Renzatic on 27/6/2015 at 02:07
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Anyway Win 10 is supposed to be the "last Windows ever". They might be switching to an annual major service update model like MacOS?
That's exactly what they're doing. Instead of getting huge, sweeping new versions once every 3-4 years that take a bit of planning to install, you get one bigger update every year that's mostly tweaks and polish.
The end result will probably be about the same, with Windows 10 looking quite a bit different in 2020 than it does now. But we'll see these changes as a series of small, iterative changes instead of one big package of entirely new things that's pushed out all at once.
Nedan on 27/6/2015 at 03:25
When I first upgraded my system from Windows 98SE (and it took me a while to break away from it), I tried Windows ME first. It ran sooooooo badly to the point that it was unbearable. I was about to format the entire drive & reinstall Windows 98SE again when a friend just gave me Windows XP Professional. He convinced me to try it out so I did. It ran so beautifully that I didn't really look back to 98SE. I don't know what that says about ME versus XP but it was all the same hardware. And at the time, for 98SE... it was very high-end. But for ME or XP, it was mid-to-low range I guess (going by memory as I don't remember the specs exactly).
My problem with Vista is that I actually sat & waited on it. Waited for the service packs & reviews to clear up whether it was stable enough to fully upgrade. By the time it was at a point where it was good... Windows 7 was already being mentioned on the horizon. So I saw no real point to buying Vista just like now with 8. If I'm at the end of the life cycle when an O/S becomes good... what's the point? Windows 7 was stable enough for me on release. It needed patches & more stability, but the O/S was tolerable on release unlike ME/Vista/8.
I'm sure at this point in time, Windows ME/Vista/8 are all good O/S's with enough patching &/or tweaking (in Vista's case... it mostly needed some minor tweaking & the industry to catch up). Its just that they took too damn long for my tastes to reach that point.
Jason Moyer on 27/6/2015 at 05:18
DOS 6.22-->Win 95-->Win 98SE-->Win XP-->Win 7 and nothing else has been worth bothering with unless you're some toolbag trying to gain early adopter cred with something no one would actually be impressed by. I'm guessing Win 10 will be next in line if/when some DX12 benefits become apparent.
Pyrian on 27/6/2015 at 05:40
I liked Windows 2000. Unlike XP, a simple infinite loop didn't freeze the OS on a single processor. :p
Al_B on 27/6/2015 at 08:07
NT4 was also perfectly respectable at the time. Not great for games (although I think it ended up with DirectX 4?) but it was far more robust than the alternatives when it was released.
Jason Moyer on 27/6/2015 at 09:13
NT4 and 2000 were fine as workstation platforms, if you were in a situation where you couldn't run freeBSD or SuSE or something. I can't say I ever had much success gaming on them, though.
faetal on 27/6/2015 at 10:30
Quote Posted by Nedan
So I'm not wrong in my assessment of microsoft. Who knows, maybe they are doing it on purpose.
It's food for thought, certainly.
Tony_Tarantula on 29/6/2015 at 02:17
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
1. We're talking situations particular to home users and PC gamers. Enterprise situations are entirely irrelevant.
2. Nobody cares about your Pornhub viewing habits or your newest post in your regular MRA sub-reddit where you accused Jonathan McIntosh of being a blue pill-swallowing beta who is whiteknighting in his quest for liberal arts pussy.
1: No, they're not. Ever heard of something called "work from home" ? Since a lot of TTLG people are coders by profession these security concerns SHOULD concern them. Leaks of a project they're working on can have serious career and business ramifications.
2: Really? Your so addicted to sucking Bill Gate's dick that you're going to start incoherently ranting about how I'm a shitlord because I shared some factual information that makes you feel uncomfortable jacking off to Microsoft?
Tony_Tarantula on 29/6/2015 at 02:20
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Reread your article. It mentions nothing about "vague security issues". NASA dumped XP for their own Linux spin because they wanted an entirely inhouse solution. One they had complete control over, and could patch, update, and fix without having to wait on MS.
I've heard all about those MS is spying on you for the NSA rumors. Shame no one can offer up any concrete, indisputable proof. Only "...the public doesn't know about it, man. You gotta be in the
scene to know the truth".
Again, it's readily available IF you know where to look.
It's also bullshit to say that the Microsoft isn't helping the NSA. There is a bevy of publicly leaked information which documents numerous ways in which they have both actively and passively assisted NSA data collection efforts. The proof has given and you either chose not to accept it or you were too lazy to do your own research. The ways they've helped the NSA are numerous to include direct partnerships to allowing the NSA backdoor access to their servers (PRISM).
Here's only one example: (
http://rt.com/usa/microsoft-nsa-snowden-leak-971/)
Quote:
Among the discoveries made by the latest Snowden leaks, Guardian journalists say that
Microsoft specifically aided the NSA in circumventing encrypted chat messages sent over the Outlook.com portal before the product was even launched to the public. Quote:
The Guardian revealed that
Microsoft worked with intelligence agencies in order to let administrators of the PRISM data collection program easily access user intelligence submitted through its cloud storage service SkyDrive, as well as Skype. Not that you're ever going to admit you're wrong but it's patently obvious. Hell, get on Wikileaks or the Guardian and look the damn slides up yourself.
You can thank Bush and Cheney for all this. Not that I blame Microsoft for cooperating though:
Quote:
If you look at what happened when Bush, Cheney and General Hayden - who was head of the NSA at the time - deliberately violated the law to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant, did the telecommunications companies cooperate? Verizon, AT&T...All the giants did...the one that didn't was Quest. And what happened to Quest? Well, the CEO ended up in jail”
Inline Image:
http://www.photoshoppix.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10008/bill_gates.jpgRenzatic on 29/6/2015 at 03:02
That's a Photoshop.
You know how I know? Well, first off, it all but says so on the bottom right. Secondly, Bill Gates wasn't CEO of Microsoft in 2006. It would've been Ballmer at the podium.
