Why do we accept Windows? [Archive]

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 12:22 AM

Although I like to agree with this and regularly jibe my pals for running windows, I must confess that my diggs are in jest. Windows was not the right OS for me, But my friends would say the same about ubuntu, and I would not be so inclined to suggest that they should switch.

What use would ubuntu be to my friend whe uses his pc almost exclusively to play BF2 or Flight Sim 2008? In fact no OS BUT windows would be suitable for him. And far from suffering instabilities, he has enough windows concentric knowledge to run a very stable system; something I could NEVER do on any OS as I am a tinkerer.

Basically, everybody is different, every OS is different. There is an OS for everybody and a body for every OS. It's fun to have a laugh and a joke but when it comes down to it any argument as to which OS is the best will be won by the person who knows the most about their OS of choice.

The reason you've had a decent experience is that you spend several man hours per month maintaining what should just work.

To be fair, I may not have to defrag and such, but I still have to maintain. or just spend those man hours getting some new hardware working that would work immediately in windows (although I know this is down to hardware manufacturers and not ubuntu) the man hours are still required.

karellen

July 15th, 2008, 12:28 AM

simply put, if your hardware is Linux friendly, your experience with a Linux distro will be extremely positive. it's not, it's gonna be a bumpy ride. but nothing compares with the nightmare of having to hunt for (old and obscure) drivers in Windows. last week I wanted to share an internet connection in Windows and in order to do that I needed a second network card. I found a no-name card, inserted it in my motherboard - of course Vista didn't recognized it (automatically search for drivers over the Internet returned no result). so I had to install something like cpu-z, then searched for the driver on the Myson site. no driver on that messy site. I finally find it after 1 hour on an obscure site (which required to make an account in order to download those damn drives)...
just for curiosity, I restarted and booted into Mandriva - the network card was automagically up and running, properly configured
so much for the "100% hardware compatible OS" myth

OutOfReach

July 15th, 2008, 12:32 AM

Well Windows isn't all that bad, XP was I think Microsoft's best release. But I do agree that more manufacturers should start including a Linux distro at least as an option.

karellen

July 15th, 2008, 12:38 AM

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 12:39 AM

Well Windows isn't all that bad, XP was I think Microsoft's best release. But I do agree that more manufacturers should start including a Linux distro at least as an option.

+1

XP was indeed very good, and I think a lot of people who previously weren't interested in computers, found them accessible due to XP.

Your second point there, OutOfReach, is definately important. Hardware manufacturers providing drivers/support is a key issue. I believe it's happening, slowly indeed, but it is happening.

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 12:43 AM

+1

XP was indeed very good, and I think a lot of people who previously weren't interested in computers, found them accessible due to XP.

Your second point there, OutOfReach, is definately important. Hardware manufacturers providing drivers/support is a key issue. I believe it's happening, slowly indeed, but it is happening.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many complaints if Microsoft had kept computing elite and never introduced it to the masses ;P

Apple helped too...

I kid...

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 12:48 AM

Maybe there wouldn't be so many complaints if Microsoft had kept computing elite and never introduced it to the masses ;P

Apple helped too...

I kid... :lolflag:

You may well kid, but such complaints are indeed a by-product of aiming the marketing of computers at the common man.

The by-product of the by-product is of course affordable computers.

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 12:53 AM

The by-product of the by-product is of course affordable computers.

Who can complain about that? I put together an amazing system for under a grand recently...

Affordable is good.

On the original subject of this post, I believe the intent was to ask why computer users put up with the Microsoft philosophy of striving for mediocrity. Making something that's "good enough" seems to be good for business, so long as you can market the hell out of it.

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 01:01 AM

On the original subject of this post, I believe the intent was to ask why computer users put up with the Microsoft philosophy of striving for mediocrity. Making something that's "good enough" seems to be good for business, so long as you can market the hell out of it.

That is of course, very true, but "good enough" is actually more than enough for most users. And I don't think that $MS has actually done a bad job of putting together a package (XP) that can meet the various demands of most users, out of the box.

I'd love to see a pic of that $1000 self build btw.

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 01:12 AM

I'd love to see a pic of that $1000 self build btw.

How about a description...

It's based on an MSI K9A2 Platinum with a Phenom 9500, 8 Gig of PC8500 RAM, 4 ATI HD3650's and a terabyte and a half of storage space.

I made it specifically to house many virtuals simultaneously. It does so with zeal, and MANY heads.

You could also check out this thread. I was helping a guy figure out what was possible...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=854719

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 01:36 AM

Good point, a description is better. One pc looks much like any other unless you have more money than sense.

My intrigue stems from my own intention to build.

Nice job.

Now; back to the thread:

We don't accept Windows, that's why we are here. Many do and it is right for them: Discuss.

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 01:36 AM

oop!

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 01:44 AM

I just wonder how many of the people for whom Windows is "right" don't really know what "right" is. Thinking about the ones that absolutely know that their favored application is MS only, they are probably a scant few on the landscape of users.

Mothers of America would find that their recipe program and internet worked just as well if not better on Linux. And let's not forget the healthy smattering of mind numbing time wasters in the "games" tree. The same games that they would pay ten dollars ten times to get on the "cheap software" rack at Wal-Mart, they can just download.

Is it really better for them? I've had to bail my grandmother out on numerous occasions, and Windows is for her.

Food for thought...

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 01:50 AM

Did you see the edit, or just the answer? I put a link to a thread elsewhere on the forum that (on page 4) has links to pics of the desktop and the monitors.

In retrospect, it might have been better (or at least less confusing) to have just put the links in this thread...

http://www.theakkadian.com/images/Screenshot_full.jpg

http://www.theakkadian.com/images/Screenshot_desk.jpg

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 01:58 AM

Food for thought...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Foooooooooooood!

Yeah! apart from hardcore gamers, the biggest challenge is to get windows users to unlearn and learn anew. I think this is most apparent in people who are not particularly comfortable with computers but have spent 2-3 years getting to know the basics; they would dread the thought of being put on a different system. Also some folk may use windows for more specific means; music production, I know is very well catered for here in linuxland, but friends of mine who are less adventurous and have invested much time and money on Cubase and such like, and have rarely had any problems could not imagine any benefit of changing; and with good reason to be fair.

Then there is the autoCAD people, lets face it, if they have any interest in linux, they're going to have to wait.

cyclobs

July 15th, 2008, 01:59 AM

i maintaine (cuz i still run it for games and other stuff that doesn't work on linux yet) my windows install just out of pure bordem and it gives me something to do.

plus at the end i have a better running OS

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 02:09 AM

Well, gamers, CAD folks and specialty groups might not have a bright Linux future (well, the CAD thing might not be too far off), but they don't even come close to the bulk of users.

For every monster gamer rig I've helped spec or built, I've done the same for dozens of plane-jane PC's that didn't need to do squat but "get the Internet" and play solitaire.

I've even put together a number of CAD rigs, and specialty business systems (one of which controlled all the machines in a shop that made lenses for glasses and telescopes). Long and short, with very few exceptions per-capita, the majority of boxes could have been Linux and many of the users wouldn't even have known (until they called tech support and the guy on the other end had them digging for the control panel).

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 02:12 AM

Nice setup, reminds me of the original wargames. The new one ain't bad but it'll never stand up against the original. I digress, I'm famed for it.

Nice screenshot, even though I may be defending XP here, it,s nice to see it relegated to a window on a ubuntu desktop. I don't use or need XP but I did concider running it via a VM just because I can. Then I realised that was wasteful and unneccesary, although it may come in handy for my cycle computer which comes with windows software. Hmmmmmmmm!

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 02:39 AM

lol

You're defending it, I'm belittling it, and I run it in a virtual...

The funny thing is, I do security stuff, mostly, and I need to be able to find holes.

I go where the money is, and right now it's in virtual lab environments. I have a Solaris 10 (and 9 and 8), Win2K, Win2k3, and Win2k8 server, a Win2K, Win98, Win95 and WinXP workstation, a NetBSD, Gentoo, Solaris, Vixta Linux and a host of other *nix workstations.

The list goes on.

The goal is to be able to simulate whatever my customer says his problem is. I have it down to a science (albeit sort of in overkill mode). I can boot up any four (or five if I take it easy) of them and beat the snot out of them with cool tools like nessus and NMAP (and about a million others) to see how long it takes to break them.

I choose Ubuntu over Windows because, hey... Could any windows of which you know pull that off? Hardly. I'm the opposite end of the spectrum from the "MS Only" user. I was using Gentoo, and I still love it, but I have so much testing to do that I have less time to play.

Fingers & Thumbs

July 15th, 2008, 02:44 AM

I have a Solaris 10 (and 9 and , Win2K, Win2k3, and Win2k8 server, a Win2K, Win98, Win95 and WinXP workstation, a NetBSD, Gentoo, Solaris, Vixta Linux and a host of other *nix workstations.

I'm guessing you're into computers?:lolflag:

Just a hunch.

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 02:49 AM

I'm guessing you're into computers?

Ya think? :grin:

Greyed

July 15th, 2008, 02:51 AM

Think about what you're saying here.

The reason you've had a decent experience is that you spend several man hours per month maintaining what should just work.

Maybe your experience wasn't as painless as you thought it was...

Eh, my experience is much the same except I don't do anything to maintain it. Sure, virus scanner enabled but that's about it. No registry cleans, no reinstalls (I hate those), I think this past week was the first time in years I've defragged... Of course, this is just a game machine to me. If it goes belly up I lose nothing important, just reinstall and go.

Er, forgot to mention my answer to the question. Reason is obvious, games. 'nuff said.

fiddledd

July 15th, 2008, 03:45 AM

OK, I've posted similar thoughts before, but it gives me something to do. :)

I see it like this:

This is a large Forum with thousands of pretty well informed Computer users. All here know what Linux is, and what Windows is. However, the majority of the General Public don't. If they know what Windows is they don't see it as a separate entity. They buy a PC/Laptop and the whole package, Hardware/OS, is a Computer, a tool. So most people don't accept Windows, at least not consciously. They see little difference between their TV and their Computer, it's all just Electrical Appliances.
As I see it, most of these discussions are of interest to only a few people, because I don't believe we are the majority, there's a lot here, yes, but compared to Computer Users worldwide, we are few.
Oh, and I use Vista on one of my Electrical Appliances, and XP on another, and Linux on another, :)

All of this is just my opinion, my only qualification is I use Computers.

L815

July 15th, 2008, 06:59 AM

I like the fact that software is always up to date by choice. I can run the most bleeding edge software without having to compile a single thing. I also like that in windows, software will look good (no gtk/kde problems).

That's why I still accept windows :)

CrazyArcher

July 15th, 2008, 08:00 AM

I accept XP because it works for me for a few years with no reinstalls, BSoDs, crashes, or whatever else. All probs I had on my XP setup were due to badly written apps, and none caused much pain. So, XP is fine. I have both XP and Kubuntu on my machine, and frankly, I can't tell you which one works faster.
Vista is another story. Its appearance was one of the factors that made me wander into the linuxland...

rickyjones

July 15th, 2008, 08:35 AM

Windows has definitely ruined the image of computers, and technology in general. Before I switched, I used to just accept the countless crashes, resource hogging virus scans, and bi-monthly reinstalls as just something you have to deal with when working with computers. I don't think I was the only one that thought of computers that way. A friend of mine used to go for days without using his computer, claiming that it just took to long to start up. I honestly think that people have just become content with the mediocre stability and security of Windows. I do believe that there are some things that Windows does just as well at if not better than Ubuntu, but most of those things are in the area of enhancements and extra features. I think that Windows seriously lacks basic OS stability, and that people just accept this.

I really want to know what you were doing with your computer before I label this as FUD.

I'm a computer consultant. I've seen Windows PCs that should have just been destroyed because they were so virus ridden. I've also seen Windows PCs that have run for years on end. It all boils to what the user does.

Windows is an operating system. It does what the user tells it to. If a user runs a program that contains a virus then how is this the fault of Windows?

Lets take my personal PC at home: Gaming rig that I built in December 2007. I have Windows XP Professional SP2 installed. I disabled some services (error reporting and help services mainly). I installed AVG AntiVirus. I installed Mozilla FireFox. I've installed countless programs and they only time I've had issues is when I accidentally installed a program that contained a trojan. Beyond that it has run for weeks without a slow down. I run Limewire and Utorrent for downloads. No viruses unless I do something stupid.

I don't spend countless hours cleaning the registry and defragging. I've never done either of those to this PC. Windows works perfectly when it is configured correctly and when the user practices common sense practices.

The same goes for my Vista Business SP1 laptop. I use it day in and day out. No viruses. No issues.

If you were having major issues with Windows stability then may I suggest you first look at 1) Your habits and 2) Your hardware.

Thanks,
Richard

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 02:11 PM

If you were having major issues with Windows stability then may I suggest you first look at 1) Your habits and 2) Your hardware.

I think we can all say that we've had good and bad (in every OS we've run). Habits wise, I'd say mine are better than the field. I've had decent Windows installs, and horrid ones (sometimes on the same hardware). It seems to be quite hit or miss.

In retrospect, however, I've had Slackware installs that have failed on hardware that ran Windows and FreeBSD without issue.

I recently had an issue where Gentoo simply would not install on hardware that was supposedly within the hardware compatibility list. Ubuntu installed, however (I've had a vice versa as well).

I probably grade MS more harshly simply because it's no picnic to repair once it goes south, short of reinstalling (which takes all the fun out of troubleshooting). That and the fact that, with a closed source OS, you can't do much to fix things on your own in the event of a security issue.

The recent DNS scare is a case in point. It took longest to repair on Windows. Partly, I'm sure due to code forks, but also due to the fact that there are a limited number of people with access to the code.

RoyalShrubber

July 15th, 2008, 06:42 PM

Before I switched, I used to just accept the countless crashes, resource hogging virus scans, and bi-monthly reinstalls as just something you have to deal with when working with computers.
Excure my rudeness, but I have to point you are too dim to use computer. FFS bi-monthly???
I haven't reinstalled Vista since when I bought new machine in January 2007, trust me it haven't slowed down really and I've installed sh*tload of software on it. Then My sis got same install of XP for two years - it's clear Windows install lasts more than 'two weeks'...

I think that Windows seriously lacks basic OS stability, and that people just accept this.

I can tell you most instabilities can be blamed on third party software. Usually kernel drivers - with nvidia driver in the throne.

While my experience doesn't negate your assertion that Vista is unstable (as "it's working for me" doesn't mean "it's working for everyone"), I can say that if I forget few userland crashes (explorer shell and internet explorer) I haven't experinced any major instabilities. You wouldn't believe me but I haven't experienced any blue screen in any Vista installation yer nor have I experienced any crash that would require me to restart machine. How's that for stability?

troll :mad:

alfalfa31

July 15th, 2008, 07:15 PM

I haven't experinced any major instabilities. You wouldn't believe me but I haven't experienced any blue screen in any Vista installation yer nor have I experienced any crash that would require me to restart machine. How's that for stability?

For the sake of curiosity, do you shut down every night, or do you just let your Vista box run all the time?

rockface

July 15th, 2008, 07:54 PM

Excure my rudeness, but I have to point you are too dim to use computer. FFS bi-monthly???
I haven't reinstalled Vista since when I bought new machine in January 2007, trust me it haven't slowed down really and I've installed sh*tload of software on it. Then My sis got same install of XP for two years - it's clear Windows install lasts more than 'two weeks'...

I can tell you most instabilities can be blamed on third party software. Usually kernel drivers - with nvidia driver in the throne.

While my experience doesn't negate your assertion that Vista is unstable (as "it's working for me" doesn't mean "it's working for everyone"), I can say that if I forget few userland crashes (explorer shell and internet explorer) I haven't experinced any major instabilities. You wouldn't believe me but I haven't experienced any blue screen in any Vista installation yer nor have I experienced any crash that would require me to restart machine. How's that for stability?

troll :mad:

Why is it always a third parties fault when Windows falls flat on it's face?

I keep reading this ridiculous ******** everywhere, people are as sheep it would seem.

Got some news for you mate, WINDOWS CRASHES SOMETIMES BECAUSE IT'S WINDOWS!

Now that I have that out of my system...

Bad drivers and applications can wreak havoc on any operating system. Linux/*BSD/OSX/Windows it does not matter which one you choose, it'll happen at some point.

What angers me is that with these people when Vista crashes on me it's Nvidia's drivers at fault, never Vista itself.

THIS IS THE SAME DAMN DRIVER MICROSOFT INCLUDED ON THE BLOODY VISTA INSTALL DISC!!

*looks at his coffee and wonders if the caffeine is affecting his mood*

pi.boy.travis

July 15th, 2008, 09:35 PM

I would usually let Vista run continuously, however every two weeks or so it would just shut down. It never crashed while I was doing something, only when it was idle. After this it wouldn't boot, just the Vista logo then a BSoD. I would run the startup repair utility and boot into recovery mode as instructed, but nothing would work. I keep all of my files on an external drive, so reinstalls weren't a huge ordeal. This was a while before I knew anything about Linux, and I often wasn't inclined to do too much troubleshooting. I didn't really have time with school and the like.

dizee

July 15th, 2008, 11:37 PM

a lot of it is simply down to not knowing any better. people don't realise that linux is a realistic alternative. for the average person, a computer is windows anyway, there is no distinction.

the other part of it is that you don't realise how annoying windows can be if you're used to it. you accept it as par for the course to spend your time running virus and spyware scans, and the inevitable re-install somewhere around the six-month mark when the system just gets so slow despite being virus-free. now, i don't doubt that there are people who know how to maintain windows and edit the registry etc so this doesn't happen, but even then it's an effort that is more easily excused on the familiar os than it would be on linux.

the third thing is that some people are perfectly happy with windows. maybe it works great for them. maybe they work to keep it in good shape. or maybe they're happy with waiting five minutes for it to boot vista. and if so, why not just let them be. it's only a computer, not some weird lifestyle choice where we need to convert everyone to the right path.

pi.boy.travis

July 15th, 2008, 11:43 PM

Interesting stuff. I think this thread has turned out to be a really good read. :popcorn:

pikabuntu

July 15th, 2008, 11:50 PM

I think that most people stick with windows because they are not aware of alternatives. I would say that where I live, about 99% of people have never heard of linux in their life, and probably don't entirely know that there are any other OSs than windows. The truth is, most people just don't care. They are afraid of change. And also, microsoft has them where it wants them and lets these deceptions continue.
Not that I think that microsoft is entirely bad. It works very well for some people.

pi.boy.travis

July 15th, 2008, 11:53 PM

I would say that where I live, about 99% of people have never heard of linux in their life, and probably don't entirely know that there are any other OSs than windows.

I am one of precisely four people who use Linux in my school. They all use Ubuntu.

pikabuntu

July 15th, 2008, 11:58 PM

I am one of precisely four people who use Linux in my school. They all use Ubuntu.
I'm only one of 2 :)

pikabuntu

July 16th, 2008, 12:08 AM

This is kind of off topic, but it really frustrates me when i see people on the forums switching back to windows after one bad experience with linux. I personally know that it is hard for a newb, because installing linux and configuring a non supported wireless card is no fun if you don't know what you are doing. Actually, installing windows is a lot worse if not from a recovery cd but just the plain os. No dvd playback codecs,drivers,nothing. But they wouldn't know, because they've got their manufacture's distro of windows which already has everything they need. If they would just be a little more patient, they would get enormous floods of help from the forums, which is more than i can say about the windows community.

pi.boy.travis

July 16th, 2008, 12:11 AM

The Microsoft websote documentation isn't very good, however this one article seems pretty detailed:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247804

zipperback

July 16th, 2008, 12:13 AM

I don't accept it. I don't have Windows installed on any computer than I own. I run only Linux on my systems.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

pikabuntu

July 16th, 2008, 12:26 AM

The Microsoft websote documentation isn't very good, however this one article seems pretty detailed:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247804

*gasps in horror*
0 0
O

EDIT: at least they included this:

Windows and Linux can coexist on the same computer. For additional information, refer to your Linux documentation.

(although, most people running linux almost positivley know this, except, maybe someone who bought it pre-installed, i suppose)

bacalao21

July 16th, 2008, 01:33 AM

So people usually just leave their computers running for indefinite periods? Why? Thats a waste of energy, and if it is a plugged in laptop, the battery life will suffer. If you don't want to shut your computer off and restart it later because it takes too long, you should get rid of windoze.
But I digest. haha I wonder why a corporation with the profits and resources to make an incredible OS just gives the masses just enough to stay satisfied. Maintaining a computer is like maintaining a car. I didn't have many problems with windows, but to keep it running you have to be on your toes.

maconga

July 16th, 2008, 03:42 AM

Personally, I prefer Windows because I know a lot about how it runs, and since iv been using it since Windows 3.1
I do use Xubuntu 8.04.1 and I'm still learning more about how it works

jnw222

July 16th, 2008, 07:06 AM

most of us thought there was no good alternitive

jnw222

July 16th, 2008, 07:08 AM

and renistalls of vista
with my recvory disk renistalled every MONTH
now ubuntu had it when hardy came out NO REINSTALLS

pi.boy.travis

July 16th, 2008, 11:15 AM

and if it is a plugged in laptop, the battery life will suffer.

When plugged in, modern laptops draw current from the outlet, and the battery charges separately. When the battery is finished, the current maintains the charge and feeds the laptop. Therefore, battery life does not suffer.

I leave all of my computers running, because they have shared files and printers I need access too. It is a waste of energy, but there is always a trade off ;)

alfalfa31

July 16th, 2008, 01:01 PM

Also on the subject of leaving computers running...

Modern systems drop into lower and lower power states with each passing period of time where the user is not actively engaging the system. Monitors turn themselves off (at the hardware level), hard drives spin down, processors tick slowly...

If you compare the power consumption of my current desktop with it's predecessor, you'd be amazed at how much less power it consumes. The processor itself only draws 85 watts at peak. My printer goes to sleep so soundly that it draws nearly no power at all. So little in fact that as a huge color laser printer, it draws less than the ink jet on my desk at idle (which I use so infrequently that it stays unplugged most of the time).

Have you ever noticed when light bulbs die? Very seldom will you see one just die during normal use. They always blow when you switch them on. So, too, with computers and electronics. The flood of unregulated electricity at the moment power is restored is more likely to cause damage than just letting it run.

If you have a TV that was made after 1993, odds are that as long as it's plugged in, it's never "off." It stays on, just not powering the lamp or the backlight. It waits, like Chuck Norris...

In a networked environment, as stated earlier, some hardware MUST maintain awareness.

mr.farenheit

July 16th, 2008, 01:23 PM

my general opinion on windows is look at the way the world is today. mankind has gotten to a point where we are so lazy we don't take the time to do things ourselves and have it done right, look at the generic setup of windows versus linux. with linux you can pretty much create your own ideal OS that does what you want it to with no bells and whistles and no strings attached. with windows its a cookie cut version of an OS that people just sat back and said good enough and assumed that it would pertain to the needs of the masses.

cardinals_fan

July 16th, 2008, 05:39 PM

In a networked environment, as stated earlier, some hardware MUST maintain awareness.
It's self-aware!!!

Old_Gray_Wolf

July 16th, 2008, 08:31 PM

What a biased question!

Read my sig.

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 09:49 AM

For the sake of curiosity, do you shut down every night, or do you just let your Vista box run all the time?

I turn my main desktop on modays and turn it off on saturdays. There are occasional resets on patch tuesdays or when I run unices, but that's seldom.

Why is it always a third parties fault when Windows falls flat on it's face?

I keep reading this ridiculous ******** everywhere, people are as sheep it would seem.

Got some news for you mate, WINDOWS CRASHES SOMETIMES BECAUSE IT'S WINDOWS!

Now that I have that out of my system...

Duh. Of course it's sometimes microsoft's fault, I've just told you my experience - that I haven't experienced any kernel crash in Vista in year and a half. But you don't have to take my word - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080325-vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.html - it's not all MS's fault.
Though if you looked in context with thread owner's first post you'll see he was speaking in a tone that looked like he's trying to say crashes and bi-monthly reinstalls are common - I only presented counter-example.
Of course there are crashes and reinstalls (on every system), but not that drastic as thread owner claims..

you accept it as par for the course to spend your time running virus and spyware scans, and the inevitable re-install somewhere around the six-month mark when the system just gets so slow despite being virus-free.

aye, comrade.. ](*,)

wolfen69

July 17th, 2008, 01:28 PM

rickyjones

July 17th, 2008, 01:46 PM

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 02:07 PM

May I ask you what the moral issue with Microsoft is?

I like the mention of "morals" in this discussion. There is the DRM thing, and Microsoft's whole-hearted buy in to this restricted media idiocy. That would a decent direction to go with morals...

The idea that an individual can purchase something and not own it is a bit ridiculous, but to then enforce it by denying the purchaser the use of the thing purchased? That's the whole MS EULA theory, but because it has succeeded, now the RIAA and major movie organizations want a piece of the action.

Do we keep supporting that kind of moral idiocy, or do we opt to take our money elsewhere? Apple is just as guilty, hence the avoidance of both camps on my part.

I'm not quite as pentecostal as the other guy, but I see where he's going...

rickyjones

July 17th, 2008, 02:38 PM

I like the mention of "morals" in this discussion. There is the DRM thing, and Microsoft's whole-hearted buy in to this restricted media idiocy. That would a decent direction to go with morals...

The idea that an individual can purchase something and not own it is a bit ridiculous, but to then enforce it by denying the purchaser the use of the thing purchased? That's the whole MS EULA theory, but because it has succeeded, now the RIAA and major movie organizations want a piece of the action.

Do we keep supporting that kind of moral idiocy, or do we opt to take our money elsewhere? Apple is just as guilty, hence the avoidance of both camps on my part.

I'm not quite as pentecostal as the other guy, but I see where he's going...

I can understand the moral issue if Microsoft was actually preventing you from doing a task with your PC that you feel you should be able to do. My understanding of DRM is that it restricts the usage of something that someone produced and you thus purchased.

To date I've never had a DRM interference, from Microsoft, regarding any software or media that I wished to play. I have had issues with transferring and using DRM laden music files, which is my fault for purchasing and using those files without realizing the repercussion. However I hardly think it is fair to say that Microsoft is immoral when they attempt to legitimately protect the works of others. As it stands you still have the choice of purchasing the "protected content" or purchasing "unprotected content" from an alternative source. If the content does not exist in an "unprotected" format then I feel you should voice your anger with the provider, not the software platform.

Has Microsoft actually stopped you from listening to music that you legitimately own? Has Microsoft ever stopped you from doing a legitimate task based on DRM?

I personally have not and I'm curious as to the experiences of others.

Sincerely,
Richard

karellen

July 17th, 2008, 03:38 PM

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 05:31 PM

Why do we accept Windows?

i don't. and never will again. for some of us, it is a moral issue. if linux became so unstable for me that i had to reformat every week, i would rather do that, than run a perfectly stable windows machine. i despise microsoft, and won't be a party to it. but most people follow in line with everyone else. (with their wallets open) no thanks.

If you had in mind Windows not being open source, I have to tell you that many things in life could easily be open but aren't. You don't know how your processor, gfx, phone, car or medications are made, but you don't complain spending for these things much more money than OEM Windows.
Then, if I did desire open source OS, I'd use one bsd variant, as I greatly prefer more open BSD license to GPL.

If you had in mind cost of Windows - I myself consider OEM Windows price unworthy of mentioning when I buy machine that costs 1000+ euros with many components costing more than Windows license and knowing I'll personally spend less time managing my PC with Windows.

Really, I don't see any moral objections that would force one to use Linux insted of Windows. If you know one then please, enlighten me - if not, then shut up.

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 05:33 PM

some people imply morality in dealing with computers. that's fine, it's their perspective and I respect that. others use computers merely as tools, and don't really care how moral or immoral a corporation is. but if we really want to enlarge the whole concept, one should not drive cars or consume electricity because no matter what and how these tasks will fill someone's pockets (the same Windows does to Microsoft). my point is: where do we draw the line?

That's an interesting parallel, and one which could take us down a strange philosophical path. As Alan Watts put it, "You have to draw the line somewhere."

The idea, IMO, is to draw the line, and continue to abide by it once you've drawn it. I draw the line at senseless regulation. It does little to protect the works of the individuals who produce the works of art to restrict their use or enjoyment. It does more to protect the profits of the pushers of merchandise.

Let's face it. If it was possible for a record company to make a royalty every time you hummed a tune, they would certainly enforce it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were to outlaw memorizing lyrics. They're copyrighted, after all.

The concept behind DRM is that the masses are bad (as in, cannot be trusted), and have to be punished for being so. In fact, even the ones who aren't bad need to be punished. It's all very Napoleonic.

I'm pretty libertarian in my thinking, and I only believe that which deprives someone else of life, liberty or property should be punished or punishable. Being punished for other folks depriving other folks of life, liberty or property isn't my idea of a good time. I see DRM as a punishment.

I know there are those who would disagree, but I will never support with any money I earn, any company which utilizes DRM laden anything. That's a line I've drawn...

What was this thread about again? :)

rockface

July 17th, 2008, 05:46 PM

I can understand the moral issue if Microsoft was actually preventing you from doing a task with your PC that you feel you should be able to do. My understanding of DRM is that it restricts the usage of something that someone produced and you thus purchased.

To date I've never had a DRM interference, from Microsoft, regarding any software or media that I wished to play. I have had issues with transferring and using DRM laden music files, which is my fault for purchasing and using those files without realizing the repercussion. However I hardly think it is fair to say that Microsoft is immoral when they attempt to legitimately protect the works of others. As it stands you still have the choice of purchasing the "protected content" or purchasing "unprotected content" from an alternative source. If the content does not exist in an "unprotected" format then I feel you should voice your anger with the provider, not the software platform.

Has Microsoft actually stopped you from listening to music that you legitimately own? Has Microsoft ever stopped you from doing a legitimate task based on DRM?

I personally have not and I'm curious as to the experiences of others.

Sincerely,
Richard

'Has Microsoft actually stopped you from listening to music that you legitimately own? Has Microsoft ever stopped you from doing a legitimate task based on DRM?'

At the moment the DRM issue for the average user is mute. It is not how it is now but how it could be in the future. The potential for the abuse of DRM is astronomical and only now is your everyday consumer waking up.

Think of it like the subtle dripping of a water tap. It may only be a puddle tomorrow but it will become an ocean in the years and decades to come.

How much DRM did Windows 2000 have compared to XP let alone Vista? Does anybody outside of Microsoft realy know?

It's the drip, drip effect. Slow, methodical, inexorable and with purpose.

Microsoft had the chance to say no to DRM and similar mechanisms. But they actualy courted the movie and music industries to buy their DRM rather than from a company such as Apple.

Microsoft wants to be the gatekeeper. This is about control.

rickyjones

July 17th, 2008, 05:57 PM

'Has Microsoft actually stopped you from listening to music that you legitimately own? Has Microsoft ever stopped you from doing a legitimate task based on DRM?'

At the moment the DRM issue for the average user is mute. It is not how it is now but how it could be in the future. The potential for the abuse of DRM is astronomical and only now is your everyday consumer waking up.

Think of it like the subtle dripping of a water tap. It may only be a puddle tomorrow but it will become an ocean in the years and decades to come.

How much DRM did Windows 2000 have compared to XP let alone Vista? Does anybody outside of Microsoft realy know?

It's the drip, drip effect. Slow, methodical, inexorable and with purpose.

Microsoft had the chance to say no to DRM and similar mechanisms. But they actualy courted the movie and music industries to buy their DRM rather than from a company such as Apple.

Microsoft wants to be the gatekeeper. This is about control.

Please don't take offense but I don't believe you answered my question. I did not ask about possible abuses in the future - I asked if it has affected you from using your computer.

Very true that Microsoft could have said no to enforcing DRM but they chose to go to a new market. I don't particularly agree with DRM but perhaps you should direct your anger at at the people who push for DRM.

Is it the fault of Microsoft that Sony wishes to release all media in a DRM'ed format? Sony's customers want to listen to the music. Sony releases a CD that requires a compatible operating system to use. Microsoft, knowing that it shares customers with Sony, is willing to recognize the DRM rights of Sony to the benefit of their mutual customers. Otherwise Microsoft would be blasted because their users can no longer listen to Sony CDs on the computer.

Once again: Has a Microsoft operating system stopped you from viewing media on your PC that you were well within your rights as a consumer to view? Has anyone been stopped by this?

Please note that I am not advocating DRM... I wish it was not necessary. However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair. Call Sony immoral because they are the people who are pushing for the DRM requirement. Microsoft is doing the smart thing by providing the services that their customers wish to have.

Sincerely,
Richard

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 06:02 PM

Microsoft wants to be the gatekeeper. This is about control.

RIGHT ON!

Personally, I have suffered very little because of DRM, but there will come a day when not having given an inch now would have saved anyone from ever having been adversely affected.

Historically, too much concentrated power becomes the very thing it purposed to prevent. That works with government, commerce and now art.

Take it lying down if you will, but sooner or later you'll all thank those of us who didn't.

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 06:02 PM

There is the DRM thing, and Microsoft's whole-hearted buy in to this restricted media idiocy. That would a decent direction to go with morals...

The idea that an individual can purchase something and not own it is a bit ridiculous, but to then enforce it by denying the purchaser the use of the thing purchased? That's the whole MS EULA theory, but because it has succeeded, now the RIAA and major movie organizations want a piece of the action.

If you purchased a cassette back in ye olde days, you did not actually own songs on it. You could not legally resell copies of the cassette, what you've actually purchased was license to listen music on that cassette.

DRM hasn't much changed this, songs still aren't yours, so content providers aren't required to give you product in DRM-less format.
Though I agree it can be a bit trouble if your player doesn't accept DRM-ed content, but it's not MS's fault, you as consumer are the sucker for buying DRM-ed songs.

Then here comes my opinion - if MS had not created their DRM format, content providers would have created their own encumbered DRM schemes that would abuse system (remember sony music cd rootkit?).
It is my belief that MS DRM presents less harm all in all than custom DRM systems done by content providers, so MS should not be blamed for doing DRM. (or in other words, at least MS doesn't resolve to rootkits or other dangerous methods)
However, I obviously still think users should reject any DRM-ed media.

damis648

July 17th, 2008, 06:07 PM

+1

XP was indeed very good, and I think a lot of people who previously weren't interested in computers, found them accessible due to XP.

Your second point there, OutOfReach, is definately important. Hardware manufacturers providing drivers/support is a key issue. I believe it's happening, slowly indeed, but it is happening.

Lenovo and Dell fully support linux, and alienware is thinking about it.

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 06:22 PM

Microsoft had the chance to say no to DRM and similar mechanisms.

I think that's stupid to say. Here's why.

You personally have the choice not to use transportation that uses fossil fuels (to not pollute Earth), but that's rather bad choice as in this society one just has to use cars/buses/trains.
You could be moral winner, but that would be really stupid for you.

Remember how much craze apple did with their $1 songs for iPod? Microsoft had to make their DRM scheme as otherwise Apple would become preferred platform for those that want buying music online. OS X would become the only 'media platform' and that would endager Windows marketshare, so they had to counter Apple's DRM with their own.
Again, MS could be moral winner, but that would be really stupid for them.

lukjad007

July 17th, 2008, 06:25 PM

I'll tell you why. The reason is that there is a lack of knowledge. The people who know don't want to tell others and the ones that want to tell others don't know. I became a fan of Linux almost immediately because I was so paranoid. I was paranoid of viruses, spyware, adware, malware, etc. The person who told me about it told me it at the right moment in my life. I had no real programs, I had no real knowledge, I had nothing to hold me back. I was footloose and fancy free. I could change platforms without having to relearn much. Now, there are people out there that have a good understanding of Linux and could help others but choose not to because they consider themselves above that. This creates an aura of tension and fear that the general computer user does not wish to face. When you go to someone and ask a question and get RTFM as an answer, it really doesn't give Linux a good image. Even without knowing what the acronym stands for, it is still confusing and annoying. Then when you get the real definition you are somewhat insulted. Now, Ubuntu and Ubuntu Forums in general do not have this type of behaviour. But there are some forums that have a very dim view of people who ask any type of question. There are people who do try to abuse the system by just blurting out a question with no research being done but that is what web links are for.

So if the Linux gurus don't want to help people learn about Linux, who does? The Fanboys of Windows? The Mac Geniuses? No! So what happens? People take the path of least initial resistance and go with Windows or Mac. So people are pushed all in one direction. Away from Linux.

Why do we accept Windows? Because we don't know better and are herded that way.

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 06:32 PM

I wish it was not necessary. However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair. Call Sony immoral because they are the people who are pushing for the DRM requirement. Microsoft is doing the smart thing by providing the services that their customers wish to have.

It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place. The "it doesn't effect me, so screw it" attitude.

It does effect you, and everyone who listens to music, watches movies or enjoys art.

rockface

July 17th, 2008, 06:48 PM

Please don't take offense but I don't believe you answered my question. I did not ask about possible abuses in the future - I asked if it has affected you from using your computer.

Very true that Microsoft could have said no to enforcing DRM but they chose to go to a new market. I don't particularly agree with DRM but perhaps you should direct your anger at at the people who push for DRM.

Is it the fault of Microsoft that Sony wishes to release all media in a DRM'ed format? Sony's customers want to listen to the music. Sony releases a CD that requires a compatible operating system to use. Microsoft, knowing that it shares customers with Sony, is willing to recognize the DRM rights of Sony to the benefit of their mutual customers. Otherwise Microsoft would be blasted because their users can no longer listen to Sony CDs on the computer.

Once again: Has a Microsoft operating system stopped you from viewing media on your PC that you were well within your rights as a consumer to view? Has anyone been stopped by this?

Please note that I am not advocating DRM... I wish it was not necessary. However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair. Call Sony immoral because they are the people who are pushing for the DRM requirement. Microsoft is doing the smart thing by providing the services that their customers wish to have.

Sincerely,
Richard

Microsoft, Sony, Apple, MPIAA, RIAA, {insert your least favorite media company here} all want and need DRM. They need a perpetual revenue source before people realise the true extent to which the fair-use-doctrine has been stomped upon.

Microsoft and Apple want to sell their particular brand of DRM to the content industry. Sony, MPIAA, RIAA, {insert...company here} want to enforce the DRM on all music and video.

If you think the likes of Microsoft and Apple only included DRM schemes at the behest of the consumer you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. They all invented their own particular flavour of DRM and are now trying to leverage their respective technologies.

You enquired 'Please don't take offense but I don't believe you answered my question. I did not ask about possible abuses in the future - I asked if it has affected you from using your computer.' to which I'll reply.

I have not purchased a brand new CD or DVD in over ten years. I do not use P2P or make copies for other people for fun or profit. But I do believe in the fair-use-doctrine and all that it entails. If I buy an album I want to be able to rip it to any device that I own and not have to pay multiple times. This is how it has affected the way I view and use my computer.

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 06:54 PM

It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place. The "it doesn't effect me, so screw it" attitude.

It does effect you, and everyone who listens to music, watches movies or enjoys art.

You shouldn't expect somebody else to battle for your rights.

Especially not big corporations, they don't tend to give much attention to 'moral winner' option, it's your fight to have DRM-free music, so stop bitching..

rockface

July 17th, 2008, 07:12 PM

Having now read the whole of this thread again do I detect a degree of apathy towards DRM in all it's forms? As if it's inevitable and we the sheeple should just accept our new media overlords on bended knee and kiss their *** for the scraps from their table. How generous of them that they think of us in this manner for we are not worthy.

I truly believe it is already too late and certain people would do nothing rather than rock the boat for risk of falling out.

WAKE UP!! Or reap what you sow.](*,)

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 07:55 PM

You shouldn't expect somebody else to battle for your rights.

Especially not big corporations, they don't tend to give much attention to 'moral winner' option, it's your fight to have DRM-free music, so stop bitching..

Hold on...

I'm bitching? Bitching implies doing nothing but complain. I'm actively involved in the anti-DRM fight. I live in the DC corridor, and I travel to DC to talk with congressmen and their aides. I write letters explaining the other side of the coin and make the voice of the dissenters heard. I'm an IT contractor, and I have passed up contracts which, while lucrative, would have furthered the DRM initiative.

I have never, and will never expect anything, especially not from the likes of anyone who would take an apathetic view of any usurpation of any considered right (read: you). I can only govern my own actions, a lesson that those who would force a top down solution would do well to learn.

As I stated earlier, I vote with my dollars. That is the language of the corporation. I refuse to support with my dollars (or my labor) the corporate structure which embraces DRM. If everyone who enjoys art did the same, we would not be having this discussion. Laziness and apathy, however, are the way of the western world.

Explain, if you will, how that is bitching?

If a member of the board asks a question, and we all who disagree with the notion that MS is benevolent corporation who has only the public's best interest at heart, pounce on the opportunity to answer, how exactly is that "bitching?"

It's curious, really. The same people that think that rocking the boat is a bad idea are the ones who beat their chests in support of a system they are too afraid to utilize. The system exists so that we can all have a voice, but rather than exercise that voice, you'd rather say "stop bitching?"

In the immortal words of another great corporation (who makes my favorite beer), "BRILLIANT!"

:)

scragar

July 17th, 2008, 08:01 PM

Good post, I've had a chat with my local MP a couple of times over a few things I'm unhappy about(really nice guy, lives like next roads over), but I don't expect much, I just hope that I can atleast a small influence.

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 08:33 PM

Hold on...

I'm bitching? Bitching implies doing nothing but complain.

You should do less complaining. And fewer unjust accusations too.

Did MS eat your dog when they released DRM? Be anti-drm, I don't support DRM either, but don't demonize MS for not standing against it. FFS don't be such FSF tool..

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 08:45 PM

You should do less complaining. And fewer unjust accusations too.

Did MS eat your dog when they relesed DRM? Be anti-drm, I don't support DRM either, but don't demonize MS for not standing against it. FFS don't be such FSF tool..

Don't you hate it when an intelligent argument like that rears its ugly head and derails everything in which you thought you believed?

It makes me happy to think my fellow man has enough linguistic acumen to take his name calling into the acronym realm.

I don't think you've read (or perhaps more to the point, understood) a single thing I've said. Go back, start from the beginning and report back when you have a valid frame of reference. I'll wait...

alfalfa31

July 17th, 2008, 08:54 PM

http://www.theakkadian.com/images/royal_shrubber.jpg

Is it any wonder, with an attitude like that...

It's OK, though. I still care about you...

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 10:53 PM

Don't you hate it when an intelligent argument like that rears its ugly head and derails everything in which you thought you believed?

It makes me happy to think my fellow man has enough linguistic acumen to take his name calling into the acronym realm.

I don't think you've read (or perhaps more to the point, understood) a single thing I've said. Go back, start from the beginning and report back when you have a valid frame of reference. I'll wait...

Look, I think you've established quite clearly in few occasions in this thread that you think it is (morally) wrong for Microsoft to provide DRM platform.
For-*****-sake you lobbied in legal body against DRM. Do you think they should ban all protection schemes? Can it get even more silly than that?

But let's go back -
In post where I accused you of bitching I tried to point you spend too much time on forums well 'bitching'.

In that post I cited your post where you cited a guy who said: ``However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair.´´ to which you reply that this kind of attitude is harming - ``It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place - The "it doesn't effect me, so screw it" attitude. It does effect you, and everyone who listens to music, watches movies or enjoys art.´´

I don't know how ``It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place´´ could be interpreted in any other way but as negation of ``However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair.´´ and establishment of your position that it is indeed immoral for Microsoft to make DRM format.

Now as you have established you position, I reply you shouldn't really blame company that did DRM platform, but rater customers that accept it - or indirectly, you should do less bitching.

I know your type. Thanks for pointing I'm young. I should point that with age doesn't necessarily come wisdom. I know your mindset - you accept half-truths from FSF and reject everything that doesn't conform its fantasy realm. Then preach this belief-system, even if propaganda you spew consists mostly of little lies - in the end it's all justified by the higher cause.

To our case - yes supporting DRM is not in user's best interest, but establishing MS had a choice not to implement DRM as a priori fact is just sad. Yes, they could do it, but that would possibly leave Apple as primary media player - something they could never afford. It's not all black and white. It's solely consumer suckers' fault that they put up with content providers' restrictions - not Microsoft's who just provides platform. The reality is, if MS had not done it someone else would have. Blaming Microsoft the way you puppets are doing is not stupid, it's malicious.
I feel like I'm talking to commissar in some communist state - "yes comrade, all this ridiculous dogma is completely true, why you ask?". Tool.

rockface

July 17th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Look, I think you've established quite clearly in few occasions in this thread that you think it is (morally) wrong for Microsoft to provide DRM platform.
For-*****-sake you lobbied in legal body against DRM. Do you think they should ban all protection schemes? Can it get even more silly than that?

But let's go back -
In post where I accused you of bitching I tried to point you spend too much time on forums well 'bitching'.

In that post I cited your post where you cited a guy who said: ``However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair.´´ to which you reply that this kind of attitude is harming - ``It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place - The "it doesn't effect me, so screw it" attitude. It does effect you, and everyone who listens to music, watches movies or enjoys art.´´

I don't know how ``It's that attitude which makes it possible to push DRM in the first place´´ could be interpreted in any other way but as negation of ``However calling Microsoft immoral because they wish to provide the best possible experience to their customers is just not fair.´´ and establishment of your position that it is indeed immoral for Microsoft to make DRM format.

Now as you have established you position, I reply you shouldn't really blame company that did DRM platform, but rater customers that accept it - or indirectly, you should do less bitching.

I know your type. Thanks for pointing I'm young. I should point that with age doesn't necessarily come wisdom. I know your mindset - you accept half-truths from FSF and reject everything that doesn't conform its fantasy realm. Then preach this belief-system, even if propaganda you spew consists mostly of little lies - in the end it's all justified by the higher cause.

To our case - yes supporting DRM is not in user's best interest, but establishing MS had a choice not to implement DRM as a priori fact is just sad. Yes, they could do it, but that would possibly leave Apple as primary media player - something they could never afford. It's not all black and white. It's solely consumer suckers' fault that they put up with content providers' restrictions - not Microsoft's who just provides platform. The reality is, if MS had not done it someone else would have. Blaming Microsoft the way you puppets are doing is not stupid, it's malicious.
I feel like I'm talking to commissar in some communist state - "yes comrade, all this ridiculous dogma is completely true, why you ask?". Tool.

The truth is so very simple. Both Apple and Microsoft had the choice (and the weight) to put their customers needs above the media companies wishes.
But they saw an opportunity to make money at the expense of their customers by selling the media companies DRM technology.

Microsoft and Apple (and others) wanted DRM, they each wanted to be the one true DRM platform. They each would have sold out their customer base to achieve these ends.

It is not wrong to have copy protection on media (games, music, video), what is wrong is the way that it is enforced.

The blame does belong with Microsoft and their ilk for setting all this travesty in motion, and we the consumer for meakly surrendering our rights.

pi.boy.travis

July 17th, 2008, 11:50 PM

It's all about control. DRM is a form of control over what consumers can do with the information (in this case art/music/movies) they purchase. DRM has been around for a long tome in some way shape or form (remember the warning screen displayed before the movie on VHS tapes). However, I think that it is due to it's implementation in the digital world and the way that it is being enforced has increased awareness of it. In a perfect world, DRM would not be necessary, but unfortunately it is. I disagree with the way DRM is implemented, however some protection of the artist's rights to their content needs to be present. In it's present form, I think that DRM is a way to protect profits rather than the rights it's name implies. Microsoft, Apple, and Sony just want to harness some of that control, just as Microsoft has control over much of the software out there today in one form or another.

I think it is very interesting to see how this conversation has gone from public unawareness to rights management. It all ties in with the difference between proprietary and open products and services.

Linux is just an OS, but using it has changed the way I look at many other things in my life, such as DRM, but other things like technology implementation in an educational environment

RoyalShrubber

July 17th, 2008, 11:59 PM

Both Apple and Microsoft had the choice (and the weight) to put their customers needs above the media companies wishes.

Weight? Ok, so suppose MS did not wrote DRM platform - Warner Bros says they will produce only for OS X because it's the only platform that supports DRM.
Windows thus slowly loses marketshare as users are migrating to OS X just to watch movies. And this isn't in Microsoft's best interest, is it? (And probably Windows' users too)
So, when Warner Bros say we demands DRM, Microsoft (willingly or not) says 'sir, yes sir'.

pi.boy.travis

July 18th, 2008, 12:01 AM

So, when Warner Bros say we demands DRM, Microsoft (willingly or not) says 'sir, yes sir'.

It's all about control.

This is getting really interesting! :popcorn:

alfalfa31

July 18th, 2008, 01:03 AM

If you think for a moment that I subscribe to the FSF dogma just because I fight for the rights of art lovers, you are sadly mistaken.

I greatly enjoy lively debate, and what is sad is that you are taking the wrong part of the quote as your basis. That is my fault, as I've been including more than is necessary. I will not make that mistake again.

It is Microsoft's right to do whatever they wish with their OS. By buying the DRM FUD, they betrayed their user base (though many of their users remain unaware).

I spend very little time in the forum "bitching." In fact, that's why we have these nifty little "subscribe" buttons. I can check in when I have time.

Now, on to the meat...

Microsoft holds the lion's share of the market in terms of the desktop OS. If they (MS) had told the DRM pushers to micterate (look it up) up a rope, what then would the DRM crowd have done? Probably reconsidered pushing. In fact, only supporting one OS which holds a less than 25% market share would possibly be the stupidest decision any company could make. If your goal is widest dissemination, you go with the widest market.

Instead, MS said, sure, we'll help you. We hate free anything, so we feel your pain.

Even government is starting to feel the pinch of MS site licenses. The Department of Commerce has stopped using Exchange organization wide and now uses open source mail servers with the only authorized mail client being Thunderbird.

Working in the security community, there is a rising tide of IT security professionals who have stopped using MS products wherever practicable (dumping MS Office for OpenOffice, dumping Outlook for any of the myriad mail client choices, dumping Windows for a decent Linux) for a few reasons, notably the inherent insecurity of the Windows platform, but also Microsoft's lack of respect for any standard that Microsoft doesn't own. This DRM thing is another in a litany of reasons.

The Mac users will always be Mac users, but the disaffected Windows user is uniquely ready to hear the open source message. Instead of passing that message, you defend DRM and say it's no big deal.

To each his own...

When I put an Ubuntu live CD in the hands of a user who's never experienced Linux, most of the time the lights come on. On the rare occasion that they object over some piece of software that they can no longer run, I show them VirtualBox.

Bitching? Far from it. I don't buy MS products, anymore than I buy Apple. I don't recommend them either. That, my friend, was the whole point...

RoyalShrubber

July 18th, 2008, 08:00 AM

If they (MS) had told the DRM pushers to micterate (look it up) up a rope...
Yeah, when you try to play snooty with language at least spell your 'difficult' words correctly.. It's micturate. And it's kinda sad when non-native speaker has to correct your spelling errors.

It is Microsoft's right to do whatever they wish with their OS. By buying the DRM FUD, they betrayed their user base (though many of their users remain unaware).
Awesome, I like the word betray. Oh they've stabbed them in the back, sold them, left them in the lurch, they've abandoned, deserted and forsaken their users, them bastards...

*shrugs* tin foil hat loonies..

Working in the security community, there is a rising tide of IT security professionals who have stopped using MS products wherever practicable (dumping MS Office for OpenOffice, dumping Outlook for any of the myriad mail client choices, dumping Windows for a decent Linux) for a few reasons, notably the inherent insecurity of the Windows platform, but also Microsoft's lack of respect for any standard that Microsoft doesn't own.

Wow, we came to OS security. Boy, I love these self made security professionals. Knowing FSF bogeyman stories doesn't actually make one security professional.
Yes, there has been 'rising tide' towards unices since DOS times?

I like how you 'security professionals' like to stress Linus's law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Well it actually works if you limit the equation to infinity - if not, then you have to ask how many eyes are actually watching and are there enough eyes watching.
There was (probably still is) a privilege escalation bug in Ubuntu and other distros unpatched for few releases. You can make alias to sudo and steal passwords, but none took care to fix this hole. For a f*cking year, how's that for a security?

It's a farce. Take Debian for example, they've let non-experts touch cryptography code, how retarded is this? OpenBSD devs did it right, but 'security experts' at Debian had to 'fix' it. Unlike OpenBSD, Linux code has never been so thoroughly audited. I agree Windows has rightfully bad reputation (though with v. 2003 and up security has become pretty decent, especially with Vista), but Linux is not really that much better. If you thought you're security professional, you wouldn't use Debian/Ubuntu crap but rather some security oriented distro like Fedora is or better, maybe some BSD variant.

When I put an Ubuntu live CD in the hands of a user who's never experienced Linux, most of the time the lights come on. On the rare occasion that they object over some piece of software that they can no longer run, I show them VirtualBox.
Yes, because what most of these users need is basic word processor, email client, web browser and music player. Windows 95 would serve equally well these users.

EDIT: I like word 'pushers' too.. Are you a decider? xD

lisati

July 18th, 2008, 08:10 AM

Why accept windows? Because they let in the light and let out the cigarette smoke.

Giant Speck

July 18th, 2008, 08:22 AM

Why do I accept Windows?

Because I can. http://www.killingmadison.net/forum/images/smilies/emot-colbert.gif

It's an operating system, not a religion. I like both my Windows partition and my Kubuntu partition. Simple as that.

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 10:28 AM

RoyalShrubber in a rather sarcastic tone exclaimed '*shrugs* tin foil hat loonies..', so now we get to the meat and drink do we?

Microsoft apologists are ten a penny these days, even on these very forums.
I think they must breed them some place in Redmond or brainwash people on their PR propaganda.

I know where you are coming from and where you are going with your rhetoric.

If you absolutely need Microsoft and all that they stand for, why frequent forums like this?

DRM is an industry wide problem that needs to be sorted out. It is a mountain, not an ant-hill, and there you will find Microsoft near the summit.

If you still maintain that Microsoft (should not just single out MS) had its hands tied and was forced to adopt DRM (even though they sell and profit from the technology in the first place), then so be it.

I think you have a problem that will not be overcome by cold hard facts.

g2bandrew

July 18th, 2008, 11:23 AM

scragar

July 18th, 2008, 11:27 AM

Because it works.

some of the time, if your lucky. And don't use the internet. And don't need stability. Or the ability to edit stuff. Or security. Or, you know, a working computer.

alfalfa31

July 18th, 2008, 12:20 PM

Yeah, when you try to play snooty with language at least spell your 'difficult' words correctly.. It's micturate. And it's kinda sad when non-native speaker has to correct your spelling errors.

That's good. Demand perfection from the user, not the OS...

Awesome, I like the word betray. Oh they've stabbed them in the back, sold them, left them in the lurch, they've abandoned, deserted and forsaken their users, them bastards...

*shrugs* tin foil hat loonies..

What's funny is that you point to the brainwashing of the FSF and fail do acknowledge the fact that Bill's army of nerds will not allow even the slightest mention of any negativity toward the precious company that is MS. At least Jobs can take a joke.

We're talking about competing philosophies here. It's clear you haven't thought through what your philosophy actually is. You are a closed source apologist frequenting a board full of open source enthusiasts.

Wow, we came to OS security. Boy, I love these self made security professionals. Knowing FSF bogeyman stories doesn't actually make one security professional.

I make a pretty handsome living just knowing those bogeyman stories. The certifications don't hurt either, but the stores... That rakes in the big bucks.

Yes, there has been 'rising tide' towards unices since DOS times?

That doesn't even make sense. Is that a question, or a statement, because before DOS, what was there but unices (especially for anyone outside the scientific community).

I like how you 'security professionals' like to stress Linus's law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Well it actually works if you limit the equation to infinity - if not, then you have to ask how many eyes are actually watching and are there enough eyes watching.
There was (probably still is) a privilege escalation bug in Ubuntu and other distros unpatched for few releases. You can make alias to sudo and steal passwords, but none took care to fix this hole. For a f*cking year, how's that for a security?

Try it out. Then write a post about your experience...

It's a farce. Take Debian for example, they've let non-experts touch cryptography code, how retarded is this? OpenBSD devs did it right, but 'security experts' at Debian had to 'fix' it. Unlike OpenBSD, Linux code has never been so thoroughly audited. I agree Windows has rightfully bad reputation (though with v. 2003 and up security has become pretty decent, especially with Vista), but Linux is not really that much better. If you thought you're security professional, you wouldn't use Debian/Ubuntu crap but rather some security oriented distro like Fedora is or better, maybe some BSD variant.

What exactly is your definition of an expert? Do they need a PHD in cryptography? I happen to know a security expert who used to be employed by MS. He wrote a spectacular IP security system for NT 4. It worked. He was ordered to shrink it by 50%. Personally I'd rather have a non-expert not answer to a bean counter than an expert with tied hands.

If you really wanted to get technical, we should all be running Open VMS. Can't break it...

Yes, because what most of these users need is basic word processor, email client, web browser and music player. Windows 95 would serve equally well these users.

Correct me, but was that not the initial point of this thread, determining the usefulness of the Windows family of OS's? By making that statement you've kind of agreed with the whole argument I've been making from the start.

EDIT: I like word 'pushers' too.. Are you a decider? xD
[/QUOTE]

I certainly am a decider. Indecisiveness gets you more DRM and DRM-like initiatives. A few people standing up and saying "no" is about all it takes to raise public awareness.

Pushers push that which is bad for the consumer. DRM pushers want to make DRM a legal matter by having legislators pass laws making it not only mandatory, but making dissension or non-compliance a criminal matter. I get tired of law makers inventing new classes of criminal for no good reason other than fascism (which is synonymous with corporatism).

Apologists for these guys are easily swayed and fundamentally unprincipled. If the philosophy of the unprincipled is allowed to dictate policy, it's time to hang it up.

It's sad, really...

rickyjones

July 18th, 2008, 12:44 PM

some of the time, if your lucky. And don't use the internet. And don't need stability. Or the ability to edit stuff. Or security. Or, you know, a working computer.

FUD.

If the Linux community wishes that people would stop spreading FUD about Linux and Open Source then the Linux community needs to do the same.

Thanks,
Richard

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 12:57 PM

FUD.

If the Linux community wishes that people would stop spreading FUD about Linux and Open Source then the Linux community needs to do the same.

Thanks,
Richard

Although I completely agree with what you say, Microsoft are the biggest and most vocal FUD-meisters in existance.

What goes around come around.

rickyjones

July 18th, 2008, 01:07 PM

Although I completely agree with what you say, Microsoft are the biggest and most vocal FUD-meisters in existance.

What goes around come around.

Perhaps, or the Linux community can turn any FUD around by showing that they are better. By proving that the Linux operating system and associated applications outperform and outlast Microsoft Windows and associated applications.

I sincerely believe that those actions would speak much louder and would garner much more respect than the typical "Microsoft spreads FUD so I'll spread FUD too." One player needs to step up - Linux and the community would garner more of my respect if they would do that - which is why I do my due diligence to not spread FUD and to call out those that do. Believe me, I'll call out a Microsoft FUD spreader as well if I see it.

Sincerely,
Richard

alfalfa31

July 18th, 2008, 01:20 PM

Believe me, I'll call out a Microsoft FUD spreader as well if I see it.

Let's start calling out political FUD as well.

What's the DHS national freak-out level today, "yellow" (which I believe means, "vaguely scared with no real, tangible threat, but not yet in a panic")?

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/77

rickyjones

July 18th, 2008, 01:25 PM

Let's start calling out political FUD as well.

What's the DHS national freak-out level today, "yellow" (which I believe means, "vaguely scared with no real, tangible threat, but not yet in a panic")?

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/77

I do - I've written to my Senators and Representatives. I choose to not live a life of fear. Believe me, I can't wait for a new administration who will hopefully reform these measures.

Sincerely,
Richard

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 01:27 PM

Perhaps, or the Linux community can turn any FUD around by showing that they are better. By proving that the Linux operating system and associated applications outperform and outlast Microsoft Windows and associated applications.

I sincerely believe that those actions would speak much louder and would garner much more respect than the typical "Microsoft spreads FUD so I'll spread FUD too." One player needs to step up - Linux and the community would garner more of my respect if they would do that - which is why I do my due diligence to not spread FUD and to call out those that do. Believe me, I'll call out a Microsoft FUD spreader as well if I see it.

Sincerely,
Richard

If they could, and they will continue to do so, Microsoft would FUD Linux and FOSS into oblivion.

They have used numerous tactics in recent history and going back well over a decade. The resources for FUD they have at their disposal is mind-boggling, and we in turn should just accept this?

Under any other circumstances spreading FUD is contemptible, but Microsoft have shown themselves beneath contempt.

'Believe me, I'll call out a Microsoft FUD spreader as well if I see it.', that remains to be seen.

alfalfa31

July 18th, 2008, 01:29 PM

I do - I've written to my Senators and Representatives. I choose to not live a life of fear. Believe me, I can't wait for a new administration who will hopefully reform these measures.

Sincerely,
Richard

Keep hoping. It isn't going to happen with the two wondrous choices we have before us. Status quo is what you can expect.

You have your choice of 100 years in Iraq and a guaranteed invasion if Iran or "change" with no plan, no direction and no substance. Change for the sake of change is as scary as 100 more years.

rickyjones

July 18th, 2008, 01:39 PM

If they could, and they will continue to do so, Microsoft would FUD Linux and FOSS into oblivion.

Yet they haven't yet. Why is that?

They have used numerous tactics in recent history and going back well over a decade. The resources for FUD they have at their disposal is mind-boggling, and we in turn should just accept this?

What tactics have they used over the last decade? Please note that I never said just "accept" this. I said that the open source community should prove that they are the better choice. I'm calling for action, just not the spreading of FUD.

Microsoft has shown that their software (no matter your personal beliefs) works. People use it. It works great when it is properly configured. It is a tool. People remember that when they use Microsoft software it is simple and it works. Not many people recognize Linux or open source software. However when they hear that Linux and the associated community is spreading lies they will be hesitant to use it. You need to prove that the software produced by this community is stellar when compared to other proprietary companies.

Show the world the truth through the action of your software - not through FUD.

Under any other circumstances spreading FUD is contemptible, but Microsoft have shown themselves beneath contempt.

And this makes it OK for the open source community to do the same? In my opinion that makes the community no better than Microsoft when it stoops to a lower level.

'Believe me, I'll call out a Microsoft FUD spreader as well if I see it.', that remains to be seen.
Show me a Microsoft FUD spreader on these forums and I would do the same as I am doing in this thread. I call on people to be honest. I hope that the community on a whole agrees with that.

Sincerely,
Richard

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 02:05 PM

Yet they haven't yet. Why is that?

What tactics have they used over the last decade? Please note that I never said just "accept" this. I said that the open source community should prove that they are the better choice. I'm calling for action, just not the spreading of FUD.

Microsoft has shown that their software (no matter your personal beliefs) works. People use it. It works great when it is properly configured. It is a tool. People remember that when they use Microsoft software it is simple and it works. Not many people recognize Linux or open source software. However when they hear that Linux and the associated community is spreading lies they will be hesitant to use it. You need to prove that the software produced by this community is stellar when compared to other proprietary companies.

Show the world the truth through the action of your software - not through FUD.

And this makes it OK for the open source community to do the same? In my opinion that makes the community no better than Microsoft when it stoops to a lower level.

Show me a Microsoft FUD spreader on these forums and I would do the same as I am doing in this thread. I call on people to be honest. I hope that the community on a whole agrees with that.

Sincerely,
Richard

I doubt either the Linux or FOSS community could 'stoop' lower than Microsoft if they tried for the next hundred years. And you know what, as much as many in these communities dislike Microsoft's FUD campaigns (the 'Get the Facts! being one), they would rather just get along.

'What tactics have they used over the last decade?' LOL, how long have you been in IT? Are you one of these people that nievely believe Microsoft are hated just because they are successful? That they are popular because they produce superior software? They are a convicted monopolist across two continents. They have been sued successfully for patent infringement on many occasions.

When the Linux user fires FUD back in the face of Microsoft it is not right, but it is understandable.

sp0nge

July 18th, 2008, 02:09 PM

I think people have become so used to Windows being the norm, and are so scared of change they're not willing to learn of other options. In addition to this, I think most people like the plug and play setup Windows has going. Who doesn't like to just point and click?!

RoyalShrubber

July 18th, 2008, 02:18 PM

What's funny is that you point to the brainwashing of the FSF and fail do acknowledge the fact that Bill's army of nerds will not allow even the slightest mention of any negativity toward the precious company that is MS. At least Jobs can take a joke.

You are a closed source apologist frequenting a board full of open source enthusiasts.

Nice, I'm apologist now? Yet another word for those who do not agree with the dogma. What are you then, a liar? For the record, I'm not 'windows zaeolot'. I could go on (http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/261715-Floppies/) and talk how Vista could be improved, but I don't really want to please you, do I? I also don't think I visit foss forums frequently, maybe once in every one or two months. For me it's like going to a zoo - I'm always amazed with your loony species.

That doesn't even make sense. Is that a question, or a statement, because before DOS, what was there but unices (especially for anyone outside the scientific community).

You talk, like there is real tide out there. There was no 'rising tide', because business/science demanded unices even in those old DOS day. Of course we talk as it were a tide because we want to make it look like it's trendy, maybe in hope other users jump to our train. 2009 will'll be 'Year of the Linix desktop' for sure..

What exactly is your definition of an expert? Do they need a PHD in cryptography? I happen to know a security expert who used to be employed by MS. He wrote a spectacular IP security system for NT 4. It worked. He was ordered to shrink it by 50%. Personally I'd rather have a non-expert not answer to a bean counter than an expert with tied hands.

If you really wanted to get technical, we should all be running Open VMS. Can't break it...
Don't we now sound apologetic too? I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come natural to you that amateurs should not do cryptography then I don't know how to explain it.
The guy removed function that did not impact working of openssh, it only severely hampered entropy pool for keys. Of course the guy did not know what the fsck he was doing, but what is really shocking is they let this non-expert commit changes to OS. What next, python devs with no concept of buffer overflows writing Linux C kernel? And you as a 'security expert' should be worried about it..

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 02:31 PM

A long thread with many a heated discussion. I doubt anyone will ever be disuaded from their chosen position. No 'Saul on the road to Damascus' conversion on the cards here I dare say...

...a zoo indeed.

RoyalShrubber

July 18th, 2008, 02:36 PM

And you know what, as much as many in these communities dislike Microsoft's FUD campaigns (the 'Get the Facts! being one), they would rather just get along.

Hah do you know badvista.org? You know why all commenters agree with BS they put on that site? When it came out they managed to censure every post that did not conform in minutes.

Isn't free software in a way about free speech too? In contrast, trolls, provided that they do not insult other people, are allowed to freely bash windows / talk about linux on MS forums. Strange?

alfalfa31

July 18th, 2008, 02:57 PM

What are you then, a liar?

Short answer, no.

For me it's like going to a zoo - I'm always amazed with your loony species.

Funny, it seems from the venom, that your dander (and probably blood pressure) is up.

You talk, like there is real tide out there. There was no 'rising tide', because business/science demanded unices even in those old DOS day. Of course we talk as it were a tide because we want to make it look like it's trendy, maybe in hope other users jump to our train. 2009 will'll be 'Year of the Linix desktop' for sure..

Are you seriously that backward? When I first discovered Linux back in 1995 (let's see, that would make you, what... 8?), there were a few computer scientists and hobbyists working with it (maybe more playing with it).

Today, just here, at the Ubuntu forum;

Threads: 839,941, Posts: 5,397,891, Members: 626,037, Active Members: 68,655

Nope, no rising tide here...

These must all be the same people who were using Slackware in 1997, only with multiple accounts. Maybe the kids of those computer scientists and hobbyists...

Don't we now sound apologetic too? I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come natural to you that amateurs should not do cryptography then I don't know how to explain it.

At the end of the day, an expert is someone who knows more about a subject than the rest of his colleagues. Do some work at the NSA. You'll find out what the meaning of the word "expert" is.

I can tell you this. It isn't a kid who read a Slashdot article on the woes of Linux cryptography (maybe you also read it at C-net, who knows).

Everybody starts out as an amateur. Some simply choose to stay that way.

All things aside, this is actually a fun conversation. I wouldn't even mind having it over a beer or five...

scragar

July 18th, 2008, 02:57 PM

FUD.

If the Linux community wishes that people would stop spreading FUD about Linux and Open Source then the Linux community needs to do the same.

Thanks,
Richard

sorry, but that's based on my personal experience.

I had to install twice because the first install failed, no reasoning for why, it just failed and I had to reinstall. After I finaly got it to boot I hated the screen resolution, but since I didn't know the graphics card, and windows was unwilling to tell me what the card was I was stuck with 650 resolution, not a happy place to be. So then I player around with a few settings, and hidden under some random setting or other I managed to find a way to increase it to 800, not very good, but better. I then decided to go google the graphics card it said I had(which was close, but not the same as the graphics card I actually had), only to find that IE said it could load the page, so I go to the control panel, add a new wired connection, reload IE. And still no internet, so down to the library I go, spend a while using their internet, eventually get a few drivers from not very trust worthy sites, which I stored on my pen drive, I also asked a friend to come around and take a look in an email. Fast forwarding to when I got home I plug in the pen drive, crashed. Restart, pen drive works this time, so I install the graphics card, restart(slow since there are tons of updates), only to get a black screen, nothing works, apparantly the graphics card wasn't right, and there's no method(I can find) to reset it, so reinstall(3rd one already and I've not even got graphics working ffs). This time I ignore the graphics card, install an antivirus, spyware destroy thing(spybot is it?) and firewall I got recommended, computer now runs really slow, and I still don't have a net connection, I then spend 20 minutes trying to get them not to start on reboot, which works for spybot and the firewall, but the AV doesn't let me, so I ignore it, it can all wait. I shut it down, leave it, 2 days later my mate turns up, reinstall and manages to get net working(4th install), he installs his own AV, spyware thing and firewall, computer is still slow, but faster than it was last time(not that it was hard). I install firefox, updates, but, powercut, computer reboots and as it boots the thing goes messed up, reinstalled(5th time), working, slow, but working. I take a visit to youtube, install flash, turn on my speakers and... NOTHING. No sound at all. I turn it off, call it quits, computer isn't worth it. 2 weeks later I plug in an ubuntu CD I recived, it works first time, I install, reboot, and it's fairly fast(WAY faster than my experience of windows), I try sound, it doesn't work, quick check on google for "ubuntu sound", and the first page I find offers a perfect fix.

Can you blame me for holding a resentment to windows? It took ages to get working, and the closer to working I got it the harder it was to get working, on the other hand linux worked perfectly for me first time, no messy configuring, no searching hidden options for the ability to get more than 640 resolution.

rickyjones

July 18th, 2008, 03:09 PM

sorry, but that's based on my personal experience.

I had to install twice because the first install failed, no reasoning for why, it just failed and I had to reinstall. After I finaly got it to boot I hated the screen resolution, but since I didn't know the graphics card, and windows was unwilling to tell me what the card was I was stuck with 650 resolution, not a happy place to be. So then I player around with a few settings, and hidden under some random setting or other I managed to find a way to increase it to 800, not very good, but better. I then decided to go google the graphics card it said I had(which was close, but not the same as the graphics card I actually had), only to find that IE said it could load the page, so I go to the control panel, add a new wired connection, reload IE. And still no internet, so down to the library I go, spend a while using their internet, eventually get a few drivers from not very trust worthy sites, which I stored on my pen drive, I also asked a friend to come around and take a look in an email. Fast forwarding to when I got home I plug in the pen drive, crashed. Restart, pen drive works this time, so I install the graphics card, restart(slow since there are tons of updates), only to get a black screen, nothing works, apparantly the graphics card wasn't right, and there's no method(I can find) to reset it, so reinstall(3rd one already and I've not even got graphics working ffs). This time I ignore the graphics card, install an antivirus, spyware destroy thing(spybot is it?) and firewall I got recommended, computer now runs really slow, and I still don't have a net connection, I then spend 20 minutes trying to get them not to start on reboot, which works for spybot and the firewall, but the AV doesn't let me, so I ignore it, it can all wait. I shut it down, leave it, 2 days later my mate turns up, reinstall and manages to get net working(4th install), he installs his own AV, spyware thing and firewall, computer is still slow, but faster than it was last time(not that it was hard). I install firefox, updates, but, powercut, computer reboots and as it boots the thing goes messed up, reinstalled(5th time), working, slow, but working. I take a visit to youtube, install flash, turn on my speakers and... NOTHING. No sound at all. I turn it off, call it quits, computer isn't worth it. 2 weeks later I plug in an ubuntu CD I recived, it works first time, I install, reboot, and it's fairly fast(WAY faster than my experience of windows), I try sound, it doesn't work, quick check on google for "ubuntu sound", and the first page I find offers a perfect fix.

Can you blame me for holding a resentment to windows? It took ages to get working, and the closer to working I got it the harder it was to get working, on the other hand linux worked perfectly for me first time, no messy configuring, no searching hidden options for the ability to get more than 640 resolution.

So you had no clue what kind of hardware you had when you tried to install Windows. Then got frustrated because Windows does not include every driver for your unknown computer hardware. Plugging in a pen drive crashed the computer. A sudden loss of power also caused some issues.

May I suggest a few things?
1. If your computer is an OEM from someplace like Dell or HP then just inputting the model # would have given you all the correct drivers. If this is a "beige box" computer then you need to do some research before making system wide changes like that.

2. If plugging in a pen drive hard locked the computer then I'm going to guess that a) the installation CD had problems of its own and b) you may have some hardware issues.

3. That sudden power loss might have messed up a few things as well.

My point here is that you cannot expect Microsoft to provide drivers for hardware that it does not know about. When a potential Linux user says "XYZ hardware is not being recognized" they are told to look at the hardware manufacturer. This is no different from Microsoft.

It sounds to me like you had very little experience with a Microsoft specific operating system install. Might I recommend that you do some research prior to and possibly enlist the help of a professional computer consultant?

For what its worth I am glad that the Ubuntu CD worked with all of your hardware. I am amazed by the sheer amount of hardware that open source developers have been able to support. I only wish that the community could band together to help push hardware manufacturers to provide proper drivers or release specs so that the developers can do a better job with hardware support.

And yes - I can see that you had a bad experience. However to say that that experience is the norm is a very far stretch. If it was then no one would use Windows - period.

Sincerely,
Richard

rockface

July 18th, 2008, 03:10 PM

Hah do you know badvista.org? You know why all commenters agree with BS they put on that site? When it came out they managed to censure every post that did not conform in minutes.

Isn't free software in a way about free speech too? In contrast, trolls, provided that they do not insult other people, are allowed to freely bash windows / talk about linux on MS forums. Strange?

I know badvista.org, I know it very well. I laughed at it's very premise from it's inception. You can choose to believe a vocal minority speak for the whole, this seems to be your point after all. Anything I say will equally be dismissed by yourself.

I have witnessed 'Microsofties' resort to the PR juggernaut when what they say has been disproven. I have seen first hand the flamefests on IRC, MSN and other forums about how Linux is the evil commie cancer and that Microsoft is flying the flag for 'The American Way'. So don't lie to me about how benign and cordial Microsoft forums are. Strange, isn't it just?

scragar

July 18th, 2008, 03:27 PM

So you had no clue what kind of hardware you had when you tried to install Windows. Then got frustrated because Windows does not include every driver for your unknown computer hardware. Plugging in a pen drive crashed the computer. A sudden loss of power also caused some issues.

May I suggest a few things?
1. If your computer is an OEM from someplace like Dell or HP then just inputting the model # would have given you all the correct drivers. If this is a "beige box" computer then you need to do some research before making system wide changes like that.
the computer was a gift, I reinstalled to make sure I didn't stumble across anything the old user had before me, it worked fine for him so I couldn't imagine any problems.
2. If plugging in a pen drive hard locked the computer then I'm going to guess that a) the installation CD had problems of its own and b) you may have some hardware issues.I can safely say there were no hardware issues, but yeah, the install disk did a lot of complaining, didn't even work first time round.

3. That sudden power loss might have messed up a few things as well.can I add that before now I've had ubuntu get cut off during updates with a powercut(which happen more often than I would like), ubuntu survived with nothing more than a request for me to reconfigure dpkg.My point here is that you cannot expect Microsoft to provide drivers for hardware that it does not know about. When a potential Linux user says "XYZ hardware is not being recognized" they are told to look at the hardware manufacturer. This is no different from Microsoft.
I am not angry for the problem with the drivers, I am annoyed over the fact that everyone claim windows just works, and for me it was very much the opposite case, I tried a lot of things to try and fix the problems I encounted, but I still couldn't get the computer to a situation I was happy with.
It sounds to me like you had very little experience with a Microsoft specific operating system install. Might I recommend that you do some research prior to and possibly enlist the help of a professional computer consultant? That was my first(second, third, fouth... last) install of windows XP, I never had any problems with a 95 install I did a few years before that, I didn't think I would need any help, I did ask for help from a friend(who works doing IT support), and although he showed me how to get the internet working he couldn't help me with much more than that.
For what its worth I am glad that the Ubuntu CD worked with all of your hardware. I am amazed by the sheer amount of hardware that open source developers have been able to support. I only wish that the community could band together to help push hardware manufacturers to provide proper drivers or release specs so that the developers can do a better job with hardware support.

And yes - I can see that you had a bad experience. However to say that that experience is the norm is a very far stretch. If it was then no one would use Windows - period.

Sincerely,
Richard
I understand that other people have had much better experiences, I do not doubt such a thing, but as long as experiences like mine still exist Microsoft have a lot of work to do, which they appear to be ignoring, since I used to have older hardware, after all, I can just upgrade my computer so it works with their software. :-|