Xp Deathwatch

TheTastyGreek · May 29, 2008

Point proven. You hate everything mainstream.
Apple takes Free BSD Unix and makes a nice GUI for it.. and calls it OSX... and people think it is revolutionary.
MS takes Xerox/DOS and put a GUI on it... and people call them thieves.
Cerebus wants everyone to use BeOS and OS/2 Warp while playing our Dreamcast and Turbographix16.

I liked the Dreamcast. Never owned a Turbographix 16, but I did enjoy the crap out of TV Sports Football. Go Rhinos!

Cerebus · May 29, 2008

Point proven. You hate everything mainstream.
Apple takes Free BSD Unix and makes a nice GUI for it.. and calls it OSX... and people think it is revolutionary.
MS takes Xerox/DOS and put a GUI on it... and people call them thieves.
Cerebus wants everyone to use BeOS and OS/2 Warp while playing our Dreamcast and Turbographix16.

Actually we should all use Ubuntu while playing the pinnacle of western achievement, NHL 94 on the Sega CD.

There is only one way to settle this JD, like men... WITH A DANCE OFF!

I'll go first:

RcGVEmVhk8M

Cerebus · May 29, 2008

...are they a monopoly? Nope... by definition.

Yes, by the definition of a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Anti Trust act, which is the law of the land.

Monopoly != 100% of a market.

UNTflyer · May 29, 2008

All I know is that Vista does not run Solomon 6.0, a Microsoft product.

So we are being forced to move to Vista which will force us to move to Solomon 7.0

May 29, 2008

KVuIBpJ6B4E

You sir... are a thread jacker. I may raise your warning level.

Then you can raise mine for calling you a name.

May 29, 2008

All I know is that Vista does not run Solomon 6.0, a Microsoft product.
So we are being forced to move to Vista which will force us to move to Solomon 7.0

Appears there is an answer in the Microsoft forums..

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsg...26-5bd96ab3fbb0

Growing pains for every OS upgrade.

I remember having to checkbox some "Win95 compatibility mode" to play from video games when I moved to Win2k.

yyz28 · May 29, 2008

Other then you seem to over look the out right lying that I attempted to point out by the Microsoft CEO, crap like that makes people MS haters. Apple is working it.

I didn't overlook it... it simply isn't relevenat. Microsoft CEO being a turd sandwich doesn't make the OS suck.

I am still betting Vista tanks and "windows 7" turns out to be the one.

I'll be yer' huckleberry...

But for an office 32 bit is more then enough to run, email, spread sheets, word, and all the specialized software we use at the same time. If I was 3D graphics rendering maybe, or gaming. Photoshop and some of the other Creative Suite products may be interesting with full support in a 64 bit architecture. Adobe has yet to produce such an animal. But do office needs really benefit from 64 bit processing? Not that I can see in my office, I had more effeicency produced by moving to a Giga lan network.

If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard "the current technology is all you'll need in X enviroment" only to oversee a migration a year or less later becuase technology pushed it, North Texas would already be playing in a new Stadium - YYZ28 Stadium. ROTFLMAO!

"Dude, you'll never need anything more than that 40MB HDD." "Man, you've got dual floppy drives, you can do anything." "Nobody will ever utilize 32 bit processing, as 16 bit is plenty for any concieveable application..." it goes on and on and on...

I remember the people whining about XP migration, but most of the IT pros I knew and still know today could not wait. This time the IT community is not screaming for change, especially one that is as an intense resource hog as Vista. If anything they need to slim it down, get rid of the goofy glitter, and free the resources. Yes I know xp was a hog at the time and even grew from 64 mg min - 128 mg recommended to the current version that I recommend 512mg min - 1 gig recommended, but Vista did not need to be much different then XP resource wise. Hell SP3 cleaned up XP even more.

Dude... 4GB ram today costs a third of what 64MB did then. Who cares if it uses a lot of resources if those resources are cheap? ...and when you take into consideration that it can actually USE that 4GB as opposed to the limits XP had, your argument goes in the tank. EVERY OS has been a resource hog compared to the previous verison, I don't care if you're talking Novell, Linux, Windows or Apple.

...and most of the IT people I know, were NOT happy with the XP roll out so shortly after 2000 was widely accepted, and many resisited it for a long time... Don't kid yourself. I'll have to dig through my old CRN's and find the "oh crap - windows XP" articles in that rag.

yyz28 · May 29, 2008

Appears there is an answer in the Microsoft forums..
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsg...26-5bd96ab3fbb0
Growing pains for every OS upgrade.
I remember having to checkbox some "Win95 compatibility mode" to play from video games when I moved to Win2k.

beat me too it... LOL!

Cerebus · May 29, 2008

You sir... are a thread jacker. I may raise your warning level.
Then you can raise mine for calling you a name.

Lets ban each other at the same time.

My response:

1dJwODowvVY

yyz28 · May 29, 2008

1dJwODowvVY

ROTFLMAO!! THAT is CLASSIC!!!

That video is Afro-Duck approved.

...BTW, this thread proves how badly we need football season. Seriously.

May 29, 2008

8kChDiQVAAE

UNTflyer · May 29, 2008

Until the 1980s, almost nobody had a computer because each system was different and was cumbersome to use. Windows changed that. A person can sit down at any Windows computer, regardless of OEM, and use it. Future technology may change that, but Microsoft is responsible for the information revolution reaching the home user.

Cerebus · May 29, 2008

JD, you have left me no choice but to use the nuclear option:

LbvP7dT3Dx0

May God have mercy on our souls...

May 29, 2008

Indian Thriller... Showing your interweb age.

This dude (Prabhu Deva) is called "India's Michael Jackson"

ZA1NoOOoaNw

May 29, 2008

Too end this.. This is the life of Cerebus. Every day day dreaming of an IRC BOT while sitting in front of his command line mainframe madness.

dRRi-13KXes

Or playing DotA ...

lVeNNrdYwRI

UNTflyer · May 29, 2008

Appears there is an answer in the Microsoft forums..
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsg...26-5bd96ab3fbb0
Growing pains for every OS upgrade.
I remember having to checkbox some "Win95 compatibility mode" to play from video games when I moved to Win2k.

Yes, but since it is not recommended or supported by MS, our Sarbanes-Oxley controls prohibit that workaround.

Good find, and I have tested it. It can certainly be made to work, but the SOX dude says "No".

UNTFan23 · May 30, 2008

Sounds like all the same stuff I heard when XP was released...
...applications don't work...
...rollout is going to be a huge investment...
...no driver support...
...slower than Win 2000...
...screw this, I'm going to Linux/Apple...
ROTFLMAO!!! Classic.
...typing this on a VERY stable Vista Machine. Enjoy!

I know you mean well, but you don't understand what it means to go from 32 to 64 bit architecture for tens of thousands of PCs. For my company to roll out Vista to the US alone will take months. You can't just flip a switch and bam!, you have Vista running where I work. We'll have to do a phased roll-out on a site by site basis, but first we need to make sure that our current 32 bit apps will run on Vista with no impact to the business. If there are compatibility problems, they'll have to be addressed before Vista goes on any production box anywhere. Once Vista is installed corporate wide, I'm sure the migration to 64 bit architecture will begin.

May 30, 2008

I know you mean well, but you don't understand what it means to go from 32 to 64 bit architecture for tens of thousands of PCs. For my company to roll out Vista to the US alone will take months. You can't just flip a switch and bam!, you have Vista running where I work. We'll have to do a phased roll-out on a site by site basis, but first we need to make sure that our current 32 bit apps will run on Vista with no impact to the business. If there are compatibility problems, they'll have to be addressed before Vista goes on any production box anywhere. Once Vista is installed corporate wide, I'm sure the migration to 64 bit architecture will begin.

This is precisely why companies use the same models and refresh them bi-annually. They have a standard image of software they load on each server/pc/laptop.. So they can phase out like that. As your laptop lease expires, you get a new one with Vista, with the software package that your company approves of (Visual Studio, Eclipse, Visio... whatever). Then it is up to you to make sure your Firefox works and Yahoo music plays.

It is this way for all updates though. This isn't a problem with *Vista*, per se.

Frustrates the hell out of me that my company takes it upon themselves to install outlook, ie, office, vpn, etc, etc, etc.. I would rather do it myself and pick and choose my setup. However, looking at *some* my crazy ass coworkers, I wouldn't trust them to do it either. So, I live with the evil and go on my way.

My Ubuntu development machine is all mine to jackup.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 30, 2008

I loved XP when it first came out, and was sold on it.

I got Vista when it first came out expecting it to be better, but I still prefer XP. Too many dumb little glitches.

UNTFan23 · May 30, 2008

This is precisely why companies use the same models and refresh them bi-annually. They have a standard image of software they load on each server/pc/laptop.. So they can phase out like that. As your laptop lease expires, you get a new one with Vista, with the software package that your company approves of (Visual Studio, Eclipse, Visio... whatever). Then it is up to you to make sure your Firefox works and Yahoo music plays.
It is this way for all updates though. This isn't a problem with *Vista*, per se.
Frustrates the hell out of me that my company takes it upon themselves to install outlook, ie, office, vpn, etc, etc, etc.. I would rather do it myself and pick and choose my setup. However, looking at *some* my crazy ass coworkers, I wouldn't trust them to do it either. So, I live with the evil and go on my way.
My Ubuntu development machine is all mine to jackup.

I do know they have images for workstations based on the function of the PC. Developers have one type of image versus someone in finance versus a DC workstation versus a store workstation. Unfortunately, the corporate WAN only has T1 connections at most of the stores, and there are transactions that have priority over something like a software update. Some of our stores in countries such as Brazil are on dial-up.

Where the concern is the software that has been developed in-house. It's far easier to support one version across the chain then it is multiple versions, especially if the you are dealing with major changes (for instance, a new OS with new architecture).

I think we're still years away from rolling Vista in to a production environment though.

meangreendork · May 30, 2008

is as an intense resource hog as Vista

That's exactly the reason to wait on Vista. Yeah, it can support 64 but the the problem is that it's got way too much glitter (as KingDL put it) and the way Vista is set up, it has trouble making all of that happen on some machines, even those running on higher end hardware. So MS can either drop the glittery junk or keep it and make it work more smoothly. To my experience, the only machines running Vista smoothly are the ones that were built for Vista. Out of the 11 people I know that are trying to run Vista on machines they already own, only 3 made it work smoothly. To do so, they had to upgrade hardware, tool around with various settings, and spend hours doing it.

Long and short:

Vista wants to be as pretty as OSX but can't do it efficiently. Drop the extra crap or make it work smoothly. And in my experience, if you're gonna run Vista, go out and buy a machine built for it. Good luck getting it to work on a machine you already own, ESPECIALLY if it wasn't in the top 2 tiers of power/speed when you got it, and definitely if it's more than about 2 years old.

Get a Mac if you think you need it, but be aware of DRM issues and that some programs aren't yet supported with an OSX version or may not work properly in Bootcamp...which'll have to be updated to support Vista.

Edited May 30, 2008 by meangreendork

Cerebus · May 30, 2008

Too end this.. This is the life of Cerebus. Every day day dreaming of an IRC BOT while sitting in front of his command line mainframe madness.

Not dancing videos. I win.

I also less than three Boten Anna.

Since you posted it, I guess I have to post the spoof:

b160OneEKJo

GoMeanGreen.com: Your Interweb Source for English Language Spoofs of Swedish Dance House Hits.

PS: There is nothing wrong with the command line*

*A good read, written by a great writer.

yyz28 · May 30, 2008

I know you mean well, but you don't understand what it means to go from 32 to 64 bit architecture for tens of thousands of PCs. For my company to roll out Vista to the US alone will take months. You can't just flip a switch and bam!, you have Vista running where I work. We'll have to do a phased roll-out on a site by site basis, but first we need to make sure that our current 32 bit apps will run on Vista with no impact to the business. If there are compatibility problems, they'll have to be addressed before Vista goes on any production box anywhere. Once Vista is installed corporate wide, I'm sure the migration to 64 bit architecture will begin.

Guys... don't take me out of context.

I didn't suggest that app compatibiltiy and driver issues aren't there, and that a Vista rollout in the enterprise is something I'd suggest. ...nobody was rolling XP out enmass to an enterprise 6 months after its release either, that's my point.

...what I AM saying is that the OS itself is fine. It works. It is perfectly fine if purchased on a new PC designed to work with it.

I just think the complaints that "Vista Sucks" because it works a little differently and has basically the same issues that every new OS has is just sorta silly, especially when the "Microsoft is a Monopoly" crowd who refuses to give MS credit for what they have done for the industry comes out of the woodwork to grab another opportunity to bash a big company. Vista doesn't work with many of the 2000 and 2003 server management snap ins, making it useless for many IT guys who need to use those tools. It isn't ready for everyone - but it works and can be faster than XP with proper resourcing. Moreover, it IS the first step to the next level of computing.