The Unoffical Techie Thread - Mac Users Are Still Welcome :)

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:02 am

I'm like wtf. People cried when 2000 Professional was coming around back when everyone ran 98SE. Then they cried when XP came out and everyone stuck with 2000 Professional (This got worse when SP2 came out). Now vista is here and everyone is sticking with XP. Will the consumer ever be satisfied or shall they continuously cry because there hasn't been a perfect OS invented yet? Its not like anyone forces the to use the OS. They could grab Mac OS X (which I don't like), Ubuntu (Which I am experimenting with), Redhat, etc. , or write their own OS something. Its maddening as to how demanding people can be for no solidified reason.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:47 am

Who wants to pay lots of money for an OS that doesn't work? Linux costs nowt, if one distro doesn't do what I want it to then I'll try another. Total cost, still nowt!!

When people shell out lots of bucks they expect something that will work. Its not like buying a washing machine. If the machine breaks within the warranty period you take it back to the shop- you can't do that with Redmonds products!

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:51 am

@ Ex

You are generalising to the nth degree. Were you around when Windows 3.1, WFW, and Windows 95 were around? They were highly regarded at the time, even if '95 was a bit of a culture shock. Many people do not want change for the sake of change. eg, I note Scam Patroller claims to still use Windows 98 ME. Shame SP Laughing

New OS's are great for young IT gurus. They are a pain to the vast majority of older, less competent users who just want their computer to carry out their routine functions.
I don't recall any backlash to XP when it came on stream, but it wasn't forced down our throats, either. Nor the service packs either. There is a consumer resistance to Vista, the reason most likely being that it is being forced onto the market. It may be great for users with dual and quad core processors, and Gigs of Ram, but many people in the real world are still using Pentium III and earlier P IV machines. Vista will not run on these computers.
In Australia, it was difficult to purchase a new copy of XP after Vista launched. That has now changed a bit.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:08 am

Mod Edit: Unnecessary full requote of previous post deleted. It can be viewed ^^^^.
Ex, you won't get to be 18 if you keep doing that Laughing

[BB]

I am seventeen but have been messing with Windows since I was four. I remember Windows 3.1. I remember Windows 95 when I loaded from floppy disks on a machine I put together myself when I was five. I remember the progression to Windows 98. I remember when 2000 Pro came out and everyone expected it to be better than it was. I don't belive that Vista is being shoved down our throats, I just believe that since the difference is so great that people are more often annoyed that they actually have to learn something new and would rather complain about than just go with it. Also, how do expect to get newer OSes without it requiring more demanding hardware. If you want more, you gotta be able to handle it right?

in any case, this thread wasn't a stab at anti-Vista people, but at people in general who always find something to complain about everytime MS releases a new OS. Like I said, they don't have to use their OSes. There's something called partition and format.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:59 am

I disagree with some of your points there.

You see, most people don't look at their OS from a purely technical aspect. They realise that they're dealing with money as well!!!

When you've got such a huge company which has had a massive monopoly for so long, people believe that they have a right to complain if the product isn't up to a respectable standard. If you spend a lot of money on an OS that is basically an upgrade, you expect it to work well. That couldn't be said of Vista when it was released. Even Bill Gates himself admitted that there were major problems with it when it first shipped.

Look at it this way - you have a '95 Ford Mondeo that's reliable but it has no electric windows, heated seats, CD player etc. So you go out and buy a brand new one with all the extras but some of those extras break. And to cap it all, now and again, the engine blows up. Are you going to be happy? Wouldn't you complain to the garage you bought it from? But what if the garage didn't give a crap? They've got your money and although you can go and drive another car (which just happens to be manual although you drive automatic) their reply is, "well, keep driving it and it should get better in a few months time. In the meantime though, you're just going to have to put up with it."
Wouldn't you be a little bit pissed at that garage?

I'd also disagree with you that Vista isn't being forced on the consumer. Go and buy a new PC today and it's the only provided option you have for an OS. Sure, there are others available if you want to put them on yourself, but if you're a customer who doesn't have a lot of PC know-how or available cash, it is your only option.

Personally, I have no problem with Vista because I don't use it. The only time I'll ever leave XP will be when MS has ironed out the major problems it has with it's "new" OS. Probably in about 2 or 3 years time.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:19 am

Ex wrote:

Will the consumer ever be satisfied or shall they continuously cry because there hasn't been a perfect OS invented yet? Its not like anyone forces the to use the OS.

And there's the flaw in your argument. One of the problems is that Microsoft DO try and force you to use the OS. Try buying a computer for any of the major vendors without Windows, or without an OS installed. Dell has a couple, Tesco has a couple (although they're budget machines, not high spec). Other than that most vendors are providing Windows like there's no alternative.
Having helped run a stall for Software Freedom Day, the amount of people who look at you with puzzlement and amazement when you hand them a CD and say "It's a free alternative to Windows" goes to show that the overwhelming public knowledge is that there ISN'T an alternative to Windows. Try saying "Partition and format" to them.

TBH, regarding people complaining about every new version of Windows, I'm not sure where you're getting the information from. People don't like change, but they weren't complaining any more than if you'd taken their familiar Windows desktop and installed Linux on it.

I'm not really sure who you're having a go at here. If people complaining about Windows bothers you, don't use it and don't listen to them. Problem solved.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:31 am

I think the bitch thread should be made into a sticky.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:37 am

Ex is definitely on the path to PWing, he is showing much more promise than that monkey, Ook. Don't stop while you're ahead. Smile

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:39 pm

What's an OS ?

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:50 pm

Having worked as a "techie" I can quite easily say that any new release of any OS (or major upgrade) always provides headaches.

However reliable the new OS is, there is always 3rd party software that either fails totally or has some functionality that stops working.

Upgrading the OS in the workplace is always a major consideration because its staff productivity that suffers if some vital piece of software no longer does what its supposed to do.

However you can't sit on your "stable" setup forever because at some point in time ONE piece of 3rd party software you use gets upgraded and you're forced to move the OS along otherwise you can no longer run it - and thats when you find out whether everything else you use still works or not.

It keeps IT people employable, thats for sure.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:52 pm

@Reaper, an Orangutan is NOT a monkey

** SUSPENDED ** Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 1267

Once I learn a bit more of (probably) Kubuntu, I'll move to that. I'm also going to learn Red Hat, so I can get a server going (once I buy the equipment).. Yes, yes yes.. I know that Kubuntu can run a server, but I'd rather go with Red Hat for that Wink

.

PS: I never complain about Windows, I like what Microsoft has done with their OS's, it's just the script kiddies and hackers that make it a "bad" OS to use.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:52 pm

@ Gomer !

An OS is the culprit when you get a totally blue screen with white text informing you the machine no longer works as it should. Do not concern yourself with the minutae. No good will come of it.

@ Dr Schmoo !

I guess we will all have to use Vista or it's successor one day, but I am hoping SP3 will buy a 2-3 year reprieve. In that time hopefully Microsoft can fix Vista.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:30 pm

People don't want to use an OS. They want to get their work done and play some games.

Why do people whine about Vista? It's resource hungry, drivers (read: peripherals like printers and webcams) don't work, the entire OS is filled with DRM, the UI is different but not easier to use...

For a more thorough analysis, read this excellent post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=390286&cid=21713610

On a lighter note, here's the key to a (more) stable MS Windows install, and here are 17 reasons to "upgrade" to XP.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:37 pm

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

You see, most people don't look at their OS from a purely technical aspect. They realise that they're dealing with money as well!!!

As a IT dickhead, I want the the damn thing to work properly without me needing to know the techie stuff. I just want to know how to use it for my needs and not to have to read a bloody encyclopaedia to do so. If I was interested in the techie stuff I would have gone into IT in the first place and I wouldn't go for something that I do not know. I prefer something that is familiar with and, more importantly, sticks in my memory.

I while ago my old machine went to the PC Home in the Sky. After a major virus kicking, I had installed Linux on it and was slowly learning how things worked. In the period before getting a new machine of my own, I forgot Linux and then I didn't know how to partition the disk. Result, I'm back on windows. It's what has stuck in my memory.

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

Tricia wrote:

It's resource hungry, drivers (read: peripherals like printers and webcams) don't work

We have 2 Vista (home premium) laptops here now, not had any problems with either of them, printers, scanners, photocopiers and webcam all work on them, easy to install them and they worked as they should, no problems whatsoever. The laptops we have are 1GB and 2GB RAM, both are very quick at loading pages and programs runs fast on them.

I found this post on another site a while ago:

Quote:

You know almost every complaint about Vista on this forum has been based on myth and mis information.

Example: One person said you can use XP Pros keys as many times as you like and with Vista you can only use it a couple times befor eyou have to sheck out a couple hundred dollars... MYTH !! XP uses license keys the exact same as Vista.

Basically if you upgrade certain components you will need to reactivate you XP or Vista. If it says that the key has been used you call the 800 # provided and with no hold time you can have Vista or XP reactivated. NEVER EVER has Microsoft forced you to pay to reactivate you Windows.

Next ... Those pop up that ask you over and over again for your various permisions that people hate can be TURNED OFF. Go to your control panel and select User Accounts. At the bottom of the selection there is an option to Turn off User Account Control. Disable this feature and all those security pop ups go away.

Next Myth... Windows Vista uses a ton of RAM.... While it is true that Vista uses more ram, most people seem to misunderstand how that affects you.

Let me explain... People think they need more RAM just to run Vista but fact is all Software today requires more ram so if your runing vista or XP you will need to upgrade anyway. Vista has a feature called Superfetch that tries to learn what programs you use on a daily bases. As it learns your habits it will preload into the RAM programs it feels your about to use. That is why Vista often looks like it is useing alot of RAM. However if you decide to do something different than what Vista has predicted it will reallocate that memory to the program you are currently using. Bottom line is the ram being used while the system is idle is available for any application you want.

[edit]

If you want to free up your system resources, thus speeding your computer, see this link:

Selective Startup Tutorial

And if you have bloatware on your computer slowing it down, use this to get rid of the crap:

The Decrapifier

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:07 pm

Windows Vista Ultimate is �275 but doesn't support some of my peripherals and can only sit on one machine. I cannot try before I buy.

Kubuntu is �0* but doesn't support some of my peripherals. I can install it on as many machines as I want.

I'm currently dual booting Kubuntu/XP but when XP cannot do what I need, then I will go entirely down the Linux route.

(*ok, it cost me the price of a blank DVD)

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:03 pm

@ Ivor Grimey Colon & Slightlyoutofit; If you get a laptop in a retail store, yes the only option is Vista. But most online vendors offer XP Pro and MCE instead of Vista (i.e. Dell, HP, Acer etc.). And most people do get their computers online believe it or not.

@ Tricia; How is the GUI harder to use? Built-in search features, a better indexing system, simplified control panel and networking commands, and a lot more. Hell there's an indexed search system integrated into the Start menu. Also, there are universal programs that make proper use of unsupported harder like Vuescan, which uses ANY scanner. Also, its really simple to use an unsupported printer. Just network it and it works in most cases. No drivers required.

@ Eamonn; Every Windows OS since 2000 allows you to try for 30 days.

Thank you SP.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:12 pm

irishemigrant wrote:

@Reaper, an Orangutan is NOT a monkey

Yeah I know, he hates being called a monkey so I call him a monkey.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:50 pm

Ex wrote:

Slightlyoutofit .... But most online vendors offer XP Pro and MCE instead of Vista (i.e. Dell, HP, Acer etc.).

Maybe in your country. But not in mine.
Go to any of the UK sites belonging to the companies that you've named and you will see that everything ships with Vista.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:10 am

^^^^^

kleindoofy wrote:

I'm currently buying some new hardware for the office, and my wholesaler (with whom I've been working for almost 20 years) said he wouldn't install Vista even if I paid him extra - which was just fine with me.

This guy sells to large businesses and - due to his maintenance contracts - has to be sure things work correctly. He said he'd start losing money quickly if he installed Vista on the machines he sells.

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1018396#1018396

Master Baiter Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 128

In my case, I do not use Windows just because I don't like my machine telling on me to MS headquarters and God knows who else. Of course, I do not do anything illegal, but I'm quite jealous of my privacy.

Somehow, if you read MS's EULA closely, it seems that as soon as you install their software (paid by you), your machine (paid by you) and the work you get done on it no longer belongs to you but to MS. Or at least they pretend that. I guess that could be disputed in court... but c'mon!!!! And please, let's not talk about the stupid, arbitrary restrictions on what you can do with you machine depending on the Vista version you buy.

On the other hand, it's great not having to worry about installing anti-virus and spyware programs and all that. I never access the net as root and that's it (apart from activating the router's firewall.)

Well, my 2 cents.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:25 am

Ex wrote:

@ Ivor Grimey Colon & Slightlyoutofit; If you get a laptop in a retail store, yes the only option is Vista. But most online vendors offer XP Pro and MCE instead of Vista (i.e. Dell, HP, Acer etc.). And most people do get their computers online believe it or not.

My point wasn't that they provide Windows Vista like there's no alternative, it's that they provide Windows *in general* like there's no alternative. It's not necessarily their fault, since they're trapped in a licensing deal with Microsoft forcing them to promote their products in this way, but this is why Microsoft, and therefore its OSs, get slated.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:10 am

Without having read all the posts here a bit about my personal journey.
I started off with MS DOS 5.0 (or 5.5) and Windows 3.1. Windows at that time was not much use to me. Games didn't need it, and also the programming-stuff I did at that time didn't. So I just saw it infrequently. I knew my way around, but just felt comfortable with DOS, so I didn't fire up Windows to copy around a few files or things like that.
Anyway, at that time Windows was just a GUI, and no OS.

When Windows 95 was announced I got myself a copy of the Beta, installed it from 20+ floppy-disks and I was amazed. Really. 95 was a big step. Of course it was far from perfect, but it worked quite nicely. And I could easily dual-boot with DOS (at that time 6.2).
When it came out I bought my copy and was happy with it.
I used 95 for a long, long time. I skipped 98, I predicted already it would be crap and was confirmed by most people I knew and who tried it. So, I never installed it on my box.
I also skipped ME, although my prediction there looked better, but still, I was happy with 95 and I had no reason to either spend money again or use an illegal copy of ME.
Then I got hold of a license for 2000, which I also thought would be something good, and it was. I still like Win2K, I still run it in a virtual machine to test websites in IE.
When XP came, I didn't like it, it's Windows for preschoolers, with all it's funny colors...

Anyway, in the end of the last century Windows became mostly obsolete for me. I started using Linux, and Windows was downgraded to a gaming-system.
Windows for me just cannot compete with Linux. There are a lot of applications I got used to, and these are not available for Windows. And alternatives cost a lot of money.
Also I don't need to be so afraid of virii or hostile take-over.

I just love my Linux. I don't say Windows in general is a bad system, I just don't see why I should spend a lot of money every couple of years for a upgrade of my OS.
It's not that I'm not willing to pay money for software, it's just that the prizes are a bit too high for the amount of software that comes with it.
If I were to pay 100$ for a DVD with Linux or 100$ for a DVD with Windows, I'd go for Linux, because it brings all the stuff with it already. With Windows I just get the OS.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 10 Jan 2004 Posts: 3779

Well, I had to revive a fresh Vista this week (the owner had foolishly tried to transfer photos from his camera's SD card to the computer using the built-in cardreader) and it was a horrible experience. Random crashes, random behaviour after reboots or restarts, slow booting, still some of the same horrible default settings that plague all MS OS since '95...

The Unoffical Techie Thread - Mac Users Are Still Welcome :)	View next topic View previous topic