@death said:
Learn to use proper quote splitting...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
No thanks, I don't really care that much...
Obviously. And you really don give a flying f*ck about any poor sod that may be interested to read this mess. Truly user friendly.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It sure sounds like from your requirements you are talking about running Windows 98 apps on production machines with end users... That would be TRWTF. Anything mission cricitical should have been fixed a long time ago. Windows 98 is no longer supported. That was was not a sudden shock to anyone. There was plenty of notice.
You really are clueless are you? You know nothing of the reality of every day IT life outside self-contained world of manufacturing IT where the actual use of its products happens? There are still DOS systems in use in production solutions, NT4 and all other variants are not rare either built into solutions that were built complete, some unsupported for more than a decade. And the support people are expected to keep them working until keeping them costs more than buying new. We may hate the old runts but we still must keep them working against dumb users, against failing hardware against the fact that nothing new is supported...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Microsoft has issued best practices to developers interested in them for a long time. When followed, backwards compatibility was not hard to achieve.
Yeah... And then theres real life. Not all works, nothing works predictably etc...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
In Vista, you can run in 'Compatibility mode' and check 'Run as administrator' most apps should run perfectly fine if they were not programmed by flaming retarded monkeys.
Does this lift the restrictions from direct access to hardware ports that was lost in NT? And you can set that to an application and let a non-admin user excecute that as an admin? Or do you have to be admin to do that when you run it as it is in XP?
I can use google to find my own howtos should I need them. I pray to all gods of IT so that this would never happen...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I have yet to meet a common user who is honestly confused, and
considers UAC prompts 'Hostile'. I have heard some people say 'I don't
need them, let's just turn them off. If I have a problem, we can just
restore, I only browse the web anyway'. In which case you can turn all
of it off.
Whats the point of a system security that you can turn off completely?
In my mind its the TRWTF here... Security should be tunable, yes, but
make extended (anoying) security and make it then possible to just
switch it off simply beats the purpose. The user, without rights should
not be prompted for elevation, only notified that there was something
that did not work due to lack of such elevation. and incident logged. Oh, and I just browse the web thing... The web is a dangerous place...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Linux IS different, precisely because it is NOT an out of
the box, ready to run product. Microsoft has different goals. Microsoft
cant tell everyone "Whoops, we messed up, just open the terminal, run
these commands, and recompile the kernel." they have to make
concessions to make things as seamless as possible. Does it always
work? No. But their goals are 100% different.
Yes. Goals are different. Microsoft wants continued inflow of your money and so it assumes that you are an idiot and must be at all costs prevented from any action that suspiciously looks like shooting yourself in the leg. Linux community wants freedom. Freedom for a root to shoot its foot off all it wants if the root is stupid or just curious how it feels and can it be mended. Linux itself wants nothing from you except perhaps that if you find fault in it either report it or stop complaining and fix it, if you have time and the skills that is... and FYI kernel is the last thing to break in a modern Linux system.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
No, I just don't feel like playing tech support for the rest
of my life.
You don't feel like it? You will have no choice in the matter regardless of the OS you offer with some people or you will soon gather a very nasty reputation. And the only thing a person truly has is reputation.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
My grandma isn't going to be talking Linux on IRC tomorrow. I go
for the path of least resistance with people like that.
Ive been trying to tell you but you do not listen. At the level of your grandma, there is no difference between windows and Linux. The difference starts a little higher than that. when you discover drive letters and configuration and other "advanced" things. And the price...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Admittedly the floppy disk problem does suck... however any
installation medium I use has all current service packs and necessary
drivers slipstreamed into it. It is not hard at all to do, and makes
the whole process a lot quicker anyway. And no, I have seen a lot of
complete idiots successfully install 98, 2k, XP and Vista. So I don't
think this requires an 'IT background'.
Slipstreaming eh. IT lingo there, no common user understands what it means. And the complete idiots who installed who successfully installed the aforementioned OS-es... If you can call someone that has figured out how to boot from CD an idiot, then I do believe you've never seen an idiot in your life.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It is called SuperFetch. Like just about all of the other features in Vista which may or may not be desirable to certain people, you can turn it off. Just turn the SuperFetch service off.
Linux has done caching in all available ram as long as I remember. Its nothing new to me as a concept. The vista task manager shows Physical memory usage % automaticaly without cache(look at the status bar in of the window in your link). I ignored the free count and looked at the used count FYI. Its most common newbie question in Linux world for people from Windows too...