Windows project long horn

The program that gives those looks is VERY simular to windowsblinds only thign is its slightly more advanced it does it up resouces but computers will be very well upgraded around that time to almost meet a standard to the requirements it more of a sale's pitch (to sale stuff you don't really need) but windows is targeted at home computer use and buyer's for this will always buy the extra stuff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, if it is only slightly more advanced, yet uses up much more resources, why bother? Surely Micro$oft could have simply used windowblinds itself, and free up precious resources?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but then they would have to pay windowsblinds alot of money and do alot of stuff to follow windowsblinds when they could do it themselves for much cheaper besides it runs much faster even with them on and you have the option of taking them off

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time = money, so working on a new program when one is already available makes no sense, especially when you know that anything you make will be inferior to the one you could simply pay royalties for and include.

 

but it's not inferior its better... i just got the beta release of it its much much better then windows blinds..... it really does put windowsblinds to shame

 

Better how?

 

oooh, look, shiny!

 

The gui eye candy is only the tip of the iceberg for the new windows. There are many changes that have taken place under the hood as well. Some I like. Some I don't.

But. I don't get what you people are bitching about. I understand Avatar's bitch. He's a linux guy and hates Windows on general purposes. I'm cool with that. I have tried both and I have to say that while linux is nice in that, if you know what you're doing, you can have much more control over your system. But, its main problem is that you really need to apply yourself to it. You have to read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, and then, just when you think you've got it, you've got to read some more.
Seriously. Linux, for new users, is insanely difficult. Various distros have done a lot to simplify it and it is getting easier to use, but even so it's difficult.
Here.
Have fun reading this: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/howtos.html

Now. Once you've got a grip on what is happening in linux, you have learned much more than you would have in Windows. You gain more knowledge of the computer architecture and operations and such.
But, for the average user who just wants to browse for porn and play some mp3's, and download the occasional program off the net... nah. Not yet.
Maybe in a few more years. But, I doubt it. Fact is that linux doesn't really want the general public involved. They're not quite as elitist as Apple users, but they're close. They like things being difficult. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. Something to lord over those stupid windows users...

Anyway.
This wasn't supposed to be a linux rant. I actually like linux. But just insist on looking at it objectively rather than idealistically.

Like I said, I understand Avatar's dislike for windows.

But, how about the complaints issued by Commie Hamster?
I don't understand them at all.

"Time = money, so working on a new program when one is already available makes no sense, especially when you know that anything you make will be inferior to the one you could simply pay royalties for and include."

So. By this logic. Is it safe to assume that you're typing to us from a windows 3.1 environment? Don't you love that progman? Man. Those were the days.

The thing, commie old boy, is that by integrating it into the system, it runs more tightly with less conflicts with the rest of the system.

Sure. Windows is a bloated resource hog.
So? Is this new?
Are you saying that XP isn't bloated and a resource hog?
Windows 95? Me? 2000?
Look at each of them in context.
When Windows 95 came out, it needed 8 megs of ram to run smoothly.
8 Megs!!
That was a LOT.
And it ran slow as hell.
And all these companies came out with their rip off ram optimizer software. Softram, etc....
Lame.
And yet. Now. Due to technological advance. 8 megs of ram is laughable.

Windows Vista is being built with this technological trend in mind.
Why do you think that Microsoft should not keep up with technology? Do you think they should still be building for the old 4 meg days?
Did you know that a huge part of this new Vista is more effective memory management?
Because XP was built on the NT kernel which was built in the days of little memory and thus the address space is limited?

Vista is a step forward.
Simple as that.
There will be aspects of it that will be successful and popular.
There will be aspects that will fail and be unpopular.
There will be combinations of the above in various ways.
But, it is a step forward. And if you don't like progress...? Well. I know where you can get an Apple ][+ cheap. Hey. Think of it. 64 kb of ram. Whoah.

 

And, by the way, concerning windowblinds and Vista.
So Vista has themes.
Do you really think that Microsoft is going to make it as customizable as Windowblinds?
Riiiight.

Think of how much more the new windowblinds will be able to do.

 

I wouldn't call bloating the software progress.

Have you ever tried to solve a problem in windows. I wish I could read, read and read like in Linux as you say.

 

No. Nor would I call bloating the software progress. Microsoft has a problem with this and, from what I've seen, is actually attempting to deal with this.

There was a thread a while back with a link to video about Vista, here's a link to the whole series of 'Going Deep' videos which are really interesting. They explain a lot of where Windows is heading and how it is attempting to deal with mistakes of the past (and mistakes of the present and future...
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going_Deep

Anyway.
I'm not saying that bloating the software is progress. What I am saying is that maintaining an OS that is built for lean systems of the past is a mistake. And those who view Microsoft poorly because they build for newer systems rather than older systems are looking at progress as indicative of poor business choices.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who grew up here (Seattle) and remembers the place when it was a relatively small town. He looks at the houses and businesses with contempt in his voice as he scorns progress.

He'd crawl into a cave and fling feces at progress if he had the courage to do so. But, he is incapable of doing any more than complaining and living a hypocritical life as his business is dependent upon that very progress which he scorns.

Bah.


Anyway. The point is that Microsoft has made a large number of changes to Windows in this new version. But, what everyone is focusing on is the eye candy. The very eye candy which they go out of their way to acquire through third party software while complaining about how shitty Windows looks compared to Apple.

The bloat is there. And inevitable (for Microsoft.) But, so too are the changes which necessitate making this a new os rather than an update to a past one.


If you don't like the new Windows then stick with the old ones. XP is most likely not going to stop being updated for several more years I imagine. Windows 95 and 3.1 are still available (although unsupported.) There's Linux for the techies. There's Apple for the elitist scum. Lot's of choices.

But. In the end. The marketplace decides, doesn't it?
Funny thing, that. The marketplace.


Anyway.
As to documentation.
Well. If you wish you could read read read, then Linux is for you. Good luck.
But, you can find lots of documentation on Windows as well.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/default.aspx
I'm not sure how much you get without a subscription, but I know there is a lot of content there. Plus, you can find bootlegs of MSDN available for download here and there.

Have I ever tried to solve a problem in Windows? You bet. And it's always been a piece of cake to solve. Much easier than many problems I've had to solve with Linux.
But, that's just me.

 

Please drop by to fix my network problems. I have given up.

 

Ah. Yes. You had the Internet Connection Sharing problem, yes?
Well. To be honest, I've never used it. Always turn off that service (it's paired up with the windows firewall.)
But, I bet that if I had physical access to your machine I could get it going.
It's difficult trying to give tech advice over the net or the phone.
There's no replacement for actually being there and having your hands on the box. Digging around and finding out what the problem is.

Bear in mind, that Internet Connection Sharing is a Microsoft idea and might well be considered by some to be part of that 'bloat' you're talking about.

I guarantee you that it would be far more complicated to set up in linux than Windows (assuming that you ever get it set up in windows or that I could do so in your place.) There are certain installs that would set you up as a server with basic default settings, but to get in to the nuts and bolts and set your security and other configurations....
Yeesh.
I remember trying to set up ipchains one time... That was a nightmare. But once learned, you can set up a lot more custom rules than possible in most windows firewall software. But, with the ability to really get in and control comes complexity. Much of this complexity is masked in windows. This is why it's so popular among the computer illiterate. Click and go.

You know.
Something I was wondering about your situation.
You're not using a hub? Do you have the right cat5 cable? Do you have a crossover cable? You need a crossover cable if the two computers are directly wired without a hub or router in between. And, you'd also need to set up the ip address for each computer manually, I believe, as there would be no DHCP server doing it for you.
Are you on broadband or dial up? If broadband, I'd suggest buying a router.