows, which is deliberately insecure in order to create an antivirus software industry. quote:
That market share makes a big difference in what OS app/game programmers write thier software for and it also makes a big difference for what OS hardware makers choose to write thier drivers for.
actually it's politics and backhanders that influence driivers being written, and even that doesn't work, what with may drivers for linux equalling their windows counterparts and in more and more cases bettering them. Many of these drivers are written by hardware manufacturers themselves, as i am sure you are aware. quote:
Most hardware and software companies do not even waste thier time porting thier software and drivers to Linux(why should they, they aren't going to make much profits off of Linux).
'waste their time'? those who take the leap of faith early will make the most money and those who don't will be scrabbling for pickings. Tell me why (or don't bother, as is your usual response to questions you know you can't answer) you think they can't make any money by porting to linux programs that they have already written, compared with the wealth you seem to think can be had by writing new programs from scratch for a system that will become obsolete in five years time when everybody realises that their brand new $400 operating system won't do anything for fear of violating copyright law?
quote:
Software developers aren't very interested in writing software for Linux because it isn't popular...
hmm, interesting how there's shitloads of software for linux then, isn't it? i wonder who wrote it all? not developers then, i suppose? maybe these magical developers you mention aren't that important then? what planet are you on? quote:
and more importantly, because Linux people tend to think that the source code of thier software needs to be made publically available(which means any Joe Dick in the Linux community can easily steal what those developers worked hard for to create).
you think they think that you mean. your interpretation of the GPL is substandard, to be polite, and whatever you think about what other users think, how does that have any bearing on the licence that a particular developer or company ships their software under? don't answer if it's too hard a question, i know you prefer not to strain your 'mind'.
quote:
When will people realize that this world doesn't revolve around free stuff.
many people do know that already. You must have a limited view of the world, and i pity you if you really do confuse 'freedom' with 'free lunch'. Some people are just in this world to make money, and i really do pity them at the end of the day. quote:
Hell no, people and companies want to make $$$. Open Source software will never be big simply because there is a lack of interest in it(a.k.a. there isn't much money to be made making stuff for it).
it is big already. suck it.
[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Calum & his insidious little spies ]
-
<Jack Nicholson>
Why can't we all just get along?
</Jack Nicholson>
Linux has good points and bad points.
Mac OS/Mac OS X has good poits and bad points.
Windows XP has good points and bad points.
Linux has fewer bad points than good, is controlled by no corporate body, runs on a lot of hardware, good and bad, and is really, really cool.
Mac OS is roughly half and half, but Apple is too bubbleheaded to have gotten IBM to design some big-iron hardware before now, and Apple corp. sucks, so it has that against it.
Windows XP has roughly half and half, but is made by MS and therefore has that against it.
Linux is the best of them all. Now everybody go away and be happy using what you've got. Oh, and Zombie, stare at the watch...
::waves a watch::
You will use Linux... you will use Linux... you will use Linux.
Even Paul Thurott, the guy who does wininformant.com news has a G4 and also runs Red Hat. He's an ubergeek that favors Windows. He doesn't seem to harbor much, if any, love for MS, but he's fond of XP. Let's all be ubergeeks and love all computers, but hate MS. We can do it. We really can.
Feel the love! (http://smile.gif)
-
windoz sux