Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Vista vs. Linux - Which is REALLY better?

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-19 2:48 ID:+QJbpQUL

I'm sick of this "just get more ram!" bullshit. My 286 did almost as much functionality-wise as my current multi-ghz machine. Yeah, really. Sure, there was no multi-tasking, but I did the mostly the same things as I do today.
Hello, fuckers, just because you can eat ram doesn't mean you should. It costs money and also reduces the number of programs you can run.
I can see it now: in another ten years programs will have minimum footprint of 1GB, but they'll just do more of the same.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:36

>>116

I've tryed out some Vista Distributions including Ubuntu, Mandriva and Fedora, but after all my opinion is that Vista is better.

If you don't know how it all works and didn't think trough about it, then don't even care about placing a statement about it.

>>115

Those things got added because of rules not made by Microsoft, if Linux violates rules, they'll change it too.

Okay, Linux got a 'free' sound format, what slows you down from using it on Windows?

And Activation... If you write a commercial Operating System, and it took you for example 4 years to do it, do you want to see it spread like a Torrent with a crack?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:42

>>120

Use Google, make yourself a notepad/vim with all the features Vista has more than XP... You'll be amazed.

One example:

Press Windows Key and
1. Type 'adobe', it will list all Adobe products you have.
2. Type 'live m' followed by enter, Windows Live Messenger will start! (Same for e-mails, favorites, history, indexed locations, ...)

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:42

>>121
I've tryed out some Vista Distributions including Ubuntu, Mandriva and Fedora, but after all my opinion is that Vista is better.
If you don't know how it all works and didn't think trough about it, then don't even care about placing a statement about it.
Take your own advice, dipshit.

Okay, Linux got a 'free' sound format, what slows you down from using it on Windows?
You can't opt out of Vista's DRM bullshit, so your argument falls flat.

And Activation... If you write a commercial Operating System, and it took you for example 4 years to do it, do you want to see it spread like a Torrent with a crack?
Broken business model is broken.
Even Apple knows better.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:45

Second example:

The whole aero thing, alt-tab, 3d desktop view, hover over your taskbar items, 3d wallpaper, ...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:47

>>122
I don't run XP. I'm comparing Vista to Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is winning for me by a long way, everything considered. There's also no DRM/activation bullshit to worry about (and pay for, which you're FORCED to do if you buy Windows)

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:48

>>123

Well, why would I need to take my own advice if I have experienced it? And yes, I know how stuff works.

DRM doesn't limit you to using Ogg files, does it? ;-)

Still, Activation has it's use. People just hate the latest one because they can't crack it that easily anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:48

>>124
Things that Compiz Fusion can do...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:51

>>126
"People just hate the latest one because they can't crack it that easily anymore."

No, I just hate the concept of it. As is with all DRM, you're a legitimate customer treated as a criminal.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:52

>>125

Everything considered? Letter by letter 'Everything'?

It's pretty logic you won't get Activation if Ubuntu is Free...

DRM is there with purpose, if your legal, you won't have troubles with it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 14:54

>>127

Compiz Fusion has way to much features, and besides that, it's written Third-Party.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 15:30

>>126
Wow, you're so ignorant you don't even know enough about Vista's DRM scheme or its activation niggerdom to correctly interpret the complaint.

I (>>123) told you to take your own advice because you clearly haven't ever tried running Linux. Nor, apparently, Vista itself.

GTFO.

>>130
The fact that it's written by a third party is completely meaningless in the context of open source software.
If you don't like its features, you can turn them off individually.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 17:23

>>129
Actually no. This is the whole point. The people who do thing ILLEGALLY have the DRM stripped. Legitimate customers have to put up with DRM restrictions and nagging.

GTFO.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-18 20:49

vista is shite

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-21 19:38

Vista is actually just Microsoft trolling us, in about a year they will release the real Vista and laugh at us for being dumb enough to think that the current vista was actually an OS and not the worlds biggest virus

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 2:13

>>134
Yeah. Too bad it will be a server operating system. Might as well use some flavor of Unix.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 5:50

>>114
All those programmers and yet your UI still blows.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 7:44

>>136
Every GUI sucks. Can't be helped.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 7:50

True, look at the latest GNOME, it's quite similar to vista, enormous bloatware

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 8:31

>>1-138
You guys are fucking retards

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 13:58

>>1-139
You guys are fucking retards

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-22 22:54

>>138
um, you can't compare Gnome to Vista. Gnome doesn't handle driver management, font rendering, or gfx accelerated window management.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 1:59

you guys are fuckin dicks man

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-26 21:11

you dicks are fuckin guys man

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-26 23:04

Try both! Install vista on one drive and linux on another.

about the ram thing. vista's requirements is 2 GB. you will have a musch faster system w/ linux with the ram u have now

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-27 8:25

>>141
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EVER SAY THAT SOMETHING IS AS BLOATED AS X UNLESS X IS THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-27 16:44

>>145
exactly

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-27 18:34

>>144

its actually 1 gb, and thats with aero.  2gb recommended

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 15:28

You can't run less programs on Vista than on XP, that's just bullshit.

That Vista preloads programs doesn't mean that it won't make place if memory is full...

Really, Vista is awesome.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 15:29

>>148
Lol.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 15:50

!%)

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 17:05

I have vista, I can't wait to go back to XP!!!

Name: Name: 2007-11-28 17:16

students@bmchs.com
students@bmchs.com

Email a whole school!!
Its a catholic school 2 ^_^

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 19:23

>>32

You insist they have a legit copy incase of jailtime?

IT'S NOT ON YOU IF THEY GO DOWN YOU PUSSY

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 20:35

linux bizath

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-28 21:27

Vista works fine for me as long as you have enough ram. i mean even one 1gb is fine. but when it is idling on my pc with no programs running, ram is being used at about 25 or 30%.
so i dont know why all you fucking idiots say VISTA sucks! GO CHOKE ON YOUR FUCKING COCK!

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-01 21:17

You need to spend a day running around the town in stealth mode killing people before you can really decide which OS is for you

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-03 12:53

>>155
"so i dont know why all you fucking idiots say VISTA sucks!"

Because it's made by an abusive monopolistic company who only cares about their revenue, and doesn't give a flying shit about the users?

Microsoft have already admitted that Vista is there to keep their revenue flowing, XP is more than good enough for the vast majority of people and it's even better with SP3. In any case, I'm now using Linux and haven't looked back, as it's developing faster than any Windows OS. Fuck Vista.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-03 17:25

Lamest excuse I've herd from a vista owner: Vista eat waste RAM, it uses RAM that would otherwise by unused and not utilized.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-03 18:28

It hardly "uses" ram, it just intelligently caches it.  Linux has been doing that for ages, Windows just finally caught up.  If a program needs ram, it takes ram that was previously allocated to the cache.  It hardly costs anything and causes your programs to load much more quickly.

In b4 >>159 YHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-03 23:09

In after
>>159
YHBT

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List