Next Windows coming out next year

[Democrab]

You may like one OS for the things you do, but there is only one OS that does Everything Everyone does, and that os is windows

 

The only thing that Windows can really do that other OSs can't is play a lot of games, and even that is highly debatable with things like Wine and Cedega, but we'll ignore that since most games are developed for Windows. Everything else, including 3d graphic design, can be accomplished on another OS.

Wine doesn't emulate games well, and the latest games aren't working out of the box, and with Mac people shouting boot camp over and over, If your going to buy a mac to use OS X, then why should you put Windows on it? It defeats the purpose of HAVING a mac....

 

But Sag, Dem's posts were longer, and I agree on that, Windows is only still around today, because it was the first to run on the popular IBM PC, and Intel 486, etc.

 

He does have a point about the Windows suiting certain people, etc, if it wasn't for Wine been not that good at gaming and stuff, I'd be on Ubuntu x64 right now (In fact I will dual boot when I get some more Hard Drives)

[jersiq]

 

Also, Jesus H. Christ, can't I ever write a post that's not huge?

No.

 

At any rate, and what everyone should focus on instead of being a die-hard fanboy, is to learn as much about each as possible.

I touch Solaris, RMX, Windows, HP-UNIX, Cisco IOS, and a proprietary blend on a Unix platform all in the span of a couple of hours at work.

Sure you may hear the company X has switched, but I still don't think that an open-source program will ever become mainstream for a majority of companies.

Speaking strictly from a reliability standpoint, if your server goes down, would you rather have a company that has to give you support, or go to the Ubuntu Forums and post a question and wait for a reply?

 

From a security standpoint, as a company I wouldn't want open source to run on anything that may house customer information or billing information, nor would I want to have a client machine on my network with an open-source program.

 

Does that inflate the cost? Sure, but at least it give you someone to point the finger at when something does go awry.

[Svip]

 

Speaking strictly from a reliability standpoint, if your server goes down, would you rather have a company that has to give you support, or go to the Ubuntu Forums and post a question and wait for a reply?

Vendor support is always nice, but actually Ubuntu comes with real professional support for free. So your argument is void.

 

 

From a security standpoint, as a company I wouldn't want open source to run on anything that may house customer information or billing information, nor would I want to have a client machine on my network with an open-source program.

 

Would you rather have your client information stored in a proprietary format that you legally have no idea how is stored? Would you rather use a format that could break and you wouldn't know how to fix it because of lack of documentation? And would you be willing to share all these client informations with your vendor?

[jersiq]

 

Speaking strictly from a reliability standpoint, if your server goes down, would you rather have a company that has to give you support, or go to the Ubuntu Forums and post a question and wait for a reply?

Vendor support is always nice, but actually Ubuntu comes with real professional support for free. So your argument is void.

 

 

From a security standpoint, as a company I wouldn't want open source to run on anything that may house customer information or billing information, nor would I want to have a client machine on my network with an open-source program.

 

Would you rather have your client information stored in a proprietary format that you legally have no idea how is stored? Would you rather use a format that could break and you wouldn't know how to fix it because of lack of documentation? And would you be willing to share all these client informations with your vendor?

I hardly doubt their free professional support could handle some (not even half) of all corporations at a given time. Tell me if it's void now. If you could tell me, with certainty, that any and all calls from my company will be taken in a timely fashion, then I would agree. The sheer volume of calls would knock them on their rear. And unfortunately, that level of service doesn't come without a SLA, and proof of reliability.

 

Second point,

 

Yes, yes I would. The people who work for the companies that come up with such architectures sign a non-disclosure agreement. Meaning, that even after not working for the company, they are still liable if they divulge the information.

i.e I work for caboodle factory inc. We make databases to store all cutomer information, and encrypt it using a proprietary format. I leave caboodle, I am still bound by my NDA to not disclose the algorithms used for encryption, else I would be spending some time in the Fed. Pen. for computer fraud.

 

I'm not talking about some medium sized company here. We stream, from 47 different cellular switches, call records for the previous hour. Most of those switches run ~ 1,000,000 calls per hour. And that's just a billing backend, let alone the front-end processing involved. Certainly we are an "Enterprise" customer.

 

You lose an hour, you lose a lot of money. When one of the systems goes down, we contact the vendor (SUN) for them to affect repairs. We may have a knowledge of the underlying system, but they have the expertise. If you feel comfortable fiddling around with a database that, with the wrong keypress, could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, feel free to do so.

 

Yes, now vendors can "see" the information. They are bound by their companies practices to provide an ethical level of support. Don't get me wrong, they are monitored by keyloggers so at best they have a limited carte blanche to their systems in our company.

If one of their emplyees is too liberal, we have grounds to take action against the company.

 

What's my recourse in Linux? Do I just sue everyone who worked on the project? Would they collectively have the funds to recover the lost amount of revenue?

 

Let me ask the opposite to your point;

would you, as a customer, feel comfortable knowing that I had your billing information, in an open and widely documented format, on a system developed by someone who may not have any level of culpability if something were to go wrong?

 

Your point about not having documentation from a vendor is rather daft. That would be the fault of the company who purchased the system, not the vendor themselves. Any vendor I have ever worked with is always more than forthcoming about their information.

Edited April 11, 2008 by jersiq

[Saggy]

 

What's my recourse in Linux? Do I just sue everyone who worked on the project? Would they collectively have the funds to recover the lost amount of revenue?

 

Let me ask the opposite to your point;

would you, as a customer, feel comfortable knowing that I had your billing information, in an open and widely documented format, on a system developed by someone who may not have any level of culpability if something were to go wrong?

 

Well, the incorrect assumptions that are occuring is that Linux is bound by GNU and the GPL, which isn't really the case. The kernel itself might be bound to the rules of GNU, but any software that is written for it can be licensed under any terms. There could be pretty much no difference between the open source Linux kernel running proprietary software, and a company using some other sort of architecture to run proprietary software.

 

However, one can argue the strengths and weaknesses of a kernel being open source. I think it would probably be best to have a kernel open source, and open to scrutiny over its security, rather than just take the word of a company that it will work. That way, any proprietary programming that follows will be sure to have been made on a solid frame-work, a frame-work that can demonstrate security and ability to all, but not any of the weaknesses that may exist in whatever proprietary solutions that are written on top of it, and if the kernel is really good, it can actually help add extra security to proprietary software that does not have the scrutiny of an open community available to help check it. Think things like buffer over-flows that the linux kernel already helps guard against, how are you to even know that this protection is in place for a proprietary kernel, let alone how well it works?

 

In any case, whatever proprietary software a company implemented could just as easily use an NDA even if the actual operating system it was made for was open source. I think the real question is whether you would want to use a company that's trying to piece together their own system without any knowledge whatsoever about the stability, reliability, security and functionality of their system. With an open-source architecture you could be privy to all of this, and take the necessary steps to guard against them, and in the end could also write just as much proprietary software as you wish, but be completely confident that there's no back end programed into the kernel stealing your code, or that there's some rudimentary flaw in the kernel itself that will crash every program on the system, or something incredibly silly like that which a mature, developed, openly scrutinized kernel can help address.

 

 

I suppose when it comes to actually selling these software products this might not actually apply ( though I think there are even more licensing options for scenarios like that ), but if we're talking about what a company uses to run its own systems, etc., I would much rather a company use something like Linux than something I know nothing about.

Edited April 11, 2008 by SagaciousKJB

[bumster]

Whoa it's a nerdument!

[GTA4formyps3]

I am so happy to get off microsofts bandwagon. I always had to restore my XP every week. After putting ubuntu on I have not had a problem since I installed it 3 months ago

[vininfinite]

Wait, couldn't this be one big huge Microsoft marketing strategy? Windows Vista was obviously a total flop as was Windows 2000. Now Microsoft is announcing the early release of their next OS. Couldn't Windows 7 be the next Windows XP?

 

(AKA: Make a piece of sh*t then come out with something completely better to make the illusion of improvement)

Edited April 11, 2008 by vininfinite

[Svip]

Wait, couldn't this be one big huge Microsoft marketing strategy? Windows Vista was obviously a total flop as was Windows 2000. Now Microsoft is announcing the early release of their next OS. Couldn't Windows 7 be the next Windows XP?

 

(AKA: Make a piece of sh*t then come out with something completely better to make the illusion of improvement)

You are totally abusing the acronym "aka". It has nothing to do with what you used it for, "e.g." would have been appropriate. Perhaps "i.e." in some cases. But "aka" is for an alias of a person or place or similar.

 

@jersiq: No, my question was merely towards why the hell you are using "Ubuntu" as an example, there are tonnes of other distribution with its only support being an IRC channel. Ubuntu has some of the best support for a free (as in gratis) Linux distribution. And I think you are totally forgetting about the non-free (as in gratis) Linux distributions; Novell and Red Hat.

 

Hell, even Novell have gone into a partnership with Microsoft, though that have been met with lots of scepticism.

 

But Red Hat and Novell confirms exactly Sag's point. Just because the kernel is free (as in freedom), doesn't it mean you cannot build proprietary atop it. In fact, a free and open kernel have several advantages for anyone creating software for it. Several developers have long been annoyed with Microsoft's secrecy, which have blocked them from developing optimised and quality software for their platform. But with a completely documented kernel, you know exactly what system calls to perform, and don't have to create several horrible hacks.

 

This is what makes Windows such a horrible platform, because most of the applications you install on it requires several hacks, because its API lacks it or doesn't developer it good enough. This means more syscalls, more wait time, and more unnecessary strain on the resources. It's a loose-loose situation for all... well except Microsoft, because they can use their products for Windows, which they have developed themselves, because they know the "secrets", and can create faster software for their platform.

 

Ever wondered why IE or MS Office is so much faster at starting than say Firefox or OpenOffice.org? Because the bitches are f*cking highly integrated into the OS. In fact, they are loaded without you even needing them, so they are ready for a quick launch!

 

Horrible, horrible.

[Democrab]

Ever wondered why IE or MS Office is so much faster at starting than say Firefox or OpenOffice.org? Because the bitches are f*cking highly integrated into the OS. In fact, they are loaded without you even needing them, so they are ready for a quick launch!

You must have a slow CPU, IE7 takes ages to load for me, and Firefox is almost instant (With auto open tabs set on GTAF, Overclock.net, on Firefox, and google as start page on IE)

[matthew1g]

Excatly what joe said, both of the applications you mentioned load as uqually fast as MS applications on my pc, and every other windows based pc I've used till now. And yet here you are bashing windows, I smell unoptimized PC here.

 

and another thing, all I see is microsoft establishing partnerships with businesses and goverments ( especially ours), the windows market is growing not shrinking. You say that companies are switching. Yeah sure MS has done nothing except propel the IT scene forwards..

 

http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msrv/msFullArt.asp?an=19180

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/...tware-in-malta/

http://www.miti.gov.mt/site/page.aspx?pageid=2458

http://computerdomain.net/NewsDetail.php?=&news_id=28

 

 

and what do we have here? Oh look! 16% goverment rebate on microsoft based computers

 

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/...y-new-computers

 

@ GTA4formything, perhaps you should've bothered installing an anti--virus instead of installing the popups you got and visiting sloppy porn sites

Edited April 12, 2008 by matthew1g

[Svip]

Ever wondered why IE or MS Office is so much faster at starting than say Firefox or OpenOffice.org?  Because the bitches are f*cking highly integrated into the OS.  In fact, they are loaded without you even needing them, so they are ready for a quick launch!

You must have a slow CPU, IE7 takes ages to load for me, and Firefox is almost instant (With auto open tabs set on GTAF, Overclock.net, on Firefox, and google as start page on IE)

Slow CPU? You're stupid!

 

Seriously though, try and compare OpenOffice.org vs. MS Office. I have never tried IE7 myself, I have seen it, but never tried launching it. That and the fact, that I use Windows as little as possible.

 

And while Firefox have certainly improved over IE, it doesn't change the fact that IE is a lot more integrated with OS than Firefox is. I even assume Firefox uses some of those "hacks" I mentioned. But given its smooth ability to launch, I assume these hacks aren't as ugly as I predicted. Perhaps that is one of the upsides of being open-source.

 

@matthew1g: Really? Really? Seriously, it was a lot larger percentage of the computer market years ago. Microsoft's market is shrinking. It is just not small yet. Sure, they get new deals all the time, but they also loose deals. You are not looking at the big picture.

[derty]

 

Wait, couldn't this be one big huge Microsoft marketing strategy? Windows Vista was obviously a total flop as was Windows 2000. Now Microsoft is announcing the early release of their next OS. Couldn't Windows 7 be the next Windows XP?

 

(AKA: Make a piece of sh*t then come out with something completely better to make the illusion of improvement)

Windows 2000 was a decent os. I think you are thinking of Millenium Edition.

 

LOL Bumster!

 

 

Sag - Maybe you're right, or perhaps it depends on where you're coming from. For instance, there are laws here about the age of a textbook.

 

I also think you mis read my post. I wasn't saying Windows is the end-all be-all OS (when compared to all others). However, I was saying that it's the only one that does Everything Everyone does. And that's true.

 

As poopskin pointed out

 

Basically, as I said, for Linux, there is Blender (Im making an example here, using only one category, and being sure I am using something I know a little bit about). But Blender runs at Least 5 times better on windows, the Game Engine (laughable engine) runs 100 times better on XP.

 

Can't consider wine; it's superficial at best (to be fair, I heard recent developments make it more powerful than ever).

 

Windows does everything EVERYONE does. Linux, OSX, BSD, all of these? Great for whoever likes them, strong points to each, I enjoy Ubuntu and Open Suse greatly, but None of them do Everything that Everyone does. None of them. Not even Vista. But XP? It does. Will that change? Maybe. Hopefully.

 

 

I am so happy to get off microsofts bandwagon. I always had to restore my XP every week. After putting ubuntu on I have not had a problem since I installed it 3 months ago

 

You are an exception to the rule, n00b who can't do enough to even break Ubuntu, or a dirty liar lol All chummy, of course, no offense intended.

 

@Svip: Doesn't Ubuntu also have a corporate OS anyway with full support separate from the free (gratis) OS? Meaning, don't they have a paid version for professionals that comes with support? Or does this mean it's been opened to all, free or not?

Edited April 12, 2008 by derty

[vininfinite]

Windows 2000 was a decent os. I think you are thinking of Millenium Edition.

Dammit, I always f*ck up my facts. Is there a book I could read or something?

[Svip]

@Svip: Doesn't Ubuntu also have a corporate OS anyway with full support separate from the free (gratis) OS? Meaning, don't they have a paid version for professionals that comes with support? Or does this mean it's been opened to all, free or not?

No. Did you read the philosophy of Ubuntu? Ubuntu will always be free (as in freedom and gratis), regardless of its target consumer. And there will never be a paid version.

 

What they do have is a millionaire in South Africa who is pumping money into the project.

 

@vininfinite: It's called Wikipedia.

[derty]

Aye, I did not read the mission Thanks for the clue-in, Let's hope Lop-Lop doesn't run outta cash

[Saggy]

 

Windows does everything EVERYONE does. Linux, OSX, BSD, all of these? Great for whoever likes them, strong points to each, I enjoy Ubuntu and Open Suse greatly, but None of them do Everything that Everyone does. None of them. Not even Vista. But XP? It does. Will that change? Maybe. Hopefully.

I suppose it's a matter of what you think everyone does. I don't play a lot of games, and the ones I do play can easily be ran in Wine. Exactly what does Linux not do for me that Windows does?

 

Then you have the all of the functionality and system tools on the Linux terminal, and I've yet to see anything come close to that on Windows except for cygwin, which I'm only really mentioning to be fair considering we're brining Wine into all of this.

 

In the end, there's even virtualization software that a user can use to run nearly all aspects of an OS ( except for gaming ) on a host OS, whether it be Linux on Windows, Windows on Linux, or what have you.

 

 

When we discuss convenience, I can admit that Windows is superior for the desktop user. However, when we discuss capability, gaming is really the only strong-point that Windows holds, and the gap could be closed quite easily with the right development steps.

 

Then if you want to talk about convenience in terms of system administrators and developers, I think Linux is hands down the more convenient option, but Windows is still capable of all that it is in this regard, with a little extra elbow-greese.

 

My remaining point after all of this is that OSX, Windows, and Linux all do Everything that Everyone does. I guess if you want to exclude gaming from that I could understand given the fact that the majority of games played on Linux were developed for Windows. I know this just reemphasizes your point, but it doesn't mean that Linux or Mac is incapable, as an army of hackers and developers have proved with ports, it just means the development is lacking.

 

It's really not fair to compare the two given the different applications that people have for each OS. The Linux desktop has long been criticized as flawed for using a terminal-like operating system underneath a GUI, but I think that's really one of the things Linux has a strong-point in over WIndows.

 

Does Windows offer about a dozen popular GUIs, each one changing functionality and not just a graphic change?

 

Can you even restart the WIndows GUI without having to reboot the entire computer?

 

Can Windows open multiple "virtual terminals", each one using a different GUI?

 

Can you control the most rudimentary parts of the operating system, and in combination manipulate the GUI from the command line in Windows?

 

In truth, the Windows OS is really what you find in the GUI, the command prompt is basically a joke. Linux offers both, however, with most GUIs that have powerful configuration tools, and as well a strong suite of terminal tools to do it with.

 

Now, writing this on a gaming forum, I'm sure that there are much more that consider gaming more important than a lot of control over a system with the terminal, but I've become extremely accustomed to using the terminal and various scripting/programming languages to fine tune the way I want things to be ran. It's somewhat possible to do this with Windows, just like it is somewhat possible to game on Linux. Neither is really any more capable than the other, but I think it's just what's more important to people that makes them lean one way or the other.

 

I can't play all my games in Linux, and I can't run all my bash scripts in Windows, but it doesn't really suggest either is a more capable OS all around..

 

 

Now, when speaking about using an OS, there's pretty much nothing one can do that the other can't--especially if you consider virtualization and emulation software. When you think about controlling an OS, I think it's pretty clear which ones can be controlled to the user's wishes, and which ones are stuck the way they are.

[derty]

lol, again, i mean it like this

 

Windows can play all the latest and biggest games. Other OS typically cannot. They may play little niche games or other ones very well; it's not emulation that is in debate here. Windows Does cater to all crowds no matter what crowd you are in (or not in, in terms of your case and games). I know I know, there are digital media distros of linux etc etc. Windows does it all. In 96 percent of all computers.

[dxk]

I thought "Veena" won't be coming until 2011.

Veena is the beta name given to it I think.

[Saggy]

lol, again, i mean it like this

 

Windows can play all the latest and biggest games. Other OS typically cannot. They may play little niche games or other ones very well; it's not emulation that is in debate here. Windows Does cater to all crowds no matter what crowd you are in (or not in, in terms of your case and games). I know I know, there are digital media distros of linux etc etc. Windows does it all. In 96 percent of all computers.

I know what you mean, I'm just being picky. Windows doesn't have half the range of use as Linux does, and really the only thing that it can't offer is terrific gaming. Windows doesn't cater itself to a server very well, and certainly not as well as a network router or firewall. I'd say for just about every other practical applications, they're about the same.

 

The major difference I run into all the time is that, Linux is absolutely free, it is much more highly documented than Windows, it does have 99% of the capability of Windows in terms of multi-media, only slightly lacking in gaming.

 

I mean, when you say Windows does everything that everyone does, to me the only thing that really rings out is, "Well, so does Linux." Not everyone is a gamer, and to be honest I've actually had really great luck with gaming on Linux with WINE and some open-source games. If I was a hardcore gamer that's the only way I could see Linux being a deal-breaker, but as someone that enjoys programming and scripting, server hosting, customization, free stuff, Windows is a deal breaker.

 

I mean, I'll just make it simple, my counter to Windows does Everything Everyone does, is that, Windows feels like losing two arms and a leg. I heard that from someone before, but that's just how I tend to feel every time I start using Windows.

 

Also, if this Windows 7 thing, why did I see a PCWorld article picking up on this in the doctor's office?

[Vive La France]

With Vista being made of pure fail, this one is either bound to be worse or alot better. I can't decide.

[dxk]

I guess copy more stuff from Apple.

Go Veena,

[Svip]

I guess copy more stuff from Apple.

Go Veena,

That codename is "Vienna". The capital of Austria. I have been laughing twice now for you getting it wrong, but I felt I had to tell you.

 

They picked 7 because too many people laughed at "Vista".

[3niX]

Well...

 

They picked 7 because too many people laughed at "Vista".

I wonder why...

http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1ta

[Democrab]

I just tried Ubuntu again, This is the third time I've installed it, and the effing cursor is still invisible..

 

Dammit, Another muck-around-for-ages-then-give-up-and-uninstall for me..