Why do you favor the Windows OS?

[Dylan]

I'm a windows man myself, and my case has been made about a hundred times already. Another vote for the aforementioned reasons.

[Ziggy]

Why is Vista garbage?

hm. let's see. I have a copy of Empire Total War on my desk.
Minimum system requirements.
Memory: 1GB RAM (XP) 2GB RAM (Vista)
and this goes about all games, and some times I even see it about the processors.
need I say more?

Yes! You do have to say more! All you said was, "Vista requires more RAM to play game so it is garbage." By that theory, A Jeep needs more gas to get from A to B then a Corolla does so it is garbage. Vista usually requires more RAM, get over it. This doesn't make it a bad operating system.

I don't understand why people are so pissy about Vista.

The Bandwagon. Mac has great advertisement, they trashed Vista from the get go. Then leave it to the internet to finish off the job. Vista really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. "I got my new PC and it came with Vista and it sucks." Why does it suck? Because that's what you heard?

Vista is ok now. After a bunch of updates, service packs, and more and more companies getting around to making proper drivers it runs a lot better than it did at launch. I absolutely HATED it when it was first released because it hogged all my resources and nothing seemed to work. I still think XP is a better OS, but I've can get along with Vista now. I just hope it doesn't become irrelevant with Windows 7's release because I don't want to have to learn yet another operating system just yet.

Vista had a rough start with 3rd party drivers, but isn't that mostly the 3rd party's fault? Back when Vista was still fairly new, I put it on a PC that was from 1999 or 2000 (3GHz P4, 1GB RAM, GeForce 7600) to try it out and it ran just as good as XP did on that computer.

More recently, I built a computer last spring. I set it up with XP and Vista. It got to the point where I took XP out because I didn't even use it (though I do have it in a virtual box). Vista is a great operating system. There's a few things that annoy me but they have nothing to do with how it runs or anything like that.

[dlmvii]

Return to sender (^_^)
http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~schittek/millenni.htm

If the majority of the populace thinks the millenium is 2000 then it doesn't matter how many university guys say otherwise.

Haha, very funny. Then you must also think that the Earth used to be flat and later on changed it's shape to round. That's pretty amazing stuff. Who cares about truth or reality when all that matters is how many illogical people there are.

You know what. We should totally take advantage of this. Lets get everyone together and decide that sickness doesn't exist, problems don't exist, everything is perfect and everyone is as happy as can be!

Oh, I'd like to fly around the world 100 times a minute like Superman does. Gather up some idiots for that too, because it would be a blast.

The millenium is a concept, an idea. Not a physical trait like sickness or flying. When the technical millenium occurs does not matter to anybody. Plus, in the scope of this argument, most people think of the millenium as having started in 2000. So, Microsoft, catering to "most people", call their software as such.

[the7k]

The only reason I use Windows XP is because of Photoshop and Steam. If they made Photoshop and Steam practical to use on Linux-based systems, I'd get rid of my WinXP partition right now. Every time I use WinXP, something bad happens.

I'd never, ever go with a Mac though. I need the ability to customize my shit easily.

If I could find Vista for as cheap as free, I'd get it. Currently, it just isn't worth paying for. Of course, the only way I ever do get operating systems legitimately is when I buy a new computer from a manufacturer, so that's less to do with Vista and more to do with the fact that I'm a cheap-skate.

[zarathstra]

The only reason I use Windows XP is because of Photoshop and Steam. If they made Photoshop and Steam practical to use on Linux-based systems, I'd get rid of my WinXP partition right now. Every time I use WinXP, something bad happens.

I'd never, ever go with a Mac though. I need the ability to customize my shit easily.

If I could find Vista for as cheap as free, I'd get it. Currently, it just isn't worth paying for. Of course, the only way I ever do get operating systems legitimately is when I buy a new computer from a manufacturer, so that's less to do with Vista and more to do with the fact that I'm a cheap-skate.

If something goes wrong every rime you use XP, you're doing it wrong. Seriously.

[MrPopo]

Btw, am I the only one who thinks that Niode's picture was awesome? Someone actually loaded up a boat like that. Amazing.

[Ziggy]

It could be a Photoshop'ed image.

[Niode]

It could be a Photoshop'ed image.

To be honest, I wouldn't put it past some people.

[Ivo]

I have Vista on my home PC and I have no complaints. It seems more stable than XP had been for me as well.

Commenting on the boat, it seems to be an Italian boat. I'm not commenting on that making it more or less likely that it was actually loaded like that

The only reason they are saying that 2001 is the millennium is due Roman numerals not having a 0. That's the only reason they don't count year 0.

That's awesome and everything, but as far as I'm concerned makes no logical sense. A baby is born at year 1 in that system. So who's right and wrong?

It's a matter of perception. You either start counting at 0 or you start counting at 1.

Can we get back on topic now please?

You are misrepresenting things. It is not simply a matter of perception. The way years are counted in the system we use in the West works like this, and has worked like this since the start. Unless we change calendars (we didn't) then there is only one correct answer for when the millennium was in the Gregorian Calendar. The scholars are not suddenly applying this rationale to the Eastern calendars or to people's ages, they are just applying the correct rules to the system we use.

If you note, the naming of centuries is also like the millennium, and when you learn in History classes the 20th century is 1901-2000, the 19th century is 1801-1900 and so on, the first millennium is 0001-1000 and the second millennium was 1001-2000 and the third millennium indeed started on 2001. This is the calendar system we OFFICIALLY use. If the rules make no sense to you that is fine, but if you are using different rules than you are not using the same calendar system.

Of course this is all BS that doesn't really matter (just relative positions of the Earth around the Sun and all that, as the solar system hurtles through the Galaxy) - but it is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of convention. The rules of this particular convention are a bit archaic as they were established centuries ago, but unless someone changes the calendar and by miracle gets everyone else to adopt it, that's the rules we are following.

What happened really was a social thing - people wanted to celebrate 2000 because it is a round number. That is 100% fine, who are scholars to say what people should and should not celebrate? But it was not the millennium as advertised, and some very limited coverage of this FACT was provided.
So the media and everyone else with some exceptions went on this bandwagon. The reasons may simply be that it is convenient for some companies to have people spend money on celebrations (you know, capitalism and all that).
IIRC, some mere *days* after the party, the media "suddenly wised up" and gave some more coverage that actually, the millennium is only in 2001. The end result probably as desired was two parties. No big deal, it is not like it was compulsory to celebrate it and all that, but I still think it was slightly underhanded from the media at large.

Ivo.

[ZeroAX]

I have Vista on my home PC and I have no complaints. It seems more stable than XP had been for me as well.

Commenting on the boat, it seems to be an Italian boat. I'm not commenting on that making it more or less likely that it was actually loaded like that

The only reason they are saying that 2001 is the millennium is due Roman numerals not having a 0. That's the only reason they don't count year 0.

That's awesome and everything, but as far as I'm concerned makes no logical sense. A baby is born at year 1 in that system. So who's right and wrong?

It's a matter of perception. You either start counting at 0 or you start counting at 1.

Can we get back on topic now please?

You are misrepresenting things. It is not simply a matter of perception. The way years are counted in the system we use in the West works like this, and has worked like this since the start. Unless we change calendars (we didn't) then there is only one correct answer for when the millennium was in the Gregorian Calendar. The scholars are not suddenly applying this rationale to the Eastern calendars or to people's ages, they are just applying the correct rules to the system we use.

If you note, the naming of centuries is also like the millennium, and when you learn in History classes the 20th century is 1901-2000, the 19th century is 1801-1900 and so on, the first millennium is 0001-1000 and the second millennium was 1001-2000 and the third millennium indeed started on 2001. This is the calendar system we OFFICIALLY use. If the rules make no sense to you that is fine, but if you are using different rules than you are not using the same calendar system.

Of course this is all BS that doesn't really matter (just relative positions of the Earth around the Sun and all that, as the solar system hurtles through the Galaxy) - but it is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of convention. The rules of this particular convention are a bit archaic as they were established centuries ago, but unless someone changes the calendar and by miracle gets everyone else to adopt it, that's the rules we are following.

What happened really was a social thing - people wanted to celebrate 2000 because it is a round number. That is 100% fine, who are scholars to say what people should and should not celebrate? But it was not the millennium as advertised, and some very limited coverage of this FACT was provided.
So the media and everyone else with some exceptions went on this bandwagon. The reasons may simply be that it is convenient for some companies to have people spend money on celebrations (you know, capitalism and all that).
IIRC, some mere *days* after the party, the media "suddenly wised up" and gave some more coverage that actually, the millennium is only in 2001. The end result probably as desired was two parties. No big deal, it is not like it was compulsory to celebrate it and all that, but I still think it was slightly underhanded from the media at large.

Ivo.

god I love internet forums. Going from OS talk to the calendar. Tommorow I'll make a topic about our favorite brand of ice cream. Let's turn it into a conversation about god. Does he exist or not? (joking, don't get offended in any way. it's just I always love how topics can change, but if you are just getting started, and jump to the last page of discussions, you wouldn't know WTF is going on)