OSNews

I don't really know what to say except... dumb asses.

As a serious question, how long after XP's release, did they no longer sell Windows 2000? Or ME, or 98, etc.

Thank god I have a VLK corp edition of XP...

Who doesn't?

Free as in beer, I guess :-)

2000 still missed a few interesting bits which only came with XP (TS, cleartype, 32b systray icons, wifi support, wide OS diffusion, ...), and which somewhat offset its Playskool GUI and overweight.

I have yet to find one feature I need in Vista (maybe the ability to shrink NTFS volumes, but that's more of a server feature), and on the other side my list of showstoppers keeps getting LONGER everyday, which is pretty frightening for a 1 year old OS (sick UAC implementation, completely incoherent shell UI, lack of 3rd party VPN support, global slowness, heavyness and unneeded complexity...)

Lack of WiFi was partial - it was only lack of build-in WiFi support - custom drivers ran just fine.

Some issues with large disks are more irritating - but still quite easy to fix.

I have tried to like Vista... I really have.

Here are the absolute dislikes:

1) UAC. I write code and I have to constantly use "run as administrator" and have to avoid getting an epileptic seizure from the constant black screen dimming. I turned off UAC and all is fine now.

2) Hard disk tromping. With 500 GB drives absolutely common and people having oodles and oodles of pictures and files why in the heck does Vista keep thinking it needs to inspect every file? I turned off indexing, and turned off windows defender, but it still has bouts of hard disk tromping.

3) Constant warning of bubbles. That is so annoying that bubbles telling me this that or the other thing keep popping up.

Those three reasons have me yearning to go back to XP. And I finally realized why Vista sucks. They did not do an Apple. Apple has this habit of switching from one technology to another. It hurts if you are stuck with the old technology. But it is better in the long run. Microsoft should have done this with Vista! Or at least what they should have done is run both XP and Vista concurrently where Vista is a brand new kernel that will require some time to adopt.

Personally I think that NT 3.1 was heading in the right direction; the was a small compact kernel, minimal things running in kernel space, the graphics layer sat in user space - sure, it didn't set the world alight in terms of speed given the hardware of that era but had they stuck to that design we wouldn't see the pissing, the moaning, and the '30% of crashes due to Nvidia drivers' which we see today.

Even the former Windows manager said that things started to come unstuck around 15 years ago when all hell broke loose in the heady days of the 90s. Things being added left, right and centre. Good programming practices thrown out the window in favour of cramming as many features into a product as humanly possible - with little or no regard spent to how those features will impact on the system in the larger picture (security, stability and so forth).

As for Microsoft, they have nothing to lose. When one has 95% of the marketplace, you can pretty much do what ever you damn well please. I do find it funny when I see people here wailing and gnashing their teeth when it was their very purchase of Windows machines that actually gave Microsoft the power they have today. People hate Microsoft as a monster and yet they ignore the very people who made Microsoft they size it is.

It reminds me of all the Southpark episode regarding 'Sprawlmart' - and people protesting about it. Ignoring the fact that it was the people who hated it were the ones who demanded it and shopped at the place. Same can be said for all those people who hate Microsoft and yet use their products - hypocrisy?

Windows NT 3.1 was not considered small and compact at the time. Compared to competitors like OS/2 2.0 and later or Microsoft's own Windows 3.1, NT 3.1's memory requirements were very high.

Mate, I said structure wise; it is very possible to have something that consumes more memory, and yet, code wise, is very compact. Its an easy concept, learn it some time.

I loved Windows 2000. I own a jealously guarded Windows 2000 Server CD, which I have used for my server builds over the years.

Recently however I built a brand new Core 2 Duo server and Windows 2000 wouldn't install, even after I slip-streamed the latest service pack. The installation would just hang somewhere in the hardware detection phase. I disabled everything in the BIOS that I could, and set SATA to run in legacy mode, but still no dice. There was just something on that board Windows 2000 couldn't handle (BTW, Ubuntu installed flawlessly, so the board in fine).

Now this might have just been this particular board, but over time you will see more and more of this, because board manufacturers aren't testing Windows 2000, and MS certainly isn't updating it for new hardware.

I guess if I get nostalgic I can always boot up Windows 2000 in vmware.

Windows 2000 was the pinnacle of Microsoft operating systems. A testament to this is the amount of corporations that still use it as the primary desktop for employees.

I still use W2K Prof for a couple of reasons, mostly no activation and that gives me a lot of freedom to change or upgrade the hardware at will with no asking anybodies permission (ever). W2K also comes from a time when Microsoft actually respected those of us users that had been using NT3.1 and on up while the unwashed masses still used Win3.1 and later Win95. An at that time most of the Linux installs were pretty unfriendly too.

Once everyone got moved to the NT5 kernel (WinXP) with all the benefits that should have give us it also meant that those of us early leaders were now an insignificant base compared to the eventual massive XP base of plain old users.

I now really regret that MS moved to a common code base, if they had kept on developing Windows Prof for high end users separate from the garbage fed to the masses, we likely would still have no activation and fewer web threats as W2K users would be an insignificant target. MS might actually pay more attention to power users as not all having the same requirements as everyone else. Now we are all in the same cess pool when it comes to net attacks and presumed feature desires. Of course that sounds pretty elitist and it is, no apologies, I expect vastly more from an OS than the vast majority of users and MS can not possibly do that for me, all the effort spent on eye candy is not what I ever want to pay for.

The sad thing about W2K is that it is now terribly dated esp the UI look, way too similar to Win95. A lot of my installs never really fully work and I get piss poor performance from some of the hardware from USB2, FW and many video cards. I have tried the XP trials and while they work much better, the install is still terribly dated and the activation stops me dead, (no cracks for me).

Now if the Ubuntu and PCLinux real simple installers were to be used to instal XP (without activation), I'd be so much happier, but that just isn't gonna happen. So from my point MS went cold once XP came out.

Still I must get around to trying out the few must have Win apps under Wine probably on OSX when time permits.

/+1.

I was an avid Windows user during the Windows NT3.5.x/4 and 2K days - and I fully agree - Windows 2K was MS' best OS, no question about it.
Heck, I even worked on converting software from big iron Unix to Windows NT4/2K.
However, things more-or-less went down hill during the XP beta (?) stage - I really didn't like the direction in which the OS was heading and once XP hit RTM, I was already spending most of my time converting Windows software back (...?) to Linux.

I still use Windows from time to time (mostly when I need to release a new Windows version of my software) but I do my best to avoid it.

- Gilboa

Edited 2008-04-04 06:24 UTC

you can't be serious, right ?

I do not like Linux too, but having to choose between Vista and Linux I will probably choose to ... no. I will choose to dust off my retail copy of Windows ME.

How can I not be serious?

Check out the competition. If you choose Apple then you're stuck with restricted hardware configurations. Want a desktop quad core Intel CPU? Or an AMD processor? Too bad. If you choose Linux then you're on your own. A lot of people give up on setting an home page on Konqueror.

Do yourself a favour and try Vista. You'll find that most of the arguments against Vista are mostly hot air. Just because the angry mob at OSNews feels that anything labeled Microsoft is bad, doesn't mean that in reality it is.

Open Konqueror.

Go to the page you want as your home page: eg:
www.google.com

Select the text that is shown in the address bar and copy it to the clipboard (Crtl-C).

Settings -> Configure Konqueror.

In the middle of the settings dialog box, where it says "Home URL" ... erase the existing text, and paste (Ctrl-V) in the URL you previously copied to the clipboard.

Click OK.

You are done.

PS: You are not on your own. Just ask a question in the right place, and someone will help you in very short order.

I know your intention was to show how easy it is, but really, I cant think of a single other browser that doesn't have a "use current" button ;-)

Nope. It didn't work last time I had tried it. Even with a login/logout. The Konqueror intro web page always came up.

Or maybe it was another of Kubuntu's quirks like the Adept database locking up all the time and having to drop to the command prompt to fix it. Or having to jump hoops to install Gnash in konqueror.

I know this sounds easy for us nerds but most people I know can only comprehend 3 steps. Anything after that is too difficult.
1. go to page
2. right click home button
3. choose "make this my homepage"

I already tried in rc stage - it sucks even more than Ubuntu or Linux in general. And its not about drivers - its about whole experience. Vista is slow, Vista is resource hungry (one of my two home PC is based on Celeron 1700 and have 1GB of RAM - it is now five years old and runs XP and apps just fine) and Vista is in one of its aspects very similar to Linux - it "knows better what is good for me" - for example you cannot shut down all its "whistles" in UI to make it clean and fast like XP in "Windows 2000" mode.

Im absolutely serious now - I prefer WinME over Vista.

Vista in my home, in my private computer - yes, but over my dead body. Period.

Right click on the Desktop, select "Personalize". Then select "Theme". In the drop down select "Windows Classic".

Now, I wish that the "classic" look and feel was XP's "Silver" skin, but alas, it's basically stock windows 2000.

Again, I'm not defending the MS zealot, but really, using an RC of Vista and making a judgment on it is ridiculous. Hasn't MS been around long enough to know not to use their OS before SP1?

Vista SP1 did fix a lot of things, and now it's fine on modern hardware. And by modern hardware I mean a $350 computer from Newegg.com.

Good Grief! In konqueror, to set any current page as the "home" page, go to menu bar, tab settings->Save View Profile "web browsing," and check Save URLs in profile.

Well, I did try Vista (for 3 months). Hell, that's why I'm posting this message from Linux ;-)

Well, I did try Vista (for 3 months). Hell, that's why I'm posting this message from Linux ;-) "

I tried Vista as soon as it came out; and I sold my laptop soon after. I've now got a MacBook with Mac OS X. Every time I am tempted by the likes of the PC world, I remind myself of Windows Vista, the broken promises and the lack of any forward looking direction that puts progress ahead of comprising for the lazy programmers in the third party world unwilling to update their code.

As for PC's running *NIX, there still has alot of work to go before it gets to the level of usability and software available as Mac OS X (software availability in the form of commercial third party applications like Microsoft Office, Creative Suite, Quark, and so forth).

With that being said, however, does it matter if someone is running Linux, Solaris or MacOS X? the most important thing, they're not running Windows - and that is what will hurt Microsoft, not the fact that Mac OS X or Linux or Solaris is winning, that somewhere along the line Microsoft is being hurt. Thats the important thing.

How can I not be serious?

Check out the competition. If you choose Apple then you're stuck with restricted hardware configurations. Want a desktop quad core Intel CPU? Or an AMD processor? Too bad. If you choose Linux then you're on your own. A lot of people give up on setting an home page on Konqueror.

Do yourself a favour and try Vista. You'll find that most of the arguments against Vista are mostly hot air. Just because the angry mob at OSNews feels that anything labeled Microsoft is bad, doesn't mean that in reality it is. "

Or do yourself and your wallet an even bigger favour and try a recent GNU/Linux. Fedora or Ubuntu would be fine choices. If you don't feel able to install an OS, get a pre-installed system from ZaReason, System 76 or even Dell or HP ... at a stretch you can even get a low-end low-price system from Wallmart online.

You will get a fully functional, stable, secure OS and literally thousands of applications available to you for free, it will perform significantly better than Vista on the same hardware, it will be fully capable out-of-the-box (without the need to purchase extra products such as anti-virus or Office suite), and your data will be saved and exchanged in open formats that can be processed by software from any of several software vendors.

Edited 2008-04-04 02:42 UTC

...and be sure that there are plenty of affordable Linux support companies, whose will be happy to address all your problems with xorg.conf, fstab, menu.lst or even help you to fix that broken GNOME calculator tool in Ubuntu 8.04 - and all this (and more!) at a very attractive monthly fee contracts!

"Want a desktop quad core Intel CPU? Or an AMD processor?..."

Well, if I want an Intel Quad Core I can get a Mac Pro. For the AMD I can use Linux or one of the BSD's, if I really want to.

Oh Sure Vista taking all of my somputers resources and still running like crap is all just hot air. Nice try.

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.

"A lot of people give up on setting an home page on Konqueror."

I get your point that with Linux there is more manual work to be done, but you're really stretching it here.

"Do yourself a favour and try Vista."

Funny...

Vista is an expensive transition system. They've already started work on its modular replacement.

I'm sure Thum will edit me down with Gestapo-like efficiency but "who cares" what others think about Vista. I actually like it since it works a little more like a real operating system should.

This is from a Linux, OS X and Windows server admin.

I personally run an AMD 64bit with Mac OS X with no problems, your comments about OS X are invalid.

Maybe Mac OSX is an option for you?

While I can't say I agree with the person you quoted, choosing to "dust off my retail copy of Windows Me" is an even crazier statement to make. Me was an abomination, and anyone that thinks Vista is worse hasn't even used it. Had you used it, you'd see it's far more stable, just as stable (in my experience) as XP. Yes, it is slower. I won't debate that (though it runs just fine for me).

But saying Me is better is laughable.

I used ME for about two years - at one of my home PCs, 98SE on another, and there were no significant difference between two systems. 98SE were usually praised as best of 9x line. IMHO they both were good, with a little tweaking needed of course. ME had never version of explorer.exe which was free of that stupid freeze-bug which surfaced when you copy/move lots of files. Things that forced me to abandon them were games requiring at least Windows 2000 (Doom 3 and later), 512-768MB RAM barrier and 136GB HD barrier. If they can handle 2 GB of RAM, larger partitions (they could be run from SATA drives, minus 136GB barrier of course), and you could run ET: QuakeWars on them ;-) I will probably still be using them today.

I was (and I am still!) very sentimental towards DOS and Norton Commander times - maybe that is the reason.

You've got to be trolling, right?

If you're actually serious, I suggest you take a look at Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard), which actually comes with free professional developer tools (included on the install DVD), access to superior APIs like Core Animation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Animation) and Core Image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image), and far more extensive documentation (http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/) than anything I've seen out of Microsoft in the 15+ years I've had to deal with Windows.

If you believe Microsoft is developer-friendly, I think you should read http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/, with regards to their "standards". I'm particularly fond of how Excel, Powerpoint, and Word implement completely different methods of doing something as trivial as setting font color or alignment.

Don't succumb to the Ballmer monkey dance!

You can't be serious...

I could go on and on about the archaic state of the apple developer story, but rory is a much better writer then me, and he already did it here http://www.neopoleon.com/home/blogs/neo/archive/2008/03/17/29941.as...

If you think obj-c and xcode are good try something... ANYTHING else.

Edited 2008-04-04 02:07 UTC

Are you being ironic?

Whether yes or no, don't you think 'revolutionary' is a better word? :p
(me, I 'm being ironic here...)

Dude,

1st of April has passed... it's 4th now... Wake up.

"The DRM plan must move forward."

The DRM plan as you call it was set in motion by Hollywood and Apple. DRM only got publicity since Microsoft was putting it in as requested, Apple already had it. Something they copied from Apple?? Probably...

On another note, the bad press it has gotten has made the big players think twice. A good chunk of movie houses are starting to release things as DRM free, which will be a good thing.

I have to agree. I recently purchase a new laptop and it has Vista Home Premium. I dual boot with Linux (latest Ubuntu beta, for now) and rarely touch Windows. I also agree with others in thinking that Win2K was the last great Microsoft OS.

I have said it before and I'll say it again -- XP and, now, Vista both felt like betas that were released on the public to squash bugs. How long did it take for XP to become "stable"? I can tell this -- I work for a major hospital and the mere mention of Vista gets eyes rolling. So, though they stop selling it, I don't see XP being out of the picture for a long while afterward. In fact, I could forsee a scenario where companies try to skip Vista altogether in hopes that the next version of Windows will be better put together.

Edited 2008-04-04 03:52 UTC

It'll still work. It's just that Microsoft will no longer sell new copies of XP on June 30.

I suppose... security updates will stop?

Mainstream support XP Home ends 14 April 2009, Extended support 4 August, 2014. According to their policy, security updates for consumer products last at least until the end of the Mainstream support phase.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=wi...

Thanks for the info. That's good news, I suppose... I'm currently using XP and OpenSUSE 10.3 dual-boot, but once security updates for XP stop being provided, I'm probably going all-Linux (or maybe Mac).

That is, if Windows 7 will be as much of a lemon as Vista is. If it's the bee's knees, then I might upgrade, but personally I doubt it.

Edited 2008-04-04 10:57 UTC

My attempt to install VS 2005 on Vista x64 went stupendously wrong, apart from taking 4x longer to install than on XP.

The installer decided half-way through to turn off WOW64 folder-redirection, leaving half of a VS install in the WOW64 Folders/Registry Keys and half in the native folders.

Of course, the un-installer gave up completely at this point, leaving me with a rather horribly broken system.