Shoutbox

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

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.

---

And its not right? Its not right? So you as a common user just click on everything that pops up on your PC?

---

Talking about twisting words again....

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".

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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ
i think you mean COM, not ActiveX. and what's wrong with COM?

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

Read MSDN and the KBs is all I have to say to this.

quote:

---

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.

---

where did I said they were removed because MS decided to fuck up the devs?

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:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Talking about twisting words, djeez.... Who of us said he should shutout Vista users?

---

What part of me said that he should shutout XP users?

---

Nice... You even manage to twist words around of twisted around words....

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:

---

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.

---

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!?

right....

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Its official. The world is coming to a end. Me and cookie agree on something.

---

And it is not even 2012...

quote:

---

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 thread (link) was closed because it was getting out of hand and turning into another stupid argument. Seven posts had already been deleted.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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...

---

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.



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....

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

quote:

---

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

---

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.

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...