Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

ABM (Anything But Microsoft)

13»

Posts

  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    Given that XP offers greater stability and no performance hit, I think the real question is "why bother dual booting to Vista"

    I don't think there's a reason to, honestly.

    Reasons to use XP are old hardware support (a gig or less of RAM, single-cores, etc...), application compatibility, hardware compatibility, familiarity, the fact that DX10 doesn't offer anything now, and XP GPU drivers are mature.

    If you have old hardware, specialized app/hardware needs, or use your machine only for gaming, Vista doesn't offer much. If you use the OS for work (ie: multitasking with business apps, spreadsheets, PDFs, email, browsing) it may be useful in ways XP can't be.

    I wouldn't say stability is an issue either. Compatibility and useless "features" maybe. But not stability.

    snm_sig.jpg
  • SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    Given that XP offers greater stability and no performance hit, I think the real question is "why bother dual booting to Vista"

    Having done it, I ask this same question. It wasn't worth the trouble of getting it to work, and Vista was just plain disappointing. Can't see any reason to use it, now or in the future.

  • MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA
    I'd have installed it the day it came out if they included WinFS

    But no, they had to remove the only legitimate feature upgrade that made any sense.

  • ginguskahnginguskahn Registered User
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    ginguskahn360.png
  • syndalissyndalis Nature Boy WoooooooRegistered User regular
    I have a pretty solid feeling that by SP2 or so, people will be perfectly content with Vista, and will pooh pohh whatever the next OS on the horizon is.

    There are a great many important updates under the hood with Vista that we aren't seeing the benefit of... yet. Once they start doing flash cacheing on the motherboard, sideshow screens on portable devices, and hypervisor shit, alongside the obvious DX10 and othersuch stuff, folks will adapt to it.

    I primarially use Mac at home, so that isn't the reason I am supporting Vista here; I am just saying that there is a great deal more to it than people are giving it credit.

    meat.jpg
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Trillian, perhaps. I don't use the fancy-shmancy kid stuff, but it's pretty awesome and reliable.

    Syndalis, I agree. The OS wasn't up to expectations, but that's its major failing, not being "unstable, buggy, and bloated" like you hear on Mac ads and the dregs of tech forums.

    snm_sig.jpg
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! EarthRegistered User regular
    Morskittar wrote: »
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Trillian, perhaps. I don't use the fancy-shmancy kid stuff, but it's pretty awesome and reliable.

    Isn't Trillian for Windows? aMSN is pretty good and should already be in Synaptic. :)

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    Morskittar wrote: »
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    Given that XP offers greater stability and no performance hit, I think the real question is "why bother dual booting to Vista"

    I don't think there's a reason to, honestly.

    Reasons to use XP are old hardware support (a gig or less of RAM, single-cores, etc...), application compatibility, hardware compatibility, familiarity, the fact that DX10 doesn't offer anything now, and XP GPU drivers are mature.

    If you have old hardware, specialized app/hardware needs, or use your machine only for gaming, Vista doesn't offer much. If you use the OS for work (ie: multitasking with business apps, spreadsheets, PDFs, email, browsing) it may be useful in ways XP can't be.

    I wouldn't say stability is an issue either. Compatibility and useless "features" maybe. But not stability.
    Vista is perfectly fine on a new machine. Sure, if you upgrade some piece of shit Athlon with a two-year-old motherboard and only 1GB of ram, it will feel sluggish compared to XP. But on new hardware Vista actually runs faster than XP thanks to various under-the-hood improvements. Systems with older chipsets don't benefit from those improvements because they can't handle Vista's aggressive caching.

  • MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA
    Morskittar wrote: »
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Trillian, perhaps. I don't use the fancy-shmancy kid stuff, but it's pretty awesome and reliable.

    Syndalis, I agree. The OS wasn't up to expectations, but that's its major failing, not being "unstable, buggy, and bloated" like you hear on Mac ads and the dregs of tech forums.

    Unless you actually, you know, work with repairing problems on Vista every day. Then you start to see a lot more of the issues that it causes. I wouldn't call it unstable or bloated, but it's got a lot of bugs to work out. Some applications still don't play nice with UAC, SuperFetch has some issues with running useful programs at bad times and actually slowing performance, and the .MSU/wsua.exe standalone update system is a clusterfuck.

    Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good improvements. Instant Search and Fast Sleep/Resume are awesome and needed features, ReadyBoost is kind of neat in theory, and the new diagnostic tools are a step in the right direction. It just needs some work.

    And Microsoft really needs to stop changing it's tools around for end users while making them more difficult for power users and technicians. This shit with MSU's not running in safe mode is incredibly annoying when trying to repair a system, and the tools they've updated (like Disk Defragmenter, which still sucks compared to the Microsoft-owned SysInternals version) actually removed some functionality.

  • RonenRonen Registered User
    Monoxide wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Trillian, perhaps. I don't use the fancy-shmancy kid stuff, but it's pretty awesome and reliable.

    Syndalis, I agree. The OS wasn't up to expectations, but that's its major failing, not being "unstable, buggy, and bloated" like you hear on Mac ads and the dregs of tech forums.

    Unless you actually, you know, work with repairing problems on Vista every day. Then you start to see a lot more of the issues that it causes. I wouldn't call it unstable or bloated, but it's got a lot of bugs to work out. Some applications still don't play nice with UAC, SuperFetch has some issues with running useful programs at bad times and actually slowing performance, and the .MSU/wsua.exe standalone update system is a clusterfuck.

    Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good improvements. Instant Search and Fast Sleep/Resume are awesome and needed features, ReadyBoost is kind of neat in theory, and the new diagnostic tools are a step in the right direction. It just needs some work.

    And Microsoft really needs to stop changing it's tools around for end users while making them more difficult for power users and technicians. This shit with MSU's not running in safe mode is incredibly annoying when trying to repair a system, and the tools they've updated (like Disk Defragmenter, which still sucks compared to the Microsoft-owned SysInternals version) actually removed some functionality.

    These are my two biggest gripes with Vista. The first being that while the names and locations of commons stuff (like say, how to change your display settings is now under Personalize), it's not any better. It's just different. It's like they changed it for the sake of changing it.

    The second is that Vista is completely useless to Administrators because Microsoft doesn't have an adminpak or Exchange tools available for it, and the old versions aren't supported in Vista. Sure, you can install adminpak in Vista, but it's really buggy and the Exchange tools won't install at all.

    I have my work laptop dual booted because I wanted to give Vista a fair shot, and admittedly, it's ok for every day use. Not fantastic, but in truth I could upgrade my entire company and nobody would notice the difference (aside from the new log on screen, probably). However, all those AD and Exchange scripts I wrote to streamline the repetitive tasks that I do hundreds of times a week? They don't even run in Vista because I can't install the administrative packages. In Vista I'm back to RDCing into the server every time I want to do something, and then I have to do it by hand.

    Come on Microsoft. If you want to convince IT people that they should make a case to their company to upgrade, maybe you shouldn't gimp the way they're used to working. We have no plans to upgrade in 2008... we'll see what 2009 brings. Personally, (not that I have any Windows machines at home, but) I'm waiting for Windows 7.

    Go play MOTHER3

    or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
  • SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Kopete.

  • ginguskahnginguskahn Registered User
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    So what's the best chat client if you just want MSN and want display pictures and all the stupid stuff kids these days like in there chat programs? It's for my sister, she's using a laptop with Ubuntu on it.

    Kopete.

    Ill give that a go thanks :)

    Trillian apparently doesn't have all the crazy stuff (according to my sis) but I believe it is Linux (deffo windows and mac).

    Amsn I use on my Mac ... I have always used it since 1st getting a mac and hating the official msn client, it's kinda stuck with me, but she doesn't like it.

    ginguskahn360.png
  • MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA
    The Trillian client for OS X is currently in Alpha testing and isn't coming to Linux.

    You're best just using Kopete, or Pidgin if she wants to use multiple protocols.

  • SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User
    Kopete supports multiple protocols as well, along with webcams and all that other fancy stuff. Plus, it's customizable. Pidgin is pretty bare-bones.

  • ginguskahnginguskahn Registered User
    Monoxide wrote: »
    The Trillian client for OS X is currently in Alpha testing and isn't coming to Linux.

    You're best just using Kopete, or Pidgin if she wants to use multiple protocols.

    Really? I must have been thinking of another client... I will have to give Trillian a run on my Mac then.

    She has Pidgin at the 'mo, so I will give Kopete a go tomorrow and see what the verdict is, damn kids and there pictures and screen names longer than most peoples blogs.

    ginguskahn360.png
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    I don't believe Kopete supports all of the MSN sound stuff though. aMSN does, although it's slightly buggy. Really for me, I've found the best option is to use aMSN for webcams and Skype for audio.

    Everything else in aMSN seems to work though, mostly. Although it has a slightly clunky interface because of the way the menus work. Whoever programmed those up should be shot.

  • ginguskahnginguskahn Registered User
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    I don't believe Kopete supports all of the MSN sound stuff though. aMSN does, although it's slightly buggy. Really for me, I've found the best option is to use aMSN for webcams and Skype for audio.

    Everything else in aMSN seems to work though, mostly. Although it has a slightly clunky interface because of the way the menus work. Whoever programmed those up should be shot.


    I will be installing kopete for her to try later, I'll let you know what she thinks.

    I've heard there is a new aMSN on route, and you can try it now if you are willing to compile it and all that stuff... I'll wait, I quite like aMSN, but yeah, it could definatly do with being a bit smoother :P

    ginguskahn360.png
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Because Vista does have a better security model, a more intelligent file layout, and is gonna be the defacto OS for the next 4-5 years at least?

    I wouldn't make a new machine with XP anymore. No way no how.

    I wouldn't shell out the money to put Vista on my new machine when I've got a valid license for an OS that does exactly what I want and need it to. No way no how.

    Why is this even being debated?

    Vista is going to work for a group of people and hardware combinations, and it's not for another group.

    Vista has run flawlessly on my machines, and I'm happy with it. It's not OSX in features, but that's always been the case with Windows. (Not saying you implied that, it's just that a lot of the arguments out there against Vista are comparisons to OSX and to a lesser degree, Linux Distros). If it didn't work great for you, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to not use Vista, at least right now.

    Use what works for you, hasn't that always been the rule of thumb?

    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    I don't believe Kopete supports all of the MSN sound stuff though. aMSN does, although it's slightly buggy. Really for me, I've found the best option is to use aMSN for webcams and Skype for audio.

    Everything else in aMSN seems to work though, mostly. Although it has a slightly clunky interface because of the way the menus work. Whoever programmed those up should be shot.


    I will be installing kopete for her to try later, I'll let you know what she thinks.

    I've heard there is a new aMSN on route, and you can try it now if you are willing to compile it and all that stuff... I'll wait, I quite like aMSN, but yeah, it could definatly do with being a bit smoother :P

    I just really wish Pidgin would buckle down and support these things. I really hate having more than one chat program open at a time (and don't usually). And I like to stick to pidgin because then I have all of the proper chat logs.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ginguskahn wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    I don't believe Kopete supports all of the MSN sound stuff though. aMSN does, although it's slightly buggy. Really for me, I've found the best option is to use aMSN for webcams and Skype for audio.

    Everything else in aMSN seems to work though, mostly. Although it has a slightly clunky interface because of the way the menus work. Whoever programmed those up should be shot.


    I will be installing kopete for her to try later, I'll let you know what she thinks.

    I've heard there is a new aMSN on route, and you can try it now if you are willing to compile it and all that stuff... I'll wait, I quite like aMSN, but yeah, it could definatly do with being a bit smoother :P

    I just really wish Pidgin would buckle down and support these things. I really hate having more than one chat program open at a time (and don't usually). And I like to stick to pidgin because then I have all of the proper chat logs.

    I just go with Pidgin since I barely use any of the other functions in MSN as it is.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • ginguskahnginguskahn Registered User
    Kopete seems to be doing the job for my sis at the mo. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Pidgin definitely has its place if u don't need all the BS that MSN can do these days.

    ginguskahn360.png
Sign In or Register to comment.