Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor

The new format for the office files is far far more efficient than the old ones. They take up about half the space, if even. That is especially useful to corporate customers or anyone who works on a lot of files.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I'm sure this will appeal to some factions within corporate-land. It's amazing how much people piss and moan about file space when you consider how cheap storage has become.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Low performance? Just what are you calling low performance with 10000 rpms and 500gig size drives?? I've worked in businesses and seen their hard drives and backups and they aren't any better than what I use at home. I've got a 10 year old hard drive to boot, so what's with this "high failure" stuff? Sometimes I think you exaggerate. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

And you more or less make my point too !

I work in a small part of a big company, we do around 2.5 billion/year and the parent does around 30.

Yet I hear these IT weenies squablle about adding another storage drive....puuuhhhlease.

And not we get to waste all this time by changing our OS an relearning all sorts of new apps for Vista, because of storage efficiecny ? Stupid ! Stepping over dollars to pick up pennies !

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I might not say the things I said about Vista and Micro$oft in general with regards to a Matrix game, but then Matrix doesn't force me to buy their games if I want to run a computer that I can use for playing other computer games on. Micro$oft does; the two are not comparable.

But, nobody forces you to use Windows. That's the perception you have because you've been conditioned to think like it. You can play games on Linux or OSX too. You have Wine in Linux to play Windows games, without Windows. You have native Linux games and cross platform games (Quake and UT for example).

And you've still missed my point. I was talking about how you'd react to Matrix if they released a game in as poor condition as most Microsoft OS's are. That was the comparison I was trying to illustrate. People do complain bitterly about Windows and are up in arms, but they still use Windows instead of going elsewhere. They are taken in by the hype and marketing to really think there are no alternatives to Windows. The fact is, they are wrong.

Regards,
Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Thing is your average joe consumer doesn't build their own systems. You have a majority of users out there scratching their heads because their games and/or other programs aren't working when they PLUG them in. So, that's why I say most of the Vista lovers posts on here have no merit you aren't the norm and the norm is what will decide if Vista makes it or not. Not the techno dweebs. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

Windows is simply a cash cow and MS are milking it. Good for them and good for those like you who enjoy the experience with Vista. I can think of many better things to spend my money on.

Regards,
Jim

You know Jim, I honestly agree with you on that. I still can't get over a company that sells a product that requires its owner to invest further in security software because it's software has vulnerabilities. Further, a company that provides things such as Windows Firewall and the new Windows Defender that must be turned off to run marginally better specialist security software like Norton or McAfee etc.

And then has the gall to launch its own separate Anit-Virus software, one has to buy because it knows its own OS is at risk!

To me there are laws being broken here: "Buy Windows, we know its unsecure, so now go buy our extra software to make it secure!"

Security software isn't like Microsoft Office! It's not an extra! MS is informing us that a fundamental aspect of its OS is broken, "so now buy something extra to fix it - or we warned you"?

Now that's what I don't like.

But as a new PC buyer, someone unskilled in DYI IT, statements saying how bad Vista is, can really have an affect on my purchasing decisions. The opinions here nearly did.

And all I'm saying is: "Hey let's stop the hype. Vista in November 2007 is different from Vista in January 2006. Buy the right hardware from a capable vendor and you will have a great time".

Kind regards,
Adam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

Yes, there would be flaws and problems with Linux, I agree. However, the difference is:

1. Linux costs you nothing other than the download and blank disc.
2. You can run it on almost any hardware, regardless of age.
3. You aren't forced to run software you don't want or need.
4. It's far more secure than Windows.
5. No viruses!
6. Honesty, openness and integrity from the devs.
7. Choice - literally hundreds of variations on a theme.
8. No licensing minefield compared to Windows.
11. Open source!
12. Wine.
13. Crossover Office.
14. Virtualisation.
15. Compiz.
16. Live distributions.
17. USB stick installation!
18. No bloatware!
19. Regular updates & bug fixes.
20. No file fragmentation.

And so on...There are probably lists just as long with problems on them!

Linux is no more difficult to use than Windows. It's just different. I don't agree with your take on an average Linux user either. Historically, that may be true, but with the advent of Ubuntu, I think it's a misconception now. I disagree with your point 1 too. Hackers do target Linux yes, but they just don't get anywhere unless you are dumb enough to log in as root. No user in Linux has admin rights, which is why hacking is harder and why viruses simply don't work or are pointless to write. It's got nothing to do with popularity.

Your point 5 doesn't make sense to me. How do you know less software is installed? If anything, my Linux box has more on it because it's all free and I can afford to install lots of software.

I don't think Linux is perfect, far from it. I do think it's a good OS and a definite viable alternative to Windows, even now. Linux may have more problems, I don't know. But, generally, you don't have to wait months for serious bugs to be sorted.

Sabre, MacOS isn't free or open source. It's a commercial product, so how can you compare with Linux in that way? The number of Linux distros is great. Want a dedicated firewall? Easy, download one. Want an OS specifically targetted at musicians or kids? No problem. You can even install your fave distro, change everything to your hearts content and then remaster the disc(s)! You then have your own OS. Try that with Windows. How can regular releases be problematic? Linux devs release often to fix bugs and introduce new/more features and software. Windows has a monthly cycle of bug and security patch releases too. So why is it a problem for Linux, but not Windows?

Regards,
Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Vista should have put a nail in death of Macs now that they're just an intel box, but instead it increased Mac sales, only Microsoft is dumb enough to come up this marketing plan.

Some day when we have true 64-bit applications and after 3 or 4 service packs Vista maybe worth it, but not today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Low performance? Just what are you calling low performance with 10000 rpms and 500gig size drives?? I've worked in businesses and seen their hard drives and backups and they aren't any better than what I use at home. I've got a 10 year old hard drive to boot, so what's with this "high failure" stuff? Sometimes I think you exaggerate. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor

Some sort of weird color blindness just set in. All I see is Orange!

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php