|
|
winterfate
Supreme Hero
Water-marked Champion!
|
posted November 05, 2009 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If Windows 98 could support larger hard drives and more memory, and was more stable and had System Restore, I'd still be using that.
+1
Windows 98 was the most stable of the old Windows operating systems.
Of course, the jury is still out on Windows 7 though.
____________
If you supposedly care about someone, then don't push them out of your life. Acting like you're not doing it doesn't exempt you from what I just said. - Winterfate
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 12:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How weak is a S.O if it needs System Restore?
It's OS, not SO. Operating System.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:08 AM |
|
|
can it run heroes 3 and 4? If so then i will consider it.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:18 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 01:18, 05 Nov 2009.
|
7 runs Heroes 3 and 4 very well from my experience.
98SE was very good, 98 original was not so much (but not too bad with all patches). It's horribly broken now since it doesn't get patches anymore.
Vista was basically a ploy of Microsoft to try to get companies to write programs without assuming they had administrator permissions. Too bad a lot of companies got lazy in writing drivers for it. Others intentionally released broken crap (ahem, Apple) just to bash Microsoft in press releases when it didn't work.
7 Works better than vista at everything I hjave tried.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:28 AM |
|
|
@Death
Thanks for the (theoretical) answer to my question, but on a more applied level, what sorts of programs am I likely to run into problems with, or is it completely unpredictable?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Death
Thanks for the (theoretical) answer to my question, but on a more applied level, what sorts of programs am I likely to run into problems with, or is it completely unpredictable?
It's kinda unpredictable, since without looking through the source code (not that I would do it even if it was available  ) you can't know if they use some obscure APIs.
For example, applications that HOOK windows functions (such as apps that 'redirect' functionality from another app) will most probably not work correctly, some installers may not work, especially older installers.
There is also the issue that 64-bit can't run 16-bit programs, which is a problem as some installers are 16-bit, even if the app is 32-bit. Though if you use newer software that's unlikely to happen. 
Sometimes, the bigger the app, the more chances are that something won't work correctly. Notice that it varies completely on the app, and sorry I am clueless to provide examples first-hand seeing as I don't have 64-bit and that my apps are most definitely not something you would be interested in.
(audio software for example has some problems and people complain all the time on forums, on very very different issues and apps (making it very "spread-out" problem, not just a centralized known problem) but like I said, it's not something you are interested in, I suppose)
sorry for not being able to give out a precise solution/answer.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 10:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And guess what OS that got a major flaw in its base system? There is a reason that when Mac OS become OS X they got rid of all the viruses. Until Microsoft's OS gets rid of this flaw, it will be plagued by viruses.
I can't believe you actually said that. Windows has an extremely good security set. Yes it is targeted by much malware, because it's the most popular by far.
Windows is the most targetted because its CRAP at keeping the users safe.
Its is harder to make a working UNIX virus, than making a Windows virus. The same applies to trojans and other stuff.
GNU/Linux and BSD got a high market share where it matters, servers and super computers. There exists no organisation that runs Windows on higher profiles, because its not secure enough. And its to weak once you reach the really high end segment(no support for that amount of cores, RAM, file systems, no option for minimal latency, etc). Don't forget security.
Quote:
Mac has a TERRIBLE security system.
Compared to Windows? Your not the one to talk. OS X is secure by having a secure "system" compared to Windows where they got a crap base system BUT they add on more and more on the top of that to attempt to keep it secure.
You must remember that all OS X "trojans" are using flaws in the proprietary part of the code, or are masked as applications that need root powers.
Quote:
Linux is ok, but for people who don't know much about security, Windows is still better. Linux has the potential to be extremely strong for security but not many people are interested to learn all that, that's why.
Why is Windows better? I need a proper argument.
I claim GNU/Linux is better because the base IS secure, bugs are fixed fast AND there is no need for a "tech savy" person to purge it several times each year. Throw in Ubuntu on a computer, and point to add/remove and synaptic. Now, for the "normal" user this will sufficient and we have gotten rid of the trojan base mainly. And there is still several gigs of applications for those who wants more.
Quote:
Why do you think a custom (read: many stuff disabled) Windows XP was chosen for many military projects for its robustness?
You did read WHERE it was used did you? For email for a few people, it was not used anywhere else.....
Where the "robustness" was needed, there was NEVER windows there.
Quote:
That sounds VERY slow. Well, compared to what I do.
3-4 seconds usually, remember, out of hundreds (I'm not kidding), it's actually pretty fast. But that's only because I put them very organized into subgroups and stuff. (yeah I'm a freak, I store everything organized, NOTHING on desktop, actually I can't imagine people who even use the desktop -- I don't even use the C drive at all).
I use this method:
1. Hit alt+f2(hotkey)
2. Write parts of the app name and hit tab to get the auto completion working
3. Hit enter and the application starts.
Quote:
@Death
Thanks for the (theoretical) answer to my question, but on a more applied level, what sorts of programs am I likely to run into problems with, or is it completely unpredictable?
It's kinda unpredictable, since without looking through the source code (not that I would do it even if it was available ) you can't know if they use some obscure APIs.
For example, applications that HOOK windows functions (such as apps that 'redirect' functionality from another app) will most probably not work correctly, some installers may not work, especially older installers.
This is called "broken" multi-lib. A working multi-lib equals that all applications will run, how good is questionable.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:16 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:17, 05 Nov 2009.
|
@del_diablo: I don't know what you are talking about. Windows XP 64-bit can handle terabytes of RAM, tens of cores and has no arbitrary limits unless by driver design, and considering when it was released that's a pretty impressive feat.
And you still don't get it do you? All the feats you said about security are not even security-wise. Fact is, you DON'T execute bad apps, that's the whole point of security, to prevent that, not to prevent the app from doing damage.
The irony here is that Windows wasn't very secure but due to huge targets against it and people demanding security they added far more than what Apple bothered to do (it wasn't as profitable for Apple as for Microsoft to implement strong security, that's all).
Multi-user environments suck. Yes, you can have them in Windows too, but why do you think so few people use them? Because they suck, once you need to resort to multi-user environments for security, the OS's security is already behind Windows. Period.
Oh and yes, most Microsoft software has many exploitation. Software that comes with Windows is not windows. If you say Outlook is bad, you make a point, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows. Same with Internet Explorer. I'm tired of Windows-bashers who say that, just because IE is crap, then windows isn't secure either.
Learn to separate components.
Quote:
Why is Windows better? I need a proper argument.
Because it's security relies on less user experience than Linux. Same thing can be done in Linux but it needs more technical experience, that's why.
Quote:
I use this method:
1. Hit alt+f2(hotkey)
2. Write parts of the app name and hit tab to get the auto completion working
3. Hit enter and the application starts.
Needs keyboard, too slow to move the hands to type when my hand was on the mouse. 
Quote:
This is called "broken" multi-lib. A working multi-lib equals that all applications will run, how good is questionable.
Not necessarily, remember, it's because of 64-bit emulation that this happens. The app when it was conceived only had in mind 32-bit as it was.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:26 PM |
|
|
So Death, can you say what probably will work on 7 and what can possibly NOT work?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So Death, can you say what probably will work on 7 and what can possibly NOT work?
Not really. The bigger the app and the more Windows functions it uses, the more likely, but not certain, that it will not work properly (it could still work 90% for instance).
Also apps that install services are more likely to fail, unless there's a Windows 7 version of it (but that applies to all apps).
Older apps also may pose problems.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Well, there's always the "windows in windows" option. Running a virtual machine, I mean.
Does win7 load faster than XP?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
|
That "Windows on Windows" emulation is what I mentioned that is gonna break some functionality in some apps (those that hook are very likely to not work correctly, though I think you're not very interested in that).
Also I don't know if you can even use services that act as "virtual drivers" at all, since those can't be emulated but have to be 64-bits.
Quote:
Does win7 load faster than XP?
No idea, I don't even have it. I do remember that Vista Ultimate or something like that took 20GB of hard disk space, which is ridiculous IMO. (my custom-configured XP box has less than 1GB without drivers...)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:50 PM |
|
|
Just out of curiosity, can you manage working without even having a dual boot Corribus ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
And guys, you are amazing that you support Windows for security, when, in order to have a truly working environment you need administrative privileges ...
____________
The empty set
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
The biggest problem for me is the need to set up my RAID 0 drives every time I format my discs. My motherboard doesn't have the necessary drivers ofc so I have to upload them painfully via floppy discs. >_> I'm not even sure whether the drivers I have now, intended for XP afaik, will work later and ending with a not working PC isn't what I want, really.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And guys, you are amazing that you support Windows for security, when, in order to have a truly working environment you need administrative privileges ...
Quote:
Multi-user environments suck. Yes, you can have them in Windows too, but why do you think so few people use them? Because they suck, once you need to resort to multi-user environments for security, the OS's security is already behind Windows. Period.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 19:06, 05 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
A question from the computer-ignorant. I often see the more "informed" people here on the forums going on about how Windows is a terrible system, or how System X has such gigantic flaws etc etc. Now I'd like to know whether they're nagging on a very high level or are you usually debating fundamental things that should actually concern a normal person who only uses his PC to work,surf and game a little?
Half of the time I have no idea what you are talking about but I'd like to know whether I should care (not because I think you're talking crap but because I'd like to know whether your concerns are basic or just fine tuning stuff).
Yes Azagal. At some points the problems are fundamental. You caught me unprepared because I don't use Windows for about a decade now (apart from booting Windows and playing Heroes). Anyway, let's see some fundamental problems:
* Restart almost every time you install something.
* You need to be an administrator most of the times so that programs can actually work. This further justifies why viruses / worms and all that B/S is so widespread for Windows.
* Further consequence of the above is that most users want to feel safe and install anti-virus suites, anti-malware, anti-BS ... which also occupies memory and makes things even slower ... My fundamental question to all these people has been: Why do you keep on doing it (installing these anti-blah suites) ? No good answer has been given.
* Have you checked how much RAM you occupy just by saying hello ?
* Have you checked how much space in your hard-drive is required ?
* Have you checked how frequently applications crash ?
* Windows also promotes and "forces" people to use Microsoft suites. Example, you use the latest version of MS Office, you create a .doc file and you expect all others to be able to view your document 
* File manipulation and some sort of "default" (= really bad judgement) setup on parameters. For example, by default the file extension is hidden on many files. This is a pain many times.
* Promotes the existence of uninformed and "naive" users.
* Pain with TeX many times.
* ....
____________
The empty set
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Multi-user environments suck. Yes, you can have them in Windows too, but why do you think so few people use them? Because they suck, once you need to resort to multi-user environments for security, the OS's security is already behind Windows. Period.
Death, do you really believe that you have a valid argument ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 07:30 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:32, 05 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
* Restart almost every time you install something.
Oh please, I haven't restarted it for that reason for MORE THAN SIX YEARS. NONE of my apps required it. Not even those which installed services and drivers...Quote:
* You need to be an administrator most of the times so that programs can actually work. This further justifies why viruses / worms and all that B/S is so widespread for Windows.
A virus that can't do damage is still a virus. Windows security is very strong because Microsoft focused on security for non-multi-user environments.
You can have multi-user environment under Windows, but it's clear that should be a last resort and is NOT a desirable thing for normal users.
And it's funny how you say that most apps need Administrative privileges, when those apps probably don't even exist on Linux. How about you blame the app instead?Quote:
Why do you keep on doing it (installing these anti-blah suites) ? No good answer has been given.
Many good answers have been given, which you ignore or dismiss as not being good, as do most Linux or especially Mac fanboys.
No, I like Linux, I love open source software, I hate Windows for having registry and other crap, I hate centralized crap, but I hate the forceful use of multi-user crap in Linux too.
You know, people keep saying that Linux is hard to use. What they mean with that is not only the GUI, the use of command line, or the learning of Linux commands. When people are presented to type "a root password", most of them begin to have second thoughts on using Linux.Quote:
* Have you checked how much RAM you occupy just by saying hello ?
Without drivers, 70MB, with drivers, 130MB. Windows XP Service Pack 2, all updates until June 2009 integrated when installing.Quote:
* Have you checked how much space in your hard-drive is required ?
Less than 1GB without drivers.Quote:
* Have you checked how frequently applications crash ?
Yeah, and they crash because of Windows, not because of bad apps. Sure!
FYI: Firefox and other "stable apps" that are used in Linux have NEVER EVER crashed on me.
Actually now that I think of it no app has ever crashed apart from those which explicitly mention bugs. No BSOD ever except once when my HDD failed and computer overheated (which is understandable).Quote:
* Windows also promotes and "forces" people to use Microsoft suites. Example, you use the latest version of MS Office, you create a .doc file and you expect all others to be able to view your document
I don't even have Office. And I agree it sucks. Office =/= Windows though.Quote:
* File manipulation and some sort of "default" (= really bad judgement) setup on parameters. For example, by default the file extension is hidden on many files. This is a pain many times.
I use Total Commander, not the snowty Windows Explorer. Again, that is not Windows.Quote:
* Promotes the existence of uninformed and "naive" users.
That's a bad thing?
EDIT: sorry I read that as "has" not "promotes". Yes promoting is bad, but having to learn stuff isn't really a good thing, even for experienced people. People don't like to learn when they switch. Why do people wonder why there's a demand for "Windows-like Linux"?Quote:
* Pain with TeX many times.
What's TeX?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 07:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, can you manage working without even having a dual boot Corribus ?
I don't quite understand your question. Can I manage without a dual boot? Yes, I can manage; in fact, I've never felt the need for it. And I'd like to keep it that way. I'm not a computer nut. I just want something that loads quickly, doesn't crash too often, and will run my software reasonably well. Unfortunately, Vista neither loaded quickly *or* ran my software reasonably well. I want to know whether W7 improves those two problems.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
