My replied for vikke for his letter to me - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: My replied for vikke for his letter to me (/showthread.php?tid=82829)
My replied for vikke for his letter to me by riahc4 on 03-31-2008 at 02:37 AM
Honestly, I find this very stupid. I dont know why the previous thread about the scripts was closed because there was a good debate about XP/Vista and Plus! Scripts. But if vikke can open a thread just to reply to me, have it moved to the original thread, and then that original thread is closed, so can I
quote:Exactly. And I still dont know why a mod has closed it. And this is something I hate about these forums: A mod closes it without saying a last post saying why he closed the thread. Give a reason at least.
I think we had an interesting talk, and I would love to continue it (maybe create a forum just about this topic).
quote:You gave me that impression by saying that Vista is unstable. I dont accuse you of anything Im just saying my opinion about things you claim
So where shall we start? You accuse me of not knowing what a stable computer is. You accuse me of running a pirate version of Windows, something I should never have done (I'm a software developer, and knows that piracy is one of the worst things you could do). And you say I'm talking bullshit. You cannot treat me like that, and I did definitely not treat you the same way or deserve these words. It seems you cannot handle this situation.
quote:Either the OS is stable or the programs/drivers/games FOR the OS are stable; Obviously both cannot be stable because then crashes would never occur.
Now on Vista, I used the words "less stable than XP", maybe that was the wrong words to say, because you didn't accept them. What I actually meant by stable was about everything, programs, drivers, games, and the actual OS. VB6 DLLs, for an example, are very common today, even if it's old technology. Actually it's the most used kind of DLLs used for ActiveX components. It's like removing support for CRTs totally from Windows, because these screens has been there for 10 years (this might be a little overkill, but you get the idea). Still Microsoft has been working a lot on compatibility with this version and previous ones, with compatibility modes, 16-bit mode etc.
Even though VB6 DLL are common there are better solutions which this would be a fault the developer of a program: Java takes a couple of more lines to make the "Hello World" program than C; Obviously C is a better choice if you want to make a "Hello World" because of its smaller size, no runtime needed, and because you can write it in fewer lines. Still, the support should be there but minimal; I agree with forcing developers to "move on" to newer and better technologies.
And again you should give me the impression that you dont know about Vista by saying that Vista runs 16-bit programs when it does not; It has very limited compatibility for 16 bit programs and is not supported at all on 64 bit processors running 64 bit Windows Vista
quote:http://youtube.com/watch?v=A1mwrhjXTDA
I don't think it's right because other operative systems does this as well, not at all, that was not what I meant. Tell you what, if the UAC came up with 0 dialogs when you renamed the file, then it must have a bug, and isn't working properly (try Windows Update). I'm serious about this.
If you want another video, just ask.
And its not right? Its not right? So you as a common user just click on everything that pops up on your PC? UNIX, like I said has been doing this for YEARS, and NOONE has EVER complained about it. EVER.
quote:What games exactly? Example: You cant expect Doom to run on Vista just like you cant expect Crysis to run on Windows 95. Its just not possible. Its like you would like to use the Flintstones' car today in LA or Miami. Its just not logically possible
I get the feeling that you were ironic when you wrote this message, but it turns out you were not ironic at all. I think we can say that Vista is about as stable as XP is, but people seems to have problems with it still today (trust me, I've helped a lot of friends installing games not working).
And Vista is alot more stable than XP (or at least its drivers/way of handling its drivers). Ive had to restart alot more in XP than Ive had to in Vista.
quote:You, like Cookie, like to put words in my motuh. I never said that scripts have to work only with Vista. I requested that the API be modified to make sure that the scripts work on XP AND Vista. Both of them. Its impossible then fine so be it.
In the topic, you said that I didn't know anything about computers, and you ask Patchou like a god, please make all scripts work with Vista. You seem to have forgotten that he's not a god, and there's a reason they don't work on Vista, and that is because Vista simply doesn't accept them. So it's the Vista-users fault, for using Vista (I know the users can't help it).
And the reason isnt because Vista doesnt accept them; Its because Vista has a more efficient (and of course different) way of handling its API functions.
Its not Vista's fault, not the Vista userbase faults, its the developers that dont know how to update their code to so their software is more efficient and easier to work with. Of course Patchou cant just shutout all of his XP users as that would be suicide but he cant shutout his Vista users which everyday more and more are coming out. And, no, "switch to XP" is not the solution.
quote:There isnt a written rule either that I cant hack into the server, steal all the personal information from all the users, and do whatever I want is there? Does that mean that it is correct/legal if I do that? No.
There's no rule on the forums which say you must know how to make your PC stable, not at all. It seems you haven't read the rules after all, that would also explain your reputation points. You're simply not welcome here.
The reputation points is one of the most idiotic things on the planet. If you post depending on the rep a person has, then Im sorry but you have too much time and very little life on your hands.
quote:My question:
By the way, I was using a Vista beta, but I'm a MSDN subscriber
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT WITH THAT STATEMENT? WANT A CONGRADS OR COOKIE?
I ask you please: Think before you post.
Thank you and I apoligize to the mods for making this thread.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by MeEtc on 03-31-2008 at 02:43 AM
If you need to complain to vikke, do so via PM. not where everyone is going to make a fuss over it.
Thread reported.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by prashker on 03-31-2008 at 02:55 AM
You know what, I believe this should be a perfect thread to promote 50 Cent's New Album
--Before I Self Destruct: IN STORES NOW--
![[Image: L3Zhci93d3cvc2l0ZXMvbWVkaWEuc2hvdXRtb3V0...cuanBn.jpg]](http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/images/der/L3Zhci93d3cvc2l0ZXMvbWVkaWEuc2hvdXRtb3V0aC5jb20vaHRtbC9kZXJpdnMvODZlNDUwY2QyZDA2ZDI0YjY2NjE5YzkxY2FkZTFjZTEtZTk2YzM4NTEzMzNhM2JlZjA5MzczY2M4NTI0MGI3NzcuanBn.jpg)
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by riahc4 on 03-31-2008 at 02:56 AM
quote:vikke did the same thing. I dont see the fairness if you complain about this.
Originally posted by MeEtc
If you need to complain to vikke, do so via PM. not where everyone is going to make a fuss over it.
Thread reported.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by Th3rmal on 03-31-2008 at 02:57 AM
quote:i agree, what was the point of making a thread, you could have said the same thing in a PM because it is a problem between you and vikke, not other people in the community.
Originally posted by MeEtc
If you need to complain to vikke, do so via PM. not where everyone is going to make a fuss over it.
quote:rofl, that is a great contribution to the thread...
Originally posted by SonicSam
You know what, I believe this should be a perfect thread to promote 50 Cent's New Album
--Before I Self Destruct: IN STORES NOW--
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by riahc4 on 03-31-2008 at 02:59 AM
quote:Well he felt that he needed to make a thread; A mod did not agree, moved the thread into a post in the original thread, and presto; It was closed without letting me publicy reply like he publicy replied to me: Honestly, I think this is fair.
Originally posted by Th3rmal
quote:i agree, what was the point of making a thread, you could have said the same thing in a PM because it is a problem between you and vikke, not other people in the community.
Originally posted by MeEtc
If you need to complain to vikke, do so via PM. not where everyone is going to make a fuss over it.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by ShawnZ on 03-31-2008 at 03:17 AM
you're both newbs. somebody make a list of each point both of you have made so i can tell you why you're such a newb for making it.
in fact, i'll start, because i caught this skimming through the thread:
- vista doesn't have 16-bit support
you're a newb, and here's why: it does. 64-bit doesn't, but no 64-bit version of windows has ever had 16-bit support. and on that note, the 16-bit compatibility in 32-bit vista is just as good as it always has been in every windows version, because it hasn't been changed since XP.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by CookieRevised on 03-31-2008 at 03:30 AM
* CookieRevised jumps on the bitching wagon (can't sleep anyways 
)
PS: I don't agree with everything vikke said either though, but....
quote:one of the strangest things I've heared lately....
Originally posted by riahc4
Even though VB6 DLL are common there are better solutions which this would be a fault the developer of a program
If there are better solutions, then go working at Microsoft. I bet they will pay millions if you have a better solution for all their ActiveXs which they STILL use to this day (for example: MSIE and many many MANY other NATIVE programs).
The matter of fact is that for some things there is no "better" solution. For example, the original thread where all this came from is about Plus! scripting. Be my guest to come up with a "better" solution for ActiveXs in scripts. Especially if those things need to call back to the script.... Again, some ActiveXs not working on Vista is not because its an "old" technology or because there are "better" solutions.
quote:sure, because you had to restart less it automatically means that it is more stable?
Originally posted by riahc4
And Vista is alot more stable than XP (or at least its drivers/way of handling its drivers). Ive had to restart alot more in XP than Ive had to in Vista.
FYI, there are still a lot of problems with drivers, that is actually one of the main reasons why SP1 is not yet released to everybody! (which will soon change, but anyways).
quote:One of the reason IS that Vista doesn't accept them. Some APIs are not in Vista anymore. And how do you know Vista is "more effecient" in handling its API functions? You have the source of both XP and Vista and you can interpret it?
Originally posted by riahc4
You, like Cookie, like to put words in my motuh. I never said that scripts have to work only with Vista. I requested that the API be modified to make sure that the scripts work on XP AND Vista. Both of them. Its impossible then fine so be it.
And the reason isnt because Vista doesnt accept them; Its because Vista has a more efficient (and of course different) way of handling its API functions.
quote:Some things ARE NOT possible anymore in Vista. It would be nice if you also accept that fact.
Originally posted by riahc4
Its not Vista's fault, not the Vista userbase faults, its the developers that dont know how to update their code to so their software is more efficient and easier to work with.
If something IS possible in Vista also, I'm sure the developers (or somebody else) will update their stuff, if it needs to be updated in the first place. But some things are simply NOT possible.
quote:Talking about twisting words, djeez.... Who of us said he should shutout Vista users?
Originally posted by riahc4
Of course Patchou cant just shutout all of his XP users as that would be suicide but he cant shutout his Vista users which everyday more and more are coming out. And, no, "switch to XP" is not the solution.
quote:I think that falls under "forum abuse".
Originally posted by riahc4
There isnt a written rule either that I cant hack into the server, steal all the personal information from all the users, and do whatever I want is there?
quote:He might know a thing or two about how Microsoft's OS functions? He might know that some APIs are not supported anymore?
Originally posted by riahc4
quote:My question: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT WITH THAT STATEMENT? WANT A CONGRADS OR COOKIE?
By the way, I was using a Vista beta, but I'm a MSDN subscriber
If you read up on some MSDN articles you would, for example, also know about the driver problems in Vista.
You love Vista, fine. You haven't got any problems with Vista, even more fine and congrats... But some people do, and some people aren't even able to get Vista. And some things can only be done on XP... Those are also facts...
------------------
quote:I hate that too.
Originally posted by riahc4
Well he felt that he needed to make a thread; A mod did not agree, moved the thread into a post in the original thread, and presto; It was closed without letting me publicy reply like he publicy replied to me: Honestly, I think this is fair.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by -dt- on 03-31-2008 at 03:54 AM
get over yourself
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by riahc4 on 03-31-2008 at 04:02 AM
quote:I dont like quoting myself:
Originally posted by ShawnZ
in fact, i'll start, because i caught this skimming through the thread:
- vista doesn't have 16-bit support
you're a newb, and here's why: it does. 64-bit doesn't, but no 64-bit version of windows has ever had 16-bit support. and on that note, the 16-bit compatibility in 32-bit vista is just as good as it always has been in every windows version, because it hasn't been changed since XP.
quote:I said the exact same thing you just said....WHats your point?
And again you should give me the impression that you dont know about Vista by saying that Vista runs 16-bit programs when it does not; It has very limited compatibility for 16 bit programs and is not supported at all on 64 bit processors running 64 bit Windows Vista
quote:Yes but dont you see a trend? Less and less everyday ActiveX DLLS or VB6 or whatever your oldschool ways are, are used. .NET for example is being pushed as the "next great thing" and developers should enbrace it (sorry for sounding like Steve).
one of the strangest things I've heared lately....
If there are better solutions, then go working at Microsoft. I bet they will pay millions if you have a better solution for all their ActiveXs which they STILL use to this day (for example: MSIE and many many MANY other NATIVE programs).
quote:FYI, SP1 has not been released to everyone because a bug in a previous build (this is where you are clearly mistaken) was present. The bug was that when SP1 was installed several drivers needed uninstallation and installation again before they properlly worked in Vista. This, AFAIK, has been fixed.
FYI, there are still a lot of problems with drivers, that is actually one of the main reasons why SP1 is not yet released to everybody! (which will soon change, but anyways).
quote:Those APIs that have been removed arent because Microsoft decided to fuck some developers; They were removed because other functions possibly replaced them with a more effecient and better way of handling and interpreting data.
One of the reason IS that Vista doesn't accept them. Some APIs are not in Vista anymore. And how do you know Vista is "more effecient" in handling its API functions? You have the source of both XP and Vista and you can interpret it?
quote:I think you are mistaken. Ill give you a example:
Some things ARE NOT possible anymore in Vista. It would be nice if you also accept that fact.
If something IS possible in Vista also, I'm sure the developers (or somebody else) will update their stuff, if it needs to be updated in the first place. But some things are simply NOT possible.
Previous versions of Windows: a + a + b + b = c
Vista: (a * 2) + (b * 2) = c
So you are correct that certain things cant be done in Vista BUT they can be done a different way and more effecient.
quote:What part of me said that he should shutout XP users?
Talking about twisting words, djeez.... Who of us said he should shutout Vista users?
quote:Why? Because he is a MSDN subscriber and he has a Vista beta? That makes no sense
He might know a thing or two about how Microsoft's OS functions?
quote:Wouldnt a driver problem be in the KB?
If you read up on some MSDN articles you would, for example, also know about the driver problems in Vista.
quote:I dont love Vista nor am I a fanboy. I just hate it when people say that XP is better. Thats a stupid statement. I have had a way better experience with Vista than XP.
You love Vista, fine.
quote:But Im willing to bet that 99% of those problems are not Microsoft's fault. If it was MS's fault, then wouldnt we all have those similar bugs on are system? Like I said, my ride has been smooth sailing.
You haven't got any problems with Vista, even more fine and congrats... But some people do, and some people aren't even able to get Vista. And some things can only be done on XP... Those are also facts...
quote:Its official. The world is coming to a end. Me and cookie agree on something.
I hate that too.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by prashker on 03-31-2008 at 04:02 AM
quote:Talking about twisting words again....
Originally posted by riahc4
quote:And its not right? Its not right? So you as a common user just click on everything that pops up on your PC?
Originally posted by Vikke
I don't think it's right because other operative systems does this as well, not at all, that was not what I meant.
The "I don't think it's right" is NOT to be read as "it is not right". Vikke does not say that it is wrong for UAC to pop up. Vikke explains that the "because other OSs do this as well" is not the reason why he said what he said before. This is even emphasized more by the "not at all" and "that is not what I meant".
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by ShawnZ on 03-31-2008 at 04:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by riahc4
And again you should give me the impression that you dont know about Vista by saying that Vista runs 16-bit programs when it does not; It has very limited compatibility for 16 bit programs and is not supported at all on 64 bit processors running 64 bit Windows Vista
you said it doesn't. the 32-bit version does. it does just as well as every other version of windows ever has, not "limited compatibility"
quote:
If there are better solutions, then go working at Microsoft. I bet they will pay millions if you have a better solution for all their ActiveXs which they STILL use to this day (for example: MSIE and many many MANY other NATIVE programs).
i think you mean COM, not ActiveX. and what's wrong with COM?
quote:
Yes but dont you see a trend? Less and less everyday ActiveX DLLS or VB6 or whatever your oldschool ways are, are used. .NET for example is being pushed as the "next great thing" and developers should enbrace it (sorry for sounding like Steve).
well, .NET is the official successor to COM and is completely compatible backward and forward with it...
quote:
One of the reason IS that Vista doesn't accept them. Some APIs are not in Vista anymore. And how do you know Vista is "more effecient" in handling its API functions? You have the source of both XP and Vista and you can interpret it?
Those APIs that have been removed arent because Microsoft decided to fuck some developers; They were removed because other functions possibly replaced them with a more effecient and better way of handling and interpreting data.
what are both of you talking about? if microsoft is about anything, it's backwards compatibility. pretty much everything that was there in 2k3 is still there in vista, plus even more. the only thing that i could think of being removed is DirectSound...
RE: RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by CookieRevised on 03-31-2008 at 04:25 AM
quote:Nope, I meant ActiveX controls (which is part of the family of COM technologies), which are still heavly used in for example MSIE and other stuff (eg, even in JScript itself), etc.
Originally posted by ShawnZ
i think you mean COM, not ActiveX. and what's wrong with COM?
There is of course nothing wrong with COM (thus also not with ActiveX), nor any other similar technology (well .NET requires a hell of a lot of big dependancies, but blah).
quote:Read MSDN and the KBs is all I have to say to this.
Originally posted by riahc4
FYI, SP1 has not been released to everyone because a bug in a previous build (this is where you are clearly mistaken) was present. The bug was that when SP1 was installed several drivers needed uninstallation and installation again before they properlly worked in Vista. This, AFAIK, has been fixed.
quote:where did I said they were removed because MS decided to fuck up the devs?
Originally posted by riahc4
Those APIs that have been removed arent because Microsoft decided to fuck some developers; They were removed because other functions possibly replaced them with a more effecient and better way of handling and interpreting data.
And, NO, for the 348523456th time, not all things have a replacement.
(and this isn't only about APIs; and I don't say anything about if I find this is a good thing or not, if someone likes to suggest that).
quote:Nice... You even manage to twist words around of twisted around words....
Originally posted by riahc4
quote:What part of me said that he should shutout XP users?
Talking about twisting words, djeez.... Who of us said he should shutout Vista users?
Nobody said you said that he should shutout XP users, learn to read, ok?
And the thing I quoted in my previous post clearly says that we supposidly said that he should not support Vista users. Which we never said....
quote:There is that strange logic again. So if I don't experience a bug in Plus! which you reported it is not a bug in Plus!?
Originally posted by riahc4
But Im willing to bet that 99% of those problems are not Microsoft's fault. If it was MS's fault, then wouldnt we all have those similar bugs on are system? Like I said, my ride has been smooth sailing.
right....
quote:And it is not even 2012...
Originally posted by riahc4
Its official. The world is coming to a end. Me and cookie agree on something.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by WDZ on 03-31-2008 at 06:13 AM
quote:The thread (link) was closed because it was getting out of hand and turning into another stupid argument. Seven posts had already been deleted.
Originally posted by riahc4
Honestly, I find this very stupid. I dont know why the previous thread about the scripts was closed because there was a good debate about XP/Vista and Plus! Scripts.
The new thread started by vikke attracted a bunch of spammy replies and people criticizing you (riahc4) so I sent it all to T&T except the first post. I moved that to the original thread where it belonged, and thought that would be the end of it.
If there's more to discuss regarding XP/Vista compatibility for scripts, go ahead, just stay on topic and keep it civilized.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by ipab on 03-31-2008 at 06:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by riahc4
I just hate it when people say that XP is better. Thats a stupid statement. I have had a way better experience with Vista than XP.
Agreed.
<rant>
In fact It seems as though bashing Vista seems to be the "popular" thing to do. I hit up digg.com and not a day goes by that essentially leads to the conclusion that linux > OSX > Vista along with Microsoft sucking, oh and let's not forget OpenSource is the way to go...
The funny thing is that people where this bitchy when windows xp first came into the market also. I mean the other day some customer came into the store I work at and asked me if I can install a certain printer on his machine which is running windows 98. I told him that I can't and that he is better off buying a new machine and guess what his reponse was... "I heard that Vista sucks and is very unstable and that everything screws up with it"... guess what my response was "Apparently not everything since your printer seems to work with vista".
And then, there are customers who deliberately want to downgrade from an OEM machine that is built for Vista to XP...
My experience with with Vista has been very pleasant, granted switching from XP, it took a bit of getting used to, but in the end, It's the little things that I found that are very useful and add to the experience as a whole (Eg. In Vista, if you click on a file to rename it, it only highlights the name and not the extension).
A while back, my hdd gave way (by the way, what's the deal with newer hdd's and them crapping out so often...) and I figured that I'd try out linux and see what all the fuss is about. I tried Mandriva and Ubuntu... both by the way I had a shitty time with... I kept both of them on my system for 2 months each and couldn't stand them. Constant hangs, lack of driver support etc. Other than the fact that they were a bit lighter on my battery, I would say that it was an unpleasant experience on the whole.
Now I'm back on Vista and couldn't be happier. Granted Microsoft might have made some wrong choices along with way with Vista, but I think that people need to understand that just because you upgrade to a new OS doesn't mean that it is automatically going to run better/ provide a better experience overall. For example, running XP on a windows 98 OEM machine isn't going to provide that much betterment in performance, if any.
</rant>
Just my $0.02.
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by CookieRevised on 03-31-2008 at 09:09 AM
quote:If it is because "Vista sux" then you got a point, but it might also have todo with people who don't want to learn a whole new OS (not everybody is as PC-literate as us and can easly find their way when they have worked for years in XP).......and to save some money in certain cases too.
Originally posted by ipab
And then, there are customers who deliberately want to downgrade from an OEM machine that is built for Vista to XP...
But anyways, this discussion has seriously side-tracked I think. I thought this whole thing was about why people should be "forced" to upgrade and why XP-only things should be forgotten in an instant, as that is what has been suggested....
RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by aNILEator on 03-31-2008 at 09:50 AM
not to mention app compatibility still for many many businesses, vista is still no go zone.
walk into any shop or bank, all still using XP, NT or something else, simply because they don't need vista and their applications aren't compatible, they don't need an upgrade just to have the latest thing, they generally don't have the internet on either so little to no chance of viruses or nasties
RE: RE: My replied for vikke for his letter to me by andrewdodd13 on 03-31-2008 at 12:10 PM
quote:At my old work we still used Windows 3.11 because they couldn't afford to upgrade to a newer version of Windows and a newer version of the software - the 3.11 version didn't run on 95 or anything else.
Originally posted by aNILEator
not to mention app compatibility still for many many businesses, vista is still no go zone.
walk into any shop or bank, all still using XP, NT or something else, simply because they don't need vista and their applications aren't compatible, they don't need an upgrade just to have the latest thing, they generally don't have the internet on either so little to no chance of viruses or nasties
Since you people take far too much effort in your quoting, I shall say this: (and then someone else will criticize what I have to say)
- Scripts are generally developed by their developer to target the platform they are currently running. Not everyone has (or can afford to) upgraded to Vista yet. Admittedly, some developers do have both, but it takes a bit of extra effort to go and fix what didn't work before. This might eventually lead to an XP version and a Vista version of a script, at best.
- The guy with the MSDN subscription probably knows a bit about MS function calls, because who in their right mind would pay $499.99+ [US] (£299.99+) for that MSDN subscription, if they weren't really a developer / technician?
Final point:
You people should join your local debating society...