Really, Frank, do you have a job? Do you work for free? Would you work for them if they didn't pay you?
Vista rant ---- MS must dump it...
- Thread starter mito
- Start date
Really, Frank, do you have a job? Do you work for free? Would you work for them if they didn't pay you?
Do you throw away your car every two years and buy a new one of the same brand because they tell you the old one is now depreciated, unsupported and unsafe?
I am so service minded, that my customers tell me they really want to spend the money on what I think would be best, while I tell them they don't need to spend that money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you do this all when XP was released? I mean, it was only what, 1? 2 years max after 2000, Vista was 5 years after XP.
I think you're drawing more arguments FOR Vista than against it now. Let's ask the obvious car-related questions, since you're the one who came up with this similie:
Do depreciate in value over time? Sure.
Does free support of your car stop after a certain point? Absolutely.
Do cars deteriorate and become unsafe after a certain length of time? You bet.
Now, will a dealership tell you this? 100% guaranteed.
Here's the kicker: Are you in any way, shape or form required to act based on their announcement? NO
In both the car and the operating system, you paid for a product that has a fixed lifespan. But you are not required to replace said product until you are good and ready. If your chosen time is within the intended life span, then so be it. If your chosen time is not within the intended life span, well again, so be it.
If you choose to operate your product outside of the expected life span, then you can certainly do so. Chances are, it will work just fine for many more years. But doing so incurrs a cost -- does the cost of maintaining a product outside of it's lifespan offset the cost of buying a new one?
The parallels you draw for cars and OS'es seems strikingly against the point you're trying to make. Nobody is forcing you to buy a new car, you can keep the ice-blue 4-cylinder automatic 1982 Chevy Caprice for as long as your heart desires. But eventually, it's going to be cheaper (in one form or another) to upgrade than to continue R&R'ing.
Which version of the Linux kernel do you run?
Yeah but i'm pretty sure you can turn automatic updates off completely and I know you can set it to prompt you before installing updates (so that you can select which to install and which to not).
Agreed, although thats more of a problem in how the proper drivers are selected (MS, Vendors?) as opposed to a problem with the OS itself. The delivery system IMO is sound, its whats being delivered thats the problem.
No it doesn't, otherwise I'd posted it with that wording or as fa***oi or such. Just fan, as in "really liking it" for whatever reason.
What? It was a bug-ridden crappy POS in operation, why would I need to see the programming? Jeez. ME was crap and everyone who ever touched it will confirm that. End of discussion on ME.
You're the one singing praises about Vista and trying to prove it's the best thing since sliced bread. So take it as you wish. To me, it's just a bloated crap.
Not at work, there I have no choice. And since I often also work at home, I have to install it there as well. And that makes me mad, because I hate to pollute my machine with it.
No. ME for example is far worse, as well as most Unix/Linux variants out there. I don't know how you come up with that conclusion.
Further, I worked as a Windows-based SW developer for several yerars and surely I know why I call crap crap - because it is.
What???
The RESULT, the PRODUCT of that programming sucks, so why would it be wrong to imply that it's crappy programming? What else should it be, full moon on release date maybe? LOL!
Just out of curiousity, have you actually ever seen any Windows source code? I guess not from what you're saying. It's a bunch of laughable, chaotic patchwork. Mostly due to the backward compatibility stuff which is dragged along since win3.1 days in places.
Ehm, now I'm totally confused here. A buggy program is buggy because of what exactly? Magic maybe?
Ubuntu on my laptop, 2.6.18 on my phone.
But I make mostly Windows software for a living.
I owned XP longer than any of my last three cars, actually, so I don't really get where you're going there. . .
Have they announced a cease date for that? Last I remember their policy was to still support at least the previous OS. It's only been 18mos or so since they stopped supporting 98SE and ME, and those were the "non-current OS" for about six years before support ended.
I've got $1 that says MS doesn't end XP support before 2010 at the earliest, and more likely 2012 or later.
I've got $1 that says MS doesn't end XP support before 2010 at the earliest, and more likely 2012 or later.
They wanted to end it next year, they announced that some time ago but due to outrageous reactions from the public and industry it will probably go longer.
This was 2006:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060103-5891.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39246991,00.htm
So as you can see, it WAS their plan to kick XP ASAP, but it just didn't work out for them as expected. No sane company wants Vista even now and almost none use it yet, so go guess.
EDIT: you were quite right, they extended it till 2014 if this is to be believed:
http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_Extends_Windows_XP_Support_To_2014_2
This was 2006:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060103-5891.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39246991,00.htm
So as you can see, it WAS their plan to kick XP ASAP, but it just didn't work out for them as expected. No sane company wants Vista even now and almost none use it yet, so go guess.
EDIT: you were quite right, they extended it till 2014 if this is to be believed:
http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_Extends_Windows_XP_Support_To_2014_2
Well, from what I see it was only Home that was ever in doubt in anyone's mind there. XP Pro (which is typically what business use) always had the longer lifespan. See the Ars piece.
And even on Home they were extrapolating from a policy MS had in place rather than a specific announcement from MS that XP Home support dies on thus-and-such date. . . and well before it got to that extrapolated date they extended it out to 2014 as you noted.
And even on Home they were extrapolating from a policy MS had in place rather than a specific announcement from MS that XP Home support dies on thus-and-such date. . . and well before it got to that extrapolated date they extended it out to 2014 as you noted.
You said it was buggy, you never saw the code. A design decision can result in "bad things", but the software can still be "bug free". A bug is an UNINTENDED result, but if someone chooses to have XYZ happen, and the code makes that happen, then there isn't a "bug".
Again, have you no concept of "grey area"? There IS A GREY AREA between "love" and "hate". Just because you HATE Vista doesn't automaticall mean that anyone who speaks against you LOVES Vista. There are lots of great things about Vista; there are lots of not-so-great things about Vista. I don't have to HATE or LOVE to point out valid pros or cons...
Sucks to be you. I really think you should look into getting a better job that doesn't cause you so much hate and anger, and also lets you do whatever you want with your home machine. I have a rather computer-intensive job to be quite sure, but my home machines are MY home machines -- my choice of operating system and application suite on MY home machines have zero bearing on what I'm doing at work.
Developing ANY software results in seeing inconsistencies -- it happens. That doesn't mean the OS is entirely full of bugs. You continue to spout off about how Bug-ridden Vista is, but you've yet to mention what bugs are so outlandish that causes you to say such things. Give me some examples, please?
I'm repeating this answer because it's relevant in both places I've used it: A design decision can result in "bad things", but the software can still be "bug free". A bug is an UNINTENDED result, but if someone chooses to have XYZ happen, and the code makes that happen, then there isn't a "bug".
I've yet to hear any specific complaints from you about Vista, except that you hate it because it's bloated and you don't like the security prompt. You know what? The security prompt isn't a bug. Early drivers aren't a bug. The slow network copy? That is likely a bug, but it's also likely (in the way it was linked to Media Player) to be a poor design decision on how to implement application-based QoS for streaming media over IPv4. If you don't understand what I'm talking about there, just let me know and I'll come explain further.
It is my opinion, and so far it seems substantiated, that the Vista OS itself is relatively bug-free. That's not to say there are none, but that's IS to say that it's not some bug-ridden pile of vermin as you seem to suggest.
Guess what? There's a grey area there. Would you decry that Ford completely scrap their Mustang line of cars because of a bad bushing in the shifter mechanism?
Indexing seems to be semi-borked in Vista, since we're talking about bugs. On both x86 and now x64 I'm finding it impossible to get the thing to finish indexing everything. This install (some of you will remember I had a hdd crash about 6 weeks ago) still tells me that my Outlook personal folders have 25,000 emails that haven't been indexed yet. This after 6 weeks. . . And yes, I've forced it to start over again a few times in the hopes that it would finish the next time I tried. . . no luck.
Tho to wind all the way back to the original article starting this thread, I find it very telling when people insist on "dumping" a piece of software rather than fixing it. It suggests to me that their agenda is not software quality in the least, and it seems to me that most of the fiercest critics of Vista are not after having it be a better OS than it currently is. They hate DRM and they hate Activation, and that's all they need to see to call for the death penalty.
The indexing feature is "neat", but I don't use it very often. I actually haven't looked to see if it reports as completed on any of my Vista boxes.
I just went to go look, and it says complete on my T60. I've got a pretty good sized hunk of documents, music, and emails on this box since it's my primary work PC. But geez, I've had this install of Vista for like three months now. So who knows how long it actually took...
Is slow indexing progress a bug, or a feature?
I ask only because MS has touted more than once their new prioritized I/O features, which is supposed to allow processes and apps (prime example: indexing) to run as a low I/O priority and therefore supposedly not get in the way of real work. At the obvious expense of indexing speed of course...Maybe they got a little too crazy with the (lack of?) priority, or maybe don't allow enough granularity in setting priority levels? I know process priority has about eight times more granularity (32 steps I believe) than IO priority (4 steps, last I recall)