An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
You have some good points in there, but does Microsoft actually care for it's users? No, they dont. They create all these nw software that people dont even need. And how long have they been trying to perfect Windows? First there was 1, than 2, than 3, than 95, than 98, than ME (which was a total piece of crap), than 2000, than XP, than Longhorn (which they developed for 2 years but than just dropped the whole project) and now Vista in development. Dont you think if Microsoft actually listened to all the reviews they get they would actually make a good Windows by now?
Every time a new version of Windows is about to come out, Microsoft always says that it will be virus free, impossible to hack, etc. But when it comes out, there are already more than 1000 viruses in just 24 hours. So when you think about it, what is better? And now with Vista, they made it a public beta, meaning that by the time it will be released, just when you will install it in your computer, millions of viruses will exist and be on the way to your computer.
For Linux, virus and the fear or being cracked isnt such a big issue, because not many people use, or even know how to use a Linux. 99.9% of all viruses that are created for computers are made for the operating system series...yes thats right, WINDOWS.
Longhorn is Vista. Longhorn was the code name and Vista is the name.
Free is excellent.
Dude I know, but since they first called it \"Longhorn\" they basicly threw everything out and announced that it will be Vista.
It's all very well Linux not getting all these virii, but it won't stay that way if virus creators see a benefit of creating virii for linux.. which would happen if much more people used it..
It's all very well Linux not getting all these virii, but it won't stay that way if virus creators see a benefit of creating virii for linux.. which would happen if much more people used it..
Which is exactly my point. Choose but choose carefully.
Mainly, I don't think widespread use of open source software is a good thing. Freeware is always nice, but I'm more than willing to chip in my fair amount of green for software.
Proprietary software is more user friendly, and is backed by one management from whom you can acquire updates and product support from. When you pay \"x\" amount of dollars to a company, they're obligated to support their product, otherwise their incompetence leads to their eventual downfall. Corporations have, from their income, the resources with which to give their users easy-to-get support.
Corporations have the resources to go and revise their code, make it more efficient and far more powerful than the open source equivalents. User feedback results in new features in the next version of the program. People pay for the next version, and the cycle repeats itself.
It's funny how pro open source people will affrontedly admit how, \"by providing end user programmers with the source code, they will be capable of amending application errors in the code.\" Of course, never will they admit the very clear tails side of that coin - if you provide the effing source code to everyone (freely, mind you), you also provide hackers with that source code. Hackers will not edit bugs, rather they will seek vulnerabilities, and, once found, will maintain their secrecy and utilize these exploits.
Quote:
Dont you think if Microsoft actually listened to all the reviews they get they would actually make a good Windows by now?
I've heard this so many times I'm sick of it. Pray tell, what reviews do they get? The \"reviews\" that I'm exposed to are generally steaming piles of barely legible cowdung coming from the (ironically) Windows-driven keyboard of someone who would take a bullet from Linus Torvalds without a second thought. These \"reviews\" are generally single \"sentences\" along the lines of:
\"lol micro$ux coudn't make agood oprating sytem if they wnated ot lmao\"
If perhaps these \"reviews\" were composed by someone who was using more than half a brain cell while typing them, perhaps Microsoft would be compelled to listen to the majority of it's users. Then there's the anti-Microsoft baloney hurled up by companies like Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems and Mozilla. With all of that down-and-out baloney going around, people literally come to the \"acceptance\" that, \"Windows sucks, but it's the only thing out there.\"
Most people, many self-appointed geeks included, truly believe that Windows sucks. Most, if not all but the \"I hate Gates\" IT pros out there will admit -- the majority of Windows probles out there isn't the Windows code, it's the retarded people using it. My computer runs just fine, it does everything I want it to do; gaming, 3D animation, video editing, multimedia and image editing, just fine. If my computer does it, so can every other x86-run machine with properly operating hardware.
I liked '98, ME was okay and XP runs nothing short of perfectly. Define a \"good\" operating system, 'cause I think well over 50% of the Windows flavors run pretty dang well. -Pikl
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
