Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> "Peter KÃhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eepqms$ocb$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Peter KÃhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:eepmjk$btj$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do the Linux advocates here feel they need to mislead people
>>>>> on the
>>>>> changes between Vista and XP? Linux can do almost everything Vista can
>>>>> do and does it better, right? Probably 95% of the features listed on
>>>>> that page are "catch-up" features that Linux has had years ago, right?
>>>>> So why should we have to lie about Vista? Linux should be able to beat
>>>>> Vista on merit, rather than on FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because "features" MS claims to be included turn too often out as being
>>>> not
>>>> included at all, crippled or simply not-working as intended
>>>
>>> Okay, so by your reasoning, because MS at one point planned on
>>> having
>>> certain features, but later found that they could not implement those
>>> features, and publically announce that they were going to drop said
>>> features, it's okay for Linux advocates to spread FUD about Vista?
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you think some lipstick on a pig makes a new OS, more power to
>> you
>> Face it, MS dropped nearly everything which could have made Vista a "new
>> OS"
>> Instead, it is just XP SP3 with a hefty price tag
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about: you seem either blind, in
> denial, or biased against Vista. How could you consider IPv6, for example,
> "lipstick"? IPv6 provides real functionality.
>
>>
>>> If the problem is MS' history of dropping features, how about
>>> instead of
>>> "There's no reason to upgrade to Vista except for a new set of icons",
>>> we phrase it as "Vista promises a lot, but MS has a history of dropping
>>> features, so let's wait 'till it's release before commenting on whether
>>> an
>>> upgrade from XP is worthwhile or not"? Doesn't that sound convey the
>>> message you're trying to send, without anti-Microsoft bias?
>>>
>>>
>>>> *All* planned features slightly interesting in Shorthorn MCD have been
>>>> dropped because of utter incompetence of the MS code monkeys
>>>
>>> You don't find a rewritten user-mode driver framework "slightly
>>> interesting"? You don't think that the new user interface is "slightly
>>> interesting"? IPv6? Symbolic link support? .NET 3.0? Native RSS support?
>>> Volume Shadow Copy? Heap-tuning? Non-uniform memory access support? The
>>> sidebar? Breadcrumbs?
>>>
>>> - Oliver
>>
>> What in those features is worth mentioning?
>
> They're worth mentioning in the sense that I bothered to mention them.
> And Wikipedia contributors have bothered to write Wikipedia articles about
> them. So by definition, all of those features are worth mentioning.
>
>>
>> user-mode driver framework - > in other words, MS has made sure *again*
>> that
>> new drivers have to be written. Apart from that, this is something linux
>> already has
>>
>> new user interface -> You've got to be kidding. Linux is *now* already
>> way ahead of that. This is exactly the lipstick on a pig MS does
>>
>> IPv6 -> Excuse me while I giggle. Linux has this since several *years*
>>
>> Symbolic link support -> Linux has this from the very start. Talk about
>> some
>> severe delays here
>>
>> NET 3.0 -> who in his right mind would want another lock-in?
>>
>> And yada yada yada
>
> Okay, but when did I say these were new features? You're "moving the
> goalpost". You said none of the features were *INTERESTING*, you didn't
> say none of the features were *NEW*. For example, I've been able to play
> the Ogg file format for a long time. If Apple's iPod suddenly added native
> Ogg Vorbis support, that would NOT be *NEW*, but it would be
> *INTERESTING*. It would make me consider buying an iPod, for example.
>
> So do you disagree that these features are interesting? Do you think
> IPv6 or symbolic links are uninteresting? Do you ever use symbolic links
> on your machine? I suspect that you do. Even if you didn't know anything
> about Linux, just a basic install of Linux probably automatically creates
> symbolic links somewhere on your disk, right? So if nothing else, they are
> at least *useful*.
>
> - Oliver
I think those features are *extremely* uninteresting in a windows product
You see, I've got all of those which might interest me since quite some
time, as I use linux. MS is simply years behind with the really interesting
stuff
MS could have added them just as easily in a SP3 to XP. After all, they
added such "interesting" features as new DRM measures to it, for example.
They even did so while neglecting security and did not provide patches
which are needed.
Face it, Vista is *nothing* new. All really "new" features have been
dropped , due to the complete, utter incompetence at MS
--
Like being presumed a thief and a liar before using a product?
If so, use M$ XP
|
|
