Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Yeah, I know people who work for MS, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. You were spouting off ignorant crap, I corrected you. Sorry, I guess I didn't fully consider all of Microsoft's history before making such an ignorant statement.
Acantha Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Sorry, I guess I didn't fully consider all of Microsoft's history before making such an ignorant statement. That makes sense. You really don't know anything about Windows 7, but figured since it's happened before you could get a good bashing thread going without any real knowledge of the subject.
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 That makes sense. You really don't know anything about Windows 7, but figured since it's happened before you could get a good bashing thread going without any real knowledge of the subject. Someone's in line for a choking...
Ramius Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Sounds like Microsoft's got these supposed problems by the neck.
DC Tom Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 That makes sense. You really don't know anything about Windows 7, but figured since it's happened before you could get a good bashing thread going without any real knowledge of the subject. Steely, post an opinion based on complete ignorance? Why, I can't believe that would happen...
KRC Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Steely, post an opinion based on complete ignorance? Why, I can't believe that would happen... I'm shocked.
Magox Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 That makes sense. You really don't know anything about Windows 7, but figured since it's happened before you could get a good bashing thread going without any real knowledge of the subject. Sounds about right
Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 That makes sense. You really don't know anything about Windows 7, but figured since it's happened before you could get a good bashing thread going without any real knowledge of the subject. Did you read the link and whole purpose of this thread? It was about the inability of people to get their downloads to work. I was bashing Microsoft's ability to put out a workable download, not windows 7. So how is that bashing windows 7? Others jumped in to defend Windows 7 and took it in a different direction than was intended by me. My argument about Microsoft's inability to put out finished products is based on a long line of Microsoft OS releases. Can you tell me one OS that hasn't had a few problems that needed to be fixed to avoid a security problem? It seemed with XP I kept getting download notices saying something like; "this download will help close a security problem that was detected...." and I bought the OS after it had been on the market for a year. For all of those defending Windows 7 how do you know it is ready? There hasn't been a lot of time to test it. Given Microsoft's track record I find it interesting that so many people are getting bunched panties about this.
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 It seemed with XP I kept getting download notices saying something like; "this download will help close a security problem that was detected...." and I bought the OS after it had been on the market for a year. For all of those defending Windows 7 how do you know it is ready? There hasn't been a lot of time to test it. Given Microsoft's track record I find it interesting that so many people are getting bunched panties about this. Every operating system (and most pieces of software in general) will have updates that are required, especially related to security. That's not a knock on MS, every company deals with it. How often do you have to update Adobe Acrobat Reader for crying out loud? As for Windows 7 -- it's been available to the public as a free beta test for at least 6 months, probably a lot longer. I know a dozen people who have been using it for that time, a few of them are using it as their actual desktop. Is it going to be completely problem free? No. Neither is Mac. Neither is Solaris. Neither is RedHat. OpenBSD is the only one that comes close, and even that has a few updates every 6 months. As for the download issue in this case -- it could very well be a Digital River issue, and not a MS problem. We have no idea, and likely never will. Because it's an MS product, they'll take the hit (and they won't want to make their vendor look bad), but it's probably not entirely their issue this time around. Who would've thought I'd be defending MS....?
Corp000085 Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I got the digital river $29 download. It had that problem, but that little workaround to make it into an ISO worked like a charm. took a whole extra 5 minutes too. No complaints so far!
KD in CA Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Yeah, I know people who work for MS, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. You were spouting off ignorant crap, I corrected you. Steely Dope spouting off ignorant crap? No way. I bet he even posted a link to a top ten list on the subject that was written by someone even less informed than himself. I got a new Thinkpad at work a couple weeks ago with Win7 on it. So far it's been great. The IT guys think the improved speed will allow us to get some extra life out of older laptops. Just what I like to hear during budget setting season.
Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Every operating system (and most pieces of software in general) will have updates that are required, especially related to security. That's not a knock on MS, every company deals with it. How often do you have to update Adobe Acrobat Reader for crying out loud? As for Windows 7 -- it's been available to the public as a free beta test for at least 6 months, probably a lot longer. I know a dozen people who have been using it for that time, a few of them are using it as their actual desktop. Is it going to be completely problem free? No. Neither is Mac. Neither is Solaris. Neither is RedHat. OpenBSD is the only one that comes close, and even that has a few updates every 6 months. As for the download issue in this case -- it could very well be a Digital River issue, and not a MS problem. We have no idea, and likely never will. Because it's an MS product, they'll take the hit (and they won't want to make their vendor look bad), but it's probably not entirely their issue this time around. Who would've thought I'd be defending MS....? I know every company releases things early and that's my point. Why can't they give it a little more time. It reminds me of a Dilbert I saw. His company is putting out a product he knows isn't ready to be released and he's talking to a salesman. Dilbert tells him the new system will erase all of the data from a computer the instant it's installed. The salesman writes down, "Increases memory space." Vista was available as a free beta test too and yet it still sucked and a lot of people have complained about it. In fact it seems, to me, that Vista is the worst OS Microsoft has ever put out. Finally, I have no idea why people here are so compelled to defend MS. They effed up and somehow I'm to blame for pointing that out. If people want to blame the distribution company instead go ahead. I still think MS should have made sure that their distribution method worked.
DC Tom Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 For all of those defending Windows 7 how do you know it is ready? There hasn't been a lot of time to test it. Given Microsoft's track record I find it interesting that so many people are getting bunched panties about this. It's been in testing for maybe 18 months, and in beta for at least 6. "Hasn't been a lot of time"? And define "ready"? I have a sneaking suspicion that you definition of "ready" is "perfect". Good luck with that.
Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Typical answer, no matter what company.... "It worked fine in the lab" I can understand the need to get it to market quickly but releasing these things so early just makes more fodder for the Mac commercials. At least have it 90% ready. JMO Look they screwed up on the electronic download for one item. That's hardly 90% considering the other distribution setups are working. As far as Windows 7 being ready, it is ready and was not rushed to market. As for the mac's, don't believe all the hype. I support both at work. They both have their pluses and minuses. BTW, I said they should have it 90% ready not that it was only 10% ready now. You're jumping to conclusions about something I never said. You wanted to interpret it that way and your interpretation was wrong. Your statement should have been "that's hardly 10%" instead of 90%.
Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 It's been in testing for maybe 18 months, and in beta for at least 6. "Hasn't been a lot of time"? And define "ready"? I have a sneaking suspicion that you definition of "ready" is "perfect". Good luck with that. Was six months enough time for Vista? By ready I mean having most of the bugs worked out. Nothing is or ever will be perfect but getting it a lot more refined before release wouldn't hurt. What is your definition of ready?
kegtapr Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 In fact it seems, to me, that Vista is the worst OS Microsoft has ever put out. Ummmm.....no.
Steely Dan Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Ummmm.....no. What would you say? I admit I've never used Vista and that's because of all the complaints I've heard about it. My computer came with 2000 and I have XP now. Those two didn't have nearly as many problems as Vista is reported to have had.
kegtapr Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 What would you say? I admit I've never used Vista and that's because of all the complaints I've heard about it. My computer came with 2000 and I have XP now. Those two didn't have nearly as many problems as Vista is reported to have had. Windows ME to begin with. 95 and 98 weren't as good either. Vista got a bad rap that it never recovered from (with your take on it even though never using it being the perfect evidence as to why.) I was building a new gaming rig and wanted to go 64 bit, but was very hesitant because XP was always solid for me and didn't want to wait for 7. I've been running it for over 6 months without a single issue. It's been more stable for me then both XP or 2000 were, and that's saying something. It might not be the best, but it far from sucks.
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Windows ME to begin with. 95 and 98 weren't as good either. Microsoft Bob was way worse too.
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I can understand the need to get it to market quickly but releasing these things so early just makes more fodder for the Mac commercials. At least have it 90% ready. JMO So because the digital download/upgrade process didn't work, you're saying that makes the product less than 90% ready...?
Recommended Posts