Why do people hate vista?
-
@CodeSimian said:
legacy frameworks (COM, ATL, .NET Framework, etc)
Ho, ho, ho — so .NET Framework is a legacy framework now?
-
@Spectre said:
@CodeSimian said:
I was under the impression that one of the main benefits of .NET was the ability to at some later date move Windows away from win16/32/64 by porting the framework to the new architecture and having all the .NET apps seamlessly port with it. Kinda like with mono (but better).legacy frameworks (COM, ATL, .NET Framework, etc)
Ho, ho, ho — so .NET Framework is a legacy framework now?
-
@RayS said:
@Spectre said:
@CodeSimian said:
I was under the impression that one of the main benefits of .NET was the ability to at some later date move Windows away from win16/32/64 by porting the framework to the new architecture and having all the .NET apps seamlessly port with it. Kinda like with mono (but better).legacy frameworks (COM, ATL, .NET Framework, etc)
Ho, ho, ho — so .NET Framework is a legacy framework now?Yeah, but the framework's still the same. And mentioning it as "legacy" somehow impacts the credibility of the article.
-
This was waiting in my inbox this morning: OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP
-
@mfah said:
Not the same thing. Expecting software to still run is quite different from expecting it to be never obsolete. Of course Turbo Pascal is obsolete, but why shouldn't it still be able to run?
You're missing the point, though. What russ0519 is saying is that, if Turbo Pascal didn't run on Vista, Borland should patch it so it does. Would you expect that? Of course not. But russ0519 does, and that's what makes him a dolt.
-
@russ0519 said:
SQL 2k, on the other hand, can be patched to work on Vista. The amount of work that it takes is not known at least to us, it might be minimal, or it might need a serious rewrite. My guess is that it would be minimal. It might even work unpatched, with a few workarounds or expectations that certain features are going to be broken.
Once SQL 2k8 comes out, I would expect MS to drop support for sql2k, and not to run it on any OS that they come out AFTER SQL 2k8 is released. I'm fine with them supporting the last two versions, and I think that's reasonable. It's just a bit unreasonable to drop support for SQL 2k before 2k8 comes out, and to not support SQL 2k on an OS that came out over 6 months before the general support for SQL 2k ran out.
You have no clue what would be involved in making SQL2K compatible with Vista. Presumably, since they own the source and employ the programmers that work on it, MS does have that clue, and made the decision *based on that knowledge* that it didn't make sense to do so.
I have to believe that you're simply a troll. Nobody could really be as dense as you are acting for real. Oh, wait! Are you related to SpectateSwamp? That would make it all make sense.
-
@KenW said:
You have no clue what would be involved in making SQL2K compatible with Vista.
And even moreover, russ does not seem to understand the facts,
He is running SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2000.
All of his technologies are twilighting. He will need to upgrade both no matter what soon if he wants to stay supported. His company's failure to understand software lifecycles and simple business practices is ridiculous.
Expecting to run SQL server on your desktop is rather stupid in the first place. Set up a test/dev server.
SQL Server 2008 has not yet been RTM'ed but is indeed 'out'. It is in CTP format right now. I know, because I have the dvd on my desk right now, and you can DL it easily too. So MS is indeed supporting two versions. Both of which you can install, test and develop against.
His application must be fairly shitastic anyway. If he needs to work through 'millions of lines of code' to change the underlying DB, then that is his own fault, not MS. Ever heard of a DAL? Three tiered approach? Sure development and testing will be needed. Sure it will likely be expensive. But the rest of the development world (the ones who DON'T suck) have to do it. Russ obviously thinks he is a special case. That is megolomanical on a level approaching swamphood.
He has been given NUMEROUS pieces of advice on how to accomplish his goal without costing him tons of money, and refuses to follow the advice. Because he is simply a troll.
So the long and short of it is that NO MATTER WHAT he will need to upgrade his servers soon. It is going to be a large cost. No doubt. This is how business works, and it really should not be any kind of surprise. His argument about SQL server not working on Vista is completely retarded and without merit. If MS does not want to support one of their SERVER platforms on their newest DESKTOP OS, then that is their choice. If anyone doesn't like it, they sure do have other options. I am sure MS would encourage them to go take their business elsewhere too. Especially since russ has already indicated the business does not have the money to continue to support their chosen technologies, it would be a lost cause trying to convince them to buy anything anyway. Sales is not going to waste time with an obvious flaming death spiral.
I am done with this troll, he doesn't have any new or unique (and certainly no intelligent) arguments, and I think we have all beat his trolling arguments to death.
-
@KenW said:
@mfah said:
Not the same thing. Expecting software to still run is quite different from expecting it to be never obsolete. Of course Turbo Pascal is obsolete, but why shouldn't it still be able to run?
You're missing the point, though. What russ0519 is saying is that, if Turbo Pascal didn't run on Vista, Borland should patch it so it does. Would you expect that? Of course not. But russ0519 does, and that's what makes him a dolt.
I never said that I would expect Borland to patch it. I said I would expect it to run, but I wouldn't be too unhappy if it didn't.
What makes you a dolt is expecting VS2007 to run on dos 3.2.
-
@Spectre said:
@RayS said:
@Spectre said:
@CodeSimian said:
I was under the impression that one of the main benefits of .NET was the ability to at some later date move Windows away from win16/32/64 by porting the framework to the new architecture and having all the .NET apps seamlessly port with it. Kinda like with mono (but better).legacy frameworks (COM, ATL, .NET Framework, etc)
Ho, ho, ho — so .NET Framework is a legacy framework now?Yeah, but the framework's still the same. And mentioning it as "legacy" somehow impacts the credibility of the article.
Good point. To be fair, I did characterize the article as "rumours".
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@KenW said:
You have no clue what would be involved in making SQL2K compatible with Vista.
And even moreover, russ does not seem to understand the facts,
He is running SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2000.
All of his technologies are twilighting. He will need to upgrade both no matter what soon if he wants to stay supported. His company's failure to understand software lifecycles and simple business practices is ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but you are the one who doesn't understand tha facts. I never said I was rurnning on win2k. I'm running on win2k3.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:Expecting to run SQL server on your desktop is rather stupid in the first place. Set up a test/dev server.
So you would rather have 100 developers using a single box with SQL on it and have one badly written query bring down the server for everyone? We do, currently, have a single dev server which runs SQL 2k. I would prefer that each developer had their own copy of SQL on their desktops so that they can more easily test changes without messing up the dev db.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
SQL Server 2008 has not yet been RTM'ed but is indeed 'out'. It is in CTP format right now. I know, because I have the dvd on my desk right now, and you can DL it easily too. So MS is indeed supporting two versions. Both of which you can install, test and develop against.
His application must be fairly shitastic anyway. If he needs to work through 'millions of lines of code' to change the underlying DB, then that is his own fault, not MS. Ever heard of a DAL? Three tiered approach? Sure development and testing will be needed. Sure it will likely be expensive. But the rest of the development world (the ones who DON'T suck) have to do it. Russ obviously thinks he is a special case. That is megolomanical on a level approaching swamphood.
You are just an idiot who lacks reading comprehension. I never said I need to work through millions of lines of code to change the DB, I said that the app is millions of lines of code. I highly doubt that you've ever worked on an app of that size. We do have a three tier separation, but it would still be a lot of work to swap out the DB, given how large the app is.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
He has been given NUMEROUS pieces of advice on how to accomplish his goal without costing him tons of money, and refuses to follow the advice. Because he is simply a troll.
So the long and short of it is that NO MATTER WHAT he will need to upgrade his servers soon. It is going to be a large cost. No doubt. This is how business works, and it really should not be any kind of surprise. His argument about SQL server not working on Vista is completely retarded and without merit. If MS does not want to support one of their SERVER platforms on their newest DESKTOP OS, then that is their choice. If anyone doesn't like it, they sure do have other options. I am sure MS would encourage them to go take their business elsewhere too. Especially since russ has already indicated the business does not have the money to continue to support their chosen technologies, it would be a lost cause trying to convince them to buy anything anyway. Sales is not going to waste time with an obvious flaming death spiral.
I was simply giving an argument that Vista and MS are not perfect, no matter what fanbois like you think. I will likely move to SQL Express and perhaps MySQL 6.0 when that comes out of beta and has better clustering support.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I am done with this troll, he doesn't have any new or unique (and certainly no intelligent) arguments, and I think we have all beat his trolling arguments to death.
If you are done posting your drivel, I'm sure that I won't be the only happy one here. Lets get back to constructive conversation.
-
@russ0519 said:
What makes you a dolt is expecting VS2007 to run on dos 3.2.
What makes you a dolt is that there is no VS2007.
-
@mfah said:
@bstorer said:
It shouldn't still be able to run because... oh, I don't know... it was designed for another operating system?!
That's fair enough, but the initial example was fairly silly to begin with. Windows 2000 is only 2 generations behind Vista, is only one major version number behind, and is - allegedy - an earlier version of the same OS. SQL 2000 is only one generation and one major version number behind the current version (2K5).
I'm not exactly sure which example you're referring to... but if I really wanted to run Borland, I can probably install a (very light) VM with DOS 6.22 on it, and run borland there.
If I wanted to run Visual Studio 7, and all I had was a version of DOS, I'm pretty SOL.
Hell, if I wanted to run a .NET app or an ASP.NET website and all I had was Windows 2008 Server Core, I'd be pretty SOL too. PHP is no problem though, I hear.
-
@russ0519 said:
Hell, if I wanted to run a .NET app or an ASP.NET website and all I had was Windows 2008 Server Core, I'd be pretty SOL too.
I should hope so considering it is only supposed to be used as: a file server, domain controller, DNS server or DHCP server.
-
@russ0519 said:
So you would rather have 100 developers using a single box with SQL on it and have one badly written query bring down the server for everyone?
Yes I would rather have your three developers all using the same machine.
@russ0519 said:
I would prefer that each developer had their own copy of SQL on their desktops so that they can more easily test changes without messing up the dev db.
Then give them XP and stop complaining.
@russ0519 said:
I was simply giving an argument that Vista and MS are not perfect
No you aren't. You are crying and whining and posting typical anti-MS crap in an attempt to get people upset and argue with you.
Otherwise known as trolling.
@russ0519 said:
no matter what fanbois like you think
Right. Exactly.
@russ0519 said:
If you are done posting your drivel, I'm sure that I won't be the only happy one here.
Right, because I am very out numbered here. Obviously everyone is pissed at me.
@russ0519 said:
Lets get back to constructive conversation.
Trolling never leads to constructive conversation. But that was your whole point wasn't it?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
What makes you a dolt is expecting VS2007 to run on dos 3.2.
What makes you a dolt is that there is no VS2007.
Well considering I don't develop using inferior tools like VS, you can't blame me for not knowing what the proper version is.
-
@russ0519 said:
If I wanted to run Visual Studio 7, and all I had was a version of DOS, I'm pretty SOL.
You keep making this argument, and I don't understand what the hell you think it proves.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
So you would rather have 100 developers using a single box with SQL on it and have one badly written query bring down the server for everyone?
Yes I would rather have your three developers all using the same machine.
I prefer solutions that can scale. It might be three developers now, but what if the company starts growing quickly? Do you build your websites expecting three users or three million users? Then again, you probably don't build websites so you wouldn't know about high availability and scaling up.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
.@russ0519 said:
I would prefer that each developer had their own copy of SQL on their desktops so that they can more easily test changes without messing up the dev db.
Then give them XP and stop complaining.
They are using XP. You however, keep saying that we need to upgrade to keep up with the times.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
I was simply giving an argument that Vista and MS are not perfect
No you aren't. You are crying and whining and posting typical anti-MS crap in an attempt to get people upset and argue with you.
Otherwise known as trolling.
If you read my posts, you will see that they're overwhelmingly positive. I just don't see why you can't give in to this one issue - MS should've either supported older products in Vista, OR if they chose to break backward compatibility, they should've allowed you to run XP in a VM without incurring additional licensing fees. You know... the way they did with Server Enterprise.
-
@bstorer said:
@russ0519 said:
If I wanted to run Visual Studio 7, and all I had was a version of DOS, I'm pretty SOL.
You keep making this argument, and I don't understand what the hell you think it proves.Nothing really. I was just responding to someone who said that expecting SQL 2k to run on Vista is like expecting Visual Studio 8 to run on Dos 3.2
-
@bstorer said:
@russ0519 said:
If I wanted to run Visual Studio 7, and all I had was a version of DOS, I'm pretty SOL.
You keep making this argument, and I don't understand what the hell you think it proves.I think it's pretty obvious. Clearly we need to:
1) Do a screen reshoot of Visual Studio 7 running on Windows XP
2) Port SSDS to DOS 6.2
3) Playback random footage of VS7 using SSDS
But SpectateSwamp is too busy uploading videos of random aliens to help us with that!
-
If MS kills Small Businesses with their licensing fees, I don't think MS would be around. However, I do hear people complain alot about their IT budget every year.
-
@russ0519 said:
Fair enough, that's a stupid argument, and we should beat whomever said it with rods... or reeds... or rods made of reeds.@bstorer said:
@russ0519 said:
If I wanted to run Visual Studio 7, and all I had was a version of DOS, I'm pretty SOL.
You keep making this argument, and I don't understand what the hell you think it proves.Nothing really. I was just responding to someone who said that expecting SQL 2k to run on Vista is like expecting Visual Studio 8 to run on Dos 3.2
-
@russ0519 said:
Well considering I don't develop using inferior tools like VS, you can't blame me for not knowing what the proper version is.
WTF is up with the blatant flame-baiting? I think VS2005 rocks for C# development. It's far from "inferior".
-
@russ0519 said:
Do you build your websites expecting three users or three million users? Then again, you probably don't build websites so you wouldn't know about high availability and scaling up.
You keep trying to bait me with what I know or do...
I have nothing to prove to you. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that I know a lot more of what I am talking about than you do.
@russ0519 said:
They are using XP. You however, keep saying that we need to upgrade to keep up with the times.
Indeed you do. You should upgrade to a new server platform that matches your desktop needs. Running SQL server on Vista in any case other than for hobby is just stupid.
And yes, REAL development firms know how to run test/dev servers that scale just fine.
Little shitbox shops use demo copies of SQL server for 8 years on desktop environments and complain when they are obsolete.
FYI - Building websites around here, with the people you are talking to is not exactly cutting edge or anything to brag about. Don't keep bragging. No one thinks "Wow he builds websites! How 1337!" They may do that on zdnet or wherever you normally spend your time trolling, but not here.
@russ0519 said:
I just don't see why you can't give in to this one issue
Because you are ridiculously wrong.
-
@russ0519 said:
Well considering I don't develop using inferior tools like VS, you can't blame me for not knowing what the proper version is.
Alright. I will bite. What tool do you use that is so superior to VS?
BTW - A RECENT version NOT SQL server 2000 era.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
@russ0519 said:
Well considering I don't develop using inferior tools like VS, you can't blame me for not knowing what the proper version is.
WTF is up with the blatant flame-baiting? I think VS2005 rocks for C# development. It's far from "inferior".
VS is great for developing .NET apps, but personally I think .NET is inferior to the language I'm using for the purposes of building web sites. .NET is great for building windows applications, but not as great at building websites. I won't mention my platform, as this will definatelly start another flamewar.
Lets just say that VS and .NET are inferior products to ME, because I am more productive in my language/platform of choice.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
Do you build your websites expecting three users or three million users? Then again, you probably don't build websites so you wouldn't know about high availability and scaling up.
You keep trying to bait me with what I know or do...
I have nothing to prove to you. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that I know a lot more of what I am talking about than you do.
Since you won't say what you do, I can only assume that you spend your days trolling around forums. Perhaps you should get some experience in the real world.
Actually wait, I think I know what you do. You're one of those people that MS hired to go and say nice things about them on Wikipedia and random internet forums. So what's the pay like? Was it hard giving up your principles and turning to a life of lying day in and day out?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
They are using XP. You however, keep saying that we need to upgrade to keep up with the times.
Indeed you do. You should upgrade to a new server platform that matches your desktop needs. Running SQL server on Vista in any case other than for hobby is just stupid.
And yes, REAL development firms know how to run test/dev servers that scale just fine.
You're probably one of those people that develops websites by ftping to the production server. You probably don't even know what the letters SVN stand for.
-
@russ0519 said:
Since you won't say what you do, I can only assume that you spend your days trolling around forums. Perhaps you should get some experience in the real world.
@russ0519 said:You're probably one of those people that develops websites by ftping to the production server. You probably don't even know what the letters SVN stand for.
You can make whatever assumptions you want about my level of expertise. You are obviously the only one here trolling though.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
Since you won't say what you do, I can only assume that you spend your days trolling around forums. Perhaps you should get some experience in the real world.
@russ0519 said:You're probably one of those people that develops websites by ftping to the production server. You probably don't even know what the letters SVN stand for.
You can make whatever assumptions you want about my level of expertise. You are obviously the only one here trolling though.
I will make whatever assumptions I want. LIke the fact that you are in fact SpectateSwamp's offspring, which is why you're promoting his site so much. Can someone say "Daddy issues?"
And I'm not trolling. I don't know the meaning of the word. I really don't... someone care to englighten me?
-
@russ0519 said:
LIke the fact that you are in fact SpectateSwamp's offspring, which is why you're promoting his site so much.
MPS is promoting a site that bashes SS, that's slightly different from promoting SS' site.
@russ0519 said:And I'm not trolling. I don't know the meaning of the word. I really don't... someone care to englighten me?
Troll
-
@Lingerance said:
@russ0519 said:
And I'm not trolling. I don't know the meaning of the word. I really don't... someone care to englighten me?
TrollWell... I think with that post he has proven to me that he is, in fact, just a troll like I thought.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Well... I think with that post he has proven to me that he is, in fact, just a troll like I thought.
Lysis mode?
-
@russ0519 said:
VS is great for developing .NET apps
How does that make Visual Studio an inferior tool, then?
@russ0519 said:
I think .NET is inferior to the language I'm using for the purposes of building web sites.
That still doesn't make it "inferior". It just makes it unpreferred. Also, if you went with another language, then it makes VS unappropriate as VS is only for .NET. Also, you keep mixing up terms: .NET is a language/framework, and Visual Studio is the IDE used to develop with. .NET != VS as much as Java != Eclipse. Either way, your reasoning does not make VS inferior.
-
-
@Lingerance said:
VS existed before .NET
sigh .. I guess I'm going to have to get extremely detailed in my replies. I know it existed before then. I used VS 6 Pro for many years. By "only", I meant Microsoft. The context at hand was >6, which would be .NET. I wasn't talking about VS in general back to conception. Russ called it inferior, but then indicated usage of a different language. So, to be explicitly precise, my phrase meant:
Visual Studio is only for Microsoft languages. Any version greater than 6 is for the .NET Framework. Before then, it was still Microsoft languages, but used the runtime of the language of your choice (ex: VB or C++). If you are not using a Microsoft language, then Visual Studio would be inappropriate.
-
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
@russ0519 said:
VS is great for developing .NET apps
How does that make Visual Studio an inferior tool, then?
@russ0519 said:
I think .NET is inferior to the language I'm using for the purposes of building web sites.
That still doesn't make it "inferior". It just makes it unpreferred. Also, if you went with another language, then it makes VS unappropriate as VS is only for .NET. Also, you keep mixing up terms: .NET is a language/framework, and Visual Studio is the IDE used to develop with. .NET != VS as much as Java != Eclipse. Either way, your reasoning does not make VS inferior.
Ok, when I said that VS is inferrior I was trolling, but it was only in response to all the trolling by MPS. What I meant is that my platform of choice is superior to .NET and hence VS in my point of view, as I'm sure in MPS's point of view VS is superior to all other platforms.
-
@russ0519 said:
Ok, when I said that VS is inferrior I was trolling
Well.. if you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't troll. Otherwise, you'll get permanently lumped with Lysis and the like.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Otherwise, you'll get permanently lumped with Lysis and the like.
Speaking of which please follow suit.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
@russ0519 said:
Ok, when I said that VS is inferrior I was trolling
Well.. if you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't troll. Otherwise, you'll get permanently lumped with Lysis and the like.
Well what about MPS when he starts cursing and calling people names for no apparent reason. Is that not considering trolling? What I said was in the heat of the moment, and although I do believe that, I don't have personal experience with .NET, so I can't have a constructive conversation about it.
-
@russ0519 said:
Well what about MPS when he starts cursing and calling people names for no apparent reason. Is that not considering trolling? What I said was in the heat of the moment, and although I do believe that, I don't have personal experience with .NET, so I can't have a constructive conversation about it.
If you believe it's for no apparent reason, just ignore it. Really. Flame wars go on forever until one side stops participating.
Ahh.. yes. No experience with it at all would make it hard to qualify it's usefulness in any scenario. As MPS pointed out to me, you should stay away from topics you aren't thoroughly versed in.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
..qualify it's usefulness..
HTF did I do that?! Argh! I never slip on that, but yet I did! headslap
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Ahh.. yes. No experience with it at all would make it hard to qualify it's usefulness in any scenario. As MPS pointed out to me, you should stay away from topics you aren't thoroughly versed in.
Especially on a forum like this loaded with people who do know what they're talking about and aren't afraid to call you on it.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Its okay. Too bad this forum software sucks, because now you can't edit that post to change it's contents...qualify it's usefulness..
HTF did I do that?! Argh! I never slip on that, but yet I did! headslap
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Any version greater than 6 is for the .NET Framework. Before then, it was still
Microsoft languages, but used the runtime of the language of your choice (ex: VB
or C++).Still, C and C++ are hardly "Microsoft languages", and VC++ still can compile them to native code.
-
@Lingerance said:
Speaking of which please follow suit.
I missed this reply back when I made the others. Something is going on with CS, replication.. or I just overlooked it.
At any rate: What? Are you talking about the fact that I didn't elaborate my previous reply? I'm sorry about that! I'm not trolling or flaming here.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
@Lingerance said:
Speaking of which please follow suit.
I missed this reply back when I made the others. Something is going on with CS, replication.. or I just overlooked it.
At any rate: What? Are you talking about the fact that I didn't elaborate my previous reply? I'm sorry about that! I'm not trolling or flaming here.No... Lysis mode. Ignore the troll.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
No... Lysis mode. Ignore the troll.
Ahh.. I didn't catch that's what it meant. Thanks.
Spectre: It was the only other language I could come up with at the time other than VB (that's the only one I used in VS6). I should've just stuck with the one example. Sorry about that.
-
@MarcB said:
Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.
According to Mark Russinovich, Vista SP1 has big improvements here:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx
-
@strik said:
According to Mark Russinovich, Vista SP1 has big improvements here:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx
Thanks for resurrecting this dead thread with information that could be found on the first page of the thread.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@russ0519 said:
but I think it's a good OS if your hardware supports it (which most new hardware should).
That could/should be said about ANY OS.
LOL, no it shouldn't, just because something runs on a given set of hardware doesn't make it good.
Visual Studio - Wikipedia
