I thought Vista was going to be around for 10 years, since it took so much time and money to make. I might not even bother with Vista if this is true. I'll keep XP on this machine and get the next Windows when I build a new machine in a couple years. Anybody else hear anything about "Windows 7"?
I saw something mentioned about a Windows "Vienna" the other day that they are expecting to release in 2009. Although wasn't Vista supposed to be released a year or two ago as well?
I can remember installing some of the first versions of WinME and reading a report about Vista being close to ready for Beta, of course it wasn't Vista yet it was still "longhorn".
And FYI there will never be another OS as useless and painful as WinME :-)
Man, I really wish Apple would step up to the plate and offer a true alternative OS to windows..... and I'm not talking about tieing it to overpriced hardware either.....
Atomm wrote: Man, I really wish Apple would step up to the plate and offer a true alternative OS to windows..... and I'm not talking about tieing it to overpriced hardware either.....
It is called Linux. 🙂
Even if Apple would create OS X that would run on PC hardware, it would not work as the application base is the killer problem. All the good games we play and most everything you run is Windows. Mac versions? Sure but that is only for the main suites. There are thousands and thousands of applications that simply need a windows base platform.
This is why Linux does not work even though it is way better than windows in many respects. What Linux needs to do is design a VM emulator for windows applications to allow them to run under Linux. That may be the way. If I can run Linux but still play my games that would be awesome. 🙂
Windows Vista was supposed to be like OS X in the way that it was supposed to be the new base platform and instead of a new OS, you just "patch" it or add an upgrade on top. MS said they did not want to have to have a brand new OS for quite some time.
Apple could have, but Steve Jobs, and thus Apple are tied too deeply to having control. They once allowed Mac OS to run on non Apple branded machines. They even controlled who could make these machines, but it was an overwhelming failure... why? because it's hard to write software to work on any piece of hardware.
There are still many problems with Linux being a true alternative. They still haven't gotten user friendly enough. I can install windows in my sleep, I am getting there with Linux distros but then again there are so many flavors that even that is hard now. Even if you talk base distros, RH, Debian... etc, it's not easy. To some extent they still don't respond to the needs of the customers (this is becoming less the case with Linux as each distro gets backing from corporations). One of my biggest issues with using OSS in a production environment is that OSS doesn't suit the consumer, they suit the dev, who sometimes dissappear or don't care (some do meet the consumer need).
But mark my word, even is Mac OS were to do everything right and become the market share, it would suffer the same issues that Windows does. If you make it too user friendly your security suffers, if you make it too secure your usability suffers. Have a prevalence in the market place and viruses are designed for you. Open up to using 3rd party hardware and you will have crashes. The model needs to change, not necesssarily the company that has the biggest stake in the model.
Funny thing is, once Apple makes an OS that can be installed on numerous hardware it will fall into the same "bugs" as Windows.
I agree 100% with you and Bubba. The only reasons Mac's do not crash bla bla bla is because of the specific hardware etc.. And they do still crash 😉
Linux has too many distros and not enough driver support and each distro has its one at times. Each also has its own way of patching, adding said drivers...this is its downfall, it needs to be much much more user friendly.
As much as I like bitching about Microsoft XP has been VERY stable for me at home and at work. I run my computers 24/7 for months with no problems at all.
Also the Mac people like to be smaller and different. If the mac went mainstream they would move to something else.
Mac people like the sizzle while PC users like the steak. Seriously.
Paladin wrote: I agree 100% with you and Bubba. The only reasons Mac's do not crash bla bla bla is because of the specific hardware etc.. And they do still crash 😉
Hell yah they still crash when you put overpush them, plus the addon equipment used in art and print shops play havoc when you pile a few users onto a spec application like a platemaking processor.
As far as ME went, I lost track of how many OEM machines I upgraded to XP later. It was on everything like gateways, acers, emachines, and alot of dells and PBells. It just seemed to trudge alone for non power users and was better equiped with drivers than 98se was. Then again, I only saw the OEM versions running in offices like URA where I nightlighted a few times.
Did you see the news I posted on the front page about Nvidia and Transgaming teaming up to make it easier to play games on a mac? I'd love to see that happen, but I still won't pay for over priced hardware.....
Atomm wrote: Did you see the news I posted on the front page about Nvidia and Transgaming teaming up to make it easier to play games on a mac? I'd love to see that happen, but I still won't pay for over priced hardware.....
My main complaint about Mac's has always been just that. No building your own machine to your specs. You get what you get (expensive at that) and that is it, period. I have nothing against Macs but there is nothing these days you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a PC. There is a lot on the PC you cannot do on a MAC hardware, software and game wise.