«

[rlbell]

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy+Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blood-Pigggy @ Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 09:18 PM

But I know that microsoft can do better than this. They release crap after crap knowing that they got the monopoly so people will buy any sh!t they can throw. And THIS is the sad thing. I know wrinting an OS is hard...etc, but how much harder could it be to write it good I ask? Some minor bugs are tolerable, but EVERY single windows has major errors and pathetic bugs in it. They use the same STOLEN base code in every single OS they release. Did you know Bill STOLE the base of windows and released it as his own? That doesn't make it right what I do, I know, but if they can write an OS, why don't they care about what they release?

I agree 100% with that.
I acknowledge the fact that some people are working hard and long to make OS, but how Microsoft can decide to ship without correcting obvious mistakes is stupid.

That is one of the biggest problems in this industry, developers aren't given enough time, just so the publisher can get it out the door and make cash fast. [/b][/quote]
There are issues, and there are issues. An unknown (and unknowable) number of bugs in Windows and every other OS are the result of the work of Dykstra (sp?), who wondered what would happen if you created a non-deterministic computing model (you won't know what a program does before you run it). Part of the answer is that you can never know if it is completely debugged. On the other hand, you also get dynamically allocated memory and recursive programming methods, so it is unlikely that bug-free, multi-threaded operating systems were ever on the cards, if we refuse to run potentially buggy software.

Peculiar to Windows is the problem that if MS ever comes up with reasonably reliable set of features that satisfies their customer base, they have made their last sale. The largest competitor to the latest Windows upgrade is their pre-existing software base. To get people to buy the next version of Windows, the new version must add some new feature that the previous version lacked while still leaving the customer with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction that is not great enough to get them to migrate. You have never been satisfied by Windows, because it is not in Microsoft's best interests for you to ever be happy with it, just happier with this version than the last one.

Windows is plagued by the problems of adding the feature, without caring about how that feature could be exploited. You cannot design a feature and then add security to it. Especially if execution performance is important. Microsoft does not deliberately design their software to be vulnerable to hackers, it is just the only way to make it run at an acceptable speed. Active X is much faster than Java, but the java virtual machine tries to keep malicious code from untrusted sources (read everywhere else) from running amok in your hardware, but the emulation layer slows everything down. Active X is forced, by design, to trust everybody.

Security-wise, Windows suffers from never being originally designed to network. Networking was added afterwards. Linux was inspired byUnix, which was developed to control a distributed computer system that could be accessed from anywhere by anyone (the phone network), so security was the first thing on the mind of its designers. If unix-like operating systems appear to be less user-friendly and flexible it is because security-compromising features were left out.

You can design software to be bug free. It has been done for at least one nuclear power station. However, the bug-free nature comes at a price, software flexibility and power.

[Stebbi]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+Jan 21 2006, 01:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s. @ Jan 21 2006, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 11:24 PM
I won't pay for Vista, nor did I pay for XP or any other OS. Why should I? Thats just a framework for running REAL programs. And without it you are as good as none. I only buy games or programs that DESERVES to be payd for. Like StarCraft, or CS 1.6 from games. The Independence Day from movies. Or FL Studio from programs(I didn't pay for that actually, but if I gather some more money I will buy a copy for sure). This is different for everybody, but one thing still stands, The OS. Why pay for the ABILITY to pay for programs?

HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS????
DESERVE??? what do you mean by deserve???
houndrets of people developed operating system for LOTS of hours, weeks, month and years! do you know, EVEN CARE how difficult this is?
operatg system is root of your computer. if hardware is body then operating system is soul
without operating systems NONE of your starcrafts-counterstrikes WOULD work
and this is not less then any "real program"-as you call it
DO-YOU-GET-IT?


//iam sorry to get that angry but that post just killed me

btw Playbanosh do you use any program/OS of those you did not pay for? [/b][/quote]
well some games just suck and are not worth wasting m,oney on......

[Playbahnosh]

@rlbell 1

You are 100% right dude. Microsoft is not evil in the meaning of the word. They are business people, they are out for the cash. And they know how to get it. They abuse people. Well duh! Who doesn't? This is the oldest of the profiencies (not counting wh0res). They know that people NEED their crappy OS to run other crappy programs. They control the whole software market, cut this was they can control and redirect the cash flow to their accounts.

Did you see the documentary Pirates of Silicon Valley(I guess this was the title, not sure)? It's a bit old, but true nonetheless. It tells the story of the early Macintosh and IBM companies and the birth of Microsoft. It tells how Bill Gates TOOK PART in creating the base of an operating system FOR MAC computers, the mouse and so on. But he got an idea. He STOLE the fledling base OS, created Microsoft and released it as Windows before their partners had the time to react. That was Windows 1.0. Of course their partners took the case to court, but the fact that was a top secret project, they had no proof of taking part in it. Bill and his Windows lived happily ever after, the end. Brilliant move. It was nasty and evil, but you have to admit it was genius. And Bill continues to control the market with the same rotten-brilliant attitude. He is unfair and nasty, but he knows his marbles fo' shizzle.

@rlbell 2

I and Pigggy were not pointing out that windows must be bug-free. Nobody can do a program that complex bug free. I was just pointing out that EVERY SINGLE release of windows contains major error and pathetic bugs. For example, many people encountered the W32.Blaster.Worm a while back. It was a simple, yet entertaining worm. Of course it was annoying at some point, but when I realised what was it using to annoy people I gone rofl. Blaster uses a BUILT IN service of windows, I can't translate it now. Now look at this: They designed this service so, that wen it shuts down for some reason, it restarts the computer after 30 seconds. Why, I ask? Why 30 Seconds? "to save your data" right LOL. If it was THAT dangerous error, the windows should be freezed or BSOD or something like that no? Or just simply display a message sayin "this service was shut down. You must restart your computer as quickly as you can". This would be appropiate I think. But why give a countdown? ITs just annoying, and giving the feeling your computer will explode or something. All you can do is watch the clock ticking and you computer die. Well, rofl. And Blaster is no comlicated stuff, it uses a single method tho call a function from NTUSER.dll and shut down a certain service. Child's play.

This was only one hilarious bug, and there is Sasser written by a 14 y.o. guy from Germany. I was talking about this.

[_r.u.s.s.]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Jan 21 2006, 02:18 AM

Calm down dude, jeez. Hey I wasn't insulting you in any way. Why do you use dirty words against me? You can do it nontheless, but why bother flaming when we can talk like intelligent people? This is not the russian government dude, we don't kill each other here. I said my opinion, you can say yours. You can say that I'm not right and you can say why. This is how it goes. Of course you can flame me all you will, but will that change anything? I hope we can come to terms...

ok, peace dude.

btw what do you have agains russian goverment?? :angry:

[Master MC]

Will Vista have DOS-support?

[Havell]

XP was the first step away from the inefficient and clunky DOS base, Vista is the second. So I doubt it, except in the form of emulators.

[Playbahnosh]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Jan 21 2006, 03:18 PM
ok, peace dude.

btw what do you have agains russian goverment?? :angry:

oo-kay... You say peace with your first word, and attack me with your second. Wow

I have nothing against the russian goverment, but a while back they used to kill each other, if you've learned your history you have to know that. Of course those "purging programs" were not public, but everybody knows about it. I don't know how it goes nowdays, but considering there are occasional fights in the Duma, I doubt everything is in order.

But that is far off topic right now don't you think?

@on topic

I doubt vista has any support for dos. XP only had a joke-of-an-emulator and was pretty much useless. You are better off using DosBOX. I don't know but I have a feeling that DosBOX actually won't run on vista. Not in its current form anyways.
This is only a business thing. They designed vista so, thatn only a small portion of the "chosen" programs can run on vista. Or to explain this more clearly, they um "restrict" the usage of "not wanted" programs. The rest, those are far less important then Microsoft to notice will continue working on the new system. At least if I was Bill I would do this...

[_r.u.s.s.]

it wasnt attack it was a bit abusy from you, but it doesnt mater now
peace
=D

and bout that thing bout payng not for windows, you said that you dont pay becouse its crappy
ok i understand why dont you pay
yes it is crappy, but if everyone do this then we wouldnt have niether that crap we have now

if that you say its right and most of money go to uncle ...Mike? OH it was Sam and to bill gates pocket, not programmers pocket(if they got much less money then them)
then their prices are too high and anti monopoly ministry would "react"
or no? :blink:

[efthimios]

If you use it, you have to pay for it since they are not giving it away. It doesn't matter if you don't like B.Gates, Microsoft or Windows with or without its bugs. You use it, you pay for it. If you do not, then you are a stinking thief. It is as simple as that.
There is no matter of right or wrong, matter of if you like it or not, or if you believe the OS is the worst out there. You use it, you pay for it.

[Gandalf]

Originally posted by Reup@Jan 19 2006, 09:51 PM
But seriously. Vista will be the same but newer. There will be benefits from using it, and many, many downsides as well, most notably the price. But, as Microsoft has an unprecented talent for running a good marketing campaign, they'll undoubtebly succeed in making Vista a succes. They strike the deals with Dell, HP and other PC retailers, not to mention that their excellent educational licensing (i.e. practically giving the stuff away to any educational facility) gives them a vast userbase.
Power-users know there's more fish in the sea, but most people couldn't care less about their OS, as long as they can email, play a game or two and download Pr0n, they're happy.

JM0.02$

Yes, that's it!

So far every new version of Windows eventually found its way onto the HDs of millions of computers. Due to ubiquitous software piracy and bundling contracts that's only a matter of time. And of course this will happen once again with Windows Vista.
Other contributing factors are that Microsoft will quickly discontinue support for older OS including XP. So if you want to stay updated and "protected" you will be forced to use their newest version. And last but not least: watch the system requirements of newly released game titles. Due to the domination of Win2000/XP many developers have stopped testing and support for Win98/ME.

Looks like you can't stop the march of time, especially with MS pushing in your back.

I certainly will give Vista a try. Hopefully there's an option to turn off all those fancy graphic effects. I don't like those giant icons, bars and menues, because they waste so much space and reduce usability instead of improving it.
With each version the desktop looks more and more like a showcase presenting its content to the world. Sigh, some people just want to work with it. What about the original meaning of "desktop"?