Am I the only one that actually *LIKES* Vista?
-
Yeah, there are some things that take a bit of getting use to, but for my I was sold on it at Beta 2. There are just too many things I like about Vista to ever think of developing on any old junk like XP or running Windows 2003 again (of course I have not tried Windows 2008 yet;) ). It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003. I really do not understand a lot of developers I see post about Vista on CP. But maybe, I have been lucky and my old and new hardware I have used Vista seems to work without major issues. Even most of the software I use works on Vista as good or better than XP or 2003. Shoot, even my old Photoshop 7 works on Vista better than it did on 2003, which had it crashing often to the loss of work. To me though, it really does not matter, as long as Microsoft posts record profits and keeps raising the bar (even if others do not want to admit it), it all works out in the end. I browsed over an article link today mentioning that Windows is grabbing more market share from the Linux crowd.. Guess free is not always that great.. So, I am a Vista 64 lover until the next version comes out :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003.
Interesting... what's your reasoning there? I've gone back and forth between XP and 2k3 (currently using both on separate machines) - 2k3 is nice for web dev 'cause you get IIS6, but not so great when it comes to some hardware (the first time i dropped it, it was due to lack of support in Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers, though i think that's now been fixed). Of course, YMMV in that area, but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
Hey! Are you being sarcastic? I know you're serious there. :laugh:
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->ßRÅhmmÃ<-·´¯`·.
I didn't actually intend to be sarcastic, but it looks like a bit snuck in while i was busy typing... :suss:
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
That's the media pipeline, and it's used for any media. It happens to also support DRM (that's why it has 'protected' in the name), but that doesn't mean that DRM is the problem. It might be a driver issue.
Precisely my point. While I don't like DRM as much as the next guy (ok, there are some people that REALLY hate it, i'm merely at the "dislike" stage), the subsystem does a whole lot more and any one of those things could have been the issue.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Sorry, don't buy it. Why?
Did you miss the whole "music playback causes high cpu load" fiasco about 2 months ago? I'd go searching for it to give you a link, but seriously it'll take you 2 seconds. And yes, it's a direct result of the so-called protected-media pipeline.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." - Frank Herbert
As someone else said, yes, the media pipeline supports DRM, but just because the pipeline was malfunctioning doesn't mean DRM was the problem. The media pipeline loads in codecs, for instance, and that's where all the decoding happens. A problem with a codec could cause the pipeline to do all kinds of strange things, having NOTHING to do with DRM.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
I just got done reading a thread for a while back about Vista... and well, i just don't get it. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are definitely annoyances, but I find it VERY difficult to go back to XP after using Vista for the last year. It's little things, like the snipping tool, Sync center, Desktop search (and No, WDS on XP isn't the same thing... not by a large shot). I like the sidebar. I like Bitlocker. I like Aero (though i could easily do without it). I like being able to type "Users" instead of "Documents and Settings". I think most people are just stuck in their ways. And that's a big reason why they don't like Macs or Linux either (not the only reason, of course). I try to give things a decent chance before I dismiss them, but I know people that the first thing they did when they got Vista was revert the UI back to XP without even trying it. They reverted the menu back to the old menu (and frankly, I think the new menu in XP and Vista are amazing). Yes, there's some stuff I dislike, even after using it for a year. A lot of people hate UAC, but after the first month you almost never see it. The first month you're always messing with settings, and you haven't learned how to use your home folder instead of creating folders all over the hard disk. About the only thing I dislike is that they added more layers to the UI, requiring more steps to do common stuff. I understand what they were trying to do, but I think it just didn't get the kind of review it should have. So what do you think? Are there any other vista lovers out there? Show yourselves.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I like Vista, going back to XP on one of our test systems seems clunky and weird. I switched to Vista for my main development pc 9 months ago and it's been fine. Most people that hate vista do so for one of two reasons: they try to use old hardware (or are sold old hardware by disreputable computer shops for Vista) which is problematic driver wise or they don't take the time to learn how it's different and get frustrated. A new PC with all certified for Vista parts from a reputable shop that has confirmed it all works is a breeze to work with.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
-
actually if you have tried one of the most recent distros (like ubuntu) you would see that in some ways it has surpassed vista
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
While I agree that Compiz/Beryl is really really cool, and does a lot more than out-of-the-box Vista, Vista can do all those things as well. Microsoft just chose not to provide all that glitz in the default window manager. For example, check out this video from 2003 that shows wobbly windows in Windows Desktop Manager (that thing that gives all the aero effects) Early Longhorn Video[^] Also, check out the "expose" like window switchers people have come up with. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/mac-osx-expose-clone-for-windows-vista/[^] Then there's the 3d spinning cube virtual desktops like Yodm http://www.tweakvista.com/Article39150.aspx[^] Microsoft tends to provide the tools for 3rd parties to add all the cool stuff, rather than doing it themselves. The reason is that most corporations really don't want all that stuff on their desktops, and they improve the third party market. The usual argument is that Linux distro's provide everything out of the box. I really don't care if it's out of the box or not, so long as it's easy to add.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Eric, CD burning functionality has been screwed up you just didn't notice it get patched up on my x64 ;P Nothing to do with burners but with the OS software. You change the software to a 3rd party one that runs on WoW, and it works! You can explain the burning process all you want when that revelation occurs. As for booting, I haven't seen that many reboots and that dreadful booting time on dual Quad Core with 16GB of RAM since 3.1 on 386 33Mhz. Nothing to do with not having or having more RAM. Yep, the Shell view is totally useless, and btw the shell is far, far slower than any previous one. I guess you need to hear a few words on state of source code of the explorer and how easy it is for it to lock up and hang (do your own research, it takes 5 lines of code and btw, you should have felt it if you work with it for any reasonable amount of time). Sure it is an issue with XP too, but as someone already posted here, it is really getting worse with every version since Windows 95. The rambling about Windows 7 is that it is missing the point on a 'smart plan' NOT to productise it. That's their choice and great news for Linux users. Great maths btw, yes it takes 3 years to provide a stripped down OS (in case of Windows 2008, it takes 6, wtf), something Windows Core (one without Shell) is meant to poorly provide while *nix variants have been doing just that for over 30 years. The problems on x64 are all over the place with drivers, with SAS drives, with text mode, you know boot drivers, and much more, but that is the case with 2003/XP too .. something you have to see for yourself when you get into packaging your own Windows OS distros, give it a go and see how it compares to some new Linux style of updating. But I repeat here, just the fact that the update process on Vista cannot figure the order the patches should be applied to 'SUCCEED' even on 32-bit speaks volumes. Forget your home machine and single PC at work, try working with a few dozen or hundred of them of all kinds. It is irrelevant how long it takes to create an OS that kills more of your everyday *use*, productivity and lean app segment with its quirks than many current alternatives offer 3 or 30 years earlier. Hope that was coherent for you enough. (The only, real metric you should look at is people that tear apart PCs (many big names on blogs out there), the non-PC crowd and others simply revert back or insist on XP. Doesn't that say something about trying to satisfy everyone? Of course it is futile, of course it will be sorted o
Well, you didn't mention x64. Yes, x64 has, and probably will continue to have many problems, largely driver related but also some WoW issues. I've never seen Vista boot slowly on any computer with at least 1GB of RAM. Sure, it's slower than XP, but XP was optimized for fast boot. Vista wasn't (unfortunately). I've seen Vista boot on many computers, so this isn't an isolated incident. I'm not sure how you can measure how slow the shell is. What are you referring to exactly? File copying speed? That's a known issue and will be fixed in SP1. Opening speed? Explorer seems to open just as fast as it did on XP for me. Searching? Vista is vastly superior to XP there, even on non-indexed files. I have *NEVER* had the shell lock up or hang. Well, i did in the betas, but not since RTM. Maybe you're using some shell extensions that aren't compatible? What do you mean by "state of source code of the explorer"? That doesn't make any sense. I still don't understand what you mean about Windows 7. I think you are misinterpreting some early comments about it. It's certainly being "productized" or whatever you're referring to. No, it does not take 3 years to provide a stripped own OS. That's just *ONE* of the things 2008 does. Such arguments always conveniently forget about everything else that's new. And, for your information, you've been able to strip down the OS for years, since XP came out with the Embedded kit. Unix variants "have been doing that" for 30 years because they were piecemeal chopshops with bolted on pieces that barely worked together. By the way, your articles really don't say what you think they do. The first is an article about someone that completely misunderstands what UDF is and mistakenly believes that Vista provides an incompatible version of it, when in reality it was Linux that was incompatible, which if you read to the end you find out he finally got to work with lots of kernel patching. The second one doesn't involve burning a coaster, as you originally claimed. Yes, there are lots of driver issues, particularly with SATA CD-Roms, but those prevent you from burning anything, not burning a bad one. The third one could be anything, even bad cables or a bad drive. Nothing indicates it's a vista problem. The fourth one is interesting, since XP also has troubles. It sounds like there's a problem with the firmware on those drives. The Fifth is, again x64. I don't use x64, and I don't recommend it to anyone because of the driver and compatibility issu
-
While I agree that Compiz/Beryl is really really cool, and does a lot more than out-of-the-box Vista, Vista can do all those things as well. Microsoft just chose not to provide all that glitz in the default window manager. For example, check out this video from 2003 that shows wobbly windows in Windows Desktop Manager (that thing that gives all the aero effects) Early Longhorn Video[^] Also, check out the "expose" like window switchers people have come up with. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/mac-osx-expose-clone-for-windows-vista/[^] Then there's the 3d spinning cube virtual desktops like Yodm http://www.tweakvista.com/Article39150.aspx[^] Microsoft tends to provide the tools for 3rd parties to add all the cool stuff, rather than doing it themselves. The reason is that most corporations really don't want all that stuff on their desktops, and they improve the third party market. The usual argument is that Linux distro's provide everything out of the box. I really don't care if it's out of the box or not, so long as it's easy to add.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
I really don't care if it's out of the box or not, so long as it's easy to add.
True. What I'd like is simply a DIY OS. Buy a CD/DVD, say CD. On this is a kernel, some core programs and a default shell. Then, I go to third parties and get other CDs with *only the drivers I need* and not every driver that might ever have existed like Vista seemed to have (15GB of what else?). Then I install a network driver, go online using a browser of my own choosing (not that I'd use FF) and download 3rd party programs and new shells and the like. I suppose I do that anyway, just with the clutter. I disabled a few services on this box to speed it up a bit at times, and I've put in the uxtheme patch to use another theme, but I still think OSes should be installable from a flash drive (with some generic drivers and then some assorted ZIP files I put on myself). But, this is a corporate world about domination, which is full of halfwits that can't even insert a flash drive right way up never mind build an OS from some DLLs.
Ninja (the Nerd)
Confused? You will be... -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I absolutely HATE the new Windows Explorer.
The Windows shell is getting worse with every new release since Windows 95 :( Yes, there are some real improvements, but the annoyances outweigh them by far. I copied the explorer.exe from an XP installation to Vista, but it won't run :sigh:
Andre Buenger wrote:
I copied the explorer.exe from an XP installation to Vista
Not that you said you had this problem, but if anyone ever wonders why their copy of Vista goes AWOL, direct them to that quote. People who randomly change system files generally end up FUBAR.
Ninja (the Nerd)
Confused? You will be... -
Andre Buenger wrote:
I copied the explorer.exe from an XP installation to Vista
Not that you said you had this problem, but if anyone ever wonders why their copy of Vista goes AWOL, direct them to that quote. People who randomly change system files generally end up FUBAR.
Ninja (the Nerd)
Confused? You will be...I haven't replaced the explorer.exe in the system folder, I copied it to a different location and tried to run it. IMO there is no reason why the XP Explorer should not run on Vista. They just need to decouple the desktop, taksbar, file manager, auto start, extensions, etc. from this BLOB called the shell.
-
I just got done reading a thread for a while back about Vista... and well, i just don't get it. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are definitely annoyances, but I find it VERY difficult to go back to XP after using Vista for the last year. It's little things, like the snipping tool, Sync center, Desktop search (and No, WDS on XP isn't the same thing... not by a large shot). I like the sidebar. I like Bitlocker. I like Aero (though i could easily do without it). I like being able to type "Users" instead of "Documents and Settings". I think most people are just stuck in their ways. And that's a big reason why they don't like Macs or Linux either (not the only reason, of course). I try to give things a decent chance before I dismiss them, but I know people that the first thing they did when they got Vista was revert the UI back to XP without even trying it. They reverted the menu back to the old menu (and frankly, I think the new menu in XP and Vista are amazing). Yes, there's some stuff I dislike, even after using it for a year. A lot of people hate UAC, but after the first month you almost never see it. The first month you're always messing with settings, and you haven't learned how to use your home folder instead of creating folders all over the hard disk. About the only thing I dislike is that they added more layers to the UI, requiring more steps to do common stuff. I understand what they were trying to do, but I think it just didn't get the kind of review it should have. So what do you think? Are there any other vista lovers out there? Show yourselves.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
No, I like it too, on the whole. Explorer bites now but that isn't enough to spoil the whole OS for me.
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ I work for Keyser Söze
-
I just got done reading a thread for a while back about Vista... and well, i just don't get it. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are definitely annoyances, but I find it VERY difficult to go back to XP after using Vista for the last year. It's little things, like the snipping tool, Sync center, Desktop search (and No, WDS on XP isn't the same thing... not by a large shot). I like the sidebar. I like Bitlocker. I like Aero (though i could easily do without it). I like being able to type "Users" instead of "Documents and Settings". I think most people are just stuck in their ways. And that's a big reason why they don't like Macs or Linux either (not the only reason, of course). I try to give things a decent chance before I dismiss them, but I know people that the first thing they did when they got Vista was revert the UI back to XP without even trying it. They reverted the menu back to the old menu (and frankly, I think the new menu in XP and Vista are amazing). Yes, there's some stuff I dislike, even after using it for a year. A lot of people hate UAC, but after the first month you almost never see it. The first month you're always messing with settings, and you haven't learned how to use your home folder instead of creating folders all over the hard disk. About the only thing I dislike is that they added more layers to the UI, requiring more steps to do common stuff. I understand what they were trying to do, but I think it just didn't get the kind of review it should have. So what do you think? Are there any other vista lovers out there? Show yourselves.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I like it as well ... the more I play wit it the more cool stuff I find laying around. It's definatly more stable *for me* than XP was when it came out, XP used to blue screen all the time, but maybe thats because with Vista I waited 6 months after it was released and bought a new PC. I noticed alot of people hated the Office 2007 ribbon too, it seemed to be all the people who had used Office alot and had memorized where everything was. For me, I found it much easier to find stuff and navigate around the multitude of options. The only time the UAC annoys me is on operations where it should only happen once, but you end up with 3 or 4 dialogs i.e. moving an exe in Program Files and stuff. Thankfully I think those situations are on the bug fix list for SP1. I still find it very easy to use XP, I use it at work so I guess that helps, but if I had to choose between the 2 on my personal PC (well I already have) it'd be Vista.
-
Yeah, there are some things that take a bit of getting use to, but for my I was sold on it at Beta 2. There are just too many things I like about Vista to ever think of developing on any old junk like XP or running Windows 2003 again (of course I have not tried Windows 2008 yet;) ). It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003. I really do not understand a lot of developers I see post about Vista on CP. But maybe, I have been lucky and my old and new hardware I have used Vista seems to work without major issues. Even most of the software I use works on Vista as good or better than XP or 2003. Shoot, even my old Photoshop 7 works on Vista better than it did on 2003, which had it crashing often to the loss of work. To me though, it really does not matter, as long as Microsoft posts record profits and keeps raising the bar (even if others do not want to admit it), it all works out in the end. I browsed over an article link today mentioning that Windows is grabbing more market share from the Linux crowd.. Guess free is not always that great.. So, I am a Vista 64 lover until the next version comes out :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003.
First, developing on Win2K and XP are viable because the dev tools still work on those versions of Windows. A properly secured network along with exercising some common-freakin-sense where internet use is concerned completely eliminates the need for the OS to take care of that crap, thereby leaving more resources available for real work. Second, the Vista eye-candy is pointless and absurd, especially for developers. It doesn't do anything but chew up resources and make things take longer to do as a direct result.
Rocky Moore wrote:
I browsed over an article link today mentioning that Windows is grabbing more market share from the Linux crowd.. Guess free is not always that great..
As long as the majority of system builders are putting it on their new machines, this will always be the case. I wonder just how strong sales are where buying a copy of Vista is concerned as opposed to including all the new systems being sold. This also brings up another absurdity. Last week, I saw a bunch of news reports on the newest version of OS/X (Leopard?), where Apple claims that OS/X is easier to use than Vista. I recognize that they're trying to get people to buy their hardware, but this statement is completely absurd for people who already own PC system that can't run the OS. Lastly, "free" is ALWAYS that great, but Linux is still to hard to maneuver for Joe Six-pack. Its getting better, but it's still too hard to install (but it's getting better) and get it to the same point of usability as Vista. Beyond that, developers that want to do .Net work still can't with native Linux tools because mono is (and always will be) a step and a half behind MS. As an example, here we are a year after .Net 2.0 was released, and mono STILL doesn't completely support it. So much for Microsoft's promise of cross-platform support.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003.
Interesting... what's your reasoning there? I've gone back and forth between XP and 2k3 (currently using both on separate machines) - 2k3 is nice for web dev 'cause you get IIS6, but not so great when it comes to some hardware (the first time i dropped it, it was due to lack of support in Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers, though i think that's now been fixed). Of course, YMMV in that area, but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
Shog9 wrote:
but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
There is no draw, and that's why MS is trying to kill off native code development. Win2k3 is a server OS and therefore required utilities cost more for it (look at the cost of backup software for servers, and you'll see what I mean). I consider it to be a bad move to develop on Windows server OS's. BTW, you can install IIS6 on Win2k and XP.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Well, you didn't mention x64. Yes, x64 has, and probably will continue to have many problems, largely driver related but also some WoW issues. I've never seen Vista boot slowly on any computer with at least 1GB of RAM. Sure, it's slower than XP, but XP was optimized for fast boot. Vista wasn't (unfortunately). I've seen Vista boot on many computers, so this isn't an isolated incident. I'm not sure how you can measure how slow the shell is. What are you referring to exactly? File copying speed? That's a known issue and will be fixed in SP1. Opening speed? Explorer seems to open just as fast as it did on XP for me. Searching? Vista is vastly superior to XP there, even on non-indexed files. I have *NEVER* had the shell lock up or hang. Well, i did in the betas, but not since RTM. Maybe you're using some shell extensions that aren't compatible? What do you mean by "state of source code of the explorer"? That doesn't make any sense. I still don't understand what you mean about Windows 7. I think you are misinterpreting some early comments about it. It's certainly being "productized" or whatever you're referring to. No, it does not take 3 years to provide a stripped own OS. That's just *ONE* of the things 2008 does. Such arguments always conveniently forget about everything else that's new. And, for your information, you've been able to strip down the OS for years, since XP came out with the Embedded kit. Unix variants "have been doing that" for 30 years because they were piecemeal chopshops with bolted on pieces that barely worked together. By the way, your articles really don't say what you think they do. The first is an article about someone that completely misunderstands what UDF is and mistakenly believes that Vista provides an incompatible version of it, when in reality it was Linux that was incompatible, which if you read to the end you find out he finally got to work with lots of kernel patching. The second one doesn't involve burning a coaster, as you originally claimed. Yes, there are lots of driver issues, particularly with SATA CD-Roms, but those prevent you from burning anything, not burning a bad one. The third one could be anything, even bad cables or a bad drive. Nothing indicates it's a vista problem. The fourth one is interesting, since XP also has troubles. It sounds like there's a problem with the firmware on those drives. The Fifth is, again x64. I don't use x64, and I don't recommend it to anyone because of the driver and compatibility issu
Hi Eric, prefer to move some topics offline as there is far too much to address here :) But publicly (because it is an offtopic/offline private bit I am now interested in:-): *nix variants have been far more stable, preferred in all mission-critical apps, and the cornerstone of stable Web (your Google services too), something Windows is (in)famous for, being unsuitable :) But Windows is finally getting it right in terms of security, folder organisation and getting so wrong on dependancy of shell, responsivness, filesystem, CLR and OS services dependancy hell. IRP, new NDIS and NTFS, and KTM are not enough when you look at what trouble you have to go through in adopting everything that comes with it. Read-only AD is a hammer approach to what Windows is consistent at: exhibiting synchronous RPC-like wait to anything above that user/kernel bridge they keep patching and patching.. And another thing: total lock-in. Sure there are many other things to Windows 2008, most of them irrelevant to fully adopting modular *nix thinking, but at least IIS7 team got that, and only now after 7 years is the OS team starting to think it makes sense with Core edition. And you consider that normal? Mentioning the XP Embedded, how easy it is to change your kernel, filesystem, or put on your own shell? Or will I get it is not really intended for that? Heck, hackers packaged 'consumer' XP better than that kit, down to 50MB in distributions, and you will find those easy.. but sure, you get into legal and unsupported junk problems. But that is inevitable, they will stop supporting XP in less than 4 years time. You have no control over anything but your own build. It is just so sad to see that after 15 years of Windows getting 'better'.. Is that why the Windows support costs are going through the roof? "Barely worked together"? To date, they have not built one serious or scientific-aimed app cluster on Windows to speak of. Now someone will come in with their PFX, PLINQ and new cluster services marketing foam they picked up from MSDN.. typical. (forget the CD quick references from google, I did say they are not that relevant, I have seen it for myself, it is an Vista x64 problem, believe me. I no longer worry or care about it being patched as, again, I use 3rd party 32bit software)
-
I haven't replaced the explorer.exe in the system folder, I copied it to a different location and tried to run it. IMO there is no reason why the XP Explorer should not run on Vista. They just need to decouple the desktop, taksbar, file manager, auto start, extensions, etc. from this BLOB called the shell.
> from this BLOB called the shell. Nice try Andre.. but BLOBs aren't plugable, wonder why.. :wtf:
-
Shog9 wrote:
but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
There is no draw, and that's why MS is trying to kill off native code development. Win2k3 is a server OS and therefore required utilities cost more for it (look at the cost of backup software for servers, and you'll see what I mean). I consider it to be a bad move to develop on Windows server OS's. BTW, you can install IIS6 on Win2k and XP.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Win2k3 is a server OS and therefore required utilities cost more for it
This is true, but the only issue I ran into for years of development was the lack of a backup software.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
you can install IIS6 on Win2k and XP.
Yes you can, but you can only have one root website while the server allows unlimited. In the past I had to play with directories when switching development on different web applications, but once in Win2k3, it was the full unlimited IIS.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003.
Interesting... what's your reasoning there? I've gone back and forth between XP and 2k3 (currently using both on separate machines) - 2k3 is nice for web dev 'cause you get IIS6, but not so great when it comes to some hardware (the first time i dropped it, it was due to lack of support in Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers, though i think that's now been fixed). Of course, YMMV in that area, but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
Shog9 wrote:
I've gone back and forth between XP and 2k3 (currently using both on separate machines) - 2k3 is nice for web dev 'cause you get IIS6, but not so great when it comes to some hardware (the first time i dropped it, it was due to lack of support in Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers, though i think that's now been fixed).
As far as hardware, I never really had anything it did not support. The only issue I ever ran into was as John mentioned, licensing on some software most costly. Other than that though, most of my development is either client/server or web applications, which all usually require a server anyway. It works great have all the server ability on your dev box so you are not required to carry yet another development box to be a test server. Of course, sometimes you can run into situations were you still need a server, but for me that has been seldom. There are also some server products that cannot be installed on XP, and then forces you to another server developer box. Not a problem if you are running Win2k3. I also found Win3k3 much more stable than XP, even more so when tracking down those cool bugs that like to corrupt your system. That said though, I use Vista 64 on my development machine and it seems to work great. Although, I do plan to check out Win2k8 pretty soon ;)
Shog9 wrote:
but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
People still doing that? ;)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is hard for me to understand any developers using XP on a developer box, at least use Win2003.
First, developing on Win2K and XP are viable because the dev tools still work on those versions of Windows. A properly secured network along with exercising some common-freakin-sense where internet use is concerned completely eliminates the need for the OS to take care of that crap, thereby leaving more resources available for real work. Second, the Vista eye-candy is pointless and absurd, especially for developers. It doesn't do anything but chew up resources and make things take longer to do as a direct result.
Rocky Moore wrote:
I browsed over an article link today mentioning that Windows is grabbing more market share from the Linux crowd.. Guess free is not always that great..
As long as the majority of system builders are putting it on their new machines, this will always be the case. I wonder just how strong sales are where buying a copy of Vista is concerned as opposed to including all the new systems being sold. This also brings up another absurdity. Last week, I saw a bunch of news reports on the newest version of OS/X (Leopard?), where Apple claims that OS/X is easier to use than Vista. I recognize that they're trying to get people to buy their hardware, but this statement is completely absurd for people who already own PC system that can't run the OS. Lastly, "free" is ALWAYS that great, but Linux is still to hard to maneuver for Joe Six-pack. Its getting better, but it's still too hard to install (but it's getting better) and get it to the same point of usability as Vista. Beyond that, developers that want to do .Net work still can't with native Linux tools because mono is (and always will be) a step and a half behind MS. As an example, here we are a year after .Net 2.0 was released, and mono STILL doesn't completely support it. So much for Microsoft's promise of cross-platform support.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Second, the Vista eye-candy is pointless and absurd, especially for developers. It doesn't do anything but chew up resources and make things take longer to do as a direct result.
Actually, that can be said about any GUI. Just think of how fast it would be if we all just developed using a text interface... There are some of us though that like the eye-candy :) Of course, some like, some do not, but at least Microsoft allows you to turn it off if you do not want it.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
As long as the majority of system builders are putting it on their new machines, this will always be the case.
This is true! Hopefully it will always be that way ;)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Lastly, "free" is ALWAYS that great, but Linux is still to hard to maneuver for Joe Six-pack
Yeah, installing Linux nowadays is not too bad, but let one thing not install correctly or install something that corrupts the system a bit and most people are a goner. Windows seems much less prone to those issues for common folk. I had an install of Linux (do not remember distro) about two years ago that was corrupted by just browsing the web. On reboot the system was corrupt and gave some error message that I did not bother with. Yep, I have had the blue screen on Windows but usually not bad unless playing with hardware or configurations. Of course Windows have more viruses and spyware, but that will follow whatever is popular. I like free, but plain out, I am old and lazy, I want the machine to do as much for me as I can so I have more time for other things :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Shog9 wrote:
I've gone back and forth between XP and 2k3 (currently using both on separate machines) - 2k3 is nice for web dev 'cause you get IIS6, but not so great when it comes to some hardware (the first time i dropped it, it was due to lack of support in Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers, though i think that's now been fixed).
As far as hardware, I never really had anything it did not support. The only issue I ever ran into was as John mentioned, licensing on some software most costly. Other than that though, most of my development is either client/server or web applications, which all usually require a server anyway. It works great have all the server ability on your dev box so you are not required to carry yet another development box to be a test server. Of course, sometimes you can run into situations were you still need a server, but for me that has been seldom. There are also some server products that cannot be installed on XP, and then forces you to another server developer box. Not a problem if you are running Win2k3. I also found Win3k3 much more stable than XP, even more so when tracking down those cool bugs that like to corrupt your system. That said though, I use Vista 64 on my development machine and it seems to work great. Although, I do plan to check out Win2k8 pretty soon ;)
Shog9 wrote:
but what's the draw for, say, plain vanilla C++/Win32 dev?
People still doing that? ;)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
There are also some server products that cannot be installed on XP, and then forces you to another server developer box. Not a problem if you are running Win2k3.
Yeah, that's why i have one set up on a desk somewhere. Handles my IIS, Apache, crash reporting, etc. needs.
Rocky Moore wrote:
People still doing that?
:rolleyes: Man, this site's changed. Crazy, i tells ya...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
