Microsoft Windows... a virus with mouse support.
Hi everyone....Im new to this place and i feel that i will benefit a lot
Also i am a...
Hello. And Bye.
Thats hilarious! My type of story. =) Nice site too.
How can I transfer data from a host PC to the virtual PC?
Thanks,<a href="...
I like the "Any Internet forum" version.
|
|
Topics |
Featured content |
Overheard in techMicrosoft Windows... a virus with mouse support.
Unknown
|
Hi everyone....Im new to this place and i feel that i will benefit a lot
Also i am a coder..If anyone has any questions..please feel free to ask...
Hello. And Bye.
Thats hilarious! My type of story. =) Nice site too.
How can I transfer data from a host PC to the virtual PC?
Thanks,<a href="http://www.webmarketingexperts.com.au/">SEO</a>
I like the "Any Internet forum" version.
My response was going to be "Now if you'd only buy 10 million copies, Microsoft would be fine", but I like yours, too.
If you're suggesting that a lot of people once scared off from Vista will finally give it a try... I don't think that'll happen. Not because it hasn't improved (it may very well have), but simply because Vista's successor has been heralded, paraded about, and promised to appear quite shortly. No reason to jump to a Vista that's already on its way out!
3D may bot increase the usability by leaps and bounds for all desktop uses. But if Vista's Aero and 3D flip are going to be hyped so much, definitely Compiz offers far better and more useful feature set for much lesss hardware resources.
This is a bogus claim seen all over internet. Basing lack of viruses for Linux on its market share is totally baseless. The reason Linux and Mac OS X have fewer viruses is that they are based on time tested principles of UNIX. If market share is the reason, I have a counter-example. As of this very second, there are more sites (including mission critical ones) running on Apache. But the most number of real-world exploits have been on IIS (far more than Apache). The fact is the fast evolution and patching of open-source software makes exploits less likely. Even if Apache has more possible vulnerabilities at any particular point of time, they get fixed much faster than those of Windows. This makes it more difficult for the attacker to attack a large base of installation as patches would have been rolled out by then.
Then please don't comment on its current state.
I can give many, cost (OS, Anti-virus, Office suite, graphics app, etc), freedom (read Vista's EULA properly and there is a fat chance that u are already violating few of its terms, though u have bought ur copy legally). If u call it users' fault, I have installed Ubuntu, no anti-virus, not even firewall. I run few servers which are publicly accessible, so I have 6 ports opened with unrestricted port forwarding on router and all the servers using them are running in root mode. I check many spam attachments to ensure I don't miss something normal (especially if the subject is looking sensible). I have no virus or malware so far. I have installed it on 3 HP and 2 Dell laptops so far. No h/w or s/w issues on them too. My friend who got a dell laptop with Vista home basic, is finding it too slow for running heavy apps, mind u no Aero there. Also, u asked me not to mention some of the primary negatives of Vista. Also, in the original article most (not all) of the references are from eminent trusted sites not some kid's blog.
You have no Anti-Virus and you haven't had any virus yet. Is this based on the theory that if you can't identify a virus it can't exist? I might as well close my eyes and say the sun hasn't come out today.
Small correction there it is not "bot" it is "not"
Another small correction it's "less" not "lesss"
"In one year or two all of them will be running Vista."
Think so huh? Even business have been wary of spending money to upgrade to it. Not everyone has the money or incentive to upgrade to a quad core to run all the eye candy in vista. Most people want basis functionality--office & word, web browser email. And I guarantee you most people don't care for drm at all.
"you need it because of the new technologies such as directx10 and forth
and pc's will be faster and faster and Vista will boost performance overtime"
You don't need vista for new technologies at all. What new technologies? DX10? DX is nothing more than an api for graphics cards so windows programmers can more easily get at the metal--it doesn't add more features than the graphics card already itself is capable of providing it merely makes it easier to tap the power. And DX10 is fully capable of being deployed for XP. In case you weren't paying attention MS created numerous versions of DX from win95 to DX 9 on XP. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with vista at all. Do you think everyone is naive? You obviously got that machine for DX10 and gaming and are a power user--you should know better since power users often want the most out of their hardware investment--you won't get the most return using VISTA at this time, thats for damn sure, and SP1 is unlikely to fix the bulk of the issues. XP worked much better than vista did before id even had SP1, esp. for games. That b/c they had released SP's for win2k and the transition was a lot easier--not so this time.
"On my Q6600 with 4 GB ram and raid 0 runs flawlessly... Even Windows XP can't match Vista on that machine... considering for 4 GB you must install xp x64 which is way worst than Vista x64"
Yeah of course with a quad core and 4GB of ram, it's going to work better. And that's just BS--I call BS. Windows XP it outperformed by the bloated drm ridden vista? How do you figure since the OS inherrently is calling on the CPU's to do more work than with XP? Perhaps your XP installation was hosed or you're just on crack. And most people aren't going to upgrade to the latest and greatest just to use vista. A lot of people bought computers just 1-2 years ago and aren't going to upgrade again just so vista doesn't bog down. As for XP64--hardly a fair comparison since MS hasn't spent the time pushing XP64 and support for it like they have for vista. They've bypassed it altogether in favor of vista. Vista should never have been released and they should have pushed XP64 along with improvements to security and DX10.
"Just wait and see. I'm pretty sure!"
I'm pretty sure too--that VISTA is windows ME version 2 rofl.
"XP was heated before."
Not like vista are you kidding? What are you 10 years old or something? XP was much more compatible when it was first released than vista is. I had numerous games and apps work right from win98/se even. You're gone dude...get a clue
"Vista is the best Microsoft OS (till Windows 7 will came out)"
Black XP is superior to Vista. Windows 7? lol when will that be, the year 2010 or 2012?
Almost a year on and Vista is much improved. A lot of people, including businesses have been frightened off - so it may not last very long. However most of the compatability problems have vanished following the latest Vista & driver updates. Games and other software that just wouldn't run when I bought Vista (and were apparently never going to be compatible) now run even better than they did in XP. We had to wait for it though - a shame they didnt finish it before releasing it - and it may need a few more patches yet.
I'm a lot less annoyed than I was a year ago with Vista. I hated it at first but now I quite like it.
I may be able to salvage the product code from my old (broken) XP laptop. Anyway, I'll be pricing MacBooks real soon now; I suspect they're too expensive --- even with the usual caveats about better speed, efficiency, quality, and service.
MPCOC
Microsoft forever!!!
blueoo.com
Sadly, yes Vista is that bad - I've had the misfortune to use it.
Fail. Fail. Fail.
vista sucks!blueoo.com
Apparently many, many people agree with you, and are happy with XP as it is. That's something MS can be proud of: XP was good enough to keep fans happy throughout years of use and a major new OS intro!
It'll be interesting to see whether Windows 7, like Vista, has to battle XP as its biggest competition.
P.S., i can build a PC that can do almost anything most users need for under $500 because XP isn't (as much of) a resource hog like Vista. when was the last time you saw a Vista PC under $600 that didn't have a Celeron or Sempron or such processor in it to make it cheap (in all meanings of the word)?
i have to agree with Cloaked Lurker on just about everything he said. i don't even see why there NEEDED to be a Vista... as soon as they patched XP to the point where i didn't get the BSOD every other day, i was content. then the next month i hear they're coming out with a new Windows by the end of the next year...was there something missing from XP? i already had everything i needed... in the words of a friend of mine, "the one thing I really liked about Vista is it was aesthetically pleasing. now if only I could've gotten it to play my XP games and not keep bugging me on whether I wanted to open the file I JUST CLICKED ON, I might've kept it." this was after i downgraded it to XP for him. not a simple task either. almost turned his PC into a doorstop...
mypoint being that the only thing most people want out of an OS (even those who don't know what that is) is to run OTHER programs. anything extra is just that: EXTRA, and should not be at additional cost to the consumer. many of the "upgrades" were merely visual or simply a rearrangement of commonly used programs so that veteran users would have something new to "learn", when in fact much of the "new" features can be implemented on XP. as for DirectX10, i've read interviews from game coders saying that much of what it does could be implemented using DX9 (with more extensive coding of course), not to mention that MS could've just coded it for XP...whoops, just mentioned it.
so i reiterate, give me ONE THING i couldn't live without that's on Vista.
I have found two interesting sources and would like to give the benefit of my experience to you.
I am tuning my pc by the best software for free, with the file search engine DornFall
May be you have your own experience and could give some useful sites too. Because this social site help me much.
Sounds like the SP improvements are working for some! I hope it keeps running well for you.
My Vista Installation is working absolutely fine. Takes me about 40 seconds or so and I'm from a Off state to desktop loaded and online with Outlook 2007, Firefox (with 2 - 3 tabs) and MSN messenger, and a crap load of startup items as well including I-Mesh and My Drop Box.
I'm not having any issues with Vista Ultimate.
It was the cub that did it for me :-)
I think MS will actually learn a few things, and make some improvements in Win 7. But maybe not in areas that will really matter long-term, like a key one you mention: DRM. People are really starting to take note, and that's going to be the issue that drives me (for one) into open-source arms.
I've got a Toshiba HDD that runs on an embedded Linux OS, but is still so stuffed with DRM that I can't get any of my recorded TV content off of the #@&! thing. Things are a little better with mainstream OS computers, what with all the tools and hacks available to users, but both Apple and MS are pushing the DRM wherever they can.
No question about it: my next set-top HDD is going to be a home-made box with free (as in freedom) software. Commercial DRM is getting ridiculous, and is going to bite its backers.
No, I'm not part of beta testing. Of those who are, some say it's as poor as Vista, but others claim great improvement, as you do.
To be honest, I can't imagine that Win 7 won't be notably improved over Vista in some ways. I don't mean that in a snarky "nowhere to go but up" way; rather, it would seem that the issues with Vista have been firmly noted by just about everyone in great detail, and there's simply no reason for MS not to tackle the more glaring errors.
But will an improvement on Vista be enough to maintain that 90%+ position in the OS market? With a recession in full swing, Apple firing on cylinders nobody knew it had, and Linux as unstoppable as ever, I can't imagine a happy future for Windows. At least not from the viewpoint of what MS is used to.
have you actually used it? it is already vastly improved performance wise over vista...
The Vista 7 failure log has been activated, as has the M$ Death Watch. I should have seen it coming but Vista surprised even me with it's suck. The combination of the usual Windows legacy flaws, intentional upgrade waste and insane DRM produced a failure beyond all expectations. As GNU/Linux bites into their Windows profits and OO/Google Docs steals away Office users, they have less to work with than ever. The chances of them learning from their Vista mistakes are about as good as what they learned from XP mistakes - zero. Whatever bugs they fix for Windows 7, it's not going to let you do simple things like record American Gladiator and that means Windows 7 will be more of the same, but there will be fewer suckers this time. Epic fail is on the way, if M$ survives long enough to actually release it.
Don't panic. Software and network freedom here and growing.