Ten Reasons to buy Windows Vista

[ink]

Warrior how can you say it's on by default when it hasn't even been released yet?
You know certain things in the beta that were on by default won't be on by default in the release version, right?

[Ergot]

I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.

I didn't know Windows was "hardware."

Again: I think it's a two-way street.  Windows has borrowed a lot off of UNIX/Linux ideas too.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  I disagree with the nubs that think Linux has things Windows will never have.

Stability!

[Sidoh]

Stability!

Windows already has that.  My Windows 2003 server had a longer uptime than deepthought ever did (actually the same computer with a different OS).

[Warrior]

Warrior how can you say it's on by default when it hasn't even been released yet?
You know certain things in the beta that were on by default won't be on by default in the release version, right?

So you think they're going to turn off a critical feature in the CTP ... now you're just making stuff up.

[Ergot]

Stability!

Windows already has that.  My Windows 2003 server had a longer uptime than deepthought ever did (actually the same computer with a different OS).

Then... GPL!

[iago]

I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.

When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument. 

But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own.  They call it a "revolutionary new interface".  Apple and some Linux desktops already did that.  It's not revolutionary. 
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems.  They call it a revolutionary security system.  It's not revolutionary. 

- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver.  They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries.  They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!".  Honesty! 

The difference?  Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS.  They aren't making any money.  They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software.  Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good. 

Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money.  They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run. 

Now, perhaps it's a personal thing, but I like honesty.  If there's one thing I want and need from a person/software/company, it's honesty.  That's why I don't trust Microsoft, that's why I don't trust Cisco, and that's why I don't trust politicians.  They are all known bullshitters.  Maybe that's ok for you, but it's not for me. 


And to respond to MyndFyre's post awhile back -- I happen to prefer using a commandline.  I like having the extra control that you just can't replicate with a GUI.  Other people don't.  That's fine too.  In general, you can go either way on Linux, they don't force you down one road or another. 


And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents. 

[Sidoh]

Then... GPL!

Windows software can use the GPL.  The Windows OS isn't supposed to ever be under the GPL license, so I guess you're right.  It's still a pretty useless comparison, though.

iago: excellent post.  Well put!

[ink]

in response to you Warrior, I don't consider that making things up, it's how I interpret the article and completely logical.
If I'm wrong then it's just a misunderstanding due to unclarity, by them saying "it lets you" use that feature, to me, logically that seems to mean it's not automatically done.

Anybody else have an opinion on this? If others can support a different theory I'd be glad to hear it, but getting angry and calling names/saying I'm making things up isn't very constructive.

[Ergot]

And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents. 

Ding Ding Ding!

[deadly7]

I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.

When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument. 

But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own.  They call it a "revolutionary new interface".  Apple and some Linux desktops already did that.  It's not revolutionary. 
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems.  They call it a revolutionary security system.  It's not revolutionary. 

- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver.  They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries.  They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!".  Honesty! 

The difference?  Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS.  They aren't making any money.  They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software.  Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good. 

Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money.  They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run. 

Now, perhaps it's a personal thing, but I like honesty.  If there's one thing I want and need from a person/software/company, it's honesty.  That's why I don't trust Microsoft, that's why I don't trust Cisco, and that's why I don't trust politicians.  They are all known bullshitters.  Maybe that's ok for you, but it's not for me. 


And to respond to MyndFyre's post awhile back -- I happen to prefer using a commandline.  I like having the extra control that you just can't replicate with a GUI.  Other people don't.  That's fine too.  In general, you can go either way on Linux, they don't force you down one road or another. 


And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.

I did!  And to see what the hubbub was all about.

[Warrior]

I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.

When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument. 

Not really, you saw this...unless..you know.

But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own.  They call it a "revolutionary new interface".  Apple and some Linux desktops already did that.  It's not revolutionary. 
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems.  They call it a revolutionary security system.  It's not revolutionary. 

- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver.  They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries.  They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!".  Honesty! 

Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously  seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.

The difference?  Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS.  They aren't making any money.  They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software.  Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good. 

As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.

Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money.  They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run. 

That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.

And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents. 

It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.

The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.

[Warrior]

in response to you Warrior, I don't consider that making things up, it's how I interpret the article and completely logical.
If I'm wrong then it's just a misunderstanding due to unclarity, by them saying "it lets you" use that feature, to me, logically that seems to mean it's not automatically done.

You have some twisted logic then, it's quite obvious they don't mean it like that.

[ink]

Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive.

I've consulted a few other people who agree with me on this.
There is a different between IT letting YOU do it and IT doing it on its own, ya know what I mean?

[Warrior]

It allows the user to have that protection, if it didn't exist then they wouldn't be allowed to because obviously it doesn't exist.
I can confirm that it is on in December CTP and you can ask anyone else who has used it.

[Sidoh]

Not really, you saw this...unless..you know.

He didn't mean that literally.

Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously  seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.

I strongly disagree.  If they didn't care at all about Linux, why would they implement compatible and similar features?  Revolutionary should only be used in a global frame of reference.  How is it useful to say something's revolutionary when you're only referring to it in a local scale?  It just doesn't make any sense.

As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.

How are they not coding for the greater good?  They put amazing amounts of work into projects they're never going to see a dime for.  Then, they release the source code so others can dissect it and understand how it works.  That sounds like the greater good to me.

That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.

He didn't say it was wrong to market a feature, he said it was wrong to exaggerate or over-emphasize a feature, which is exactly what Microsoft does.

And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents. 

It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.

The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.

Linux is made for the power-computer user, not a simple one who only uses it to check e-mail and watch porn (that's about 30% of computer users, I'd say).  As iago said, people who use Linux use it for a reason.  Not because it has the ability to look pretty like Windows.  Your prophecy relies too heavily on people wanting a flashy GUI.