I hate my Mac, too.
http://randytayler.livejournal.com/50595.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Oh, If ONLY
A well-informed article that explains how and why Microsoft should abandon Vista.
Remember Windows ME? No? Yeah, it was this operating system they made that... well, it's gone now. The difference with this OS is probably in the dollar signs that went behind its marketing. Because it sure ain't much more beloved than old ME was.
Vista sucks, but only as long as it lives,
Randy
Remember Windows ME? No? Yeah, it was this operating system they made that... well, it's gone now. The difference with this OS is probably in the dollar signs that went behind its marketing. Because it sure ain't much more beloved than old ME was.
Vista sucks, but only as long as it lives,
Randy
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Now there's a service worth paying for...
A shop is advertising Vista removal.
Man. I'd hate to be Steve Ballmer right about now.
On the way to the bank, however, I wouldn't mind being him. You know, temporarily.
Vista sucks, and I'm now posting this from Leopard,
Randy
Man. I'd hate to be Steve Ballmer right about now.
On the way to the bank, however, I wouldn't mind being him. You know, temporarily.
Vista sucks, and I'm now posting this from Leopard,
Randy
Friday, December 14, 2007
Upgrading Vista to XP
Found this beautiful article, a review on upgrading to XP from Vista.
In other news, I bought my Mac. It comes next week. It cost more than my wife's minivan (which, admittedly, we bought with 166k miles on it). It's the third most expensive purchase of my life, after my house and my car.
Here's to hoping it's worth it.
Vista sucks so much it drove me into the arms of a loving Mac,
Randy
In other news, I bought my Mac. It comes next week. It cost more than my wife's minivan (which, admittedly, we bought with 166k miles on it). It's the third most expensive purchase of my life, after my house and my car.
Here's to hoping it's worth it.
Vista sucks so much it drove me into the arms of a loving Mac,
Randy
Friday, November 30, 2007
THE CAKE HAS BEEN TAKEN!
Vista has successfully taken the cake:
How do you like error code 80070002, eh?
"Get help".
You know, that's great advice. FANTASTIC advice. I'm going to get help right away.
Most likely from a leopard.
Vista sucks, but the cake is so delicious and moist,
Randy
How do you like error code 80070002, eh?"Get help".
You know, that's great advice. FANTASTIC advice. I'm going to get help right away.
Most likely from a leopard.
Vista sucks, but the cake is so delicious and moist,
Randy
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Oh, Come ON! No RAR support?
I can almost... almost... understand why they'd leave Windows Vista with no built in graphics program better than Paint, which remains basically the same as it was in Windows 3.1. You have all these bedfellows who sell graphics programs -- Adobe, for instance -- and you tell them, "Hey, if you promise to release your next versions ONLY for Vista, we promise to not include any real graphics programs with our OS."
I'm not saying that happened -- I'm just saying I could imagine it happening, which would explain why something as simple as a robust image editor isn't included in Vista. It makes sense from a certain twisted perspective.
But no support for RAR and TAR files?
You of course know what I'm talking about. RARs and TARs are types of zip formats, like ZIP. If you have a file named blah.zip, Vista knows how to open it. It CAN open it. It unzips it. But if you have a RAR or a TAR -- formats that, granted, are more common among the Linux and Max crowds -- Vista plays dumb.
Historically, Windows has always tried this. "Don't support other systems." Has it worked? Has it locked people into Windows somehow? Of course not. Is it even a logical business tactic? No. It's just Microsoft being a bully, throwing its weight around because it can. "Why should we provide a service that isn't an absolute requirement? Why facilitate the sharing of information with other systems? That would somehow acknowledge that we don't have a monopoly -- and if folks realize that, they might begin to think they have other choices."
An operating system doesn't HAVE to include image editors, sound editors, movie editors, games, word processors, or even web browsers. It DOES have to include the ability to see your files, though. By deliberately NOT supporting a standard compression format, Vista is failing on a fundamental requirement.
Vista sucks, but not in the cool Vampire way -- rather, more like a leech,
Randy
I'm not saying that happened -- I'm just saying I could imagine it happening, which would explain why something as simple as a robust image editor isn't included in Vista. It makes sense from a certain twisted perspective.
But no support for RAR and TAR files?
You of course know what I'm talking about. RARs and TARs are types of zip formats, like ZIP. If you have a file named blah.zip, Vista knows how to open it. It CAN open it. It unzips it. But if you have a RAR or a TAR -- formats that, granted, are more common among the Linux and Max crowds -- Vista plays dumb.
Historically, Windows has always tried this. "Don't support other systems." Has it worked? Has it locked people into Windows somehow? Of course not. Is it even a logical business tactic? No. It's just Microsoft being a bully, throwing its weight around because it can. "Why should we provide a service that isn't an absolute requirement? Why facilitate the sharing of information with other systems? That would somehow acknowledge that we don't have a monopoly -- and if folks realize that, they might begin to think they have other choices."
An operating system doesn't HAVE to include image editors, sound editors, movie editors, games, word processors, or even web browsers. It DOES have to include the ability to see your files, though. By deliberately NOT supporting a standard compression format, Vista is failing on a fundamental requirement.
Vista sucks, but not in the cool Vampire way -- rather, more like a leech,
Randy
Friday, November 9, 2007
I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave...
Ever since XP added the great feature where Windows now boots in less than one minute, we've all had to live with being unable to use Windows for the first 5 minutes after it's all booted up because it presents you with an inert or sluggish desktop while it continues to finish booting in the background.
It's sort of like when you cleaned your room as a kid. You know, your mom would say "Did you put your socks in the hamper?" and instead of saying "Ummm, no", you'd run back into your room, then come back out a minute later and announce "Yes!"
You can get a gadget for Vista that lets you watch the CPU usage on your computer. What I find very odd, however, is that while in XP my CPU will spin at 100% for the first 2-3 minutes after booting, in Vista it never seems to get above about 14%.
Is Vista that much faster? No. Vista is lying. If you attempt to interact with the machine, you will immediately discover that Vista isn't finished getting ready. You can click an icon to select it, but double-clicking won't launch the application for at least 30 seconds--if at all. Even better, right-clicking won't even bring up the context menu for items in the system tray. But Vista isn't busy, oh no: the CPU is sitting there at 8%.
It's like telling your kid to stop watching cartoons and go clean up their room, and having them say, "Okay, I'm done" without taking their eyes off the screen. Then if you ask them if they picked up their socks they say nothing. After the cartoons are over, they get up, go ride bikes for a while, then come back and pick up their socks. THEN they proudly announce "Yes!"
If Vista was my kid, I would become an abusive father in self defense. And no jury would ever convict me.
Posting this from Kubuntu,
Chalain
It's sort of like when you cleaned your room as a kid. You know, your mom would say "Did you put your socks in the hamper?" and instead of saying "Ummm, no", you'd run back into your room, then come back out a minute later and announce "Yes!"
You can get a gadget for Vista that lets you watch the CPU usage on your computer. What I find very odd, however, is that while in XP my CPU will spin at 100% for the first 2-3 minutes after booting, in Vista it never seems to get above about 14%.
Is Vista that much faster? No. Vista is lying. If you attempt to interact with the machine, you will immediately discover that Vista isn't finished getting ready. You can click an icon to select it, but double-clicking won't launch the application for at least 30 seconds--if at all. Even better, right-clicking won't even bring up the context menu for items in the system tray. But Vista isn't busy, oh no: the CPU is sitting there at 8%.
It's like telling your kid to stop watching cartoons and go clean up their room, and having them say, "Okay, I'm done" without taking their eyes off the screen. Then if you ask them if they picked up their socks they say nothing. After the cartoons are over, they get up, go ride bikes for a while, then come back and pick up their socks. THEN they proudly announce "Yes!"
If Vista was my kid, I would become an abusive father in self defense. And no jury would ever convict me.
Posting this from Kubuntu,
Chalain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)