Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Windows Definitely Headed for Its Death

  • Subject: Re: Windows Definitely Headed for Its Death
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:22:37 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <dj7ci3$2b69$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <96M5f.532$E17.432@fe03.lga> <dj8f4p$2d3$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <8AY5f.7227$RG4.2618@fe05.lga>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [DFS] on Friday 21 October 2005 03:42 \__

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [DFS] on Thursday 20 October 2005 13:31 \__
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ===
>>>> NOTE: In the blog, I included  10 links to support every single
>>>> argument I  make here, so before a wintroll squeezes his head
>>>> through the XP  fire- wall  and blurts out some junk, I suggest you
>>>> look at the clear  evidence. ===
>>> You have no evidence.
>> See post sent to a previous (accidentally despatched parent) thread.
>> Everything is there if you follow the link. With all due respect, do
>> so and you will learn a thing or two about Windows deficiencies, I
>> promise you.
> I promise you that, without even reviewing your link, it will contain
> exactly the same rehashed lies and exaggerations cola makes about Window ad
> nauseum, ad infinitum.

No, I usually cite articles from ZDNet, CNET and the like.

>>>> WINDOWS  Vista  was already said to be a trainwreck, primarily due
>>>> to its inability  to deliver something innovative. It gives no
>>>> compelling  reason whatsoever  for users to upgrade. People who have
>>>> had the chance to fiddle with  the Vista beta build can confirm
>>>> this. In fact, it seems to be  lag- ging  behind  other operating
>>>> systems, notably Mac OS X as was  previously confesses by a
>>>> Microsoft evangelist.
>>>> On  top  of it all, hardware requirements of Windows Vista make it
>>>> rather unappealing.
>>> What requirements are those?  MS hasn't haven't released them.
>> There are two citations in the text.
> OK.   But MS hasn't released Vista hardware requirements.

Wisely so. Why drive away users so early on?

Honestly, to run Vista gracefully with the accumulated Registry bloat would
be hard. I have seen XP crippling Intel 4 machines to run at the speed of
(or be as responsive as) UNIX equivalents on an Intel 2. They must revise
the way they write their code and stitch it together. They have begun to do
so already, but is it not too late?


Title: ?Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software?


    REDMOND, Wash. ? Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft Corp. executive, walked
into Bill Gates?s office here one day in July last year to deliver a
bombshell about the next generation of Microsoft Windows.

    ?It?s not going to work,? Mr. Allchin says he told the Microsoft
chairman. The new version, code-named Longhorn, was so complex its writers
would never be able to make it run properly.

    The news got even worse: Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft
engineers were building it just as they had always built software.
Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each
produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into one
sprawling program. Now, Mr. Allchin argued, the jig was up. Microsoft needed
to start over. 


Since you are not following links as I ask you to, I had to bring something

Regarding hardware greed,


Title: "Vista is a hardware Beast"


    CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of
Windows XP is threaded?


    RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we?re told.


    Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor
out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. 


>>>> Novell have said that Vista will drive away
>>>> Windows users and ultimately  lead  them to Linux.
>>> And 2005 was supposed to be the Year of Linux.  So was 2004, and
>>> 2003....
>> It was! They all were. Have you seen sf.net and freshmeat.net
>> recently? All we need is now there, including beautiful bricks for
>> operating systems that finally need to be exposed to the public.
> You said something right.  Linux needs more exposure - definitely in the
> retail shops.  But you can't expect the retailers to pay for it, especially
> given the low Linux sales volumes.  Linux organizations need to pony up,
> and that in turn means Linux users need to start spending.
> Seems like Linux is a victim of its users stingy ways.

You make some correct statements. I'll give you credit for that. However, the
latter point is flamebait and utterly non-contributory.

>> By
>> the way, Open Office 2 is now officially out. It makes Windows and
>> Office very much obsolete.
> You can't really believe that.
> I heard a worldwide yawwwwnnnnn about the OO.o 2.0 release

You don't say much more about that. Neither did you say much about Mac OSX
being ahead of Windows as Rex correctly pointed out. That means something.

>>>> To many, adopting
>>>> Windows Vista  probably means acquisition of a new computer, which
>>>> will most probably contain Win- dows  pre-installed for a variety of
>>>> reasons that involve anti-fair  trade practices.
>>> Only if you consider the OEMs selling what they want to sell to be
>>> "anti- fair trade."
>>> I know you Linux hypocrites would love to force the OEMs to sell
>>> Linux machines, despite the fact (that's capital FACT) that it would
>>> shortly drive
>>> all of them out of business.  You whiners believe in 'choice' only
>>> when it's the choices you want.
>> No, we want choice. That's exactly the point, which somehow you fail
>> to grasp or maybe it's reverse psychology.
> You have choice.  You always have.  You can buy and run any OS you want.
> You don't have to buy Windows.  You don't even have to see your
> pre-installed Windows system boot to Windows - not even once.  Just put the
> Linux disc in the drive on first boot, and wipe Windows.

I would rather not pay for a licence that I do not need. Likewise, I would
rather have Linux pre-installed. The factories can do it in no time.

> If you don't like that it's hard to find retail shops selling Linux
> machines, there's nothing preventing you from starting your own Linux-only
> system vendor company...hope you have a LOT of money to waste.

Some companies do that already. As Linux continues to become more popular and
gets wider exposure, the shops' sale-per-staff ratio will increase and
profits will shoot through the roof. Wait and see...

My worry is that most customers would not be aware of Dell's intolerant past
and may opt for the large retailer and purchasing a Linux box.

>>>> Windows  XP was first introduced to the public in late 2001 and, as
>>>> we ap- proach  the  end of 2005, Windows XP is worse than ever
>>>> before.  The  many critical  patches, which came in the form of
>>>> Service Pack I & II have made it  slower and less likely to interact
>>>> with all underlying modules  grace- fully.  With more Windows
>>>> viruses in the wild, it requires more  attention and  maintenance
>>>> than before,
>>> With SP2, it requires less effort than ever.
>> Not enough. On average, a connected computer will get infected within
>> 10 minutes once it comes 'out of the box'. Moreover, one needs
>> anti-virus software, malware scans, et cetera et cetera. Been there,
>> seen that.
> In my experience, Linux setup is pretty easy.  But configuration and
> maintenance can be a nightmare, requiring 5x the effort of Windows.  Just
> trying to install Linux software is often a huge hassle.

I presume you have not given Linux a spin for over a year (try SuSE for
example and correct me if I am wrong here). Helping a friend install it does
not count as we speak of _maintenance_ here, of which there is merely none.

>>>> It is also worth mentioning Ubuntu Linux, which has done
>>>> tremendously well at  easing  a transition to a free operating
>>>> system. Hewlett Packard  have recently started selling Ubuntu
>>>> desktops and laptops, as a matter of fact. Ubuntu comes in just a
>>>> single CD, its hardware detection is admirable, and moreover it is
>>>> stable and user-friendly. Its bundled Live CD makes another big pro
>>>> as users who are too resistant to delete Windows can have a period
>>>> of  adaptation  and gain some re-assurance with regards to their
>>>> platform migration.
>>> Don't make us laugh.  Gnome-based Ubuntu is a joke.  Anyone used to
>>> a real OS like Windows will find it primitive and slow and
>>> amateurish.
>> Primitive? Does Windows come with something as good as the GIMP? Or
>> Open Office? Or a decent browser like firefox, which actually has the
>> notion of tabs?
> Primitive is the look and feel, and the ridiculous apps like Nautilus.
> You can download OO.o and Mozilla for Windows, for free.  And buy the
> low-end Photoshop for $99.  Or download Picasa from Google.

Why download when it's already there? Why buy when it's free? To many, my
parents included, even Windows installation is difficult. Would you not like
to see everything working smoothly 'out of the box'?

>> Slow? Have you ever tried Ubuntu? I think you meant to say "fast",
>> unless you judged based on the Live CD.
> I have Ubuntu (actually was Ubuntu, then I 'upgraded' to Kubuntu) installed
> on my P3-800 system.  Some things are reasonably quick, but overall it's
> not a snappy system to use.

In that case, put it on your strong(er) machine before you rant. I'd like to
see how Windows XP copes after 6 months of occasional installations upon
that hardware.

>> Amateurish? Define that. As far as I know, that verbal thing is
>> ascribed to people, not technology.
> Amateurish: many Linux apps.  Not all.
> Example: under Ubuntu, the Device Manager lists (under Device | Computer |
> Processor | Device tab):
> Vendor: unknown
> Device: unknown
> ?

Very weak argument to support your claim. I agree that some things are
unpolished, but Linux is for productivity. Stability and power must always
come before bells and whistles. Learn this lesson from experience, mate.

>>>> Windows is dying. The writings are all over the wall...
>>> As is the case with so many of the stupid MS and Windows
>>> proclamations made by you silly cola bozos, there is NO evidence to
>>> support anything you say.
>> Follow the links and get the truth. Or... just live in denial until
>> you give up.
> I've followed a thousand cola nut links.  They all lead back to the same
> place: a deep pit of resentment and jealousy of MS success, revenue, and
> market share adoption while desktop Linux languishes.

My presence in this group is not motivated by neither resentment nor
jealousy. Believe me, I have better things to do than to vent my anger in
UseNet. I am here to better inform people of what great tool is out there,
which is:

* affordable (Africa included)

* rich in functionality (many applications built-in)

* secure (spend your time working, not maintaining or sobbing)

* ...

Now I'll point the microphone at your and ask, why are /you/ here? It's a
Linux newsgroup? is it possible that you defend Windows as you envy what you
know Linux offers its users? Have you spotted the change in tides and
decided to report for Redmond's duty?


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "On the eighth day, God created UNIX"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    |     PGP-Key: 74572E8E
  4:50am  up 56 days 17:04,  6 users,  load average: 0.15, 0.42, 0.68
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index