Stephen Fry and Apple Macs

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:09

I'm not sure why people are saying Vista is rubbish.

Most people who are relatively 'casual' computer users probably couldn't tell you much between the difference of Vista and XP apart from a few aesthetic changes and a slightly different start menu. It can't be that bad.

MikeHunt79 · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:11

^ I found Vista very slow, while my XP installation tends to be much faster with most programs I use.

simulatorman said:
Don’t tell me you like a little DOS once in a while.

Nah, since I discovered DOXbox, I can run everything in a nice little window

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:12

reflux said:
Any reasons why you think it's so incredibly bad? Because you're basically trolling at the moment.

LOTS, one is that I do a lot of development work, and I find Linux a much better system to work on. Windows is my last choice, with Apple's OS X just slightly ahead. I like that on Linux and OS X you have a ton of inability file manipulation software like head and grep etc. Not to mention the fact it's free and can run "most" Windows Apps with Wine anyhow.

I'm not trolling just saying that I think Vista is pants.

semi-pro waster · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:12

dangerstat said:
I'm not debating that in the slightest I'm just saying Vista is carp, and it is! Do what you want, but because you can't run a few apps you like doesn't make vista any less pathetic

Any reasoning at all for calling Vista "carp" or "pathetic"? It might not be the greatest OS in the World but at least have a reason for slating it.

//edit I see you posted at the same time as I did so you can ignore this.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:12

dangerstat said:
I'm not debating that in the slightest I'm just saying Vista is carp, and it is! Do what you want, but because you can't run a few apps you like doesn't make vista any less pathetic

Linux is useless to be because it doesn't do what I want it to!

It doesn't get any more simple than that. If the OS can't do what I need, it is utterly useless to me. Yes, Linux, to me, its completely and utterly useless.

the reason I'm getting so worked up over this, is that time and again Linux/Mac users will tell me that Vista is crap, and when i tell them that their preferred OS simply does not do what I want of it, time and again they will get up on their high horse, blame the developers, blame me for my choice of programs, and just continually tell me that Vista is crap, without giving reasons, exactly like you are doing now! I'll use whatever bloody programs I want thanks.

How can it be crap, if it does exactly what I want, indeed its the ONLY OS that does exactly what I want.

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:13

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Linux is useless to be because it doesn't do what I want it to!

It doesn't get any more simple than that. If the OS can't do what I need, it is utterly useless to me. Yes, Linux, to me, its completely and utterly useless.

Becuase your useless at using it doesn't make it a bad OS. I can't drive a formula one car, I wouldn't know where to start, but does that mean an F1 car is carp :confused:

reflux · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:15

dangerstat said:
Becuase your useless at using it doesn't make it a bad OS. I can't drive a formula one car, I wouldn't know where to start, but does that mean an F1 car is carp

No, but using a correct application of that analogy, a Formula 1 car would be absolutely rubbish on most normal roads.

My boss prefers Linux for dev work too, but would rather use XP than Mac OSX. He says it's rubbish for developers.

Oh well, horses for courses.

semi-pro waster · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:17

dangerstat said:
Becuase your useless at using it doesn't make it a bad OS. I can't drive a formula one car, I wouldn't know where to start, but does that mean an F1 car is carp

Yes an F1 car is utterly useless if I want to do the weekly shopping, it won't go over road humps easily, I can't carry passengers and it isn't road legal. Apart from that it's a great bit of kit. Do you see where this is going? Slating Vista because you don't think it does something as well for you as Linux doesn't make it a rubbish OS, it means it isn't the OS for you.

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:17

reflux said:
No, but using a correct application of that analogy, a Formula 1 car would be absolutely rubbish on most normal roads.

That's far enough if you don't do anything other than write word documents I'm sure you'd be happy with Vista. The fact, like I keep saying, that Vista can run this or that does NOT make it a technically better OS.

reflux · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:18

dangerstat said:
The fact, like I keep saying, that Vista can run this or that does NOT make it a technically better OS.

But it does make Mac OS and Linux better?

Le_Petit_Lapin · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:20

dangerstat said:
Becuase your useless at using it doesn't make it a bad OS.

No. What makes it a bad OS, is the fact that it does not do what I need it to. If it could do what I needed it to, and it could do it better than Vista, I'd consider changing.

It simply can't. I don't see what your problem with this is. :confused:

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:21

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
No. What makes it a bad OS, is the fact that it does not do what I need it to. If it could do what I needed it to, and it could do it better than Vista, I'd consider changing.

It simply can't. I don't see what your problem with this is.

No no that doesn't make it a bad OS it makes it an unsupported one. There's a difference

Le_Petit_Lapin · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:22

dangerstat said:
No no that doesn't make it a bad OS it makes it an unsupported one. There's a difference

AND.....if its unsupported, its utterly useless for me!

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:24

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
AND.....if its unsupported, its utterly useless for me!

Yes it might be useless for you, but it is not useless that's the point. Windows Vista is technically not as good as it's rivals, now you can sugar coat that all you want saying it'll run A B or C. But it doesn't change anything.

weringo · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:25

dangerstat said:
Yes it might be useless for you, but it is not useless that's the point. Windows Vista is technically not as good as it's rivals, now you can sugar coat that all you want saying it'll run A B or C. But it doesn't change anything.

Actually it changes everything.

PhillyDee · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:26

Lol. Im dizzy . . . .

The fact is Vista can do anything the others can do . . . . Can you say the same for MacOS and ~ix systems? None of this but it can do most things . . . .

Le_Petit_Lapin · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:27

dangerstat said:
Yes it might be useless for you, but it is not useless that's the point. Windows Vista is technically not as good as it's rivals, now you can sugar coat that all you want saying it'll run A B or C. But it doesn't change anything.

I never said it was useless. :confused:

I said it was "useless, for me".

Vista may well be inferior technically, but given that nothing else will do what I want, it is the only OS for me, and it does what I want well.

dangerstat · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:27

weringo said:
Actually it changes everything.

No it really doesn't. It's like getting a new car, and one supports all sorts of 3rd party add-ons but the better one is just a better car. No matter how good the addons are the other car is just better?

PhillyDee · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:28

ANYWAY

This stephen fry bloke . . . . .

Atrox Moris · 8 Dec 2008 at 18:28

My main gripe with Vista is it's size and resource use (yes we've heard it all before). 11GB fresh install the last time I put it on my laptop. Just what the hell is all that 11GB?

I don't know what a current fresh install runs at, but still. Anything over 3 or 4 gig for a default install is ridiculous.