Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Windows 8: Mostly A Crap Wreck

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
    Windows 8 is the OS that will bring more users to Linux and Mac, not because Windows 8 is not good, simply because it will force the user to become open-minded and accept changes. When a user accepts something different from what he knows, there are high chances he will become curious to try plenty of other things.
    I would say more to Linux than Mac really. If the fear and dislike of change is dealt with, then Linux has far less barriers to entry than Mac OS does simply for the fact that the vast majority of distributions are free and can be run on hardware you currently possess.

    Comment


    • #62
      "(..)Windows 8 also obviously is the first Microsoft Windows release with ARM support,(..)"
      Incorrect. Windows NT had a support for ARM (As well as Alpha and, afaik, MIPS) in 90ies.

      And about Windows 8- metro interface is nice, although I prefer the interface of win7. New explorer is better than in win7; in overall- I'll get win8 on preorder (same as i did with win7)- but only after i'll ensure that it supports my soundcard (x-fi xtrame gamer)

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
        It is also true that WINE has some compatibility advantages - I have heard of people who use WINE instead of native windows because it is better than playing there older games. Due to the fact it is by it's nature trying to emulate certain environments, that is also understandable.
        True, that and dosBox are often better at old games then windows it self.
        Problem with source ports of Q3 is that they do not have punk buster so it's cribbed for multilayer, I do however play Quake Live natively.

        Originally posted by FutureSuture View Post
        I would say more to Linux than Mac really. If the fear and dislike of change is dealt with, then Linux has far less barriers to entry than Mac OS does simply for the fact that the vast majority of distributions are free and can be run on hardware you currently possess.
        Sadly i doubth that, only few people want to be bothered with downloading and installing something, and with the Mac they get a shiny box they can brag to there finds about.

        Comment


        • #64
          Funny how you compliment their hassle-free installers. I'm trying to install Windows 7 SP1 on an Ivy Bridge system with a hardware RAID controller. Here's an incomplete list of drivers I had to extract from the installer exes using uniextract under wine, and put them all in the same directory on my flash drive because the installer doesn't know how to search directories recursively:
          • Chipset/motherboard drivers (Z77)
          • USB DVD drivers (external enclosure of a Blu-Ray ROM / DVD+RW)
          • Hardware RAID card drivers (Adaptec 6405E)
          • USB 3.0 chipset drivers (Intel USB 3.0 on Z77)
          • Motherboard SATA AHCI drivers (one Intel chip and one ASMedia chip)
          • Ivy Bridge processor driver (part of chipset package)
          • PCI Express bus driver for Z77 to enable the socket that the RAID card is connected to (part of chipset package)

          All this and my CD is Windows 7 SP1, not the original release. You'd think if the installation is going to be this much of a hassle, they'd do some kind of re-spin or SP2 with more drivers on the Windows CD. But that level of ease would be un-Microsoft-like.

          This is the third PC build in a row for me (this one and two prior generations) where I've had to download one or more drivers and put them on a floppy or USB drive or CD during the Windows install because it didn't support my hardware. So much for Windows always having a pain-free install

          The annoying part is that the Windows installer is up on my screen right now on my desktop saying "Select the driver to be installed." with a long list of compatible device drivers that it found on my USB drive, including all the drivers i mentioned in my list above... when I click "Next", it literally seems to be installing the drivers as I can see disk activity on the USB drive, and there's a long 5 minute pause while the progress bar goes across from 0 to 100 repetitively. But then at the end it says "No drivers found" in an error message and refuses to continue.

          So am I supposed to guess what piece of hardware it's trying to initialize but can't? Am I supposed to be psychic, Microsoft? Should I just "know" which little component of my system, out of hundreds, is the one component that you don't have a driver for, and then figure out where the driver is downloaded online, download it, extract it using UniExtract (because vendors are too stupid to ship the drivers in a zip file), and put it on my USB drive? Huh, Microsoft? Huh?! Motherfuckers.

          By contrast, I stick the Ubuntu 12.04 CD in, hit the "Install Ubuntu" button, click through, type my username, and it goes. No prompts, no nothing, it just works.

          Talk about biased reporting.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
            By contrast, I stick the Ubuntu 12.04 CD in, hit the "Install Ubuntu" button, click through, type my username, and it goes. No prompts, no nothing, it just works.
            And not be able to update for half a year. And when you do, instead of updating software, you need to upgrade a whole OS. Wow, l33t.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
              So am I supposed to guess what piece of hardware it's trying to initialize but can't? Am I supposed to be psychic, Microsoft? Should I just "know" which little component of my system, out of hundreds, is the one component that you don't have a driver for, and then figure out where the driver is downloaded online, download it, extract it using UniExtract (because vendors are too stupid to ship the drivers in a zip file), and put it on my USB drive? Huh, Microsoft? Huh?! Motherfuckers.
              No. You're meant to give up and either buy a computer with pre-installed Windows or download Ubuntu. Good find. Seriously though, MS aren't the only ones to give useless error messages; I've had the same with Gnome applications and Android.

              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              And not be able to update for half a year. And when you do, instead of updating software, you need to upgrade a whole OS. Wow, l33t.
              Come on, there's no right answer here. You want constant (non-security) updates, go and use debian testing or opensuse tumbleweed or one of many others and be prepared for breakages. You want well tested software: use Windows or debian stable or something with a 2-5 year release cycle. Still not perfect, but still, what is?

              Comment


              • #67
                I prefer a rolling release option. Haven't tried Arch, yet, but Gentoo is pretty damn stable. Even under ~amd64.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cyborg16 View Post
                  Come on, there's no right answer here. You want constant (non-security) updates, go and use debian testing or opensuse tumbleweed or one of many others and be prepared for breakages. You want well tested software: use Windows or debian stable or something with a 2-5 year release cycle. Still not perfect, but still, what is?
                  Oh, you are so wrong. On Windows I can update software without breakages, because the core stays stable, and I can have the latest user apps. Well, I can do that with Linux too, since I'm using Gentoo, but Gentoo is not for the masses. Ubuntu is. And it locks them with the same software for half a year and then tells them to install a whole new version of the entire OS.

                  This is brain damage, imo. Windows has got that one right.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    And not be able to update for half a year. And when you do, instead of updating software, you need to upgrade a whole OS. Wow, l33t.
                    oh please. I just recently took a system from 10.04 -> 10.10 -> 11.04 -> 11.10 (and soon to 12.04). So everything isn't the newest but I haven't had problems with this machine nor with the updates.

                    Personally I really dislike debian based distros and have been running arch on my dev boxes (used to be gentoo). Arch isn't perfect either. I don't really like the "fsck you" attitude of the maintainers much which is what i seem to get too often.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      Oh, you are so wrong. On Windows I can update software without breakages, because the core stays stable, and I can have the latest user apps. Well, I can do that with Linux too, since I'm using Gentoo, but Gentoo is not for the masses. Ubuntu is. And it locks them with the same software for half a year and then tells them to install a whole new version of the entire OS.

                      This is brain damage, imo. Windows has got that one right.
                      I agree with you, but this is a management issue that distros could deal with if they wanted to. It's just that no one has really undertaken the task.

                      To do something similar to Windows, basically what you'd do is start with RHEL 6 and continually compile the latest stable version of userland apps (by "apps" I mean, not things like gcc and libc, I mean end user programs that a casual user will be familiar with by name) and ship them as automatic updates.

                      It's not impossible to do that. A vast majority of applications have backwards compatibility with system libraries and kernel APIs, meaning that you can compile, for instance, GIMP 2.8 on an old system, or LibreOffice 3.3. Some things will be more difficult to do (and riskier), like upgrading between the 4.x versions of KDE or upgrading from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3, but the minor releases for sure should be possible to do risk-free, and many distros still don't do that.

                      I also like how Fedora often updates the kernel to the next version on their stable release. Linux 3.3 is now the standard on Fedora 16, whereas it shipped with 3.2. It's a nice touch and a step in the right direction.

                      On the other hand, you don't want to go willy-nilly just updating every single package on the system to the latest stable. That's called ArchLinux, and while many people can deal with the potential upgrade breakages you get from that, non-technical users can't.

                      There's a happy medium somewhere between Ubuntu and ArchLinux, but nobody (to my knowledge) has yet implemented a distribution upgrade policy that exactly nails that happy medium. But there's no theoretical reason why it's impossible. You just have to identify all the programs that are true applications and not just infrastructure, and separate them out and keep them updated. The user doesn't care if they have libc 2.18 instead of 2.19, but they do care if they have Firefox 8 instead of Firefox 12.

                      I've experimented with this in the past on CentOS 5 and 6. Start with base distro and start installing newer versions of apps. I was generally successful, but in most cases I had to compile from source. A distro could do that for you.
                      Last edited by allquixotic; 05-05-2012, 01:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                        oh please. I ...
                        Yes, you. Not everybody else.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                          I agree with you, but this is a management issue that distros could deal with if they wanted to. It's just that no one has really undertaken the task.
                          Arch Linux has.

                          To do something similar to Windows, basically what you'd do is start with RHEL 6 and continually compile the latest stable version of userland apps (by "apps" I mean, not things like gcc and libc, I mean end user programs that a casual user will be familiar with by name) and ship them as automatic updates.
                          No, you can't do that. You can't update drivers without updating underlying infrastructure. Not only the kernel, but also the whole X stack and its dependencies. And this is why Windows' driver ABI is helping users, and Linux's lack of one hurts its adoption. But as said earlier, Linux is focused on enterprise and server usage (since those companies own the kernel developers), not normal people.

                          A real desktop OS needs a driver ABI. The kernel devs have no real incentive to do all the work of creating and maintaining one. They are not being paid for that. They are paid for maintaining server/enterprise functionality.
                          Last edited by RealNC; 05-05-2012, 02:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I dont get your point. Do you want just for 1 drivers a stable abi? nvidia has got no problems following kernel+xorg releases, just amd's way to work on drivers is plain stupid. I think it is fully enough when kernel changes do not break userspace apps. The name change from 2.6.x to 3.x caused a bit trouble but not that much. Also the number of desktop linux users seems to be large enough for amd to follow ubuntu releases, they should just do a bit more and support mainline changes and integrate user patches if they are not able to fix it on their own.

                            Also if you REALLY tried to run W8 on old hardware, then you would know that there ARE driver problems. Do you see W8 drivers for older Intel gfx chips used by netbooks? I don't! It is definitely not the case that you can run legacy hardware on latest Win releases, sometimes you have got more luck and you can run XP drivers on Vista/7, but thats not always the case. For LOTS of old scanners you do NOT find any 64 bit Win drivers, same for older webcams. Printers are often better supported due to generic drivers, but thats just a side effekt, those work on Linux usually as well. So what do you need to do when want to use those hardware? Well you need a VM, for scanners you could use a Linux VM or a XP VM but it definitely does not work natively. So please tell me what is so much better with Win? Basically every PC sold now has got a 64 bit os, beginning with W8 it is even IMPOSSIBLE to ship a 32 bit os preinstalled as uefi only works with 64 bit. But of course you never thought that you might want to reuse your old hardware... Replacing a gfx card by a new one for 20 bucks is not that critical for desktop users, every other hardware replacement usually costs more.
                            Last edited by Kano; 05-05-2012, 02:21 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              I dont get your point. Do you want just for 1 drivers a stable abi?
                              No. There are hundreds of drivers in the kernel. You can't update only a few of them without updating the rest of them too. And if you do want to update all of them, you have to update the whole kernel. So you had a problem that the new driver solves, but you might end up with 3 new problems because you updated *everything*, the whole kernel instead of only the problematic driver.

                              I think it's you who didn't understand my point and what the problem is :-)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Thats definitely not so problematic. You get out of tree updates for wireless, dvb and alsa and maybe others as well. You should be more specific. What exact driver you could not use with which kernel? And why couldnt you update the kernel?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X