 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
What Went Wrong with Windows Vista? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:50 EST/14:50 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
December is the month for year-end reviews. We begin our first 2007 look back by offering 10 reasons why Vista failed to "WOW" consumers or businesses. Make no mistake: Despite PR assertions otherwise, Windows Vista did not meet Microsoft expectations. The signs are everywhere:
Some of these signs are bigger than Vista's early disappointment. There has been a change of management in the Windows group since Vista's launch. Also, Microsoft executives are feeling better about Vista today than in, say, March or April. Vista delivered good revenue results during Microsoft's 2008 fiscal first quarter, which ended Sept. 30.
That said, Vista has gotten off to a rocky start, which could have been avoided. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 53 of 53 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 62611 (67.166.83.247) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:40:25 AM |
|
The problem is really all the linux elitists spreading FUD. There is alot of negativity in the community that is almost all untrue. People are just jumping on the Vista hate bandwagon, many of which have never used Vista.
It also doesn't help having so many versions of the OS. There should have been only one cheap version. Microsoft also did a lousy job of advertising alot of the under the hood changes in Vista. They advertised the fluff which most people don't care about and now there is the impression that Vista is just XP with a new GUI when it is so much more. And alot of people forget what it was like when XP came out. People bitched about how slow it was and went back to 98 to play their games. It took many many years for businesses to adopt XP which is really not unexpected. My company only switching to XP 2 years ago. Once you understand Vista, the changes and why they were needed. How Vista uses ram, superfetch, etc. Once you use it for awhile on good hardware you come to love it. It's a self tuning OS and gets faster over time. There are also patches out there that are part of SP1 but are on the knowledge base and not windows update. These address many issues. I've been using it since beta. For me it is very stable, never crashes, all my apps and games are fast too. I have yet to find an app/game that doesn't run or a piece of hardware that doesn't have drivers. And i'm using the 64bit version on my desktop, 32bit on my HTPC. |
| #2 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:11:19 AM |
| I have to agree with the above poster. I have been using Vista pretty heavily and although it has issues I think it is a good operating system. This is not to say that some people haven't had a poor experience with Vista. Every new system will have people that don't like it or had a poor experience. I work in IT and I have had many people say that Vista is crap. When I ask them to explain why or how long they used it the majority have no experience with it. Another blogger called it a negative feedback loop. It is interesting because you have another new release (OS X) that had quite a few initial problems but like always apple can do no wrong. Every new system has issues and every new system will eventually mature and those things will be worked out. Saying this is just a Vista or MS issue is unfair. You only have to look as far as the first releases of OS X to see troubled beginnings that turn out okay. |
| #3 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:21:11 AM |
|
#1: Too funny. First you say that the problem with Vista is the FUD from Linux users, as if Linux users control the media or something. You then go on to say:
- the way that Vista was marketed was crap - the Vista advertising campaign was crap - Vista is slower than XP like XP was slower than Win98 - Vista requires obscure patches to fix its "many issues" So what caused the problem again? You've got me confused. |
| #4 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 12:18:58 PM |
|
There is no perfect OS. Every OS including Linux, OS X, Windows, etc will need patches and fixes for issues. It has taken years of evolutionary upgrades for Linux distros to become usable for the average user. OS X was really in beta for it's first two releases even though they made people pay for the OS. This is not an issue endemic to MS. It is an issue when developing any complex system. I don't get why anyone is surprised when a new OS is released and it has growing pains.
|
| #5 By 93110 (65.95.25.135) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 03:47:46 PM |
|
Anyone using Vista and having no problems is liar. Latch told me so.
Therefore I don't use Vista. He never used it either. |
| #6 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 03:59:41 PM |
|
#3 Its normal to be confused when you spend so much time discussing something like Vista when you've never used it.
The normal brain (even your tiny one) rebels at such contradictions. |
| #7 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 05:15:53 PM |
|
#5: I was under the impression that ActiveWin frowns on people creating multiple aliases, eh Parkkker?
#6: I told you that I've got Vista running on one of me secondary systems, but that was at least 7 days ago so I wouldn't expect you to remember. |
| #8 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 06:26:59 PM |
| #7: Maybe you should do Parkkker a favour, and change your name to Latch: Running Vista on a Secondary Machine. That way, Parkker's limited memory stack wouldn't keep overflowing. |
| #9 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 06:40:41 PM |
|
#7 Don't believe you for a second. Your ignorance about Vista is too deep.
#8 Latch, your other account/stooge should at least pretend to have an independant thought in its head. |
| #10 By 16797 (65.95.25.135) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 06:59:51 PM |
|
Well.. works fine here.
This post was edited by gonzo on Sunday, December 09, 2007 at 19:00. |
| #11 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 07:06:04 PM |
|
#9: Still sucking up to Microsoft, I see. Keep up the good work. Microsoft needs all the mindless drones it can get to spew the company line.
12/10/07: Edited kiddie inappropriate language, since it would have been over Parkkker's head anyway. This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 10:55. |
| #12 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 08:21:10 PM |
|
#7: That's a very good point! I want to know why my Latch. and Uketchum accounts were locked out. I was just getting ready to cut a whole “Latch Is My Hero” post from MundaneSentinel when AW put the kibosh on me, and I never once used foul language. That’s fair! Here we’ve got Parker with at least 4 or 5 accounts and Sentinel posting euphemisms about sexual acts. Thanks for the double standard AW.
This post was edited by rxcall on Sunday, December 09, 2007 at 20:27. |
| #13 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 09:33:19 PM |
| #12: At least I said what I did as my self, and not using a different fake account. |
| #14 By 16797 (65.95.25.135) at Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:14:28 PM |
|
#8: You think someone like Latch is actually running Vista (on secondary machine)?
After all the posts he (Latch) made -- how Vista sucks, etc, he then.. what, paid for Vista??? Something doesn't really fit, can't really have it both ways... For example, for me, Linux is useless crap.. Would I then go and pay for it? LOL Man, I would not use it even if I was paid to do so :) |
| #15 By 17996 (66.235.18.153) at Monday, December 10, 2007 02:04:19 AM |
| It's funny how this guy says there isn't enough stuff in Vista for most people to warrant upgrading, but goes on to say that he thought XPSP2 should have been released as a separate product that people would have had to pay for... |
| #16 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, December 10, 2007 07:18:37 AM |
| #14: At some point in the past, as I recall, he indicated that he bought a new computer, and it came with Vista of some flavour or other. He didn't go and buy it separately. My understanding is that he wiped it from that particular computer, and installed it on a slightly older PC in order to play with it. |
| #17 By 16797 (142.46.227.65) at Monday, December 10, 2007 08:14:57 AM |
|
#16 And you believed that? I just can't.
I mean, someone with that kind of attitude toward anything related to Microsoft (Vista especially) went out and purchased new PC with Vista on it? Well.. It is not like you can't get new PC without Vista (or, even better knowing Latch, with Linux on it - Dell has them, right?). Another thing --- you said: He didn't go and buy it separately. My understanding is that he wiped it from that particular computer, and installed it on a slightly older PC in order to play with it. Uhmm... how is that possible? I mean is it not true that preinstalled Vista is already activated on that specific hardware? How did he move it to another computer then? Hmmm, is that one more reason not to believe him? I could be wrong, though. This post was edited by gonzo on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 08:15. |
| #18 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at Monday, December 10, 2007 09:38:20 AM |
|
" #7: That's a very good point! I want to know why my Latch. and Uketchum accounts were locked out. I was just getting ready to cut a whole “Latch Is My Hero” post from MundaneSentinel when AW put the kibosh on me, and I never once used foul language. That’s fair! Here we’ve got Parker with at least 4 or 5 accounts and Sentinel posting euphemisms about sexual acts. Thanks for the double standard AW."
Yes, we are banning additional user accounts created. The additional accounts are only good for the sole purpose of trolling/deceiving. It's common sense. We have monitored most of the regulars and banned their extra accounts. There just is no need for that on this site. People can debate and exchange arguments (maturely) without the need of additional accounts. If regulars continue to create additional accounts, they are now risking the chance of getting their main account banned. The upcoming AWIN will be much easier to monitor and censor (profanities, vulgarities, etc.). Keep in mind that it's not only adults that read this website, and post comments. We ask everyone to try and refrain from posting inflammatory comments and any profanity. This post was edited by AWBrian on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 09:40. |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, December 10, 2007 10:43:19 AM |
| #17: There is no conspiracy to deceive here. I received a $1500 Best Buy card early this year. They only sell a few types of systems (HP/Compaq, Gateway and Acer), so I bought an HP M8000N that came with Vista Home Premium. I wiped it and put XP back on after spending a few hours with Vista. My secondary system is running the NoPE release of Vista Ultimate that doesn't require any activation or WGA nonsense, dual-bootable with Ubuntu 7.10. |
| #20 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Monday, December 10, 2007 11:38:45 AM |
|
#19
How is that any better? You are running a ripped off copy of Vista. Is the copy of XP you put on the HP system legit? I doubt it. Being such a big proponent of open source why are you running XP on your primary system? why not Ubuntu? |
| #21 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Monday, December 10, 2007 12:13:44 PM |
| #18: You have to admit that my uketchum posts were pretty dead on. |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, December 10, 2007 12:19:59 PM |
| #20: I have a valid XP license from the secondary system but I run a version of XP that has the activation & WGA nonsense removed, just like NoPE's Vista. Essentially, I've flipped the OSes around on my two main systems. Open Source != Linux, btw. I run a number of FOSS apps under Windows. I have been considering a switch to Linux on my main system for the better part of 2 years. My work is Windows-centric, and I can't get a Linux VPN client for my company's firewall and I need remote access. Plus, I play PC games which also negates Linux, but I've been playing a lot less games lately so that isn't so critical any more. No drivers for my HP USB scanner and no emulation mode either. |
| #23 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Monday, December 10, 2007 01:03:13 PM |
|
#22
You didn't just flip the OS's around. The copy of Vista you bought was Home Premium. The one you are running is Ultimate. On top of that the license you bought was OEM attached to the HP system. The license you paid for does not allow you to run it on another computer. The same probably goes for XP. The only way you are doing it is by using illegal license keys for both. Don't make it into some BS about not wanting WGA/Activation. Not liking a component of Windows does not give you the right to rip off the software or break licensing agreements. So what I said still stands. So you biatch about everything MS then rip them off because Linux cannot provide the platform you need to do your work. Bravo. Not only does that make you a hypocrite but also a thief who can't even pay to use products that make him money. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, December 10, 2007 02:22:37 PM |
|
#23: I fully admit I'm running warezed copies of Windows, I do so unapologetically and I really don't give a damn what you think of me. I refuse to have Microsoft's Sword of Damocles hanging over my head in the form of WPA & WGA. In your world, you would have me pay Microsoft 4 times to use Windows on two systems the way I want to. Sorry, but no.
So you biatch about everything MS then rip them off because Linux cannot provide the platform you need to do your work. I've paid them twice for Windows on two systems. That's enough. I don't care what MS prefers. If there was true choice in the market, I would have gotten the new system with XP, but I can't, thanks in part to MS' control over the OEM market. And Linux has nothing to do with this. The maker of our firewall does not support Linux, so this is not a case of deficiency in Linux. That reminds me that I need to check if the VPN client works on Vista. Not only does that make you a hypocrite but also a thief who can't even pay to use products that make him money. I'm not clear on how I'm a hypocrite here. Care to elaborate? While I've been critical of MS' unethical & illegal behaviour and some of their products shortcomings, XP has evolved into a decent OS. I still advocate using Linux if you can, but the reality is that you must sometimes use Windows thanks to its ubiquitousness. And be certain that MS does not make me money any more than the road I drive on to get to work makes me money. My effort makes me money. Windows is simply a tool that performs a function which I use as dictated by my company. Nothing more. |
| #25 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Monday, December 10, 2007 02:41:23 PM |
|
#24: Does you company know you are connecting to their network with a pirated version of XP? That would be grounds for dismissal at my company.
My point is, they should pony-up the money for a legit copy of XP/Vista (or a company laptop) or provide you with a means to VPN via Linux. This post was edited by rxcall on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 14:44. |
| #26 By 16797 (65.95.25.135) at Monday, December 10, 2007 03:54:41 PM |
|
#24: "I refuse to have Microsoft's Sword of Damocles hanging over my head in the form of WPA & WGA. "
They put stuff like that in Windows because of people like you in first place. |
| #27 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Monday, December 10, 2007 03:57:22 PM |
| I'm all for off topic, interesting discussion, but can we dispose of the personal whippings and move on? |
| #28 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Monday, December 10, 2007 03:58:34 PM |
|
"I'm not clear on how I'm a hypocrite here. Care to elaborate? While I've been critical of MS' unethical & illegal behaviour and some of their products shortcomings"
Well to be honest, if you are indeed running 2 illegal licenses (in addition to your 2 legal licenses), that is unethical and illegal as well. So, I can see the hypocrisy there. Someone who is performing unethical and illegal behaviors voices their dissatisfaction with a company doing the same thing falls into the kettle/pot/black category. I have, in the past, run illegal copies of software as well. |
| #29 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Monday, December 10, 2007 04:07:02 PM |
|
#24
Nice to see you spinning in circles trying to explain yourself. How is the fact that you had a 1500 gift card to Best Buy and could only buy your computer there MS's fault? Every major manufacturer still offers systems with XP on it. You were not forced into buying a system with Vista and then running a pirated upgraded version. You could have even bought a system with Linux on it. Or no OS at all. Or built a system from scratch. Don't make it out to seem that Bill gates came to your door and made you buy a particular system, with a particular OS, and forced you into a license agreement that you didn't want. If you don't like the licensing agreement then don't buy the software. But then that would make too much sense huh? And the road does make you money just as your OS does. You wouldn't be able to get to work and make money if it wasn't there. But the difference between the road and your software is that you are actually paying for the road through your taxes. In your world i bet you think you shouldn't have to pay for roads either. #25 Yeah i was thinking the same thing. If he is doing work from home they would providing a laptop or the software itself. Every major company i deal with would not allow this to occur. The only way most operate is to provide company laptops for VPN access. |
| #30 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at Monday, December 10, 2007 04:52:28 PM |
|
#29 One more thing - If Latch is bypassing WGA then how does get updates for his various illegal systems? He always complains about Windows' lack of security, yet here he is running unpatched systems.
And oh yes, why didn't he use the $1500 to buy an Apple? They are sold at Best Buy. |
| #31 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Monday, December 10, 2007 07:35:52 PM |
|
"And oh yes, why didn't he use the $1500 to buy an Apple? They are sold at Best Buy."
That is what I did. Once you go Mac, you don't go Back. |
| #32 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Monday, December 10, 2007 08:27:48 PM |
|
#28: I'm running two licenses, period, not "in addition to" anything. This, at worst, could be considered a breach of contract which is certainly not illegal in a criminal sense. I own two license and I'm running two licenses. I do not believe that MS should have the right to dictate which license runs where, and in my judgment I will run what best suits my requirements. I can sleep knowing that I'm adhering to the spirit, if not the absolute letter, of the agreement.
#29: How is the fact that you had a 1500 gift card to Best Buy and could only buy your computer there MS's fault? I never said it was. What was MS' fault was how you could not, at that time, buy a system with anything but Vista on it. You actually have more options for OS now, thanks to the Vista backlash, then earlier this year. Every major manufacturer still offers systems with XP on it. Um, no, not at Best Buy in May of this year you couldn't. You were not forced into buying a system with Vista and then running a pirated upgraded version. Yeah, I kinda was since you couldn't get anything but Vista. How many times do I have to say it? And, for the record, I downgraded to XP on that system. You could have even bought a system with Linux on it. Not at Best Buy I couldn't, and even then it would not allow me to remote in to work unless it ran Windows so Linux was out of the question regardless. Or no OS at all. Or built a system from scratch. Not from Best Buy. Starting to notice a pattern here? Don't make it out to seem that Bill gates came to your door and made you buy a particular system, with a particular OS, and forced you into a license agreement that you didn't want. If you don't like the licensing agreement then don't buy the software. But then that would make too much sense huh? I needed a new system and they all had Vista on them. MS' onerous licensing terms are ridiculous and arbitrary. I have two systems and two licenses. The fact that I'm not running them the way that MS dictates is hair-splitting, and the only reason any of you give a damn is that you're just looking to hammer me for any little thing you can find. When MS was caught red-handed bribing a company, you all just whistled and looked the other way. But now I'm running Vista on an XP box and XP on a Vista box... well, I should be thrown in prison for my sins I guess. None of you guys have ever run any warezed software, no downloaded music or movies? Hmm?? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This post was edited by Latch on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 21:37. |
| #33 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at Monday, December 10, 2007 10:03:12 PM |
|
Latch:
With all the conspiracy theories being thrown about here, the first stone I expect to see is Oliver. :-) |
| #34 By 16797 (65.93.213.131) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 03:41:00 AM |
|
#32 Spin, spin, spin..
I do not believe that MS should have the right to dictate which license runs where, and in my judgment I will run what best suits my requirements. Likewise, Microsoft is selling what best suits their requirements. Linux is under GPL because it best suits their requirements. If Microsoft was breaching GPL, they'd be wrong. Period. Man, you're a such a hypocrite. |
| #35 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:37:39 AM |
|
#32: There are no excuses not to be legal except your own stubborness:
Windows XP Pro for $55. http://edirectbuy.net/index.php?productID=119 |
| #36 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:59:13 AM |
|
I find it ironic that Latch is being hammered for running Vista illegally when the truth is still that he isn't running Vista at all.
He told some unbelievable lie to sucker people into thinking he is actually running Vista. Now he's being hammered for the content of the lie, not the lie. |
| #37 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:21:38 PM |
|
#34,35: Let me ask you something: do either of you have any music on your computers ripped from CDs you own? The recording industry says that ripped music fom CDs you own is unauthorized and stolen product, and they would like you to purchase via iTunes or other online merchant the music you already have on CD. Do you both agree with their interpretation, or do you disagree? My question is relevant to my understanding of your beliefs in what is legal vs what is moral.
|
| #38 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 01:17:45 PM |
|
I just thought of a bit of irony...
The Music Industry didn't care back when we were copying Cassette Tapes and Records because the source was analog, and suffered a decrease in quality when copied. So... Now they don't want us to copy their pristine digital copies. Instead, they sell us copy-protected AAC, MP3 and WMA files - Already degraded in quality from the source. Now ain't that a bitch or what? TL |
| #39 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 02:22:42 PM |
|
Latch
You can spin it any way you want. Just because you don't believe the licensing is right doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. If you don't like the licensing don't buy or use the product. You take the moral high road constantly but you can't see that your actions make you a hypocrite. Plus even if for the sake of argument you are right you are still running an upgraded version of Vista from the one you bought. Home premium to Ultimate. |
| #40 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 02:58:54 PM |
|
#39: You can spin it any way you want.
I fully understand that, no matter what I say, you and the rest of the microbots will continue to poke me with a stick. No problem, I'm not going to pull a Ketchum, take my ball and go home. I can understand your frustration with my constant exposure of Microsoft's bad behaviour & criticism of their shoddy products, and this is your one chance to get your sanctimonious revenge. As the saying goes, I've been called worse by better. I'm as imperfect as any other human. However, I wouldn't be so fast to judge me. Did you knowingly break the speed limit on the way to work today? Did you ever copy a movie or song for a friend/family member? Did you fudge your taxes just a little bit? Did you ever jaywalk or blow a stop sign? You've never run unlicensed software, ever? I've admitted that I swapped licenses on two systems, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for it. What have *you* done, or gonzo, or rxcall? Not that I expect any of you to admit to anything, as that would knock you off your high horses. I notice neither gonzo nor rxcall have been in any hurry to reply to my question. Nobody is ethically pure and I sure didn't ever claim to be, and you don't have to be to call attention to the serious deficiencies of another. Plus even if for the sake of argument you are right you are still running an upgraded version of Vista from the one you bought. Home premium to Ultimate. At the time, Ultimate was all I could find. Since Vista is on less than 15 minutes per week, tops, for software installation experimentation, I don't even use the features of Ultimate over Home Premium, or Basic for that matter. It hasn't been booted in the last few weeks. The last time it was up, I installed an IDE that I do some dev work on just to see that it works. I'll probably boot it up this weekend to test the VPN client. If, after the release of SP1, all my problems with Vista are resolved and my required software functions, I will eventually revert the HP box back to it's original Vista config and blow XP off the secondary system. I'll make sure to notify you all when I do so that you can celebrate me for reforming my evil ways. |
| #41 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 03:07:40 PM |
|
Yes, I have some illegal music, but I don’t bellyache about how much the song sucks then continue to listen to it. That would make me a hypocrite.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you pirate software, music, videos or whatever. Just don’t pilfer it then complain about it. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. You never answered my question: Does your company know that you are connecting to their network with illegal, unpatched software? This post was edited by rxcall on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 17:11. |
| #42 By 16797 (65.93.213.131) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 03:38:56 PM |
|
#40: "What have *you* done, or gonzo, or rxcall?"
We just nailed you for your hypocrisy.. And I'll tell you what I haven't done: complained constantly about someone else doing something, if I was doing basically the same thing.. But that's just me. #40: Nobody is ethically pure and I sure didn't ever claim to be, and you don't have to be to call attention to the serious deficiencies of another. You see, that is called hypocrisy. I mean, didn't you just write: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."??? #40: "I don't even use the features of Ultimate over Home Premium, or Basic for that matter." Yeah and I stole that nice car. But so what, I'm not really driving it that much.. :) Latch, you are so b.u.s.t.e.d. This post was edited by gonzo on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 15:51. |
| #43 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 08:06:19 PM |
|
#42: We just nailed you for your hypocrisy..
And I'll tell you what I haven't done: complained constantly about someone else doing something, if I was doing basically the same thing Not even close. I've admitted what I've done and I don't think I've done anything wrong. To compare that with the deeds of MS, a company that has a long history of screwing customers, partners and competitors, a company with a long list of legal defeats for taking the technology of others and using it without paying anything for it, a company that has been convicted of antitrust violations in the US and Europe, a company that is in an ongoing effort to force through their flawed standard into ISO by stacking or bribing foreign committees, a company that was recently caught bribing another company to displace a competitor (unsuccessfully)... that's just absurd. You see, that is called hypocrisy. I mean, didn't you just write: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."??? There is no equivalence. I have a license for XP and a license for Vista. MS should not be allowed to dictate what happens with your system after you've bought it, and I will resist their attempts to do so. In a more reasonable world, I should be able to install my licensed copy of XP or Vista on any system I own, so long as there is only as many active installs as licenses purchased . I'm not looking to rip MS off and they get their OEM license money from the systems I paid for. Nothing I have done precludes me from ripping Microsoft when they do something to deserve it. |
| #44 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 08:55:58 PM |
| Latch's catch phrase: “Hey, at least I’m not as bad as Microsoft”! |
| #45 By 16797 (65.93.213.131) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 08:56:12 PM |
| #43 Whatever.. |
| #46 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:06:14 PM |
|
#44: You might want to watch what you say. You've admitted to copyright infringement, but you're ripping me for running warezed Windows instead of the Windows I have a license for? I'm using something I paid for in a manner not approved by the owner. You're using something you didn't pay for in a manner not approved by the owner. Nobody is 100% innocent & pure, so it all comes down to degree. FYI my company has no policy regarding systems used to connect to the VPN.
#45: You've probably got downloaded or ripped music on your system right now. |
| #47 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 07:05:37 AM |
|
#46: You might want to watch what you say - you've admitted yourself that you didn't pay for Vista Ultimate.
As I said, I don't care what you do with respect to illegal acts. I just fine it comical that you do nothing but rip Microsoft yet you go out of you way to use their software. You go out of your way to upgrade their software in a way that prevents legit patches from applied to that software, then you bellyache that the the software sucks. You complain up and down Activewin about Microsoft's infrequent patches, but here we find that you don't even apply them. Hypocrisy, thy name is Latch. This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 08:27. |
| #48 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 08:31:28 AM |
|
#47: You might want to watch what you say - you've admitted yourself that you didn't pay for Vista Ultimate.
Yet I'm not labeling anyone a hypocrite while having unclean hands, as you are doing. I just fine it comical that you do nothing but rip Microsoft yet you go out of you way to use their software. Go out of my way?? Please. My work requires it, and there are one or two things that I can't do in Linux that I need to do. Believe me, the second I can dump Windows, I'll be gone. You go out of your way to upgrade their software in a way that prevents legit patches from applied to that software, then you bellyache that the the software sucks. Where did I say that I'm unpatched? Both my XP and Vista installs connect just fine to WU and update without a hitch. You're making incorrect assumptions, or smoking weed. One of the two. |
| #49 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 08:59:10 AM |
|
Forgive my ignorance in the software theft arena (I'm only somewhat experienced in music theft). I assumed that since you bypassed WGA that you couldn't get updates - my mistake!
I’ll say it again it’s not the thievery I fine hypocritical, it’s your bellyaching. Windows sucks but you can’t do the real important stuff on Linux. Which OS sucks again? It's a shame MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS lest we all be forced to use an OS that can't play games and can't connect to work. The only thing left is to download porn. I knew Linux was good for something! |
| #50 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:36:31 AM |
|
#49: I’ll say it again it’s not the thievery I fine hypocritical, it’s your bellyaching.
You throw 'hypocrisy' around a lot. I think you need to crack open a dictionary and find out what the term really means. Complaining about Windows while using it is not hypocrisy. (And since you apparently haven't been paying attention, I complain a LOT more about Microsoft in general than I do about Windows specifically.) Complaining about your government while living in the country is not hypocrisy. Complaining about the evils of tobacco while being a smoker is not hypocrisy. Windows sucks but you can’t do the real important stuff on Linux. Which OS sucks again? I can do everything I need, with the exception of two important things, none of which have to do with Linux's lack of suitability. It is not Linux's fault that there is no Linux client for the firewall my company uses. It is not Linux's fault that there is no development environment for a particular Windows segment that I require. It's a shame MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS... Agreed. The only thing left is to download porn. I knew Linux was good for something! Perhaps for yourself. Smarter people have found many better uses for Linux. |
| #51 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:25:34 PM |
| There you go folks "Last word Latch" on display for all the world to see. |
| #52 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:44:42 PM |
| #51: Stop posting things that warrant a response and I'll stop responding. It's that simple. |
| #53 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Wednesday, December 12, 2007 01:00:10 PM |
| Told ya! |
