Buzz Out Loud Lounge: CNET hates Microsoft, so does Google
Nice layer of technical worthlessness.
by Renegade Knight - 4/21/08 12:02 PM In reply to: I'll say this for ya; you're funny by SlikksterWin 95 had a Dos Platform. You could run Dos legacy applications. Win 98 may have been built in part on DOS (where XP broke free) but it wasnt' built entirly on dos. You could not access it the way you needed to run all your dos legacy applications as simply as 95.
Put simply. 95 Built on top of Dos. With a Dos mode.
98. No Dos mode like 95 had even if it wasnt' entirley free of Dos insofar as underpinings.
XP. Dos free and solved the last issues that 98 hadn't. Memory etc. Now to run DOS you need an emulator.
Why run DOS? Like I said. Legacy applications. Plus abandonware.
It's cool you can look things up. It's too bad that you don't seem to get what it means.
I'm flabbergasted...
by Slikkster - 4/21/08 1:56 PM In reply to: Nice layer of technical worthlessness. by Renegade KnightDo you have a clue about what you're saying? Windows 98 had no "Dos Mode"? Are you being serious? Do you even bother to check things like this before you type them? Windows 98 absolutely had an MS-DOS mode that could be booted into. You really need to get a grip on your *facts*.
Listen man, you lost this argument already. Now, you're compounding your problem.
I could put a zillion links here to show you how wrong you are about Windows 98 and MSDOS mode. Here's just a couple.
First, a tutorial site with Windows 98 Screenshots:
http://www.helpwithpcs.com/courses/windows-98-tutorial-start-menu.htm
Notice that funky little MSDOS mode shutdown/restart option.
Here's Microsoft's Knowledge Base, with just ONE of oh-so-many articles dealing with Windows 98 and MSDOS mode:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138996
Windows 98 used autoexec.bat and config.sys files. That, dude, is DOS.
The major changes between Windows 95 and Windows 98 weren't in the DOS realm. They were primarily in the GUI/32-bit realm. Device drivers were based on the "Windows Driver Model", for example, as well as backward compatibility with the older (95) VxD drivers. Internet Connect Sharing was new, plus other goodies like DVD support, ACPI, etc.
Sheesh...
Listen, I can't even have a discussion with you if you are unwilling to deal in facts. Don't take my word for anything. LOOK IT UP!
Flabberghasted Take II
by Renegade Knight - 4/22/08 7:34 AM In reply to: I'm flabbergasted... by SlikksterClue: Yes:
End all be all of all of Windows knowledge. No.
Expertise: End User.
Reality?
Win 95 came with a version of DOS. It ran on top of that Dox like Windows 3.X before. That was the last of the true DOS era.
Win 98, sure it had DOS underpinnings. However it also moved beyond DOS. Now instead of running DOS you ran in DOS Mode. The same? Not quite. Vista and XP Have a Win 95 mode. My Win 95 Legacy applications don't all like that mode in XP or Vista. They all ran under 95.
The more I read the more we are saying much the same thing but the viewpoing on what it means is different.
NIce try
by George Gray - 4/18/08 4:47 PM In reply to: Nice Try by Renegade KnightMy point about fortune 500 company adoption is relevent since it has been one of the supposed failures of Vista as put forth by CNet and others. 2005 seems to have been the year of more widespread corporate adoption of XP. That is nearly four years after it's initial release.
I can remember reading stories and forums where people were being advised to 'wait until sp2' comes out before upgrading. There were driver issues as well...I had an all in one Panasonic printer/copier/fax that I had purchased just prior to upgrading (downgrading?) to XP from 2000. The device worked perfect in 2000. In XP, the best I could get from it was black and white printing. No color, fax or scan. Panasonic released a buggy BETA XP driver.To this day, they never finalized that bloody driver. It never functioned correctly in XP. The ATI All in Wonder card I had would not record under XP. ATI never updated those drivers. I could go on.
My experience with Vista: all of my hardware-on four machines-works as they should. All of my software except Sim Theme Park runs just fine. Sim Theme Park, by the way, would not run correctly and without jumping through hoops, under XP either.
No fuzzy memory here.
Fuzzy Memory
by Renegade Knight - 4/21/08 12:09 PM In reply to: NIce try by George GraySince my point's were not made on fortune 500 adoption, it's rather moot. Institutions are always slow to adopt as a whole.
What your fuzzy memory doesn't seem to recall is why some things broke in XP. Actually I had forgotten myself. XP chunked dos entirly. There were some gripes about some specific programs within XP. When Apple changed over their OS they had some of the same issues. With XP and OSX there was a reason for the pain. The OSs solved problmes that would have remained had they kept Dos and the old Mac operating system underpinnings.
With Vista there is no good reason to endure the pain. I get a prettier interface with some cool features one of which has saved my butt. But that could have been done with XP SP3, or XP/2.
Wrong again
by George Gray - 4/21/08 4:47 PM In reply to: Fuzzy Memory by Renegade KnightThere are plenty of reasons why drivers won't work in Vista, especially video drivers. The biggest reason for the video driver issue is the fact that the whole model changed from XP to Vista. In XP, the video driver ran entirely in Kernel mode (ring 0) and is the biggest cause of the 'blue screen of death.' Under Vista, the driver runs in both Kernel and User mode. The kernel mode piece runs the low level code while the user mode handles the heavy load. The new driver model is one reason why when a video driver does go astray, it is simply restarted and the whole system does not crash.
You can read more about it here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220.aspx
Another area of differenc is security. Tell me what XP has that is close to UAC? I guess that does not matter.
The most obvious change is the dropping of 'my' from the user directories. Microsoft uses aliases so that most properly developed software can find your user directories, however, some badly written software will fail.
So, ok, my fuzzy memory is all wrong and Vista is just XP Second Edition. With cooler graphics.
Now you Have It.
by Renegade Knight - 4/22/08 7:39 AM In reply to: Wrong again by George GrayVista problems (at least some if not most) do relate to drivers. Not because they did something cool like remove the legacy DOS issues with memory like XP did, but because Microsoft tweaked the specs on how drivers needed to be written.
What you point out about drivers may be a needed thing. If so, thumbs up. However I suspect the real breaker for Vista was the DRM conformity they required of drivers. For what higher purpose? Not a memory thing so memory is just memory and you don't need special drivers for your memory like you had to have in 95. Nope to fit Microsofts Business model. Not the model where they sell a great OS. The one where they deliver digital media and potentially break your system to do it and definity make your drivers more buggy in the process. Strange thing. No drivers, no working system. They should have thought of that.
Vista is too new for either of us to have Fuzzy Memories.
Well actually
by Natronx - 4/18/08 12:20 PM In reply to: Ummm...no, his history is spot on. by George GrayWe have a short memory, including myself. Do we all remember the 'blue screen of death'? It was common in Windows 98. Win 98 was junk.
Win ME was meant to save the day, but it was not received well. My proof is weak sales numbers.
Win XP was the real deal. It worked. No more 'blue screen of death'. No more evil DOS command line issues. It sold well. A lot of people upgraded just to get XP - and for good reason.
I knew XP...I ran it for years...Vista is no XP.
XP is not perfect. I get security updates all the time. The browser is crap. So I'm no XP fan boy.
Maybe with enough time and service packs, Vista could become the new XP. Time will tell.
Some consider the OS to be Internet Explorer.
by R. Proffitt
- 4/18/08 12:24 PM
In reply to: Well actually by Natronx
It's fun to meet those types.
-> Do you consider the OS and the supplied apps to be intimately tied together? Or can we discuss the security issues of the OS separately from the OS?
No blue screens in XP?
by Slikkster - 4/18/08 3:03 PM In reply to: Well actually by NatronxWhew, I think we're really romanticizing about XP here. I had plenty of XP blue screens in the early days, and thankfully they were eventually remedied. Of course, one could turn "off" blue screens of death by enabling the auto-reboot after crash option. But a crash is a crash.
Google Blue Screen of Death XP and plan on spending many a'night reading...
But your point about "enough time" is salient. XP did not have this uneventful childhood that seems to be suggested by some here. It had plenty of growing pains. And I still have the occasional annoyance, myself, with my XP machines. But it's mature, and it is solid.
So the question is: Why isn't Vista permitted the same growing pains? That's all I want to know, and no one has really come up with a good answer on that score.
just to point out
by PortVista - 4/18/08 3:22 PM In reply to: No blue screens in XP? by SlikksterJust wanted to comment here, blue screens and most of the issues with Vista are due to drivers and hardware. So this is really a 3rd party software and hardware issue. You really have to look at the OS itself causing errors which are very rare in all the versions of Windows.
My biggest complaint with Vista is the UAC I think they are calling it. Constant pop-ups and nag screens, for things like copying a file to the C drive. And in a lot of cases restricting you from running software you know is safe, but Vista thinks it knows better so it just blocks it. But again Microsoft claims this is due to 3rd party software not knowing how to properly write software for Vista.
Another issue is driver certification which costs a lot of money for these poor open source programmers. Uncertified drivers won't run in Vista 64bit, without "hacking" Vista.
There's good and bad -- Vista is not off the hook, but my point is that it's very difficult to make cases that Vista is bad vs. XP or even Mac OS. Apples and Oranges when you really analyze it.
The original point of the post is CNET has NOT analyzed it. They take stories from ARS Technia, paraphrase and blindly agree without even checking it out themselves. So anything Microsoft is bad.
I just saw a recent slam on Microsoft by Molly with a cutaway to hugging her iMac. Kinda funny I guess, but the most bias reporting I've ever seen.
You don't see Wolf Blitzer going off on Clinton then hugging a poster of Obama. It would be funny, and I suppose I'd watch CNN more often.
To be fair to Microsoft
by stuohy1 - 4/21/08 2:43 PM In reply to: Well actually by NatronxAt least they built/bought their operating system themselves, unlike another OS maker, who took chunks of a free operating system to build theirs.
haha
by PortVista - 4/21/08 3:07 PM In reply to: To be fair to Microsoft by stuohy1haha good one!
Foul?
by R. Proffitt - 4/21/08 3:22 PM
In reply to: To be fair to Microsoft by stuohy1
Who said they did that?
Go digging around the code examples you get with the old Visual Studio 1.5 (old, yup) and you can read code from Microsoft's Xenix days.
-> Remember those days? And where did that Xenix code come from? (Hint, it was not bought if we want to slice this a little thin...)
To claim they built their own has some issues that I'd like to wrestle with you over.
Bob
Code is gone
by George Gray - 4/21/08 5:00 PM In reply to: Foul? by R. Proffitt
From what I've read,the Xenix, posix and OS/2 code is no longer part of Windows. However, your point is well taken. DOS was not original-Microsoft bought it from Seattle Computer. OS/2 was not completely Microsoft, we all know about IBM's participation there (remember, OS/2 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM.)
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
