| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
A Person 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
|
 Posted: April 29 2009 at 17:32 |
I really wish I could get a shiny new computer because I have heard good things about windows 7. I know for almost certainty that this old hunk of junk will never be able to run it with only 256 MB and the old mother board that it has. XP works fine though, but if I could upgrade to a shinier looking OS i would, I like my computer to look pretty. 
|
 |
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 17:44 |
|
I don't mind Vista's UI or stability; from what I've seen they are both good. It's a performance hog and I'm a gamer and we don't like those. I will probably get Windows 7 though, if they don't horribly screw it up between now and release.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 18:01 |
I've just typed a long post to have it disappear into the ether because I typed too fast and IE8 loaded the first entry in my favourites list instead. This is not unique to IE8 because Firefox and Opera have the same fault.
That epitomises everything I hate about modern operating systems. They are all rubbish. Modern software engineering is abysmal and we put up with it like mindless drones, moaning and complaining but not capable of doing anything other than wait for the next software update, service pack or OS release in the hope that this time they'll get it right and actually fix something properly rather than dressing old tat up in new clothes and plugging the holes with wads of chewed paper, knowing full-well that we'll fall for it every time. If a PC was a car we would have sent it back for a refund every time.
Windows is a dreadful operating system and we still defend it. Everything about it is a compromise, poorly thought out and woefully executed; the concept of the Registry is a total disaster - it's a completely unmanageable bloody mess and whatever Muppet dreamt it up should be shot... from a very big cannon aimed at the heart of the Sun on the hottest day of the year... without a hat.  There is no such thing as a new Microsoft operating system because Microsoft has never bitten the bullet and redesigned everything from the ground up, each successive iteration is a bodge of the previous one, dig deep enough and you'll find bits of Windows 3.11 (PROGMAN.EXE worked with XP service pack 1 and WINFILE.EXE can still run under Vista - those two programs are Win 3.11), deeper still and I wouldn't be surprised if you find odd scraps of GEM in there somewhere - they can't even get rid of MS-DOS. And don't hold your breath over Windose 7 - it's just a pimped-up Vista with a touch of gloss paint and the worlds largest marketing team behind it - all hail multi-touch, now you need four hands to operate a PC - the next version will come with dream catcher hanging in every window and some scented candles to make it more "user-centric". Microsoft will never develop the perfect OS because it's not in their interest to do so - if they did it would be game over - what they are developing is a better way to sell you something you already have because the one they sold you before was broken before you got it out of the box.
...And don't get me started on Active Directory - what a  job that is. 
...and as for Linux ... c'mon, that's a based on a forty year old OS that was thrown together in an attic by a bunch of wigged-out hippies stoned on weed listening to Grateful Dead albums and using Robert A Heinlein novels for reference. We've been patiently waiting for the punchline to this joke, but it's like an interminable shaggy dog story... it simply doesn't have one. The whole architecture was developed around hardware that Noah rejected when building the Ark because it was too archaic ... then, even the latest modern hardware can go obsolete in the time it takes Linux to boot. In principle Linux should be brilliant - it should be like a top-fuel dragster - all power and no weight, but it's more like no power and all wait. Likewise, X-Windows should have been the great head-turner - the GUI that showed the world how it should be done, but after using various versions of it over the past 15+ years it still feels crude and clunky - like Win 3.11's poorer second cousin, twice removed (the one they hide in the basement because it scares little kids and gives the postman nightmares) - an Etch-A-Sketch would make a better graphical front-end than that sorry excuse (and have better graphics). Ever tried using a USB pendrive on a Linux system? I've fried several doing that. Bored with the Beguine, the Samba isn't your scene.
Let's face facts - the latest Quad-core PC's should be 4,000 times more powerful than the old PC-AT - then why don't they feel like they are? Even if they felt like they were 40 times more powerful we'd notice, but do we? Really? A PC that powerful should boot-up before your finger has left the power-button - mine doesn't even come out of sleep-mode as quick as an old Atari ST used to boot - what's that all about? Where's the giant leap forward? Is that really "progress"? The last time you installed an OS on your PC how long did it take? 39 minutes? What takes so frigging long? 39 minutes to read from one single CD ROM in a 32x drive and copy the files onto a harddrive - a wax tablet and bone stylus would be quicker - a hammer, chisel and slab of marble would be quicker. By now everything on a PC should be practically instantaneous - you shouldn't ever have to wait for software to load, for tasks to execute, for files to save. I've given up on Opera & Firefox because they take so long to load - I don't care how great they are once they've loaded - when I chose to browse the internet I want to do it NOW - not after I've brewed a coffee, read the funny-pages and done the cryptic crossword in the newspaper. Multi-desk should be flip,flip,flip from one screen to the next (X-Windows nearly gets that one right) - as it is it is an unusable gimmick on the PC that most people don't even bother enabling and I imagine quite a few people have no idea what they've just read or what on earth I'm on about.
The speed and power of modern hardware is blistering compared to the old 8MHz 16-bit processors - yet it's like watching hippos run through syrup on a cold day wearing wellington boots. As hardware gets bigger and faster the software gets exponentially more cumbersome and unwieldy. As processing power doubles, code-length appears to quadruple and the net result is things seem to take twice as long as they did before - surely that's not right. Regardless of whether I can now edit movies or do lots of other really clever maths-heavy things that I could never dreamt of doing on a home computer - the fundamentals should be a breeze - 99% of what everyone uses a PC for are not power-hungry tasks - most of the time it's just a glass typewriter and it can't even get that right.
...so to answer the Poll question. I use Vista, XP-Pro, Server 2003, Linux, SunOS, Solaris & Red Hat and I'd swap all of them for a decent port of Amiga Workbench any day. 
You are in a maze of twisty passages all alike
you are carrying
a lamp
what now? (N,S,E,W,U,D) >N
You are in a maze of twisty passages all alike
you are carrying
a lamp
a hollow voice says "Plugh"
what now? (N,S,E,W,U,D)
> XYZZY
Nothing Happens,
what now? (N,S,E,W,U,D)
>_
Edited by Dean - April 29 2009 at 18:22
|
|
What?
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 18:36 |
|
I think you're a bit hard on OS designers. Sure they could be better, but it's a goddam monumental task, and I know I wouldn't want the job. My biggest complaint is that they won't focus on under-the-hood improvements, because your average user won't notice those kind of improvements. However, from what I've heard, Windows 7 is doing much better in benchmarks. Also, the next iteration of Windows (after 7) is supposed to be a redesign from the bottom-up.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 19:24 |
I don't think I've been any where near hard enough. The task is monumental because they've made it that way - incremental OSs are expanding to occupy the increased processing power and memory sizes and there is absolutely no need for that - nothing has fundamentally changed in twenty years in the way in which the desktop computer works - the architecture is essentially the same but the OSs have become top-heavy with a plethora of features that no one asked for and no one uses. Open up task manager and look at all the processes running on your PC - 70% of those are never used, so they sit there doing nothing - open up the Windows directory and look at all the redundant and never-used dlls - open up Documents and Settings and then set Explorer to show all the hidden folders - open Regedit and scan through all the useless and unwanted keys and entries - all that is created by lazy programmers and OS designers. Every PC running on the planet contains code that is used by a tiny fraction of the installed base. All of that should have been options you add when needed. Want to see that get even more ridiculous - get a Windows Server and go through the Active Directory system - only a fraction of that junk is needed.
Windows 7 can only be an improvement on Vista due to the way both operating systems were developed from the Backcomb/Longhorn projects. I think any speculation on Win 8 is nothing more than guesswork - there are lot of things it should be - only time and Microsoft will know what it will be - my guess is Windows 7 will have several service pack releases long before we see Win 8 and by then (by Moore's Law) hardware will be more than capable of running multiple operating systems simultaneously so backwards compatibility will never be an issue,
|
|
What?
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 01:30 |
 Deathrabbit wrote:
Also, the next iteration of Windows (after 7) is supposed to be a redesign from the bottom-up.
|
They also told us that about XP, Vista and Windows 7. But it is still based on Win 3.11 or worse. Frankly; I have lost my faith in the MS Spindoctors. XP is pretty good and I voted for that. I am concerned about the fact that they still have to issue security patches for it. You don't release a car without brakes. But XP was released without brakes. I think Microsoft has got away with murder. That also goes for Vista which I ran support on for a hard-ware producer. We had numerous problems with that and I am one of those who avoid Vista like I would avoid swine-flu. Windows 7 looks promising. I like Ubuntu. I think the next five years will be dominated by the fight between the upcoming version of Linux and Windows 7. I believe the new version of Linux will win and Microsoft's days are numbered. A bit off topic, but I would like to point everyone in the direction of the superb Open Office. I have just managed to get my boss to save his Ms Office investment budget and rather go for the free Open Office. Fingers crossed and I hope I will get the "employee of the month" award. Check out Open Office.
|
|
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 02:37 |
 to Dean. Trust the software makers to nullify the hardware advantage. And it's only logical in the end. The sales of one drive the sales of the other.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 11:52 |
Tony R wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Tony R wrote:
I've never had a single problem with Vista on either of my machines. I run lots of apps and it works perfectly. I only ever buy Sony Vaios so maybe it is component quality that is the issue.
Never liked XP or any other Microsoft OS though.
|
Hmm. Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say Vista is great, and others say that it sucks, so you're probably right. I can't really say why I prefer XP over Vista, except that I find XP much more user-friendly and less confusing to work with.
So what OS have you used other than Microsoft? Just curious.
|
I've used Macs (as in worked on) but never possessed one. I also buggered around with a basic linux system in the long longago. My main experience post Commodore 64, is Windoze. Never liked any of the varieties until Vista.
|
See, that's my main problem: I haven't really experienced any other OS besides the Windows editions, so in all honesty I'm not sure why I got so defensive of Mac OS X yesterday, especially since I have never actually used one hands-on.  I think it's just because I've had nightmarish experiences with all of my PCs, and Macs are my 'only hope', as it were. Again, I am sorry for my biased remarks yesterday. I do appreciate your honest advice, whether I showed my appreciation or not.
M@X mentioned Windows 3.1, and I have to say, that was my first Windows system, too. I have very fond memories of it. Probably one of the coolest, most problem-free Windows OS I have ever personally used.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 13:00 |
Dean wrote:
...and as for Linux ... c'mon, that's a based on a forty year old OS that was thrown together in an attic by a bunch of wigged-out hippies stoned on weed listening to Grateful Dead albums and using Robert A Heinlein novels for reference. We've been patiently waiting for the punchline to this joke, but it's like an interminable shaggy dog story... it simply doesn't have one. The whole architecture was developed around hardware that Noah rejected when building the Ark because it was too archaic ... then, even the latest modern hardware can go obsolete in the time it takes Linux to boot. In principle Linux should be brilliant - it should be like a top-fuel dragster - all power and no weight, but it's more like no power and all wait. Likewise, X-Windows should have been the great head-turner - the GUI that showed the world how it should be done, but after using various versions of it over the past 15+ years it still feels crude and clunky - like Win 3.11's poorer second cousin, twice removed (the one they hide in the basement because it scares little kids and gives the postman nightmares) - an Etch-A-Sketch would make a better graphical front-end than that sorry excuse (and have better graphics). Ever tried using a USB pendrive on a Linux system? I've fried several doing that. Bored with the Beguine, the Samba isn't your scene.
|
These complaints sound like the ones I had about Linux 10 years ago. They are completely the opposite of my current experience: the boot times are as fast as any Windows machine I've ever used; X+nautilus or KDE is as nice looking a GUI as you'll find in Windows, with virtually all displays and video cards supported (I haven't mucked about in a X config file in many years); and no, I've never fried a USB drive, ever, in the probably thousands of times I've inserted one into a Linux box over the past decade.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 13:35 |
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
...and as for Linux ... c'mon, that's a based on a forty year old OS that was thrown together in an attic by a bunch of wigged-out hippies stoned on weed listening to Grateful Dead albums and using Robert A Heinlein novels for reference. We've been patiently waiting for the punchline to this joke, but it's like an interminable shaggy dog story... it simply doesn't have one. The whole architecture was developed around hardware that Noah rejected when building the Ark because it was too archaic ... then, even the latest modern hardware can go obsolete in the time it takes Linux to boot. In principle Linux should be brilliant - it should be like a top-fuel dragster - all power and no weight, but it's more like no power and all wait. Likewise, X-Windows should have been the great head-turner - the GUI that showed the world how it should be done, but after using various versions of it over the past 15+ years it still feels crude and clunky - like Win 3.11's poorer second cousin, twice removed (the one they hide in the basement because it scares little kids and gives the postman nightmares) - an Etch-A-Sketch would make a better graphical front-end than that sorry excuse (and have better graphics). Ever tried using a USB pendrive on a Linux system? I've fried several doing that. Bored with the Beguine, the Samba isn't your scene.
|
These complaints sound like the ones I had about Linux 10 years ago. They are completely the opposite of my current experience: the boot times are as fast as any Windows machine I've ever used; X+nautilus or KDE is as nice looking a GUI as you'll find in Windows, with virtually all displays and video cards supported (I haven't mucked about in a X config file in many years); and no, I've never fried a USB drive, ever, in the probably thousands of times I've inserted one into a Linux box over the past decade.
|
Maybe I'm jaded; maybe because I'm stuck with Red Hat 3 and cannot upgrade because of driver limitations of the system it's used to control; maybe it's because it's piggy-backing off a Server 2003 system network because it cannot even see my SunOs network; maybe it does boot as fast as any Windoze system, but maybe that's a poor benchmark; maybe it's because it hangs for no apparent reason and is no more stable than a Windows PC; maybe I'm just a tad annoyed it fried my very expensive 16Gb JetFlash...  
I don't doubt linux based systems can fast-boot - my network media player and all my NAS drives all have linux operating systems and they're up and running in less than 20 seconds - then I've seen an ITX system running XP boot in less than 5 seconds so that's not a great feat. All my PC based Linux workstations (I currently use two plus one under vmware) still take an age to boot.
Oddly enough 10 years ago I loved Unix and X-Windows - it was sweet and neat and my Sun Ultra 10 was the best workstation I've ever owned. Perhaps I keep comparing a Linux PC to that so it falls short.
|
|
What?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 15:24 |
Doohickey OK I need some compensation from Windows for that one, but I will not hold my breath as my head will turn purple, no not that one...
Edited by Slartibartfast - April 30 2009 at 15:27
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165
|
Posted: May 01 2009 at 09:32 |
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
...and as for Linux ... c'mon, that's a based on a forty year old OS that was thrown together in an attic by a bunch of wigged-out hippies stoned on weed listening to Grateful Dead albums and using Robert A Heinlein novels for reference. We've been patiently waiting for the punchline to this joke, but it's like an interminable shaggy dog story... it simply doesn't have one. The whole architecture was developed around hardware that Noah rejected when building the Ark because it was too archaic ... then, even the latest modern hardware can go obsolete in the time it takes Linux to boot. In principle Linux should be brilliant - it should be like a top-fuel dragster - all power and no weight, but it's more like no power and all wait. Likewise, X-Windows should have been the great head-turner - the GUI that showed the world how it should be done, but after using various versions of it over the past 15+ years it still feels crude and clunky - like Win 3.11's poorer second cousin, twice removed (the one they hide in the basement because it scares little kids and gives the postman nightmares) - an Etch-A-Sketch would make a better graphical front-end than that sorry excuse (and have better graphics). Ever tried using a USB pendrive on a Linux system? I've fried several doing that. Bored with the Beguine, the Samba isn't your scene.
|
These complaints sound like the ones I had about Linux 10 years ago. They are completely the opposite of my current experience: the boot times are as fast as any Windows machine I've ever used; X+nautilus or KDE is as nice looking a GUI as you'll find in Windows, with virtually all displays and video cards supported (I haven't mucked about in a X config file in many years); and no, I've never fried a USB drive, ever, in the probably thousands of times I've inserted one into a Linux box over the past decade.
|
Maybe I'm jaded; maybe because I'm stuck with Red Hat 3 and cannot upgrade because of driver limitations of the system it's used to control; maybe it's because it's piggy-backing off a Server 2003 system network because it cannot even see my SunOs network; maybe it does boot as fast as any Windoze system, but maybe that's a poor benchmark; maybe it's because it hangs for no apparent reason and is no more stable than a Windows PC; maybe I'm just a tad annoyed it fried my very expensive 16Gb JetFlash...
I don't doubt linux based systems can fast-boot - my network media player and all my NAS drives all have linux operating systems and they're up and running in less than 20 seconds - then I've seen an ITX system running XP boot in less than 5 seconds so that's not a great feat. All my PC based Linux workstations (I currently use two plus one under vmware) still take an age to boot.
Oddly enough 10 years ago I loved Unix and X-Windows - it was sweet and neat and my Sun Ultra 10 was the best workstation I've ever owned. Perhaps I keep comparing a Linux PC to that so it falls short.
|
Linux just seems to fit what I need to do here at work fairly well - for the longest time it was the only (non-Mac) OS that had a 64-bit version and thus could support the type of memory I had in machines needed to process enormous data sets; plus everything's free - OS, C and Fortran compilers, Office Suite, etc. I'm just also a geek who loves using terminals and the command line, so let me not downplay that factor.  But I do know Ubuntu has really brought the usability factor to a whole other level, in my opinion - I was also a Red Hat (and then Fedora) user back around 2000-01, and it was a herculean effort just to get the damn thing to install and work properly on a machine - as I said before, having to endlessly hand edit config files, etc. There was a sort of challenge, and a bizarre, very geeky satisfaction about having gotten the thing to work at all - nowadays I couldn't be arsed, if that were still the state of things, I'd be running Win.
|
|
TheCaptain
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1335
|
Posted: May 04 2009 at 21:39 |
|
I use Ubuntu often when I'm doing my everyday things (listening to music and surfing the internet) simply because it's faster. If I ever need to do anything that I don't know how to do on Ubuntu (which is a lot) then I'll switch on over to Vista. So I voted for Vista first because it was closer to the top of the list. When I read the question where you said you were interested in which OSes we used, I foolishly assumed there would be multiple votes allowed on the poll.
|
|
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: May 04 2009 at 22:46 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Tony R wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Tony R wrote:
I've never had a single problem with Vista on either of my machines. I run lots of apps and it works perfectly. I only ever buy Sony Vaios so maybe it is component quality that is the issue.
Never liked XP or any other Microsoft OS though.
|
Hmm. Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say Vista is great, and others say that it sucks, so you're probably right. I can't really say why I prefer XP over Vista, except that I find XP much more user-friendly and less confusing to work with.
So what OS have you used other than Microsoft? Just curious.
|
I've used Macs (as in worked on) but never possessed one. I also buggered around with a basic linux system in the long longago. My main experience post Commodore 64, is Windoze. Never liked any of the varieties until Vista.
|
See, that's my main problem: I haven't really experienced any other OS besides the Windows editions, so in all honesty I'm not sure why I got so defensive of Mac OS X yesterday, especially since I have never actually used one hands-on. I think it's just because I've had nightmarish experiences with all of my PCs, and Macs are my 'only hope', as it were. Again, I am sorry for my biased remarks yesterday. I do appreciate your honest advice, whether I showed my appreciation or not.
M@X mentioned Windows 3.1, and I have to say, that was my first Windows system, too. I have very fond memories of it. Probably one of the coolest, most problem-free Windows OS I have ever personally used.
|
It was fairly solid, but that's only because it couldn't do much. It was just basically a program run on top of DOS.
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: June 02 2009 at 01:46 |
|
XP for mee/
|
|
|
|
PhuncleSam
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 05 2009
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 40
|
Posted: July 22 2009 at 13:14 |
OSX 10.5 for me, I love my mac, everybody I know that's used my computer wishes they had a mac
|
|
Interviewer: "So Frank, you have long hair. Does that make you a woman?"
FZ: "You have a wooden leg. Does that make you a table?"
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 22 2009 at 15:09 |
Vista at home, Ubuntu at work. And Debian on the servers ...
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: July 22 2009 at 17:57 |
Had 'em all from 3.1 to Vista. XP probably my favourite, but like others here I've never had a problem with Vista (blue screen of death appears in next two minutes, probably).
Since I no longer use a PC for work I have to pay for my own lappies so me, Toshiba & Vista are gonna have to get on just fine for a couple of years yet.
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
camilleanne
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 29 2009
Location: Philippines
Status: Offline
Points: 403
|
Posted: July 22 2009 at 19:33 |
XP for me.
|
|
The planet is fine the people are f**ked.
-George Carlin-
|
|
Lodij van der Graaf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2009
Location: Jakarta
Status: Offline
Points: 150
|
Posted: July 23 2009 at 02:34 |
|
Which what?
Which is the best?
Which one do you use?
Which one's the most expensive?
I use Microsoft Windows XP, I voted it.
|
|
Grace is a name,
like Chastity,
like Lucifer,
like mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Which OS?
