[QUOTE="mistervengeance"] windows is just built up from fail
squirrel337
Windows Blackcomb is built from the ground up.
I'll believe it when I see it, Vista was supposed to be as well instead its built from the MAFIAA up. Microsoft has a longer history of overpromising and underdelivering than any company I know.
If Blackcomb has no system user, no problems with fragmentation, ditches the registry, and halves the system requirements compared to Vista then it will be equivalent to its competition in the most basic senses but that isn't something I consider likely to be the case.
*snip*
horrowhip
This is so wrong that I'm going to have to break it down piece by piece.
"that is so wrong its not even funny.... The only reason Windows has viruses is because all of the hackers and programmers know tricks to get around the system. Thing is, Windows has LAYERS UPON LAYERS of Anti-Virus protection built in. OS X and Linux don't."
Windows has no anti-virus software built in as far as I'm aware, it has a firewall but its poor compared to even most of the free ones out there.
"Techinically, its a thousand times easier to hack into OS X than it is to get through Windows, but through trial and error, people have figured out Windows and can hack it easier. Honestly, if a hacker was given a week, maybe two weeks, he could literally destroy a Mac with viruses."
Maybe, but I've yet to see any study that says as much even from their competitors. Macs are patched much more quickly than Windows is as well, so theres less of a chance for viruses to impact the system. Linux is the same, in fact with Linux every piece of software you install gets automatic updates and they are entirely optional to install (no secret updates).
"Windows gets a bad rep because its the most popular and therefore has more people ready to tear it down but it is honestly the best OS."
Windows has:
1. System user - a hidden user most people don't even know exists, huge target for malware.
2. Fragmentation - Linux solved this problem as of early-2001, before Windows XP was even released
3. System requirements - Windows has consistently required more hardware resources than competitors
4. Virtualization - Virtualization does exist for Windows, however it has been around for less time and is inferior to the competition.
"People need to understand that and realize Microsoft isn't out there to "Steal" your money with a crappy OS. They hire the BEST programmers around and go through millions of hours of QA and debugging. The fact that 99.9% of computers run on it only amplifies the chances of a bug being found and having those people complain."
Microsoft has in the past and continues to engage in unethical or illegal business practices to protect and expand their monopoly, fortunately its no longer working very well. Their corporate culture like their OS is restrictive and inefficient causing many things to take far longer than necessary and thus delaying substantive improvements.
"Vista is honestly the BEST OS I have ever used considering its age. It is just as stable as XP at this point and has very few issues. Just because there is a vocal minority that complains out the arse, doesn't mean Windows Vista sucks. Just need to point this out to EVERYONE. Vista is built differently from former Windows OS's, and people screw it up because they treat it like an old OS... If you use Vista properly, it is easier to use and much faster than XP."
1. Vista has numerous privacy concerns over XP, these same concerns (DRM and spyware) chew up CPU and GPU time for no good reason.
2. Vista has more than doubled system requirements over XP.
3. UAC is a poorly implemented security measure that is less effective and more obnoxious and frequent than similar system which have existed elsewhere for better than a decade.
4. One of the big criticisms of Vista is its laggardly performance over XP.
"Games only have issues because drivers suck at the moment but nVidia is going to fix before Crysis which is their marker for the latest time they can release stable drivers... Vista requires more resources because of its built in functions that honestly, I now consider necessary. Aero is extremely complex code wise, and the Side-Bar requires tons of resources because of the way it functions. Turn those two things off, and Vista runs on fewer resources than XP."
There is absolutely no indication that everything Aero does couldn't be done better with fewer system resources. Project Looking Glass which is superior to Vista eye-candy wise (which Vista BTW ripped off) requires less system requirements running on Windows, Compiz is far more efficient and better looking, Metisse is more efficient as well..see a pattern there?
The same is absolutely true of Vista's sidebar as well, it is very inefficient compared to Gnome panels, KDE widgets, Mac widgets, or whatever else you want to compare it to.
Log in to comment