Ten Reasons to buy Windows Vista

[Sidoh]

Actually READ what I responded and you'll see where my accusation came from..you said it yourself..I don't get you.

Try looking at things from another point of view for once and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.

No, if I don't make it then I'm losing it. My time is money.

Then you'd better work on optimizing your sleeping and eating patterns.  You'd better stop hanging out with friends.  Money is enjoyment.  If you're losing time, you're losing money; that obviously means you're losing enjoyment.  Nice logic.

It would help if the analogies and metaphors even remotely related to the argument meaning, actually made sense.
Physicists documented their work, open source only applies where documentation is an alternative.

They are very closely related to the argument.  They make perfect sense.  Providing open source is documenting the source.  You're misusing the word to your advantage.  Perhaps if you realized this is a comparison in a non-literal sense, you'd understand what I'm trying to prove.

What?

Microsoft doesn't document every single one of their features.  In fact, I'd wager that they document a miniscule fraction of the work they do.  I'm not saying that is wrong, given their goal, but I am saying their goal is much less vigilant than the goal of open source.

Hey, thats what you said in a shorter sentence form. You basically gave Linux an excuse to suck, because
it uses Open source. smooth move.

No I didn't.  You're pulling things out of that sentence that don't exist.  You're not a word magician, stop trying to be one.

If YOU misinterpret it, don't blame Microsoft for you using Linux.

WHAT?  Start making sense, please.

You can't be serious. Oh I forgot, because Windows is the target of hackers right!? Give me a break, you act as if your OS is invulnerable to everything.

There are several things wrong with these statements.  I'll lay them out in order of their arrival:

   1) I am serious.
   2) Windows is the main target of hackers.  Why?  It's the most vunerable.
   3) Linux isn't invunerable to everything.  Anyone who claims it is should be labeled an idiot.
   4) Linux isn't "My OS," for the last time.  I primarily use Windows.  However, I can't stand people who disrepsect the accomplishments Linux has.

A bunch of sap's stealing source code...lol... Microsoft has bought out the majority of their competition, such as Lotus and Word Perfect, which were far superior to Access and Word. Very skillful.
Anywho, is Vista based off of any previous Microsoft OS? If not, won't it be full of bugs?

Nice generalization.  God, you people are horrible with that.

Windows 2003. I personally love Microsoft's power. It want something it takes it.

And I love Linux's power.

[ink]

I guess taking code makes you a better programmer as well 

Anyways, people keep saying there are PLENTY of other operating systems better than Linux.
I'd like to hear a bit more about this, can you give some examples?
Note: Plenty is more than a few, and a few is 3, so serve em up.

[ink]

Hrm, Sidoh, which generalization did I make?

[Sidoh]

I guess taking code makes you a better programmer as well 

Anyways, people keep saying there are PLENTY of other operating systems better than Linux.
I'd like to hear a bit more about this, can you give some examples?
Note: Plenty is more than a few, and a few is 3, so serve em up.

You seriously think that every person who takes advantage of source code being publically accessable simply leeches the code?  Sure, it happens, but people who just use compiled libraries exist too.  I don't see much of a difference.

"OS X is better than OS Y" is a subjective statement.  It's relative to your wants, needs and expectations.

Hrm, Sidoh, which generalization did I make?

I've clarified this in my previous statement.

[ink]

Maybe I should have quoted it, Warrior said Linux was just a bunch of saps who steal source code.
And I was pointing out that Microsoft has done it's share as well.

[Warrior]

Actually READ what I responded and you'll see where my accusation came from..you said it yourself..I don't get you.

Try looking at things from another point of view for once and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.

You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...

No, if I don't make it then I'm losing it. My time is money.

Then you'd better work on optimizing your sleeping and eating patterns.  You'd better stop hanging out with friends.  Money is enjoyment.  If you're losing time, you're losing money; that obviously means you're losing enjoyment.  Nice logic.

Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...

It would help if the analogies and metaphors even remotely related to the argument meaning, actually made sense.
Physicists documented their work, open source only applies where documentation is an alternative.

They are very closely related to the argument.  They make perfect sense.  Providing open source is documenting the source.  You're misusing the word to your advantage.  Perhaps if you realized this is a comparison in a non-literal sense, you'd understand what I'm trying to prove.

Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.

What?

Microsoft doesn't document every single one of their features.  In fact, I'd wager that they document a miniscule fraction of the work they do.  I'm not saying that is wrong, given their goal, but I am saying their goal is much less vigilant than the goal of open source.

I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.

Hey, thats what you said in a shorter sentence form. You basically gave Linux an excuse to suck, because
it uses Open source. smooth move.

No I didn't.  You're pulling things out of that sentence that don't exist.  You're not a word magician, stop trying to be one.

Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.

If YOU misinterpret it, don't blame Microsoft for you using Linux.

WHAT?  Start making sense, please.

You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on  the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.

You can't be serious. Oh I forgot, because Windows is the target of hackers right!? Give me a break, you act as if your OS is invulnerable to everything.

There are several things wrong with these statements.  I'll lay them out in order of their arrival:

   1) I am serious.
   2) Windows is the main target of hackers.  Why?  It's the most vunerable.
   3) Linux isn't invunerable to everything.  Anyone who claims it is should be labeled an idiot.
   4) Linux isn't "My OS," for the last time.  I primarily use Windows.  However, I can't stand people who disrepsect the accomplishments Linux has.

I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..

I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.

Windows 2003. I personally love Microsoft's power. It want something it takes it.

And I love Linux's power.

What, the power of open source? HA!

[Sidoh]

You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...

I said that because you said Windows had features that were exclusive to Windows.  I did not make that argument to prove that Linux is better than Windows.

Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...

Too late.

Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.

No, you're misunderstanding the argument.  The source to a Physicist's theory are the constituents of the theory, just as the source to an application are its constituents.  The pencil and paper the Physicist used have no relevance to their conclusions or theoretical propositions.  The source to a Physical theory is the reasoning behind the theory.  It's the equations that allow you to arrive at the answers that the theory proposes are correct.

I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.

And how many things have they chosen to not document?  FAT32 is old.  PnP is old.  There are already several innovative things that implement or replace the same functionality.

Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.

How on Earth does being open source vindicate anything being sucky?

You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on  the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.

No -- they are misusing the word.  They're exploiting their user's ignorance to the technological world.  You're misinterpreting the world.  Revolutionary cannot be validly used on a local scale.  It's a ludicrous claim.

I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..

I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.

Windows already is the main target for hackers?  What the hell are you talking about?

What, the power of open source? HA!

Precisely.

[deadly7]

Ah, I see the entire problem:

I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.

I care about more than money.  I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad.  Mine isn't. 

When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money.  I'm doing it to be nice. 

And you're looking for action on the side!

[ink]

You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?
Dude!!! That'd totally make you a better programmer

[Blaze]

You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?

Yeah... I'm confused too, man.

Ah, I see the entire problem:

I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.

I care about more than money.  I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad.  Mine isn't. 

When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money.  I'm doing it to be nice. 

And you're looking for action on the side!

That's wrong on too many levels.

[deadly7]

You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?

Yeah... I'm confused too, man.

Ah, I see the entire problem:

I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.

I care about more than money.  I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad.  Mine isn't. 

When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money.  I'm doing it to be nice. 

And you're looking for action on the side!

That's wrong on too many levels.

I know. That's why it's comical.

[Warrior]

You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...

I said that because you said Windows had features that were exclusive to Windows.  I did not make that argument to prove that Linux is better than Windows.

You said it and I prove it wrong, done deal case closed.

Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...

Too late.

My CMS is not open source, never was intended to be either. I showed off the source via a tool a few times. Now being free on the other hand is another question.

Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.

No, you're misunderstanding the argument.  The source to a Physicist's theory are the constituents of the theory, just as the source to an application are its constituents.  The pencil and paper the Physicist used have no relevance to their conclusions or theoretical propositions.  The source to a Physical theory is the reasoning behind the theory.  It's the equations that allow you to arrive at the answers that the theory proposes are correct.

The equations can just as easily been documented, how the hell do you get a "source" for an equation? You're applying things where they don't make sense.

I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.

And how many things have they chosen to not document?  FAT32 is old.  PnP is old.  There are already several innovative things that implement or replace the same functionality.

Ah, but that wasn't the argument. Microsoft has documented recent things such as information regarding WinFS and things like their Transactional Filesystem. If you want any more there are interviews with Developers of the OS on channel9
(channel9.msdn.com)

Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.

How on Earth does being open source vindicate anything being sucky?

Ask yourself, you said it.

You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on  the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.

No -- they are misusing the word.  They're exploiting their user's ignorance to the technological world.  You're misinterpreting the world.  Revolutionary cannot be validly used on a local scale.  It's a ludicrous claim.

Ignorance to the techonological world?  Yea, Linux users arn't full of themselves. That's laughable. You and the other Linux users are misinterpreting what they say because you have used Linux, of course being Linux users like yourselves you like picking apart Windows at any chance you get (Which is why this thread was made, and why I cannot stand Linux users).

I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..

I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.

Windows already is the main target for hackers?  What the hell are you talking about?

Proof? Show me what most servers run. unless like I said of course, hackers are into little desktop users now. Cmon, there is no way around it. Linux is a target, Windows isn't even significant in a hackers eye. You know why? Exploiting windows is harder. You don't have the code nor do you have the iiner workings of the kernel. With Linux you have the full sourcecode and a community of retards willing to hug you in the name of open source.

What, the power of open source? HA!

Precisely.
[/quote]

You have no "power", just another method of you (Linux users) being full of yourselves.

[Sidoh]

You said it and I prove it wrong, done deal case closed.

You in no way proved it wrong.  You merely accused me of being hypocritical.

My CMS is not open source, never was intended to be either. I showed off the source via a tool a few times. Now being free on the other hand is another question.

Good luck making an CMS coded in PHP non-open source.

The equations can just as easily been documented, how the hell do you get a "source" for an equation? You're applying things where they don't make sense.

No, you're trying to hard (or not trying hard enough, one of the two) to find flaws in my analogy.  You're taking the word "source" into a context which only applies to programming and computer science.  The "source" for an equation is how the physicist arrived at the conclusion that this equation is mathematically precise and accurate.

Ah, but that wasn't the argument. Microsoft has documented recent things such as information regarding WinFS and things like their Transactional Filesystem. If you want any more there are interviews with Developers of the OS on channel9
(channel9.msdn.com)

That's not the point.  My point is they don't document everything.  They're not comparable to open source.  They're not supposed to be.

Ask yourself, you said it.

No I didn't.  You misinterpreted it.

Ignorance to the techonological world?  Yea, Linux users arn't full of themselves. That's laughable. You and the other Linux users are misinterpreting what they say because you have used Linux, of course being Linux users like yourselves you like picking apart Windows at any chance you get (Which is why this thread was made, and why I cannot stand Linux users).

You don't think most Windows users are ignorant to the technological world?  I suggest you do some field studies, then.  Go knock on your neighbors' doors and ask them how much they know about current news in technology.  I would wager not very many know much at all.  Most of them don't even care.  The average computer user is ignorant, relative to a technophile.  Stop with the "you Linux users," already.  Just because I'm defending Linux doesn't mean I think it's the epitome of all OS'.  I've defended Windows in arguments as well.  Ask Newby and Ergot about that.  We (TehUser and I) vs. Newby and Ergot.  We won, I'd say for sure.  We pick apart Windows any chance we get because there is a lot to complain about.  I am not saying Linux is perfect; it's far from it.

Proof? Show me what most servers run. unless like I said of course, hackers are into little desktop users now. Cmon, there is no way around it. Linux is a target, Windows isn't even significant in a hackers eye. You know why? Exploiting windows is harder. You don't have the code nor do you have the iiner workings of the kernel. With Linux you have the full sourcecode and a community of retards willing to hug you in the name of open source.

You think all hackers target servers?  In fact, I doubt very many of them do.  I think we have different ideas of a hacker.  By conventional terms, it's someone who steals data from another entity.  It doesn't imply (by my standards) someone who gains root access to a machine.  Exploiting Windows is not harder.  If I remember correctly, it wasn't too long ago that Windows was vulnerable to attacks by simply rendering an image on a website.

Windows is definitely the main target for hackers.

You have no "power", just another method of you (Linux users) being full of yourselves.

Once and for all: I'm not a "Linux user" in a derogatory sense.  I use Windows as well.  I'm defending Linux in this case because your attacks against it are stupid.  Your defenses for Windows are stupid.  Please, show me how to do the following on a Windows server:

  a) Configure/Install/Maintain a mailserver as powerful as sendmail (I'm unaware of one as powerful as sendmail for Windows)
  b) Support more than a handful of filesystems.
  c) Configure/Install/Maintain apache/mysql at Linux speeds (doesn't happen)
  d) Configure/Install/Maintain a DHCP server that is as versatile has dhcpd

There's a few examples.  Linux is powerful.  Saying otherwise is literally stupid.

[Warrior]

You said it and I prove it wrong, done deal case closed.

You in no way proved it wrong.  You merely accused me of being hypocritical.

I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.

My CMS is not open source, never was intended to be either. I showed off the source via a tool a few times. Now being free on the other hand is another question.

Good luck making an CMS coded in PHP non-open source.

Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder

The equations can just as easily been documented, how the hell do you get a "source" for an equation? You're applying things where they don't make sense.

No, you're trying to hard (or not trying hard enough, one of the two) to find flaws in my analogy.  You're taking the word "source" into a context which only applies to programming and computer science.  The "source" for an equation is how the physicist arrived at the conclusion that this equation is mathematically precise and accurate.

It's called "Testing it"?

Ah, but that wasn't the argument. Microsoft has documented recent things such as information regarding WinFS and things like their Transactional Filesystem. If you want any more there are interviews with Developers of the OS on channel9
(channel9.msdn.com)

That's not the point.  My point is they don't document everything.  They're not comparable to open source.  They're not supposed to be.

They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.

Ask yourself, you said it.

No I didn't.  You misinterpreted it.

When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.

Ignorance to the techonological world?  Yea, Linux users arn't full of themselves. That's laughable. You and the other Linux users are misinterpreting what they say because you have used Linux, of course being Linux users like yourselves you like picking apart Windows at any chance you get (Which is why this thread was made, and why I cannot stand Linux users).

You don't think most Windows users are ignorant to the technological world?  I suggest you do some field studies, then.  Go knock on your neighbors' doors and ask them how much they know about current news in technology.  I would wager not very many know much at all.  Most of them don't even care.  The average computer user is ignorant, relative to a technophile.  Stop with the "you Linux users," already.  Just because I'm defending Linux doesn't mean I think it's the epitome of all OS'.  I've defended Windows in arguments as well.  Ask Newby and Ergot about that.  We (TehUser and I) vs. Newby and Ergot.  We won, I'd say for sure.  We pick apart Windows any chance we get because there is a lot to complain about.  I am not saying Linux is perfect; it's far from it.

You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..

Proof? Show me what most servers run. unless like I said of course, hackers are into little desktop users now. Cmon, there is no way around it. Linux is a target, Windows isn't even significant in a hackers eye. You know why? Exploiting windows is harder. You don't have the code nor do you have the iiner workings of the kernel. With Linux you have the full sourcecode and a community of retards willing to hug you in the name of open source.

You think all hackers target servers?  In fact, I doubt very many of them do.  I think we have different ideas of a hacker.  By conventional terms, it's someone who steals data from another entity.  It doesn't imply (by my standards) someone who gains root access to a machine.  Exploiting Windows is not harder.  If I remember correctly, it wasn't too long ago that Windows was vulnerable to attacks by simply rendering an image on a website.

Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.

Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.

You have no "power", just another method of you (Linux users) being full of yourselves.

Once and for all: I'm not a "Linux user" in a derogatory sense.  I use Windows as well.  I'm defending Linux in this case because your attacks against it are stupid.  Your defenses for Windows are stupid.  Please, show me how to do the following on a Windows server:
  a) Configure/Install/Maintain a mailserver as powerful as sendmail (I'm unaware of one as powerful as sendmail for Windows)
  b) Support more than a handful of filesystems.
  c) Configure/Install/Maintain apache/mysql at Linux speeds (doesn't happen)
  d) Configure/Install/Maintain a DHCP server that is as versatile has dhcpd

Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.

Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:

Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!

[Sidoh]

I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.

You don't think there are any differences between Linux and UNIX?  I think you'd better do some research.

Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder

That's a stupid waste of time.

It's called "Testing it"?

Why?  Are they afraid that their patches suck so much that they're going to reek havog on their user's PC's and they'll get sued?  Probably.

They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.

No, but they sure as hell hide most of it.

When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.

Quote the sentence you're talking about and I'll tell you.

You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..

How in the HELL did you pull the meaning you're suggesting out of my statement?  I said that the average computer user is technologically ignorant--plain and simple.  No details attached.  They simply don't know much about IT.

Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.

Then why are there thousands of trojans that are exclusively used on Windows?  Why are there e-mail viruses that work exculsively on Windows?  A hacker's intent is rarely money (again: we're obviously not using the same definition for a hacker).  Usually it's just to be a malicious prick.

Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.

Again: it's not my fault you're stupid enough to believe that Linux is exploited in greater numbers (or proportions) than Windows.  If you want to believe that, I'm not going to fight you.  You be on your merry way.

Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.

EXACTLY.  For once, you're starting to make sense!  Linux isn't supposed to be like Windows!  It's not even intended to replace Windows!  It's supposed to be there to provide an acceptable alternative for Windows.  That is exactly waht it does.  What's wrong with Linux having a desktop environment?  Who cares if it's not as good as Windows' desktop environment?  I'd be pretty appauled if it was. I'd much rather have the functionality that Linux provides.

Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:

Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!

Are you saying that Vista can run Linux drivers?