| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:34 am |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | I also think I would rather stick with the devil I know, than migrate to the devil I don't know.
Windows really does get the best marks for compatibility. The issue of microsoft being the dominant software corporation is also an intresting one. I tend to think what would happen if macintosh (for example) was instead the dominant software corporation, would things really be better? I don't think so. |
Windows gets the best marks for compatibility? o_O Last time I checked, the most compatible system would be something that one could edit themselves. Hmm . . . yeah. I'm pretty sure that the most compelling reasons for other software companies to write software primarily for Windows is the fact that Windows is proprietary, so those corporations don't have to release their oh-so-precious source code.
I know I'm being pointlessly naive, what with this unrealistic expectation that companies should care more about customer satisfaction than their profit margin. Fortunately for silly, idealistic me, there are other people out there who make software that does work nicely with a bunch of different operating systems (whether or not they charge money for it is irrelevant--it is perfectly acceptable to create free software and charge money for it). And you're right, it may be more difficult to find this software (although hardware is largely the problem, and unfortunately, unlike software, hardware requires more time and energy to produce in bulk). But it's improving . . . bit by bit.
My point was that I would rather have no dominant software corporation. Or at least, I would be fine if Microsoft were the de facto dominant corporation, as long as it had stiffer competition (as it is getting, bit by bit, now). Take Internet Explorer 7, for example. The increasing market pressures of Firefox, Opera, et al, has "encouraged" the development team to actually get some work done. I hear that it may, at least, have fixed that darn annoying problem with alpha-transparency support for PNGs and might, in fact, actually manage to render CSS slightly better than it does now (although I have my doubts).
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | The problem with pre windows 2000 operating systems now is that support is no longer avaliable, which makes security patching harder to do. |
Plus it's devilishly hard to install hardware drivers for them. >_< I got a 98SE-compatible wireless adapter for my brother's computer last weekend, but it took hours to install because the disk didn't have the right drivers on it. So I had to search the Internet for the proper drivers, install them, and so on. . . . gah. I like Windows 98, honestly I do, but XP's ability to automatically detect my hardware is a boon that I like.
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:25 pm |
|
I should point out that Windows 98 SE includes a similar feature.
If you have the disk for your hardware, put it in the drive, connect the hardware, and from the "Control Panel" folder, select "Add new hardware" and let windows scan it itself. It'll usually find it, then click "Have Disk" and point it at the cd/a:-disk/usb device that has it. It'll find all the data it needs.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:45 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | PrankishSmart wrote: | I also think I would rather stick with the devil I know, than migrate to the devil I don't know.
Windows really does get the best marks for compatibility. The issue of microsoft being the dominant software corporation is also an intresting one. I tend to think what would happen if macintosh (for example) was instead the dominant software corporation, would things really be better? I don't think so. |
Windows gets the best marks for compatibility? o_O Last time I checked, the most compatible system would be something that one could edit themselves. Hmm . . . yeah. I'm pretty sure that the most compelling reasons for other software companies to write software primarily for Windows is the fact that Windows is proprietary, so those corporations don't have to release their oh-so-precious source code.
I know I'm being pointlessly naive, what with this unrealistic expectation that companies should care more about customer satisfaction than their profit margin. Fortunately for silly, idealistic me, there are other people out there who make software that does work nicely with a bunch of different operating systems (whether or not they charge money for it is irrelevant--it is perfectly acceptable to create free software and charge money for it). And you're right, it may be more difficult to find this software (although hardware is largely the problem, and unfortunately, unlike software, hardware requires more time and energy to produce in bulk). But it's improving . . . bit by bit.
My point was that I would rather have no dominant software corporation. Or at least, I would be fine if Microsoft were the de facto dominant corporation, as long as it had stiffer competition (as it is getting, bit by bit, now). Take Internet Explorer 7, for example. The increasing market pressures of Firefox, Opera, et al, has "encouraged" the development team to actually get some work done. I hear that it may, at least, have fixed that darn annoying problem with alpha-transparency support for PNGs and might, in fact, actually manage to render CSS slightly better than it does now (although I have my doubts).
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | The problem with pre windows 2000 operating systems now is that support is no longer avaliable, which makes security patching harder to do. |
Plus it's devilishly hard to install hardware drivers for them. >_< I got a 98SE-compatible wireless adapter for my brother's computer last weekend, but it took hours to install because the disk didn't have the right drivers on it. So I had to search the Internet for the proper drivers, install them, and so on. . . . gah. I like Windows 98, honestly I do, but XP's ability to automatically detect my hardware is a boon that I like. |
I'm not quite sure what your referring to but I gather it's the fact microsoft is not open source. In that case, no software company that would be as big as microsoft would keep their software open source and thats why it's near impossible to obtain the source code for windows even in the warez world.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
