Windows 7: More disapointing as the days go on

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Huh?

I'm talking about 12 years ago. Not today. IE (before 4 came) sucked even worse than it does today. Yes, IE4 was better than Netscape 3 (not much better than Communicator though), but it didn't change the fact that I had to support office workstations whose users had been using Netscape 3, and were no longer able to because we upgraded them to Win98.

You can argue opinions all you want, but you can't tell me known history didn't actually happen.

Who cares about this anyway?

You do realize that IE's programming design hasn't changed, since, well, IE3, right? I don't think you know much about programming though, judging from your replies.

Hey, does OSX come with a browser?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

So the real issue is that you changed VM versions.

No, the issue is that a new hardware ID was generated and I had to (yet again) prove that I bought the OS.

Originally Posted by Shazam

There is no limit to Windows activation. If there is, please provide proof.

Yes there is. Please get off your own ass and look it up.

Originally Posted by Shazam

I look forward to the crack that allows OSX to be installed on Atom processors again.

So? What does this have to do with the point I made about Microsoft's broken hardware activation concept?


Did I spit on your dog or something?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Shazam

There is no limit to Windows activation. If there is, please provide proof.

In certain versions there is a limit to how many times it will allow you to activate through their online system. I've only ever had to do this once but I believe the message tells you to phone their line dedicated to doing phone in activations and it makes you punch in the license number. As far as I know there is no hard limit to the number of times you can do phone activations.
A minor inconvenience, sure, but not all that bad. Certainly better than what some companies have done recently to try to combat piracy.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You do realize that IE's programming design hasn't changed, since, well, IE3, right? I don't think you know much about programming though, judging from your replies.

Hey, does OSX come with a browser?

Are you being intentionally ######ed to prove some point? Have I done something to you in a previous thread that I am unaware of?

If you can't understand the concept of "integration" then why are you even in this discussion?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

No, the issue is that a new hardware ID was generated and I had to (yet again) prove that I bought the OS.

I love how you have to blame Windows for everything.

Yes there is. Please get off your own ass and look it up.

I did. A few years ago. There is a limit to online activations. There is NO LIMIT for telephone activations.

So? What does this have to do with the point I made about Microsoft's broken hardware activation concept?

Because it highlights Apple's own failed attempts at controlling their hardware ecosystem.

Did I spit on your dog or something?

No. You're so easy to prod though, it's fun.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Are you being intentionally ######ed to prove some point? Have I done something to you in a previous thread that I am unaware of?

If you can't understand the concept of "integration" then why are you even in this discussion?

No, you don't understand "integration". Please stop pretending that you do. It gets really tiresome.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I love how you have to blame Windows for everything.
I did. A few years ago. There is a limit to online activations. There is NO LIMIT for telephone activations.
Because it highlights Apple's own failed attempts at controlling their hardware ecosystem.
No. You're so easy to prod though, it's fun.

How did I blame Windows for anything? What the hell are you even talking about?

Also, please show me ONE TIME where I said anything about any other type of activations, besides on-line.

Oh wait, I think I get it now... this is the part where I call you a Windows fan boy and then high-five all my buddies, right? Is that what we're doing here?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

No, you don't understand "integration". Please stop pretending that you do. It gets really tiresome.

Oh please, Professor Shazam.

Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free.

You need to calm down and realize you're not talking to someone who once read something on the internet. I was there, supporting office workstations, when everything was happening.

Save your little comic book crap for someone who actually cares.

[Bobblehead]

The lawsuit was actually that MS was abusing its monopoly of the OS market. MS claimed that IE was an integral part of the OS. The DoJ felt that IE was an attempt to use their monopoly power to corner an emerging market.

The belief that IE was given preferential treatment hidden Windows APIs, and then the revelation that Microsoft was writing agreements with OEMs to prevent them from including other browsers (Netscape) pretty much revealed that the DoJ was correct. The fact the Netscape started to suck really bad, then they tried a rewrite from teh ground up before they then were purchased by AOL made it kind of difficult to come up with a viable opponent to IE.

You could always set other browsers as default in Windows, but there were some apps that used specific calls which always triggered IE no matter which browser you set to the default.


Edit: and on my own system, I tried the upgrade install first, but but I could not get the ATI Catalyst Install Manager fully removed (even DriveSweeper failed - my guess is the issue was the MS C++ Runtime that was installed by the Cat Control Centre). I finally went ahead anyways. Then I would get a few startup errors in Win7 looking for some drivers. Everything was working fine, but rather than take a chance of future issues I did a clean install and everything has been golden. Still the "where did they hide everything this time" issues, but otherwise it works well.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Look at Apple's stock performance - what incentive does the company have to go software only? They are spectacularly successful as a company doing exactly what they are doing.

OS X is not a profit generator for them, the hardware is. Apple has also said that they will not participate in the race to the bottom on price - if they released OS X broadly, they would be competing on price with MS, and would lose the price of admission to OS X that is Apple hardware.

True, I guess I just want to see a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop.

Though I wonder how much Apple is really making on their desktop and laptop hardware.. Laptops I can see because they're still pretty highly priced (though they offer much), but desktop wise the prices are pretty low compared to the kind of premium Apple used to charge.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Shazam

No. You're so easy to prod though, it's fun.

Well knock it off, interesting discussion is getting turned into useless baiting and derision.

And FanIn80 you don't have to respond in kind, it just furthers it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

Well knock it off, interesting discussion is getting turned into useless baiting and derision.

And FanIn80 you don't have to respond in kind, it just furthers it.

Admittedly, I am easier to provoke than I should be.

As for the discussion, I wonder if it really would be a mess to have Mac OS support general PC hardware. In a way, it already is.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

True, I guess I just want to see a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop.

There isn't a viable alternative on the PC desktop, just as there isn't a viable OS alternative on the Mac front either. Unless you count Linux, but that's a second-tier alternative on either platform, TBQH.

I don't honestly think most PC users wish they had an alternative. If they won't use Apple hardware, how many people would be willing to go to the pain of repartitioning, installing OS X, finding and installing device drivers for all their hardware, migrating all their docs and preferences, and replacing familiar apps with new OS X equivalents? Is that really a viable alternative? If so, what does it accomplish for the PC user?

And if you were truly sick of Windows and wanting something else at all costs, wouldn't you have already moved to Linux, or bought a Mac, anyways?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

Though I wonder how much Apple is really making on their desktop and laptop hardware.. Laptops I can see because they're still pretty highly priced (though they offer much), but desktop wise the prices are pretty low compared to the kind of premium Apple used to charge.

Apple has enough cash to buy Dell outright on lower marketshare.

The iPod/iPhone/iTunes ecosphere helps them a lot, to be sure, but I also read somewhere that something like 90% of sales of personal computers costing more than $1K went to Apple last year. That's a lot of sales of high end, higher premium product.

[Bobblehead]

I was griping to my Oracle rep last week about their support for Oracle on Windows, and he was saying that almost 100% of their big clients run their DB on Linux or Unix (Oracle support actually includes RHEL). It is only the SMB segment that runs on Windows.

I wonder how that is going to change now that Oracle owns Sun and has been developing a pure "Database Computer" - essentially as Solaris box with Oracle pre-installed and tuned?

Perhaps I had better start looking into Solaris.....

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Is that really a viable alternative? If so, what does it accomplish for the PC user?

And if you were truly sick of Windows and wanting something else at all costs, wouldn't you have already moved to Linux, or bought a Mac, anyways?

Macs certainly have their niche that it fills nicely and for certain types of uses it will excel at but a lot of the resurgence of Macs have been people fed up with computer problems. Windows, like anything, has its share of problems, however most issues that people run into are in whole or in part user errors. For a lot of people, its easier to blame that evil and terribly built computer rather than admit that they may not be as brilliant at everything as they thought they were. Mac can give them a fresh start, a clean slate and a sense of security (although in the cases where frustrations were caused by user error, it may be a false one).

Linux has come a long way but its not quite there yet in terms of being a desktop system. Until the ease of install, setup and use is good enough so that it appeals to the absolute lowest common denominator its destined to be used pretty much exclusive by hobbyists and programmers.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I was griping to my Oracle rep last week about their support for Oracle on Windows, and he was saying that almost 100% of their big clients run their DB on Linux or Unix (Oracle support actually includes RHEL). It is only the SMB segment that runs on Windows.

I wonder how that is going to change now that Oracle owns Sun and has been developing a pure "Database Computer" - essentially as Solaris box with Oracle pre-installed and tuned?

Perhaps I had better start looking into Solaris.....

I would be a little wary of going with Oracle/Sun hardware and perhaps even Solaris. I would see where the merger rides out, because initially they were trying to flip the hardware part of Sun and found no takers. The reason they bought Sun was for the software (JAVA especially). I just don't see them wanting to get into the hardware game too deep. It is true that most people run Oracle on Unix/Linux.

[FanIn80]

Incidentally, I need to get my hands on a Fedora Core 4 iso...

Edit: Never mind, found it at http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pu...re/4/i386/iso/

Hard to believe they're about to release 12 already. Seems only a few years ago that Fedora was even born.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

There isn't a viable alternative on the PC desktop, just as there isn't a viable OS alternative on the Mac front either. Unless you count Linux, but that's a second-tier alternative on either platform, TBQH.

You can run Windows on the mac, which I think of as viable anyway.

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I don't honestly think most PC users wish they had an alternative. If they won't use Apple hardware, how many people would be willing to go to the pain of repartitioning, installing OS X, finding and installing device drivers for all their hardware, migrating all their docs and preferences, and replacing familiar apps with new OS X equivalents? Is that really a viable alternative? If so, what does it accomplish for the PC user?

Would it increase quality, actually having some competition? Macs are already making inroads on the PC market, if the software was available to run on their existing PC's there would probably be some people willing to switch. At the very least people who are always cornered into doing windows support for friends and family might buy in

I see your point though, the payoff for Apple probably would not be worth the risk and cost and headache. Again it's more just selfish.

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

And if you were truly sick of Windows and wanting something else at all costs, wouldn't you have already moved to Linux, or bought a Mac, anyways?

I do have a Macbook Pro for a laptop, I just would like to have a powerful mac desktop without having to buy an all-in-one and without overpaying for a Mac Pro.

I don't hate Windows, XP was fine and I'm liking Windows 7, but choice is always nice. Mind you I game enough that I'll always have Windows in some form.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Apple has enough cash to buy Dell outright on lower marketshare.

The iPod/iPhone/iTunes ecosphere helps them a lot, to be sure, but I also read somewhere that something like 90% of sales of personal computers costing more than $1K went to Apple last year. That's a lot of sales of high end, higher premium product.

Higher than I would of thought, but as you said before the PC market is all about price while Apple is more about the complete user experience, and having the monitor built in does mess up the comparison somewhat.