Windows Vista Why Windows sucks

  • Thread starter Thread starter White Spirit
  • Start date Start date
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>>> I don't see what your point is.
>
>> Well, you wouldnt. You blame the developers.
>
> That and MS business tactics.
>
>> But the fact is that there
>> is almost zero market for games. Dx is much easier to develop for
>
> Have you ever programmed DirectX versus OpenGL or SDL? Take it from
> me, OpenGL and SDL have much cleaner, more elegant APIs. Just about
> all the Windows APIs are ugly. The only thing Microsoft has got right
> so far is C#.

Yes. And you are wrong. The Dx community for a start is far more
knowledgable and experienced. They have to be - if they dont cut it they
are out of business.
>
>> because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to
>> advance the 3d engines and HW.
>
> No. They applied their usual business tactics in order to put DirectX
> above OpenGL.

Err, they still support OGL as do the HW manufacturers. The reasons are
as I listed above.

You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Hadron wrote:

> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

>> Have you ever programmed DirectX versus OpenGL or SDL? Take it from
>> me, OpenGL and SDL have much cleaner, more elegant APIs. Just about
>> all the Windows APIs are ugly. The only thing Microsoft has got right
>> so far is C#.

> Yes. And you are wrong. The Dx community for a start is far more
> knowledgable and experienced. They have to be - if they dont cut it they
> are out of business.

Every developer has to have the requisite knowledge and experience,
otherwise they wouldn't have a job. How does the relative knowledge and
experience of DirectX developers, which you allege, relate to the
quality of DirectX APS? Its just a red herring that you've thrown in.

>>> because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to
>>> advance the 3d engines and HW.

>> No. They applied their usual business tactics in order to put DirectX
>> above OpenGL.

> Err, they still support OGL as do the HW manufacturers. The reasons are
> as I listed above.

I didn't say that OpenGL isn't supported. I asserted that MS push
DirectX as an closed source solution that ties people to their products.

> You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps. It's difficult to judge your motives given that you so far
have not been able to argue any point without obfuscation and diversion.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

"White Spirit" <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:ftndvv$7bm$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> There are profound technical reasons

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
--
comp.os.linux.advocacy, COLA, (it's close with COLON) widely known as "The
rectum of usenet".
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, White Spirit
<wspirit@homechoice.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:34:35 +0100
<ftnstq$ked$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
>>> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run
>>> better. Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without
>>> running Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better
>>> under Linux in my experience.
>
>> Please name them as I am on the look out for modern native games. Try
>> not to limit them to quake.
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Quake II,

Ancient.

> Quake III,

Dusty.

> Quake IV.

Merely old.

>
> Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Dusty. (Powered by the QIII engine.)

>
> Unreal Tournament,

Decrepit. (If you really want moribund, try the original Unreal. ;-) )

> Unreal Tourament 2003,

Dusty

> Unreal Tournament 2004.

Dusty

>
> Neverwinter Nights.

Dusty, bordering on ancient.

>
> Not necessarily modern - blame the developers.

For a list of more modern offerings (not necessarily
for the desktop), try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2008_video_games

There is also last year's crop, and the year before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2006_video_games

The most appealing of these is arguably Elder Scrolls IV:
Oblivion, although Halo 3 is up there. I've not played
either of them, admittedly, and nothing on the 2008 jumps
out at me as desirable to play, though I can't say I'm
that serious a gamester.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
>one of them:

>Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
>has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
>lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);

>hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
>instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
>it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
>space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
>the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
>application to one instance.

>Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
>twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also
>over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
>and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of
>course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
>amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
>over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.

>* Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
>architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
>truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
>so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
>techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
>versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
>driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

twenty five years behind is optimistic. Microsoft has still failed to
embrace 60's technology and protect the operating system from it's user.
The default user on all microsoft desktops is an administrator and any
process can overwrite the operating system. Only microsoft could make the
simple act of reading one's email a dangerous endevor. Given their failure
to embrace 60's technology, microsoft is a full 45 years behind.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:41:09 +0100, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>Robin T Cox wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

>>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>>> counterparts.

>> Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

>On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.

Somebody whould check him for the Y2K bug.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit wrote:
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is
> just one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It has
> the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same
> address space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to
> ensure that the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers
> simply limited the application to one instance.
>

Heh! There are other reasons why a system developer may not want more than
one instance of his program running. Record locking, password protection,
approved access, resource management, and the like. So, Windows provides a
method of discovering this.

I suppose you advocate removing this API from the feature set. What about
all the legacy programs that use this API?

I think you're gonna have to dig farther to find a way to trash Windows.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Have you ever programmed DirectX versus OpenGL or SDL? Take it from
>>> me, OpenGL and SDL have much cleaner, more elegant APIs. Just about
>>> all the Windows APIs are ugly. The only thing Microsoft has got right
>>> so far is C#.
>
>> Yes. And you are wrong. The Dx community for a start is far more
>> knowledgable and experienced. They have to be - if they dont cut it they
>> are out of business.
>
> Every developer has to have the requisite knowledge and experience,
> otherwise they wouldn't have a job. How does the relative knowledge
> and experience of DirectX developers, which you allege, relate to the
> quality of DirectX APS? Its just a red herring that you've thrown in.

Err, no its not. "Dx community" - the people using it.

>
>>>> because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to
>>>> advance the 3d engines and HW.
>
>>> No. They applied their usual business tactics in order to put DirectX
>>> above OpenGL.
>
>> Err, they still support OGL as do the HW manufacturers. The reasons are
>> as I listed above.
>
> I didn't say that OpenGL isn't supported. I asserted that MS push
> DirectX as an closed source solution that ties people to their
> products.

CEDEGA?

>
>> You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.
>
> Perhaps. It's difficult to judge your motives given that you so far
> have not been able to argue any point without obfuscation and
> diversion.

Actually I have argued each point calmly and with facts.

You clearly just hate MS. Good luck to you.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit wrote:
> AqD wrote:
>
>> So what?
>
>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>> counterparts.
>
> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.
> Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running
> Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux
> in my experience.

That may very well be true.

There are those of us, however, who do not see life as a quest for
pinball-score supremecy but rather endeavor to cure cancer, promote world
peace, and make sure every woman who wants breast implants gets them.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks


:
: On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.
:

My favourite Windows.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks


"groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message
news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...
: We all know that vista sucks.
: You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
: Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
: I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
: But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
: professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
:
: Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I
won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file from
the hard drive.
I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the
"caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

But, of course, you can now buy hard drives that do this automatically,
without the need of the software to tell it to. These hard drives run their
own mini OS, turns out it's Linux!
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Steve Thackery wrote:

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really
> - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and
> giggling children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.
>
> Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>
> SteveT

Any one that claims that any software as complex as an OS "is working
perfectly," is just full of sh*t.

Nothing made by man is perfect.

So the question is, why are you lying?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit wrote:

>> You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.
>
>Perhaps. It's difficult to judge your motives given that you so far
>have not been able to argue any point without obfuscation and diversion.

Hadron's "motive" is to troll and to denigrate Linux.

--
"All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then
again, you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA
kind - the too many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you
get the idea." - NoStop
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:02:00 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>White Spirit wrote:
>> AqD wrote:
>>
>>> So what?
>>
>>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>>> counterparts.
>>
>> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
>> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.
>> Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running
>> Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux
>> in my experience.
>
>That may very well be true.
>
>There are those of us, however, who do not see life as a quest for
>pinball-score supremecy but rather endeavor to cure cancer, promote world
>peace, and make sure every woman who wants breast implants gets them.
>

Here here!!
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

you can do that with xp too

see here http://www.eboostr.com/

there is nothing that vista can do so well that xp cannot.. but there are
millions of reasons to avoid vista until windows7 is out


"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message
news:fto2et$15v$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message
> news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> : We all know that vista sucks.
> : You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
> : Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
> : I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
> : But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
> : professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
> :
> : Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.
>
> The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I
> won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file
> from
> the hard drive.
> I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the
> "caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).
>
> But, of course, you can now buy hard drives that do this automatically,
> without the need of the software to tell it to. These hard drives run
> their
> own mini OS, turns out it's Linux!
>
>
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Alias wrote:

> Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>>
>>
>> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean
>> really - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better
>> than the tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher
>> Price colour scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything,
>
>
> Yep, it ain't your computer anymore and that's why Microsoft removed the
> "my".

Idiot! It was removed by popular demand. But you can re-name it to
anything you want.
Oh, I forgot, you too broke to afford Vista so you don't really know do
you mr liar.
>
>> stupid fanfares and giggling children in the standard sound scheme,
>> and so on.
>>
>> Vista is XP for grown-ups.
>
>
> 97% of all businesses disagree with you.

Liar! Got any factual statistical evidence to backup that number?
Well...?
>
>> Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>>
>> SteveT
>
>
> Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it
> even reaches puberty.

Up your ass moron! You too stupid and too broke to afford Vista so
you're jealous and stuck using that POS toy os...LOL!
Frank
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

terren wrote:

>>97% of all businesses disagree with you.
>
>
> You nailed him ...

What with lies?
>
>
>>Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it even
>>reaches puberty.
>
>
> You nailed him again...

With mores lies?
Idiot!
Frank
>
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

> We all know that vista sucks.

You mean you all think you know.

> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have
used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
decent machine that dislike it.

> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It
treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising
Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been using
vista longer than you.
we are darn good at computers and vista experts.

that's why we say vista sucks..

the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.

that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the
knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something that
is crap like vista is


"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:18022psbs8eoa.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:
>
>> We all know that vista sucks.
>
> You mean you all think you know.
>
>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
>
> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or
> have
> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.
>
> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
> decent machine that dislike it.
>
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like
> "It
> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising
> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.
>
> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

terren, a real idiot wrote:

> funny.. I have more than 2000 themes for XP that use the built in themeing
> engine of XP, using the neowin theme uxtheme patch.

Wow! That's impressive...NOT!!!
>
> The themes make XP look like any OS you can imagine and its still fast.
> If you have bad taste you can even make it look like Vista.
> But of course then you will run in to all the bad problems vista has:
> Bad selection of colors, bad fonts, black taskbars etc.

You're one tasteless POS!
>
> But I guess that people like you are satisfied with ONE theme (and one
> classic theme) that vista provides, that is
> badly made, and hundreds of people have complained in this very newsgroup
> about various elements of the vista theme,
> for example the infamous "light blue selection color"

Are you really that stupid?
>
> XP is for professionals,

hehehe...you're no professional...you're an idiot!

vista is for kids that like seeing transparent crap
> (that can be done on XP with windblinds if you want to
> get dizzy seeing undreneath windows.. LOL)
>
> Vista is stupid? OH YES IT IS!
>
Well, capin' crunch...all you need is a box of Crayons...LOL!
Frank
 
Back
Top