User talk:Althepal/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Speedy deletion of Lavabit
2 POTD notification
3 Orphaned non-free media (Image:MeizuM8.png)
4 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MacosxlogoX1.png
5 Orphaned non-free media (Image:IBMlogo.svg)
6 Pricing comment
7 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg
8 PhotoLine 32
9 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg
10 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows Vista
11 Unspecified source for Image:Gimpiconnew.png
12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SAT Logo.svg
13 AfD nomination of MinWin
14 Windows Vista Orb
15 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Encarta2007Screenshot.png)
16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Helicon soft logo.png
17 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hfocus410.png)
18 Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillafirefox2.png
19 Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillathunderbird2.png
20 budgerigar photo
21 Unspecified source for Image:Cs2andpixel.png
22 iPhomeOS.png fair use disputed
23 Image:iPhoneOS.png listed for deletion
24 Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPhoneOS.png)
25 Moved List of Mac OS X software to AfD
26 Moved List of old Macintosh software to AfD
27 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iphone os.png)
28 Vista is the best!
- 28.1 edit line
29 Zune vs. iPod
30 Signature question
31 Now its the Mac's turn
- 31.1 edit line
32 Microsoft Surface
33 Lets poke fun at Microsoft
34 Gaming on the Mac
- 34.1 ReactOS
35 OS wars
- 35.1 edit line
36 Image:Xpvistaleopardchangewave.png
37 Reception Section Unbalanced Again
38 Cameras
39 Microsoft download site
- 39.1 Does it need pro?
40 English Budgie
41 New icon
- 41.1 OS-specific userbox
42 Amazon sales
43 Apple buys PA Semi
44 Net Applications April
45 Psystar OpenComputer, HP
46 Image copyright problem with Image:Airtel-logo.svg
47 Windows XP Service Pack 3
48 Linux
49 Firefox 3
50 Copy and paste edits
51 Inkjet Printers, the future
52 Orphaned non-free media (Image:TrendMicroInternetSecurity08.png)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Lavabit

A tag has been placed on Lavabit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Martijn Hoekstra 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD

Hi Ariel,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:BirdBeaksA.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 3, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-11-03. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's neat, Howcheng! :) Althepal 03:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:MeizuM8.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:MeizuM8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MacosxlogoX1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MacosxlogoX1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IBMlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IBMlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Pricing comment

I get what you're saying and I agree that there were too many currencies and conversions happening. I simply didn't understand why there were random currencies listed but not the Euro, which is one of the four major currencies (USD, Euro, pound, yen). I must point out the prices in Euros and Dollars I had in there were 100% correct and I was not implying that they're the same in value. But Leopard does in fact sell for $129 and €129 (rip off for Europe I know).

Anyhow an updated table of all the different prices for Leopard and the currency it sells in is provided for in the main Mac OS X article. I linked to that table in the intro of the Leopard article. This way the intro is not cluttered with the many different prices and versions of Leopard (retail, family pack, server, academic, etc.) and its random currencies. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd still like to see a source for the euro thing. Althepal 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] - click on any store where the country uses the Euro and you'll see the pricing. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So I guess people in Europe will buy it from Amazon.com in dollars, huh? ;) -Althepal 17:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Winvista.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] PhotoLine 32

Hi! It seems like you created PhotoLine 32, so you might like to know that I'm proposing it for deletion because it seems to be a non-notable definition only linked from a couple lists. It'd be great if you could improve it a bit more, but I'm not sure it has much potential... Dreamyshade (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think it is a fairly well-known program. I don't use it, but it was listed so I wanted it to have an article that someone else could expand. Sorry but I can't do that myself. Althepal (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows Vista

I noticed your comment on the Vista FAC page and that info is included in the Criticism Section Alexfusco5 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I specifically meant about mentioning that high numbers of businesses and people say they don't want to upgrade; that is an interesting point. I didn't see it in the criticism section, but I didn't carefully read the article either. Althepal 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi it was a good piece of info.. I did a copyedit though... :) Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) I also feel that second and third sections, specially the list of new features section does not seem to be a "Featured Article" stuff.. how do u feel?Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. The Firefox spellchecker doesn't seem to be working 100% properly lately. I think those sections are pretty good, they have lots of interesting information. Of course they could be made better, but I think it is good enough to be featured. Anyway, that's what the vote is for. ;) Althepal 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Gimpiconnew.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Gimpiconnew.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SAT Logo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:SAT Logo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] AfD nomination of MinWin

I have nominated MinWin, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinWin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista Orb

Hi I was wondering if there's a place where I could find the svg image of the Vista Orb you made...I could really use it...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max611987 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I still have it, and it's not online anymore. Maybe this will help: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/WinVista-Button_rgb.jpg Althepal (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Encarta2007Screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Encarta2007Screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Helicon soft logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Helicon soft logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hfocus410.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hfocus410.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillafirefox2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mozillafirefox2.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillathunderbird2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mozillathunderbird2.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've never seen so much care about what OS is being used before... Whatever. Windows and OS X are used all over Wikipedia for programs which are Linux-compatible and their rationals are not contested. (Even the beta image I replaced with my Thunderbird screenshot was originally on Windows (with no rational form at all) and it wasn't contested.) If you want programs to look like they are from the '90s, fine, but I highly doubt this is needed and still haven't seen anything saying that Linux must be used for screenshots. But could you please at least use Kubuntu or a nice theme so it doesn't make the program's appear outdated? Althepal (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] budgerigar photo

I noticed a budgerigar photo in use on wikipedia section on budgerigars. The budgerigar has a description of an OPalINE BUDGERIGAR. This title to the picture

Budgie001.jpg

is in fact incorrect as this budgerigar is NOT an opaline budgerigar but what is called a "normal" budgerigar. Any chance this can be edited so the article is correct ?

Cheers karen

It looks like you took care of that. I did not write "opaline" anyway. Althepal (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Cs2andpixel.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cs2andpixel.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not used on Wikipedia pages, so no point anyway. I just took the two screenshots for the two programs already found on Wikipedia and put them together... no website. Can that make it a free copyright? I doubt it. Althepal (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPhomeOS.png fair use disputed

[edit] Image:iPhoneOS.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:iPhoneOS.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KelleyCook (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I know you meant well, but I don't think this photoshop edit is going to get by the Fair Use cabal. Might as well bring it up now. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPhoneOS.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:IPhoneOS.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Moved List of Mac OS X software to AfD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of Mac OS X software, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mac OS X software, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Klausness (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved List of old Macintosh software to AfD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of old Macintosh software, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of old Macintosh software, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Klausness (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iphone os.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iphone os.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Vista is the best!

Althepal, I respect you for standing up to my bashing of the article. Looked like you was the only one that had the nerve. Most truthfully, Apple is doing some good things lately and to be quite honest, Vista has been completely revamped to stay competitive. I still believe you can do much more on a Vista machine than the Apple. You simply need a new computer for it, which most of the time applies to Apple as well. Another reason, in my opinion, for the negative reviews of Vista is people's misundersanding of hardware requirements. In my opinion, most computers do not have video cards with 128MB RAM or more. For Vista, you need that for the Aero interface. If you try to run the Aero interface without adequate memory, the whole system suffers. This makes you think XP is faster and more efficient. On my system, I have 2GB RAM, NVidia Geforce 7900GT w/ 256MB RAM, and a Pentium D processor. It runs awesome on my system. I would like to ask you what camera you have - your pics are sharp! I guess you edited it on your new Leopard, huh? In contrary with what some guy proposed that Adobe Photoshop CS3 will not run on Vista is out of his mind. I use it on my computer with no problems. Talk later... -Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.194 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, chad. ;-) Actually, that kind of discussion has come up before on the Vista talk page, and other people were involved as well, but thank you anyway. hehe. I know Vista has great new features, like all new operating systems. Actually, Vista Basic, without Aero, does in fact use more RAM itself then XP. Microsoft recognizes this problem, and already the Windows 7 Milestone one uses far less RAM, even with Aero enabled, but in 2006 Microsoft needed more time to work on Vista and 5 years was already too long, so they weren't able to address all those issues. That was the cause of the "Vista Capable" lawsuit: Microsoft didn't think the requirements would be so high, so some computers were labeled as being "Vista Capable" without the full ability to run Vista, at least not with Aero. I really don't think Aero is an excuse to need more than one gig of RAM: In 2003, Aqua, the equivalent desktop graphics acceleration for the Mac, had Exposé and other features comparable to Aero, and it was working fine on earlier versions of on computers with 128 MB of total ram. Or Beryl (window manager) for Linux which only requires computers to have 256 mb of ram. I understand that if you meet Vista's requirements it will work fine, but the problem is that the requirements are too high.

Thanks about my pictures. Camera is a Finepix S5200, it's a neat little (or not so little) camera. Kind of a stepping stone to an SLR. Software: I actually don't like using Photoshop, its too confusing and most of its features aren't needed for regular post-processing. Most of those pictures are edited with Helicon Filter on Windows XP (before I started using Macs). Helicon Filter is much easier to use than Photoshop and has excellent results. Now, however, I do most of my editing in Apple Aperture, which is pretty much a mix of Picasa and Helicon Filter, the two programs I used to use. My OS: it's actually Tiger. I haven't upgraded, and Tiger works fine. I also keep Windows XP as a virtual machine just in case, but now I've found the Mac software I need, so I don't really use it much. I've also got Ubuntu, just for fun.

It's funny about Photoshop on Vista, too. I was surprised when the guy said it didn't work. But you know what, there are lots of success stores about programs working in Vista, and lots of stories about them not working... Consider yourself lucky, because less than half of Vista users have had really good experiences compared to XP users, according to ChangeWave. Let me ask you: What web browser do you use? Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, or other, and why do you think your choice is the best? I'm just trying to gauge how experienced of a computer user you are: Although Internet Explorer still has about 75% of the market share, that number is quickly shrinking, and most people who have a say on the matter prefer Firefox. I myself use Firefox: by default, it doesn't download many 3rd party spyware cookies, its easier to manage and configure, and there are less security vulnerabilities for it. Also, its open source which increases the chance that users will report problems sooner and they will be fixed in an update shortly afterwards. I'm wondering if you are informed and open-minded about this, or if you just choose Internet Explorer because thats what most people use, or of you really have a good reason to say its better. Talk to you later, Althepal (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chad, if you really want to detriment which is better, Vista or Leopard (or Vista or XP), you have to look at a few things. (1) Is there anything you absolutely need one OS to do that can't be done on the other. (2) Which is better at its core (lowest system requirements, most secure without added software, most reliable with fewest crashes, and maybe fewer criticisms). (3) Which is easiest to use (which can one be most productive using, which is easiest for a new computer user to learn to use, which do people seem to like). Here's what I think, but I'd like to see if you have counter-examples.

Vista/Leopard: I don't think there is anything that absolutely requires Vista. There is already a sufficient amount of software for Mac, and most programs are cross-compatible or have equivalents which are. Advanced games are now Mac-compatible, programs like Adobe CS3 and Microsoft Office are Mac-compatible, scientific programs also work on Macs. Even the US Army has begun increasing Mac use and decrease PC use. I think You can do whatever you need on a Mac. Windows? You can also do whatever you need to do on a Windows computer, its market share alone confirms that. Except for one thing: Cross-platform software development. You can write test out programs for Windows using a Mac indirectly since you can install Windows on a Mac, but even this is mainly a legal issue, you can't install a Mac virtual machine on a PC. The second aspect, I think Mac is a clear winner, and Microsoft seems to agree, since they are making Windows 7 with reasonable system requirements, and they are developing Microsoft Singularity to have the kind of virus-free and reliable operation that Unix-based computers already enjoy. I really don't know why Microsoft doesn't just use Unix. Viruses have been attempted for Mac OS X, but they failed. And requirements: even now with multiple desktop Spaces and Aqua stuff, it requires 512 MB of ram, but Vista with Aero requires 1 GB of ram. And there certainly are more complaints about Vista than for Leopard, and its also clear that more things can cause Vista to crash or get corrupted than there are for Leopard. Finally, for the third test, you can just see that Leopard has 4 star reviews on Amazon and Vista has 2 star reviews. And the ChangeWave report shows 80% being "very satisfied" with Leopard and only 20% for Vista. Having used Windows, Mac (though not Leopard), and Ubuntu, I'd say that Mac is the best, Windows second easiest to use, and Ubuntu the worst (ever try installing software on Linux by compiling it by source code?? lol). I'm not sure if you said so... have you ever used Mac OS X?

XP/Vista: Okay, Vista has some new features but you don't need it for something that you can't do in XP. There is still more software that isn't Vista compatible than there is software written only for Vista. Better at its core? XP for sure. Even Vista Basic is much slower than XP on the same hardware, and XP SP2 has had more problems fixed than Vista SP1. And Windows Defender is not as good as 3rd party software, and Vista makes it harder to use those programs than XP did. What do people like? Lots of people will really like the eye-candy in Vista and the live-search tool. But most people are more annoyed by Vista's problems more than they like the new features. XP is rated higher on Amazon than Vista is. ChangeWave said 20% of people were very satisfied with Vista, and 50% were very satisfied with XP.

So it looks like XP and Leopard are actually better than Vista. Have your own take? Let me know. Just make sure you address the problems listed here http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/177855 Althepal (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Althepa! Sorry for my slow response - been tied up a little over the Easter weekend. I have started to enjoy our debate because you seem to have a lot of knowledge like me but we are on opposite ends of how we see Windows versus Mac. I think it is healthy debate where we both can learn and I see your point but I hope you can start to see my point too. The point I really see that you have been making is that Mac is a reasonable alternative and I believe you that you can do a lot of things on a Mac. It is interesting how well Mac and Windows are beginning to get along better. In the past few years, Mac software has become more available. This is a plus for Mac. I believe the increase in Apple popularity while still very small has been a plus for Windows users like me. Quite frankly, I was getting ready for a beautified interface and Windows can get boring after all day of use. With Mac OS X attention, Microsoft had to make Vista pretty to compete. Vista is a pleasing upgrade to XP because it is pretty. I know old corporates heads will say beauty does not matter in a work place but if secretaries or any other user that uses a computer all day wants it to be somewhat pretty. Ok, enough of the pretty stuff... :) One thing you say that I want to quickly disagree with is that Windows does not need Unix at all. The Windows NT kernel competes very nicely against Unix. I'm not sure how far you go back, but Windows NT came out around 1996 as the new business operating system for businesses that had a completely redesigned kernel. It was developed from scratch to essentially fix the reliability problems of Windows 9x/DOS. I remember the late 90's and the entire computing society had the same similiar acceptance of Windows NT as they now have of Vista. But I believe it was much worse in the 1990s, Windows NT was rarely used in home or SOHO markets where Windows 98 dominated. Software had compatibility problems on NT like they do on Vista today but only worse then. My point is that while there seems to be a problem with folks accepting Vista, it was worse with the acceptance of Windows NT. I recognized the highly efficient NT kernel while other admins were complaining of its compatibility, etc. Even though Windows NT had very slow acceptance, notice where we are today? Windows is completely based on that NT kernel which most people hated. They hated it at first but by the late 1990's, software started becoming compatible for it and Microsoft released Windows 2000 and the slogan was "Built on NT Technology". Even Windows 2000 was not designed for home use, so they release Windows ME. Now you'll see me critical of Windows as I thought that was a mistake, it was very buggy. I was always a big proponent of NT and was glad to see the Windows 9x kernel abandoned in favor of NT. Windows XP Home and Professional was received with welcoming arms. My point again here is that while people are trying to adjust to Vista, they will eventually see the goodness in it like they did in NT. I don't think it was a mistake like ME. I don't even think the requirements are too high as you mentioned. Normally you would want to buy a new computer when you upgrade from XP to Vista and the last time I checked all new computers easily meet requirements. Memory is dirt cheap... I think 2GB RAM is less than 100 bucks.

To answer your question, I have used Mac OS X some as I have a few teachers that purchase them personally for home and I have touched them to set them up on our Wi-fi network. I will say Mac is not bad and offers Windows some competition that I as a Windows user will benefit. Between Fedora and Mac OS X, I would have a hard time choosing which one is better, probably the Mac since it seems to be more accepted but I believe Windows earns 5 stars. This is no lie, I have never had a virus. Windows has been painted as a bad operating system by various figures because of their susceptability to viruses and spyware but if you are a decent web surfer and cautious user, you will not get infected. Virus writers will target the majority and that happens to be Windows. I don't know if I have written this yet or not but after I installed Fedora Linux, it had over 100 patches to download and install. I will admit that right now Windows XP has about 80 patches since Service Pack 2 but that is roughly 3 years since SP2 was released. Fedora 8 has only been out a few months and it already had 100+ patches. I think that is huge praise for Microsoft. I would rather select an OS with fewer patches. I have not used Mac OS X enough personally to know how many patches are released for that so maybe you can honestly fill me in there. Whether you reply that Mac OS X has only a hand full in a year or a lot like Linux, Windows has been praised by actual sources for their quickness to release patches for known problems. As a matter of fact, Windows wins #1 slot for quickness to address security issues once found. I don't remember if Linux or Mac fills in slot #2. To summarize this, I believe the NT kernel is highly efficient and extremely reliable. This is not lie either, since 2001 when I started using Windows XP exclusively, it has only became unstable for me one time. Sometime last year it simply became unstable and had to reboot, but it was ONLY ONE TIME. At home, I have been using Vista since it was released in late 2006 and I have never experienced a reliability issue. I did, however, noticed the inefficiencies of transfering large files when it was first released and is noted on your criticisms section of Vista, and it was not long that a specific patch was released to address that issue. Since then, I see no peformance difference between XP and Vista, and if anything, Vista outperforms in contrary to some.

Compatibility: As opposed to the slow adoption of Windows NT in the home market, Vista is much better at compatibility. From my own experiences and knowledge, the only types of programs that are not compatible with Vista are in particular, 1) CD/DVD burning programs such as Roxio 2) Adobe products (but CS3 lineup are compatible and as stated on Adobe's website...some write that it isn't, but those are Vista bashers) 3) Disk management programs 4) Antivirus utilities. In the above four categories, you just need the latest version which was available at the time of Vista introduction. All my major games ran fine on Vista even though they were released way before Vista came out, even before Vista was thought of (like in the early 2000's). To summarize here, compatiblity is a blown up issue by the magazine writers. If you are upgrading to Vista, buy the latest version and you are ok. My personal calculation that when Vista came out, roughly 70% of software would work on Vista, now it is near 100%. I don't see anything new that doesn't say Vista compatible.

Browsers: I am a big Internet Explorer fan. I bet that doesn't surprise you, huh? Well, to be honest, especially since IE 7 came out I have been a bigger fan. IE 7 is basically a firefox browser taken to the next level. Back in the IE 6 age, I actually used Firefox alongside IE for comparison purposes and I like the tabbed concept and was glad M$ adopted it too. I use Firefox on my experiemental Fedora machine. I have much less exposure to Safari but I did test drive it when I used Mac OS X laptops. I need to test drive Safari a little more, but I thought it lacked tweakability comparied to IE and Firefox. But that is not a fair assessment since browsers only purpose to display web pages. In the IE 6 age, I saw the temptation to use it since IE 6 was susceptable of spyware. It is M$'s fault that firefox had a market share increase, but I believe strongly that they learned from their mistake and that IE 7 blows the competition away. Like I have stated earlier, I have not seen an IE 7 machine infected with spyware whether on an upgraded XP machine or Vista. As far as Vista, I have not seen one infected at all whether it is a virus or spyware. This has been quite confusing to McAfee in which they have recently said that they believe that while virus infections have been below expectations, they believed it would increase as usage increased. If you remember, the months that followed the Windows XP release, it was slammed by numerous viruses including the famous MyDoom and Sassir worms. Vista has been out roughly 2 years and I have not seen the first alert of a virus. I believe it deserves praise for this. How about adding that on the Vista page as a praise section. Just kidding here, but really, Vista is nothing like XP, revamped NT kernel, completely new interface, slighly higher requirements to accomodate the 3D rendering engine Aero, and what else? A protection layer to thwart viruses and spyware. Majority of software was already compatible, I can go on here. To finish on my browser talk, if you are using Windows, it only makes sense to use IE because it is integrated in the interface. It is already partially in memory so it will always be faster than Firefox no matter what they do. I have experience here as I tested opened and closing both of them. At that time it was IE 6 like I said a little earlier, it opened at least 3 times quicker than the equivalent Firefox at that time. Firefox was slightly slower even after it was opened, opening new windows was a bit slower than IE. Firefox as a whole was considerably slower than IE, but I can understand the popularity boost as it was practicically immune to spyware. IE 7 is now immune so you should start to see the IE market share increase again. The only reason that IE does not regain market share is because of Mac OS X users registering as Safari on the net. Yes, I'm admitting that there is a possibility that Mac will continue to enjoy a slight increase in popularity but I question how much. Recent analysts show that Apple market share has been flat the past few months. I don't think it will drop, Mac is a decent OS.

Silverlight is a new browser technology that is supposed to compete nicely with Adobe Flash, etc. Not much is discussed about it now, but I predict that it will become the standard very soon. M$ was nice enough to make it compatible with Apple, but not Linux yet, but they have plans to do so since Linux gurus are griping. What is your opinion on Siverlight? You think it will die or become the defacto standard?

You made a good point about the reasons to upgrade. I agree with you and why the fuss over requirements is no big deal. If you have a Windows XP computer and it runs good, stick with it. This is why Vista adoption has been slow (if you think it is slow), not that it is a bad product but because for most people XP does what they need to do. New computers met Vista requirements so the argument of most computers did not meet requiremnts is not a valid claim and doesn't fly. When XP came out, most existing computers did not meet requiremens for it either. 256MB RAM was a lot in 2001! Vista is prettier and a new fresh version. STOP! Gamers, on the other hand, LOVE Vista! Gamers NEED to upgrade to benefit from DirectX 10. Unlike Apple and Linux, Microsoft is way ahead in the gaming industry. M$ has worked with the gaming community to create the DirectX 10 programming interface that creates lifelike scenery. Have you tried Flight Simulator X on a Vista machine with a adequate hardware? You'll be stunned.

I don't know how much longer I can go on with these long paragraphs! ;-) Don't worry, I see your point.... You know, I actually wanted to get Vista right after its release because I thought it looked really nice. But it was because of all the problems people were having that I wanted to try out Mac OS X... and I liked it. I've used Vista a bit too, and it does look nice, but I don't think that the way they implement looks is very helpful for ease of use, as opposed to in Mac where it seems to help. It really does make no sense to me why Aero exists in the Business version where it reduces the speed of the OS and they don't need things like Flip-3D. Don't get me wrong, 3D stuff is nice, but only where it increases overall productivity. Windows NT: I know, its way better than DOS-based Windows. Windows ME, for example, crashed like every hour, but XP almost NEVER crashes on me. Right now, where Unix is better than NT is in being less virus-prone and in being more reliable (less corrupted) over time. I need to re-install XP ever year or so if I want it to remain at optimal speed and reliability, but not Mac or Linux. That's why Microsoft is making Singularity. Even when software is completely compatible, XP is more reliable than Vista as a result of heaping on new code, where ME or 98 was less reliable than Win 2000 on compatible software. I also recognized that NT was better than DOS, there wasn't really much of criticism in the same way, but right now Vista just has individual problems. (Note that Vista is also Windows NT, as was XP, but XP had significantly better reception than Vista did.) Again, its not like a shift in a kernel, its just one OS change, and the reason is not that people are afraid of it, its that it has problems. Now let me ask you this: If Vista's requirements are not too high, why is Microsoft working on lowering them, why should it be assumed that people buy new computers every year, why do comparable Linux and Mac systems have lower requirements, and why are people so upset? Sure, people could easily buy a new computer and get enough RAM, but it shouldn't be required.

Personally, I favor Mac the most, and it is a real question between Linux and Windows. I think Windows wins, even though I think Linux is superior in most respects, simply because it is often extremely difficult to install certain programs due to dependency hell. I myself just accidentally trashed a huge portion of installed programs on a Kubuntu install while trying to install dependencies and fix problems that kept coming up. Viruses? I've never had a virus problem, though I did have anti-virus software catch some things. Usually, email servers will screen for viruses, and if you're careful what you choose to download, you will not ever get a virus. But not everyone is so careful, and lots of Windows users did in fact get all their computers destroyed from a virus. Not a threat for Mac and Linux users; you say its because it is not a big target. I say yes, that's true, but it's also because programs act in different ways on Unix. I mean, think of it this way: there were dozens of Viruses for pre-OS X versions of Mac, even though it was a tiny target. But now, even though OS X is a somewhat significant target (and virus-makers had almost ten years), there are no known viruses which have spread among Macs. Even though Linux has been around forever and it is highly popular among tech-gurus, there aren't viruses for it, even though you'd think someone might want to bother these tech guys for some reason. I've seen the argument that there are more security fixes for Linux, OS X, and Firefox than there are for Windows and Internet Explorer, but that really is no measure of how secure something is. You could easily say it is because Microsoft isn't "on top" of things, especially since it is still easy for anyone to hack an updated Windows machine without have a firewall. What is your source for Microsoft's quickness of updates? Maybe the "quickness" is only once Microsoft admits a problem. Either way, the bottom line of which system is easier to hack is most important. According to the US Army, Mac wins that battle. And look at is this way: Microsoft waited over one year to release Vista SP1, but Apple released 2 updates (equivalent to a service pack) for Leopard within four months.

Now first of all, that's not my criticism section. The only section I significantly contributed to was the Public reception section. So it's great that you haven't had issues with Vista. But you have to remember, you seem to be in the minority. Look at the reviews on Amazon. com. Some people give Vista 5 stars and have had no issues, but the vast majority had either some minor issues to complete incompatibility with all software and hardware.

Compatibility? Of course most things work, otherwise it would have less market share than Linux. But the problem is this: Windows 2000, XP, and Vista are all Windows NT. All Win 2000 programs ran perfectly on XP. Not all XP software works on Vista. And shortly after Vista's release, things were much worse: most hardware drivers didn't work and much fewer programs worked. Even still, old computers will not run.

Browsers: Yeah, I liked IE7 when it brought tabbed browsing. And I don't use Safari much because of what you said, there are not many add-ons. But check this out: Safari 3.1 supports HTML 5 code. Cool, huh? You can try it out on Vista. Okay, now, I didn't see any advantage of IE7 over Firefox 2, so I stayed with Firefox since it seems to be more secure. Now with Firefox 3 (I'm using Beta 4) it seems way better. Haven't tried IE 8 beta though. Firefox and Safari market share is still increasing: Microsoft needs some huge improvements AND innovations in IE 8. About browse speed... you know, at least according to Apple, Safari 2 is actually faster than Firefox 2, which they measured as being faster than IE 7. Its not like taking up a little extra ram would make Firefox slower. IE 7 may open quicker, but it may browse slower. IE 7's been out for a long time, and it passed up IE 6 in usage share, but the general IE 7 market share has been decreasing, and the vast majority of Firefox users are on Windows. 7.5 percent are Mac users. 17.3 percent of web browsers are Firefox. 5.7 percent are Safari. You do the math. About built-in spyware-virus protection (Windows Defender) I call a negative: It violates fair market practices with making it hard for competition to install and it limits user choice.

Silverlight: I think it might remain small compared to Flash, since Flash is already very good and popularized. People have Adobe Flash and they're not going to make Silverlight without good reason, and since almost everybody has Flash support in their browsers, and only the most cutting-edge folk have Silverlight installed, there isn't good reason. It will die unless it accomplishes one of the following: Microsoft makes Silverlight editing software which as at least as good as Adobe Flash for a fraction of the price AND/OR they put some shockingly amazing features into Silverlight which not only compete with Flash, but blow it out of the water. None of those are the case, as far as I know, but I haven't been really on top of that topic much.

Reason to upgrade: I see your point, but then you need to explain why Dell is offering XP on new machines and why Dell, HP, and Lenovo offer XP restore disks. XP is still a big market, even among high-end hardware.

Gaming: I agree, Direct X 10 is WAY better than Direct X 9 for Windows. However, Microsoft was perfectly capable of making DX 10 compatible with XP and they didn't, so that's a bit of a shame. Though I have never used DirectX 10, I've seen screenshots, and yes, its stunning. I do, however, use X-Plane 9 beta, and its OpenGL graphics rival what I've seen in screenshots of Flight Simulator X. TTYL :-) , Althepal (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit line

Check out these two pages from C|net news.com. http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9902747-56.html?tag=tb and http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9901142-56.html?tag=nefd.pulse . What is indicated in the author's opinion, as well as the poll there, is that 70% of people don't like the idea of switching to Vista. The other page talks about Silverlight in terms of market share and features, if you're interested. Oh, and next time we respond, lets keep it short. ;-) Althepal (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I'll keep my responses short and piffy for you. I just read both articles and I agree with the Silverlight article but I have a problem with the Vista vs. XP article. Vista has much more features and capability than Linux and why it has higher requirements. I was confused the first couple of days when I first installed Vista. It is radically different compared to previous versions and why the average guy will take some time to switch. I would like to introduce an analogy to prove my point: have you ever met an elderly man that has plenty of money but driving a truck/car 10 years old and refuse to buy a new one? His answer is exactly the same as the Vista people that reverts back to XP. The old man says his aging truck gets him around and he doesn't care about the new stuff in the modern vehicles. That's my take on that article to keep it short.

I would like to add that I see your point and that writer's point that Vista requirements are higher than XP and why XP is still favored for the extreme portable PCs. I think that point is valid, but not for desktops. For the extreme portables, Microsoft has recently announced plans to scale Windows Mobile. This means Windows Mobile will be a choice in the near future for real PCs in extreme portability packages. Currently, Windows Mobile is only designed for PDA's as you know.

On the silverlight article, write this down, in 2009-2010 frame, Silverlight will replace Adobe. It will be like Word replacing WordPerfect.

It was simply hard to get people to abandon their Windows 98 machines for 2000 or XP but they have finally done it. I think it is shaping up to be true for Vista but don't think it will take as long.

I bet IE 8 will not run on XP so that will be another way for Microsoft to increase excitement for Vista!

I'm going to respond to the Zune vs. iPod section very soon. Talk later. -Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.104 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chad, you should consider making a Wikipedia account. It hides your IP and can let you know on a Watchlist if any page you're interested has been edited. Now then. Why do you think Silverlight will replace Flash? What are its major advantages? As you may know, the Mac platform is most popular among graphic and web designers, but did Microsoft make any software for drawing and editing Silverlight contact for Mac OS X? Also, I do see your point about Windows Vista, but I think that it is Windows 7 which will be the accepted replacement to Windows XP. If not for Vista's problems, it would have a larger market share than it already does. It's not just that people are afraid of change; as I told you, I made a major change to Mac OS X because I was afraid of Vista's problems, not its features. Althepal (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, advise taken. I now have an account. Beside requirements, if someone is using Vista, what problems should they face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used Vista enough to tell you problems by experience, but based on what other people have said there are things like: some peripherals still aren't compatible, unless Microsoft fixed it you can't copy huge amounts of files in Vista without overloading the RAM, you can't change parts of your computer's hardware without the computer thinking you are a thief, you can't install certain 3rd party security software, you can't use Aero without significant performance problems, and restrictions from digital rights management. An operating system should NEVER tell the user that he can't do something or he can't use his computer, unless it is something which could easily damage the computer, in which case there should just be a warning. Now its not like everyone would run into these problems, and some of them may have been fixed since I heard about them, but its enough to cause me to stick with XP and Mac. BTW: You still need to sign your comments with ~~~~ for your name to show up, WinCEB/Chad. Looking for your opinion on the Zune and iPod. Talk to you later, Althepal (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Althepal, well...my response is to give Vista a test drive because you'll find the ones you've listened to wrong. Even if you are attached to XP and Tiger, get you a third machine with Vista. Money is no problem, right? Just kidding... you could get by with only 512MB RAM, but I recommend 1GB. Pentium 4 or higher of course. Here's the tricky one, for Aero, have a dedicated video card with 128MB RAM or more. I think you can get them for only $50 at TigerDirect if you want to squeak by with the minimum. For me, I have a $200 video card with 256MB RAM. NVideo GeForce is my personal favorite, but ATI is good too. I personally would love to own the latest GeForce 8800GT w/512MB RAM that is DirectX 10 compliant for the latest 3D graphics. I just bought mine not long ago so I'm going to upgrade a little later to it. And back to Aero requirements, I have seen onboard graphics that worked well with Aero. And you can disable Aero and use the basic interface if acquiring a decent video card is a problem. So theoretically, I bet your XP machine would run Vista fine. I bet you even have a decent video card, so just pop in a second inexpensive hard drive as a second drive to install Vista on and you can dual boot. I'm actually doing that now at home. I haven't booted into XP in several months now.

The only thing I am not sure about those complaints are digital rights management. Can you briefly tell me what is going on there?

I have the upper hand on XP and Vista, they have never told me not do something. I have changed video cards, upgraded memory, everything except change a CPU. I have never ran across a time that I had to reactivate due to hardware modifications. At the beginning, Vista did have an issue with copying large files but it was fixed within a few months after release with a patch.

Since I asked you to try Vista, I'll try to test drive Leopard in more detail sometime. Apple is advertising it as the most advanced operating system in the world. I'm like "Wow, what some big heads?" :)

I might be dreaming on Silverlight but I think we both need to keep an eye peeled on its future. I think the whole world is watching it. It really was not easy for WordPerfect to go down and Adobe Flash is not going down without a fight!!! my thoughts on Zune vs. iPod I promise is coming soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My XP machine doesn't didn't get the "Vista Capable" sticker when we bought it, so I doubt it would work. It has a celeron D processor. If I get my hands on a copy of Vista, maybe I could try it out on my Mac. Or next time I go to a computer store I could play around with some on-display computers. So maybe Vista isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but just look at the reviews on Amazon.com. The reviews are more negative than XP, so it does look like at least some people have big problems. I mean, you can't argue that the reviews on Vista are lower than XP or Mac, can you? "Apple is advertising it as the most advanced operating system in the world. I'm like "Wow, what some big heads?" :)" LOL! Dude, what do you expect? That's marketing. But based on all the info I've seen, I think they might be right, depending on how you look at it. It does have an awesome feature set and people say it works really well. It doesn't have the software issues of Linux, and there are less complaints than for Windows, so who knows? I'll probably try it out myself, too. But to tell you the truth, with releases every 1.5 years, it's not really such a big deal about being forced to move to one version of Mac, compared to Windows where they are releasing every 3-5 years now, so there's less debate over Leopard because of that.

Digital rights management, they're supposed to be in 2010. In Vista, certain media content like Blu-ray may require Microsoft-signed video drivers that not everyone uses. I think. That is a needless restriction in Vista. I think. Whatever, like I said I'm just going off of what I've heard. But you can't argue that Vista is as good as it could be: Windows 7 and XP seem to have lower requirements than Vista Basic. Althepal (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"You could get by with only 512MB RAM, but I recommend 1GB." My computer has 1 GB of RAM, and Vista is... Sluggish at best.01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.94.12 (talk)

Seems like a common situation. I hear people recommending 4 GB ram, or at least 2G RAM. Chad was just saying what would work under optimal conditions, I guess, those being a clean install without extra software running in the background, Aero turned off, and a nice new duel core processor. Really, even though my HP desktop has 1 GB ram, I don't think vista would install with the hardware it uses. Althepal (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sluggish issue has to do with other components. Taking an older computer and simply adding RAM will certainly help but it will depend on the CPU, motherboard, hard drive performance, and video card. Try changing your display preferences from "Windows Aero" to "Windows Standard" until you get a newer PC. Windows Vista is actually better than XP about performance degradation, so you should be able to enjoy installing all the programs you want. Be cautious of third party antivirus utilities and system utilities as they use more memory, etc. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one final thing I want to talk about is Vista restricting activities. Isn't it true that it won't let you modify certain files? Isn't that the reason that certain internet security programs won't install? Its the same reason people don't like Norton Internet Security: Once installed, it makes it difficult to remove. Althepal (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, only they are different comparisons. From so much backlash, Norton finally posted a "Norton Removal Tool" on their website for removing it completely but you have to go their site to download that tool. Using Add/Remove programs, Norton purposely leaves pieces of the program in places. Even after uninstallation, Windows Security Center will still report that Norton Firewall is still active and it won't let you turn on Windows Firewall.

Windows XP and Vista does not restrict activities but protects core system files from modification. If you purposely try to replace a system file with a modified version, you normally get a screen that it is not the original file and that Windows wants to restore it to the original. You still have the option of aborting the repair. On Vista, I know there is a lot of gripe on the UAC (user account control), but I turn mine off in Control Panel. It is under "User Accounts". -Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 02:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I happened to reread the Vista discussions today and responded to your message to that anonymous poster. Hope you take no offense but I replied there where it was appropriate. Talk to you later... -Chad 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs)

That's okay. But, although it doesn't seem to make sense, I've seen things like people saying Vista is faster than XP and its even faster with Aero turned on. Its a weird topic and lets just leave it at that. ;-) I do understand about disabling UAC, but I don't think most people disable it. Althepal (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, thought you would find this page interesting. Shows IE 7 steadily increasing market share. Opera seems to be doing better than Safari. March, 2008 Browser Market Share 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs)

And this one is even more interesting, Apple is not as popular as the magazines say. This unbiased report shows only 1% increase in Apple market share in one year. Link to OS Market Share for March 2008 -Chad 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and they also show that IE6 is going down faster than IE7 is going up. As a whole, since last month, Firefox went up over half a percent to 17.83% while Internet Explorer went down .08 percent to 74.8%. Don't know what you mean about Opera: it didn't move from .69% but Safari went up to 5.82%. About operating systems, look at this which shows that over the last 2 years, Mac's market share went up almost double. Sure, its not really that huge and it has been a little up and down, but the general trend is that Windows is steadily losing market share to Mac. And I'm not sure what you mean about magazines. Most magazines I've seen say its lower than the 7.5% indicated here. And if they ever talk about gains, such as "the Mac market share went up 20% last year" its referring to a factor of its total previous market. Althepal (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zune vs. iPod

To bring up a new topic to discuss, what do you think of Zune vs. iPod? Will Zune ever catch up or do you think Apple has a lock on that market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.83 (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Zune might gain some market, but the iPod will remain the main player for a long time. People seem to like the iPod better, its more popular and is easier to use with iTunes, and its kind of trendy. I doubt the Zune will catch up unless it introduces some significant innovations, same deal as Silverlight. What do you think? Althepal (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Call me an apple fanboy, but methinks iPod is better. For no reason. Well... because Zune is Micro$oft! 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.94.12 (talk)

Who said there is no reason? I think the iPod is also better, but not significantly. How about you make a Wikipedia account too? I'd like to see a discussion between you and Chad. lol ;-) Althepal (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess I have waited long enough to write my thoughts. While Microsoft has a reputation of operating systems, Apple is the same when it comes to media players. The market share at my last check Apple is still enjoying a strong lead at close to 70%. Microsoft has similiar leads with their operating systems at about 85%. Apple is increasing their market share very slightly with Tiger and Leopard in the OS market like Zune is with media players. When you mention media players, people think iPod. The two battles are similiar.

Talking about the iPod, I agree what you said, it is definitely trendy. People simply crave them like candy, I haven't seen anything so moving in the technology field since the introduction of flat screen panels!!! iPod being the leader, most perpherials are tailored to mate up with the iPod. Just like Windows is mostly compatible with things, iPods are the same with third party accessories. Every ad I pick up has some kind of stereo with an iPod dock for sale. All of this bodes well for Apple in the music arena.

Now the tough part, talking about the Zune. The first generation Zune, the 30GB model that people actually called the "sh*t brick" and Leo Laporte called "piece of doggy doodoo" did nothing more than hurt Microsoft's reputation in media players with their first attempt. Apple laughed and sold more iPods. The Zune barely saw any market increase. However, the second generation of Zunes that debut last November has been a HUGE success. It is offered in a new 80GB model with a bigger screen than any of the iPods, it runs faster. I know because I bought a Zune 80GB and iPod Classic back in December for comparison. The Zune was about the same weight, but it had a bigger screen and a more intuitive interface. Aside from the Zune 80GB, they also released a 4GB and 8GB model that are equivalent to the iPod Nano's. Their latest Zune software is much better than the previous versions. The Zune 80GB has sold millions (higher than expectations) but that is still a slight amount compared to Apple. The Zune market share at my last check was barely over 10%. The Zune has a lot of work left to do.

While the Zune was actually climbing in popularity, it has slowed down again when Apple stunned the market with the iTouch and sparked interest again! Now that the iTouch is on the market, I admit the Zune 80GB is no longer the best choice. I admit the iTouch is better than the Zune 80GB and it will remain that way until Microsoft releases a model that is fully touch screen like the iTouch. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad the best Microsoft can do is try to imitate Apple's innovations. It is true that iPod sales have slowed slightly, and the new Zune is somewhat popular, but the popularity difference is still extreme. The iPod isn't going anywhere since it doesn't have any major problems and the Zune doesn't have any major advantages. Windows, on the other hand, has a whole Wikipedia article about its problems and the market share is changing at a rather alarming rate. One point on iPod vs Zune: I think the current iPods do or may in the future have a feature to prevent ear damage. Microsoft, however, was sued by somebody because it unexpectedly became very loud and damaged his hearing. Wouldn't you rather have a protective device than an unreliable one? Also, I'm not sure, does the Zune work with iTunes?

Now look at popularity on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/172630/ The top 4 MP3 players are different iPods. Next is not Zune, but one SanDisk Sansa. 4 more iPods, a Zen, 4 more iPods, Sansa, iPod, Zen, Sansa, iPod, Zen, Sansa, and then a Zune 30 GB, at number 22. Next Zune is the 80 GB at number 32. There are Sansas and Zens far more popular than the Zune. So even though the Zune is well known because of Microsoft, it is not something Apple should even think about as serious competition. And by the way, even though Microsoft can make the Zune well known, a lot of people just hate Microsoft (either because they don't like their business practices or because they have had problems with Microsoft tech support or something) and refuse to consider a Zune. So that could be good and bad, it clearly Microsoft hasn't made a significant break into the market. Althepal (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, the Zune does have a few advantages. One is the ability to wirelessly send a song to another Zune effortlessly. While it does only play for three days, it is pretty cool and no iPod model can do that. While I'm not a music freak, if I happened to be, I would actually buy the Zune for that feature because I would like to get the songs from a friend and I bet there is a way to hack the songs so that you can keep them longer than three days or buy them from Zune Marketplace. I wasn't aware of that lawsuit against Microsoft for the Zune. I bet that is another case like the lady sueing McDonald's for the hot coffee she spilled on her leg. While it might be true it became loud unexpectedly, you can quickly jerk the headphones off your ear. And that is probably a problem with one Zune and not the Zune in general.

I completely agree the iPod enjoys slot #1 in the popularity ranking on probably any website. I do not quite understand Amazon unless that popularity is reflecting the sale of used models. I bet people are hanging on to their Zunes which has kept the number of used Zunes for sale limited. Take a look at eBay.... the Zune 30GB has a lot of attention. Most of the auctions have 20+ bids on the Zune 30GB models with the ending price over $125, with some over $175 for some white ones. That is amazing! And the 30GB was their first one and was not supposed to be good compared to the magazines. Another reason magazines don't quite get it sometimes. I have not seen many kids with a Zune, but the few I have seen, I question them on why they bought the Zune instead of an iPod. They actually say they like the Zune better. Those kids had the 30GB, so I bet the new 80GB is more attractive. Kids I ask why they have an iPod, they say "my friends have one". They never say it is better.

You are right, the Zune is not compatible with iTunes, but the iPod is not compatible with Windows Media Player or Zune Software either. With the Zune, you can't buy through Windows Media Player, but you can play Zune songs on it. With the iPod, they have to be converted from that propietery format to WMA or MP3 first. I know MP3 is compatible with both iPod and Zune, but most of the songs purchased through iTunes are in the Apple propietary format. I think compatibility is another advantage for the Zune, in that it can play in Windows Media Player which is on all computers except Mac's of course. If you have an iPod, you are forced to download and install iTunes. With the Zune, the WMA format downloaded through Zune Marketplace is propietary to the Zune/Windows, so I guess both is guilty of forcing their own standards. At least the Zune is compatible with the most widely used media player being Windows Media Player so that is one plus for them.

The Zune did copy the iPod in function, but they took it slightly further with the wireless stuff and the bigger screen I mentioned last time. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the iTouch. -Chad

So Mac users won't be able to use a Zune yet Windows users will be able to use an iPod. Macs can play Windows formats and Windows can play Mac formats, there is no worry there. iTunes is highly popular even among non-iPod owners. There is no problem requiring specific software for your device, like Kodak cameras have Kodak EasyShare with it, but the problem is when the required software isn't cross-platform. Another thing: Low Zune sales are shown on Amazon. If people are selling them on Ebay, it means they want to get rid of them. Wireless--yes that is interesting and nice. About the iPod Touch, there is an iPhone clone, the M8 miniOne, with an iPod Touch clone also coming out by Meizu. Althepal (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mac users are so wrapped with their Apple products, I bet they wouldn't want a Zune installed on their Apple so I bet it isn't a problem anyway. Are you sure the two propietary formats are interchangeable between the two devices? I thought it wasn't. What I was trying to say is that there is not many Zunes for sale on eBay, thus pushing the auctions up very high to close to $150 ending price for still the first generation units. On the other hand, it is cluttered with used iPods and of course new ones too. It looks more like people are getting rid of their iPods and people hanging on to their Zunes. Speaking on Apple's benefit, some of those iPod sales are probably for the iTouch. You know Apple released the iTouch because Zune 80GB was really better even though it was not as popular? The iTouch was used to keep a grip on the market. Microsoft has a mean marketing machine and I still expect the Zune to come out ahead, but the question is when.

Now that is cool! I want one! Ballmer publically announcement a couple of months ago that they do not plan to release a Zune Phone because they intend to focus on their Windows Mobile OS line. Windows Mobile is actually Microsoft's fastest growing market segment which is now leading in the PDA market. So instead of releasing a Zune Phone, they will supply the Windows Mobile software and folks like Meizu can design it the way they want. But that device is such a copy, do you think that is a hoax or is this for real? I saw hoax images of a Zune phone in early 2007 and so I am skeptical... I mean, even the contact listing was identical... seems like a hoax... -Chad 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its a hoax. Its a real company and everything fits together. They have recently modified it a little since then to be slightly less iPhone-like. Among internet users, even though the iPhone is much newer than Smartphones with Windows Mobile, Net Applications reports that for March 2008 .15% of internet users were on iPhones but only .06 were using Windows Mobile. And BTW: They made the iPod Touch because they wanted a non-phone PDA; nothing to do with the Zune afaik, unless you read that somewhere? And when I was talking about windows and mac formats, I meant that a PC could run things like the .mov format and on my Mac I play wav files with a quicktime plugin recommended by Microsoft. Microsoft or Apple formats are not a worry since 3rd party media players (and even 1st party ones), not the operating systems themselves, can play them. Althepal (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature question

Hey, in my preferences I typed in a signature but it still shows up unsigned when I post. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to type ~~~~ at the end of your comments every time. It's not automatic. Althepal (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Althepal, I guess I'm a true Wikipedian now!

If you ever get tired of chatting with me, let me know and I'll stop filling up your page. I will respect your wishes. I can talk technology all the time so I enjoy this. Talk later... -Chad WinCEB (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like technology too. :) When I get tired I'll tell you. You know there is a irc at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-social next time I see you respond maybe I'll check if you're online there. Althepal (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Althepal, I'll try to look at that site tomorrow. I like the new section, I'll try to respond to that too. -Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget about the irc. I'm not gonna use it. Althepal (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now its the Mac's turn

All this talk about Vista's problems and your explanations... how about for the Mac? I really don't see any problems with it, except it does not have a feature to go into hybernation (save worksapce with power completely out) without using 3rd party software. Do you think there are any problems with Mac OS X? Lets talk about them... Althepal (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote last night but Wikipedia was doing database maintenance. Starting off with a couple of positives that Apple needs commended for (which I'm sure people has patted them on the back) 1) switching to the Unix kernel and 2) switching to an Intel processor. Both of those moves has really helped them. Two big positives and two big negatives: 1) compatibility 2) lack of enterprise features. I didn't know about the hybernation, but since you mentioned it, I would be disappointed that I couldn't put my new Leopard to deep sleep without having to buy or download a utility to do that. Windows has had a wide range of power management options since Windows 2000 including hybernation. Vista can govern the processor down during idle states to reduce power consumption. Hopefully Apple will improve these things in their next release. I know you said a while back that Apple has games you can download, but most of the major games are Windows and xBox only. Microsoft makes it easy for game developers using DirectX technology so it is hard for them to redesign the same game for Apple and with less than 6% market share, they have a hard time justifying. Enterprise-wise and in contrary to popular belief, Windows Server is a highly secure network system and beats Linux to death when it comes to business features. I may be wrong, but I don't think Apple supports Active Directory very well. That's all I have until I try it out more. If you know a place where I can download an ISO image to create a Leopard install disc, I would like to install it on a PC for a test drive and come back here and talk about it. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's technically illegal, and depending on your hardware and what steps you follow you may or may not successfully install Leopard on a PC, but you could probably find Leopard and instructions on warez-bb.org. Macs are actually very good about using very little power when you're not using it. Now, I made a small mistake: Mac OS X actually does support hibernation or "safe sleep", but I think its only really meant for MacBooks or MacBook Pros (I've never used them, so I can't say from experience). Even if its a regular iMac, I think there is some stuff you can type into the terminal to enable it, though there is a free software download you can find for a GUI of this. Don't know if it has been improved in Leopard or not. Now looking at that list of games, I saw all the popular ones. Any specific ones not listed? And since the Wii is so popular, are you sure there are more games for Xbox? Althepal (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand.... Half-Life 2 Episode 2 is the most popular first-person shooter game of all-time. The Half-Life 2 series is probably the best game series ever developed and has the best graphics available as of October 2007. Released 6 months ago, it was available only for Windows, xBox, and playstation. A link to its article and the platforms supported is here. Another popular game called Crysis, but not as popular as Half-Life, is a second example. It is strictly compatible with Windows and no console support. Windows really is more powerful than consoles so a few games only supports Windows and not even xBox, wii, or Playstation. Do you game any? Just curious what kind you might play. Talk later -Chad WinCEB (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. You're right, you can't use OS X for all advanced games. Is gaming the only problem with OS X then? Doesn't seem much compared to Vista's problems. You know, only recently with an increasing market share did EA and id begin making their games for OS X. Right now, if you're a major gamer, OS X probably wouldn't be right for you, but as you can see there is already a decent selection to choose from if you do use OS X. And probably more games and companies will port to OS X soon, too. Well, that's what Boot Camp (software) is for. :-) Easily duel boot Windows on a Mac for games, or even use Windows within OS X with 3rd party software. Of course, this is just using Windows, so w/e. BTW: To link to wikipedia pages, format it like [[Article name]]. That way it doesn't show up as an external link and you don't have to do as much formatting.

Me, personally, I'm not much of a gamer. I've played in the past, but not so much now. Maybe a little X-Plane now and then. What about you? Althepal (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I honestly do not see any problems with Vista. It is much more reliable and as every version of Windows, the next version is expected to need a little more system resources. Especially since 5 years of XP, Vista needs 512MB RAM instead of 256MB for XP. That has doubled for memory needs, but the prices is more than four times lower. In other words, the requirements for Vista over XP is much less when you look at the price of hardware. All other problems are fixed, especially with SP1 out, both Server 2008 and Vista now has the same kernel. Adoption of Vista should start to accelerate now as many old-thinking admins wait for the first service pack to come out. I know it was like that for XP.

I'm like you, I don't play as much as I used to, but I buy every Half-Life game, I like Microsoft Flight Simulator. I like RTS games such as Age of Empires, C&C3, and a little Star Wars now and then. I play Ghost Recon against my brother occasionally. I really like MS Flight Sim X though, graphics are stunning.

By the way, sorry your piece on Vista got tagged. It did sound like you hated Vista and was reaching for everything you could. To be honest, it is an awesome piece from Apple's point of view, and I think if you moved it to the Leopard article, it won't get bashed. You will get a ton of positive remarks there. There is much more people that love Vista than hate it, so it will always put a thorn in anonymous readers. Talk later. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First, XP runs much better on 256mb ram than Vista does on 512. My brother's laptop has xp and 256 ram and it runs reasonably well, but everyone I've spoken to says that Vista would hardly turn on if it had less than 1 gig. Second, I really don't understand what you're talking about in the Vista article. That is where is appropriate. Every single article that came up on the news about Vista was about its negative reception, and I can't help that. And keep this in mind: You really like Vista, and I don't think its a good release, but neither of our opinions form a basis of what most people like or dislike. All I can base it on is adoption rates, tech magazines, and user reviews. And with an adoption rate about half of XPs, everything in Google News about Vista being negative, and reviews on Amazon.com significantly lower than XP, I can't help but differ from your opinion and write the Reception section accordingly. Even if Vista works wonderfully for you. I can just as easily find someone who got a high-end computer with Vista and found it to be a disaster. So lets just agree to disagree on that, okay? ;-) And you know, you can edit that section all you want, even if you take out the entire section and replace it with info you found on some pro-Vista editorial review somewhere. Its a free encyclopedia. :) If you want to respond more about Mac vs Win or Mac's problems, do it below the edit line. Regards, Althepal (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, you know why I have not edited the article? Because I don't know for sure if you are wrong. You may be right - I give you the benefit of the doubt. Most people are complaining and the verbal people are speaking negative of it. For me personally, I don't like it, but you are right, it may need to be there. My real complaint is that most magazine editors are Mac people and the stories then become biased (in my opinion). I know Mac's are very popular among newspaper editors, magazine editors, and graphics artists. While all of that can be easily accomplished using Windows, those kind of folks tend to prefer Mac. In my own local town, our entire newspaper company is entirely Mac. Maybe a secretary or two has Windows, but everybody else has Macs. Maybe you can sometime fill me in how Mac is easier for that kind of stuff. I thought Word was the easiest word processor, but editors still like Mac, but they still might be running Word for the Mac. I don't know. Back to the point, I actually do have a hard time finding enough positive stories on Vista to counter your claim. There is some, but I haven't found many. The gaming magazines are very excited over Vista due to DirectX 10, but the Vista article already speaks positively of DirectX 10 so that is a toss out. It may also sound like I hate Mac, but I really don't. I'm glad there is a Mac because it helps make Windows better, Microsoft needs more competition. I don't see people shouting out that Leopard is flop and that people will stick to Tiger. After all, I think you indicated you still use Tiger. So I might seem defensive because I think Apple and Microsoft should be treated the same. Magazine editors shouldn't keep spouting that Vista is not received well because it is on a steady increase, higher than Leopard. I just think the big editors are being unfair, people are only buying Vista when they get new computers. Just like you are using Tiger until you buy a new computer. It doesn't imply Vista is bad. That's my problem in the whole thing...

You are right, it does run better with 1GB, but you can get by with 512MB especially if you turn off Aero. It has to use more than XP because it is a new version, otherwise it would be another XP. It may not be as much Vista's fault as it is hardware. I also come across low performing laptops but then put my hands on one with similiar specs and it is like lightning. Vista can't be any different, it is the same code. It has to be the hardware. I know I've already said this but sometimes it has to do with virus protections, etc, installed slowing it down. I still revert to my argument that people are not getting Vista unless they buy a new computer so it will have plenty of RAM, etc when it is bought. Just my 2 cents until next time. -Chad

[edit] edit line

I like to use an edit line so that I don't have to scroll as much. Okay...

True, I'm using Tiger and haven't upgraded, but that doesn't mean I won't upgrade, it just means I don't really need to so there's no rush. And you know, Tiger is only a couple years old, not like XP which is about 3 times its age. And here's another fact: About 33 percent of Mac users are using Leopard. But only about 15 percent of Windows users are on Vista, even though XP is 6 years old and Vista has had over a year on the market. See the adoption rate difference? Thats also just a tad faster than XP's adoption, but both XP and Leopard had much faster adoption than Vista. That's why Leopard isn't considered to have bad reception.
Don't worry, I know you're not anti-Mac, that you just have your opinions. I can tell the difference between a Vista fan and a Mac hater. :)
Macs used in publishing: I don't know... some places just use Macs, but I bet most newspapers still use Windows. Now, everybody's different, but its just that Mac OS X is a very intuitive OS. I grew up on Windows but was able to use OS X just fine after an hour or so playing around with it. Compared to Linux which took longer, and I'm still not so comfortable with stuff like sudo apt-get install lol. Its very hard to look objectively, but I think that it would be harder for a newbie to begin using Windows than OS X. So maybe its just simpler to use. Designers may like Mac because it has an aesthetic appeal. Word 2003 (and also 2007) sure is easy to use and is a fine program, but I feel a little more comfortable on a Mac because its just a tad more reliable (even though I hardly ever have problems with XP). Also, maybe its because its faster, easier to find information, easier to drag media content between windows instead of save and import or copy+paste, or the guy in charge is just a Mac kind of guy. Who knows? But the more that use OS X, the better, because then, as you know, Windows will be forced to improve, plus cross-compatibility will get even better. I'd like to see both OS X and Linux match Windows market share, because near-monopolies aren't good for anybody. That just lets whoever is in the lead reduce quality and increase prices. And by the way, Apple has iWork which has a very nice word processing program, something with a simpler interface faster speed, and better reliability, yet still full of tools to make really nice-looking documents easily. Maybe that's what they use? Check out the reviews on Amazon.com. iWork 08 has higher reviews than Office 2008 or Office 2007. Althepal (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But it still doesn't mean Vista is bad choice. I believe that the majority of businesses that have not upgraded to Vista yet will eventually. Many businesses don't get in a hurry. My sister, who works at Blue Cross Blue Shield, has only had XP for about a year. She had Windows 2000 up until last year. I bet they had to upgrade since IE 7 wasn't installable on Win2000.

I think the figures are skewed because when XP was released, the market was explosive with computer purchases. Remember the economy was very good during XP times, we are in recession now. People don't have money, have you thought of that? When people get their $300 Economic Stimulus Paycheck from the gov't, do you know what they are going to buy? Windows Vista Ultimate for $320. hehe :-) WinCEB (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said Vista was a bad choice. (Or maybe I did, I'm not sure. I do think XP is a better choice for businesses still.) But the article doesn't say that. I know businesses don't always upgrade so fast, and sure its reasonable to say that (after Microsoft disallows the continued sales of XP ;-) ) Vista will get a lot more market, but I really think a lot of businesses will skip Vista and go from XP to Windows 7. Now, I understand about the recession, but its really not so bad and the computer market is still way bigger now than it was around XP's release, and then you'd also have to explain how the more expensive Mac computer is gaining market share when people only have enough money to buy the cheaper HPs and Dells. Riddle me that, Batman. ;-) Althepal (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what happens. I believe they will eventually use Vista, but since the OS is a big step they are waiting. For business use, XP does everything you want. XP is compatible with everything on the market, where Vista is compatible with everything new. Now you think you got me on the expensive Mac explanation - I can easily explain: Macs are used by the rich magazine editors who have so much money they have a financial bookkeeper. What about inexpensive Macs? Are they not available? And Dell has some high priced high end computers over $2000 too. Some of their Dell XPS systems are more than Macs. WinCEB (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. But it doesn't seem like a recession is the cause of Vista's lower adoption, except, maybe, among businesses since that is Windows' largest market. Macs are generally more expensive at purchase than similar PCs, but both have a wide price range. Looking on new computers shipped from Amazon.com, there are Macs that you can get for $500, and there are Macs for $4400. And there are PCs for $400 and there are PCs for $2800. I know there is also a high-end gaming laptop from HP that ranges in price from $5000 to over $10000, depending on the configuration. Yeah, like I'm gonna pay 10000 dollars for a fast gaming console. Althepal (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Surface

Althepal, people talk of Apple's innovation with the media players, Microsoft Surface is real innovation. Check out CNN's review of Surface not long ago. CNN uses Surface when they anaylze politics when they present to viewers which states the candidates have won. The presenter can manipulate it with his hand. It also run Vista as the OS! Anyway, thought you would like to check it out if you haven't heard. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I've known about Surface for quite some time. I think its really cool. I think some AT&T stores will begin using them. It makes a great tool, and a multi-touch, multi-function table is a really cool step on Microsoft's part. It runs Vista: that's fine, as long as it works without a glitch, as it will likely run into some pretty important uses. I don't think Apple would follow with its own surface-like thing. You know, Microsoft is heading on the direction of integrating tools into daily life: Use your phone and access your appointment info from the car, have a house-security system so that when someone rings the doorbell an image of the front porch comes up on the television, have a coffee table that you can share and view your photos on, stuff like that. And all that is really cool. And I think its a little bit different direction from where Apple's going, and the two companies will not be competition in the future. I think Apple will continue making portable cellphone computers and continued innovations and improvements on using just computers themselves. Althepal (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lets poke fun at Microsoft

Because its too easy. How come the person at the end of the Flash introduction (top of page) here has part of her hair and arm missing? They got the image from here, by the way, and I think it wasn't a nice thing for them to do. Or how about how they can't help from just following Apple's lead (or even that site citrix.com!) and don't do that many innovations of their own? "WebSlices" for IE 8 instead of "Web Clips" (from Leopard and Safari 3), "Gadgets" in Vista (instead of "Widgets" from Tiger). (They could at least try to be a little bit more creative with the name...) New PC-to-PC searching, something they could only add to Vista after Leopard brought that feature.... Come on, Microsoft! LOL. Well, its fun to poke fun at Microsoft, isn't it? Even for a Vista fan, I hope? (Otherwise it won't get many laughs...) :) TTYL, Althepal (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you are enjoying this! Now, let's be fair again. How do you know Citrix did not copy it from Microsoft? I admit that is pretty bad. How did you notice that? You are pretty good... I must say. Maybe the girl likes virtualization and she made the same shot for both companies. Yeah, that sounds like a good excuse. Ok, I did laugh. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is possible that they both took the shot from a 3rd party. But it looks like Microsoft took it from Citrix and not the other way around because the picture from Citrix is complete. But I really don't understand: Why did Microsoft take some shot about servers and leave the only non-server-related part (the lady) for their website? LOL. Well, I'm glad you laughed. :) Althepal (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Althepal, at least we finally laughed! Nah, I enjoy healthy debate so it all has been good. Both of us definitely have differing opinions and that is ok. Concerning the picture: I see your point because it appears to be edited to remove the background in the MS ad. What gets me is that Microsoft should have enough sense not to copy a picture given their legal experiences! They may really have done it and plan to take it down when Citrix catches wind of it. If you notice, it takes several frames in the flash until she shows up. I almost didn't wait long enough initially to see her. It is very funny though. The girl must be attractive to "virtualization technologies".

Lastly, can you tell if it was flash or silverlight? I didn't have silverlight installed and it still animated. hmmm... WinCEB (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she really likes virtual servers. LOL :) Wait a second! You don't have silverlight?? I would have expected you to. Just like I would have expected Microsoft to use their own product if it was so good. (Which reminds me, I heard somewhere that Microsoft had used Vista on Apple hardware for some purpose because it runs better... don't know if that was real or not...) Well, anyway, I can tell it was Flash and not Silverlight used there because I have Adblock Plus which I can use to block images that have tagged words in their url (like "bannerad" or whatever), but it has a little thing which shows "block" tabs on Flash content to block those ads too. (Another reason to use Firefox, huh? you know that's why I use Firefox and not Safari?) Althepal (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I happened to be on a stray computer with no silverlight. Silverlight can possibily be backward compatible with Flash, and you get the best experience with silverlight. I'll try it out and let you know if it looks better. I think you can install silverlight on your firefox, it is Mac compatible. You can enjoy the richest content the web has to offer. :-) WinCEB (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do have Silverlight. But I highly doubt it is backwards compatible with Flash, since the two are totally different. You can uninstall internet explorer's flash content plug-in and install silverlight and see if it works, though, but if you want to be sure you can just view the page source and see that it has a "http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" in there, so you know it's flash. Althepal (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming on the Mac

I showed you a link before that listed some games for Mac. (You pointed out that there are still a number of games that are Windows-only.) But how about the quality of these games? Mac does not use DirectX, and we all know how amazing DirectX 10 is. Mac only uses OpenGL, which hasn't been updated since 2006, but I think a big update for version 3.0 is coming soon. Anyway, the way it is, graphics on OS X can still be pretty amazing. Like take a look at some of these game trailers from EA which are supposed to be on OS X. It looks really good, at the DirectX 9 or even 10 level. http://www.apple.com/games/trailers/ea/ . I looked at the one from Battlefield 2142 and the graphics look amazing. Can you give me an idea how that compares to the way HalfLife 2 looks on your Vista computer? Well, Mac may not be the number 1 gaming machine, but I think when OpenGL 3 comes out, and maybe Mac OS X v10.6, and more games are ported to OS X, Mac may even be looked upon as being as good or maybe even better than Windows Vista. Althepal (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought OpenGL and DirectX was totally different. I know DirectX simply provides an easy programming interface for developers to talk to the hardware, but what does OpenGL do? I might can make a better judgement. My Internet is very slow tonight (apparently lots of folks are online right now) so I will look tomorrow at the trailer. I can say that Half-Life 2 has the best graphics I have ever seen. You feel in the action. But, another game called "Call of Duty 4" I saw on my brother's computer and I believe it might be a notch better than Half-Life. I believe things are good for you on your Mac as I believe most games will begin being designed for both Mac and Vista. There is just enough Macs around that game developers will have to make it compatible or they'll get too much gripe. I feel sorry for Linux guys though, I NEVER see a game with them on the list. It is apparently a costly process to port a game to another operating system.

You talk about Mac having a new version of OpenGL out soon, what new is added? I think DirectX 10.1 just came out. I plan to read up on it tonight and I'll share with you what I find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCEB (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OpenGL and DirectX are both used for 3D gaming graphics. The Direct 3D part of DirectX is the part comparable to OpenGL, which is open source and is for Linux and Mac OS X, whereas DirectX is just from and for Microsoft. This is a thread from last October that talks about some of the changes, but the thread hasn't died and there probably have been many changes since the opening post. Hope DirectX 10.1 brings some nice improvements. :)

Here: See OpenGL#OpenGL_3.0 and Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D. Al the Pal (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, here is a great link that talks about DirectX 10.1. It is substantial and you need new video cards to take advantage. WinCEB (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See, that's what's nice about open source software. Even when it gets better, it still tends to work on older hardware as well as newer hardware. Al the Pal (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still ok because your DirectX 10 cards will work but to take advantage of the 10.1 capabilities, you need a new card. Since it is significant, the GPU must have the instructions to process it. I read your article, now I understand... DirectX is Microsoft and OpenGL is open. Now we have another competition to deal with. My bets are DirectX will always stay out front, with 10.1 already needing new video cards, I can't imagine this advancement. I'm still on DirectX 9 hardware and I'm blown away and not even experienced 10 yet. It is a GeForce 7950GT which was the best DirectX 9 when I bought it. What do you have in your Mac? I know this is your Mac section, but what games do you know of that is compatible with Linux? I just searched and haven't found one yet. WinCEB (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found this link. WinCEB (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My Mac has an ATI Radeon X1600 graphics processor using PCI Express with 128 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM. About Linux... yeah, software makers don't really care much about Linux, but it does seem that there are at least a few decent games for it based on your link. id makes some games for Linux. You know, with Mac ports around, its easier for them to port them to Linux, since Mac and Linux are very similar under the hood. Althepal (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Althepal, I totally agree. I actually don't see why they don't offer every game compatible with everything, but I figure it is expensive. But like you say, since it is getting easier for the developers, that is why is why we are seeing them compatible with everything. I have seen a few new games compatible with everything: 1) Windows 2) Mac 3) Linux 4) xBox 5) wii 6) Playstation WinCEB (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"See, that's what's nice about open source software. Even when it gets better, it still tends to work on older hardware as well as newer hardware" - so you mean to say when OpenGL Mt. Evans (OpenGL 4.0 or whatever they call it) finally arrives to replace OpenGL 3.0 (lets hope thats not delayed again), it won't require a new hardware? Of course it won't. Because the then-"old" hardware would already be doing the "new" stuff for one and a half to two years by means of DirectX 10!!!

@Althepal:I just stumbled across this page and just going through the conversations. I could list flaws in almost all the arguments you made painting such a black-and-white picture of MS and Apple (or open-source vs proprietary in general). But really am not interested in wasting my time evangelizing. Just have one request to make - please don't blindly follow Apple's press releases like every other zealot out there does; research both sides of the coin before forming an opinion. --soum ^talk 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Soum: okay, thanks for the heads up. It's true, I'm not a huge expert and am not always 100% right about everything I say, but on this page I feel free to express my opinions, even when I haven't thoroughly fact-checked everything. Also, even if I am wrong about some things, it is possible that you are wrong about me being wrong about some things.... Oh well. Anyway, just note that I tend to avoid my opinions on articles' talk pages, and especially in articles themselves. But like any human being, I'm not perfect. Again, thanks for the heads-up. Althepal (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For your quality and tireless work, you deserve one. --soum ^talk 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can be wrong, and in fact I would love to be wrong about making this assessment about you. But OS/Programming Languages/Compilers are my field of expertise and have actually seen quite a detailed view of both sides. Trust me when I say this — things almost always look very different when you look even a bit deeper than the glitter and polish of the surface. Anyways, I probably sounded a bit condescending in my last post, I apologize for that. But that doesn't stop me from respecting you as an editor. You are doing an awesome job here; hats off to that. Your edits might not be perfect, but then ours are neither. (Thats why we have the edit button, right?) Articles here - especially the ones we tend to edit - have to walk a very fine line. And that requires a lot of attention and hard work and the amount of the same you put in is really commendable. You totally deserve the shiny medal :-) --soum ^talk 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! :-) Yes, that's what the edit button's for, and some articles sure are difficult to get just right. ;-) Althepal (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I join Soum in awarding you the star too, the reception piece is much more fair now. Maybe we can talk about DirectX and OpenGL more. I think there is nothing wrong with DirectX 10.1 needing new hardware because as I see it, the capabilities are in the GPU and so if the instructions are not there, the advantage is not seen. On Vista, games using DirectX 10 are backward compatible with my DirectX 9 video card but you don't get the visual quality of 10... WinCEB (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) If I may be allowed to join in the Dx vs OGL discussion:- DX 10.1 thoeretically would not have required new cards. DX 10.1 adds nothing new compared to DX 10; it only makes certain thing that were optional in DX 10 mandatory. But in practice, because they were optional, no manufacturer bothered to implement them, making a hardware rev necessary.

As for OGL, 3.0 would require newer cards compared to OGL 2.1 cards to run OGL 3.0 graphics at native speeds. But even if cards are not updated, unlike Dx 10, OGL 3.0 programs would still run. To understand why, a bit of history lesson.

OpenGL was designed from an human point of view - the API is structured in a way a graphics designer gets the primitives s/he needs. Since it was more than the hardware could handle at that time, it was a software implementation. Later the hardware adapted itself to hardware accelerate OpenGL. DirectX on the other hand started out as an easy API to expose the hardware capabilities to the user. As a result, DirectX - which is mainly a hardware based implementation - has always been tied to hardware specifications - needing new hardware specs everytime a major revision comes out. But OpenGL always has been more abstract. If there is no native support, a software implementation can fill in the gap - albeit at a cost of performance.

Quality wise, they are both same. Both can create photo-realistic rendering. The main differentiating issue is performance. DirectX has always been more focussed on real-time rendering and has pioneered various stuff to that end - including shaders and programmable pipeline - things that OpenGL has adopted and still adopting lately. That made it a great choice for games. OpenGL on the other hand proved its mettle in scientific and engineering visualization segment. Of late, what CG programmers need and what the hardware can offer are sort of converging, and the APIs are becoming more like each other - resulting in easier porting of apps across the APIs.

But for OGL surpassing Dx 10 in real-time visual quality? It remains to be seen. The most advanced stuff in Dx 10 - geometry shaders - aren't due for OGL support till OGL Mt. Evans and thats two more revisions away from OGL 3.0! Btw, play Crysis in Dx 10 mode with full quality. Thats a first gen Dx 10 native game, and if that can achieve what it has, I can't imagine what can be done when developers get comfortable enough with the API to fully tap into its power!!! --soum ^talk 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked your last sentence because it is the same feeling I have on the gaming industry. DirectX and GPUs are ahead of the game developers and at least it is not the other way around. I have seen Crysis screenshots and they are eye-popping. If my memory is good, OpenGL was used on Windows games at the turn of the century. My Quake II game and Half-Life 1 game used OpenGL, so it seems the trend has been to abandon OpenGL on Windows in favor of DirectX for the reason you indicated, performance. Flight Sim X is the only game I have played so far on DirectX 10, but it has been on my DirectX 9 Nvidia GeForce 7950GT video card. I dual boot Windows XP and Vista and Flight Sim X runs faster and smoother under Vista so DirectX 10 (could be Vista) obviously is an improvement to 3D graphics. It may be the way Vista's new memory management is handling things. I'm looking to buy a new DirectX 10 video card soon and I will report the differences in quality. WinCEB (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ReactOS

Chad, thank you for the barnstar, too, then. ;-) And thanks for giving me more information about directx and opengl, Soum and Chad. It's interesting. I can't wait until OpenGL matches DirectX in all areas, seeing as that is the only option for UNIX operating systems at this time. Now what about ReactOS, the open-source and completely compatible clone of Windows NT? They are in the process of making a DirectX clone, called ReactX. Any info on how this would compare to DirectX? Think ReactX could one day allow DirectX games to be on Linux and Mac? What about the operating system itself? It's still unstable, but what do you think of its future? Althepal (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Soum can step in because I don't know anything about ReactOS, didn't know it existed! Is it running Linux as the kernel? WinCEB (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of all people, I thought you'd know about ReactOS! No, it's not Linux at all. It is basically an open-source re-write of the Windows NT kernel. Cool, huh? Althepal (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ReactOS? "stable and complete Windows NT 5.x+ implementation" ... hmm, I will believe that when I see it. Had tried it looo...ong back and was barely usable then, but it seems to have come a long way. But given their goals of reverse-engineering the Native API and Win32 API while matching or bettering the performance, I should say they have a very difficult road ahead. All the best to them. Meanwhile those of us who do not have ideological issues running either FOSS or proprietary software can get the functionality today itself. :-P --soum ^talk 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ReactOS .34 is still totally unusable. It's not stable yet. I run XP as a virtual machine, not ReactOS, because ReactOS isn't ready yet. They do have a long road ahead, and I hope the project results in a good OS, since it's supposed to bring full Windows support to those who can't afford Windows. Like in 3rd world countries. Ah, the future... Althepal (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OS wars

Chad, why don't you check out this article I chanced upon while reading Google News. It's about the OS wars, and it offers arguments for all the different operating systems. I think you'd agree with Preston Grall, and I'd agree with Michael DeAgonia. Though I must admit I didn't read the whole thing yet. (I did note that they seem to mention that Vista has so much bad reception it has caused people to re-think the default Windows choice and it has sparked the OS wars all over again.) All operating systems seem to be at least 'good enough', as they all have lots of users, and I really don't understand how it became such heated a topic.... How about: The different operating systems are however they are, and if you're fine using one then fine, and if someone asks you can give your suggestions? Oh, well, have fun reading the article. It should show you the view points of people who think Linux is the best, that Mac OS X is (really) the best, that Vista is good despite what people say, and that XP is a solid operating system to stick with. Have fun. Oh, by the way, there is a little poll on that page, asking which OS is the best. Leopard is the highest at 43%, then Linux at 30%, then Vista at 18% (higher then XP, I don't know how that happened), and XP at 9%. (Funny how the least popular OSes got the most votes, on any website I've seen... kind of like the way Firefox got the most votes on the browser polls on net application's market share site. So either there is a big conspiracy, Mac and Linux users are by far most interested in computing, or if you would subtrackt the business portion of the market Windows would be WAY lower than it is.) :-) Later, Althepal (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That article seems to be pretty popular. I finished reading the whole thing, and the percentages have changed a little. Leopard is at 41 percent, Linux at 32, XP and Vista both at 13, and Other at 2 percent. I've already discussed it with you, and don't want to get into a whole new thing, but quickly I want to point out that the pro-Vista guy pretty much says what you have said, and I want to talk about a couple things he said. He was saying how integrated search-as-you-type is a Vista advantage, but that's in Linux and Mac also. And he also said that enterprise software isn't made for Mac or Linux, and that Mac is just aimed at non-business people. I beg to differ. Exactly want "enterprise software" wont work? Maybe you can fill me in, because all software I know of is either Mac-compatible or has an equivilant that is. And he talks about Parallels not supporting even basic games because they require DirectX 9. Why does Solitaire require DirectX? And I'm pretty sure that it DOES work in Parallels. He also didn't mention how virtualizaiton software is improving DirectX support and how Mac OS X allows quick duel-boots with Windows. Then he backs up his claim about software with saying that the Mac and Linux business market share is low... but he didn't mention how they are rapidly increasing. About software, he also says that Linux and Mac's success is just because its not a big target, and he doesn't address the possibility that its might be because BSD is better than Windows NT. Who wants to have to have the OS always watch for malware, anyway? The XP guy pretty much says the same anti-Mac/Linux arguments as the Vista guy, but he points out how Vista is having so much bad adoption and so many problems that XP is a perfectly good choice to stick with. I agree with that. ;0 Now, I know you'll probably disagree with just about everything I just said, and you'll agree with the Vista guy, but whatever. ;-) Althepal (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is hands down a very interesting link Althepal! I finished reading the Vista sales pitch by Preston Gralla and will read the other 3 pitches on the other OSs after I write this section. I have to agree with almost everything Gralla says except he exaggerates the software compatibility only a little bit. He says "no enterprise software is compatible", but I am sure you can find some. I think his point trying to make is that with Vista, you get a much wider envelope of software to choice from. Before I even read the Leopard sales pitch I know that guy is going to say something like "Mac users are enjoying more games and software compatible". Until I have done more recent research, I'm seeing more games compatible with Mac. Now to parts I strongly agree with, I have to laugh very loudly when Gralla says "So if you want to pay through the nose for a computer that can run only a limited number of apps and games, go ahead and throw away your money. Just keep in mind that you'll be putting money into the coffers of a company whose CEO has hypnotized its users into drinking the true-believer Kool Aid." That is some way to put it Mr. Gralla. This is back to the excellent marketing strategies of Apple of persuading folks that Apple is cool. Many Windows users do not drink the Kool Aid according to Gralla and I agree with him (no offense). He goes on and makes an excellence case why Vista outshines XP and not only explains the outstanding customization options in Vista GUI but he is right on target even more when he talks about Vista's new security features. Vista is really putting the virus writers back to work and they got to think hard to figure out how to get around all of Vista's new security technologies. He spoke of Windows Service Hardening in particular which prevents viruses from changing core system parts. McAfee is so baffled at the non-existence of viruses infecting Windows Vista users, they recently said "While viruses infecting Vista has been much less than expected, viruses are expected to be introduced as Vista becomes the standard OS choice." Sounds like McAfee is trying to protect their own company by indirectly saying that their customers need to keep their subscriptions after they upgrade to Vista! While there is lots of negative press on Vista, I am starting to feel that any time the tide will turn. Windows XP was slammed by numerous serious viruses and worms only months after the release, yet Vista is now on the market for over a year and a half and I haven't heard or seen an infected computer. Where is the positive press? Only negativity makes it on the news. Editors at these magazines using their Leopard desktops refuse to accept the positive facts. They are too busy bashing the security features itself rather than saying how well Vista is immune. Back to the GUI, he puts it bluntly: "If you don't like it, change it!" Vista can run with Aero On, Vista Basic (3D off but looks like Aero is on), Windows Standard, and Windows Classic. If you liked Windows 2000 look, use Windows Standard, if you like Windows 98 look, use Windows Classic. Vista does a pretty good job making people feel right at home after they upgrade if they hate Aero. Now I'm gonna read the other sales pitches, this is interesting. WinCEB (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@Althepal: "Exactly want "enterprise software" wont work?" - Enterprise software here refers to the custom line of business apps, which the businesses get tailor made by handling out contracts. If an enterprise switches platform they will have to redo the apps, and I don't think any platform is so better than the other that it will justify the cost. "Why does Solitaire require DirectX?" - because the other choice - GDI - well, to put it bluntly, sucks as an API. So, when they decided to rewrite the included games, they went with the best option available - DirectX. "Then he backs up his claim about software with saying that the Mac and Linux business market share is low... but he didn't mention how they are rapidly increasing.". Well, rate of growth is a very bad statistic. You can double your market share only when you are in the lowest 2-3 percent. The higher your market share is the lower is your growth potential.

@Chad, what do you exactly mean by Microsoft professional? An MVP? Or someone on the core networking team? --soum ^talk 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Soum: Okay, so he means that it would be costly for a whole business to switch operating systems, but maybe a new business would be better off with Linux or Mac? About Solitaire: I know I've played some older DirectX games in Parallels. But why not make it DirectX 10? That's what Vista comes with, right? But now even if you can't do Solitaire in Vista in Parallels, he totally didn't consider the fact that users can use XP in Parallels and take advantage of all available software, except for some more advanced games.

Chad: I thought you'd like it. ;-) So now you have to choose: operating systems like Vista and Leopard get less viruses because they are less popular, or because they are more secure (or both). I mean, you're saying Leopard isn't popular enough to get viruses and you're saying Vista is too secure for the viruses. I think it was Soum who said that they got a bad virus after they turned off UAC. Maybe Leopard's method of security is better, since that doesn't have a security feature so annoying that people turn it off. (Yes, I know that SP1 kind of fixed that and that there is a way for automatic approval rather than disabling the feature, but some people still turn it off.) And on this topic, it's kind of funny: Norton Internet Security is trying to make it into the Leopard market, saying that Macs are no more secure than Windows, even though there has never been a single virus attack on Mac OS X. I guess that's how you feel with McAfee and Vista. Now don't worry, I've read things that talk about security improvements in Vista, but the bad press is because the security is too annoying. Have fun reading the Linux, Leopard, and XP's points of view.... and all of those opinions are just as valid (or in case of Leopard, more valid ;-) haha kidding) as the Vista's opinion. And also remember that still the vast majority of people are sticking with XP or moving away from Windows, so those opinions are pretty popular, too. Later, Althepal (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't twist my words out of context. I didn't say I got a Virus after turning UAC off. I said the virus fooled me into clicking it. If UAC were active, it would have saved my ass after clicking. But since it was not, nobody was there to check what it was doing, and it ended up doing all sort of stuff. Anyways, as for why Solitaire was not rewritten in Dx 10, why would you do it if Dx 9 is enough for its needs? --soum ^talk 18:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Okay, so he means that it would be costly for a whole business to switch operating systems, but maybe a new business would be better off with Linux or Mac?" Sorry, I don't suggest anyone something is better than the other. They are not kids that they would need me to make their decision for them. I don't know their requirements, and that is why I am not qualified enough to make any comment about what would be good for them. And I hate it when people feel compelled to hoist their likings on the rest of the world. --soum ^talk 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the virus thing... I meant that UAC would have prevented harm. I didn't mean to twist your words. Thank you for correcting me. About enterprise software, I didn't mean to talk about which OS is best for businesses, I was just clarifying that the enterprise software thing is not something to worry about if you don't already have enterprise software for a specific OS. Althepal (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"enterprise software thing is not something to worry about if you don't already have enterprise software for a specific OS." - sadly, its not that simple. Enterprise software, even though is custom made, the basic platform (like the database server or middle tiers) are pre-packaged components. The requirements of the enterprise drive the selection of these and consequently the OS platform. Not because the CEO is a Vista-crusher or Mac-ass-licker. --soum ^talk 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I know that Half Life 2 does work on Mac using Parallels. Image:Parallels_Desktop_graphics.jpg Althepal (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It took me a little while to get back to typing from laughing at the Vista and XP guys selling their operating system of choice! I read the XP next before I became clouded by the Leopard and Linux pitches. I can't wait to see how they are going to sell so I'll read them tonight. Oh, I revised my page, Soum, to be a little more clear about me. Just don't laugh at me not having an iPod, Windows Mobile is my preference. Again compatibility rules, works so much better with Outlook, etc.

To keep it short, I simply disagree with Ramel. Vista is essentially a Windows XP refined throughout with a new polished interface and Gralla pointed out you can go back to an older look if you get lost as a goose in Vista. Ramel is basically someone that fell in love with XP and hates change. I guess he doesn't game and he can't afford Vista. He points out the message boards of people with insufficient knowledge to get their Vista going and people that also hate change. He did accuse Mac and Linux as puny and said Mac is a toy and Linux as not ready so Althepal you must not be happy with him either, huh? I personally liked Gralla better. WinCEB (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I just can't seem to manage with my Mac. And I'm typing this on an intriguing Linux OS called gOS, something that looks pretty much like a green version of Leopard, as we speak. My advice to the people who wrote the Vista and XP pitches is to actually spend some time with people who use those operating systems for business or work and see how they manage with them. Because really, all are usable and for many, it's all in the GUI preference. Even if you don't consider performance or compatibility or anything else. Althepal (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

:Because really, all are usable and for many, it's all in the GUI preference." You can skin any OS (at least Linux and Windows, but expect Mac to be too) too look and behave like anything else. And believe it or not, for many of us looks do not matter for more than the first few days; its the application compatibility, customizability and performance that matters.

"Vista is essentially a Windows XP refined throughout with a new polished interface", there is some substance in this opinion. From a purely what-an-end-user-can-do perspective, how many features are there in Vista that is not available for XP? When I am on XP, the only thing I miss is the awesome search integration (which, IMO, is better than anything else out there including a Mac). So, it is quite understandable that people are not ready to leave the comfort of XP and embrace VIsta while accepting the risks of outdated hardware and application incompatibility. It is not until you look at the management features or the new APIs that you get to where Vista really shines. But how many regular users do it? No matter how many new APIs it introduces, the end users barely care whether we use them or bust our asses working around their absence!

One more thing is the hardware requirements of Vista. Out-of-the-box it tries to be everything for everyone, and ends drinking up gallons of RAM. Disabling services does not seem to help that much because there are too many of them. They should have gone the Windows Server 2008 way. I recently tried the latter out. Starting with a bare-minimum install, I kept activating the stuff I need. And when I reached a stage where it reached a stage where it was more or less identical to Vista - as far as what I need is concerned - it was much more responsive at half the PF usage. Role-based deployment is the way to go! --soum ^talk 04:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a real sad situation. The hate-Vista-group gets their voice to reverberate across three times their number. Now need a poll to see how many were convinced Vista is good just by word of mouth. That will prove what I suspect - positive reviews do not attract readers. Negative ones do. --soum ^talk 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is so right Soum, a lot of people aren't trying it because of the negative editors that use Macs. Have you noticed that there has been no positive article about how Vista has had virtually no virus infections? I've tried searching on google and get articles that McAfee is trying to persuade customers that Vista will be hit one day. It is sad, but it is also funny. On another note but about OSs, I came across a silly webpage called SaveXP. They are so silly that they can't understand that their license is not going to be taken away from them, but that they can use XP for pratically forever if they wanted to. It would be like a car manufacture releasing a new car but continuing to manufacture the older design to suit people who hate change. WinCEB (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thats ridiculously shoddy journalism. Its not like XP is being kill bit-ted or anything. In fact Microsoft is still going to support XP for at least half-a-decade more. If you love XP so much, why haven't you (a generic you) bought it yet? And if you have, what are you afraid of? --soum ^talk 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my heavens, I have to comment as I go. DeAgonia writes on the Mac, "If you want a simple-to-use computer that can run virtually any application you need on stylish hardware that gives you easy online access and instant connectivity to all types of satellite devices, just go to an Apple store and buy a Macintosh." Right off the bat, false advertising, the correct word is few, not virtual. He later writes "...all those annoying little things that add up when using Windows. Plug in a mouse on a PC, and a little dialog box pops up exclaiming that it just sensed you plugged in a mouse, and after installing the driver, it's ready to go! This isn't a shuttle launch; I just plugged in a mouse. I'll know the operating system recognizes it as soon as I can move the pointer, so stop bugging me with alert boxes!" I don't know what kind of mouse he uses but all I get is a bit of a sound that new hardware was detected and installed. He must have some special 3rd party program that had a bunch of messages. And lastly, he said he's had no viruses on his Apples since '93. I guess I could surprise him that I've never had a Windows virus either. I'm not lying either. I have had only a few spyware when I ran Windows XP but it didn't kill my computer like he suggests. WinCEB (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit line

What's happening to my talk page? ;-) I get what you are both saying. And that means I understand, not that I necessarily agree. I know all operating systems can be skinned, and that it's really not that significant, but you can't (easily) change (all) the basics of an operating system's UI, aside from looks. What I meant is that all operating systems are pretty good, so it should be a matter of personal preference, and less of an OS war. With things like Wine, Cross-Over Mac, Parallels, BootCamp, etc., plus the growing number of program support for Mac (and to a lesser extent Linux), application support is a small worry. Linux only has the services you want, like for Server 2008, maybe that's why it runs so well. If there were so many people who like Vista, how come over half the people in that poll tried Vista and didn't like it, and how come the reviews are lower for Vista than XP, on places like Amazon.com? It is nothing unusual that people avoid products that have lots of reviews, because it usually means something and it saves people from problems they don't want. And there are Viruses for Vista. Vista just has an improvement over XP with dealing with it, assuming you don't want 3rd party software. About SaveXP, these people want XP to continue to be sold in the future, not just supported on tech support. Can you explain why XP has such long support life? Is it because everyone likes and can switch to Vista? No, lots of people want to be able to buy computers pre-loaded with XP. Or if they use up their licenses, or they never had to buy a retail copy yet since all their computers have XP, they may want to buy XP in the future. Why won't Microsoft give the people what they want? They'd still make money, probably more if they do sell XP than if they don't. I have Mac OS X and I pretty much never need to go to my XP installation on Parallels. All the software you need is made for Mac, and if there is ever some obscure thing you need Windows for (some games or some old software, for example), there are ways to run the programs. I agree that there are lots of small annoyances I had with Windows that I was presently surprised wasn't the case with Mac OS X. With his example, having bubbles pop out every time you insert new hardware, that is correct, unless you only use a simple mouse or have already connected that mouse before, in which case the noise is all you hear. Connect a new camera, it installs new hardware rather than just showing the drive on the desktop and launching your photo app. Connect a keyboard, same thing. Those things don't really need bubbles, and things like that are minor annoyances. Other things in Windows are like when a dialog pops up that I need to type to, it isn't always active. Or accidentally triple-clicking a shortcut opens multiple instances of that program or file. Or the virus checker always has to scan your email or downloads. Little things are big. You had no viruses, great, but lots of Windows users, including me, did get viruses. Lucky me I had anti-virus software running. But have you ever seen a Mac user who got a virus, at least in the last within decade? And who said spyware kills computers? It just makes it run more slowly and invades your privacy until you remove it. Althepal (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can you explain why XP has such long support life?" - its nothing exceptional. All MS OSs have a comparable support period. "these people want XP to continue to be sold in the future" - you mean to say companies should give up on R&D just because a handful of people (half of whom just parrot what these so called "tech pundits" say) are too lazy to move on from a 5 year old technology?

"Other things in Windows are like when a dialog pops up that I need to type to, it isn't always active." - Check for conflicts with other software. Poorly written background software causes this. "Or accidentally triple-clicking a shortcut opens multiple instances of that program or file" - triple clicking has no effect. Clicks must be in multiples of two, unless you configure otherwise. And if you do configure otherwise, you cannot blame windows. " Connect a new camera, it installs new hardware rather than just showing the drive on the desktop and launching your photo app." - it does so for the first time only. If it does not launch the photo app, you seriously botched your installation. "Those things don't really need bubbles" - well, not everyone keeps the "noise" enabled. " But have you ever seen a Mac user who got a virus" - do you think someone would spend time automating exploits targeting a 5% market share when they can target 90%. No. of viruses isn't a good measure of security; severity of currently unpatched vulnerabilities are.

Thats why I say, no two people are same. What works for one cannot work for other. Stop this "I didn't like this, so you won't like this either" mentality (not really targeted at you, just a general statement). Let everybody figure it out for themselves. --soum ^talk 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice. ;-) And I do understand what you are saying. And I agree with what you're saying. I'm a proficient Windows user, and I know all about configuring clicks or setting up a camera. I'm just saying I like things a little better with Mac. :-) I don't care what you use, as long as it works for you, but people shouldn't bash Mac OS X and make comments about software compatibility when they didn't take the time to see how well it really might work or what software there really is. Things are very different from a few years ago, and even if you used Mac OS X a while ago, there is way more software and the OS has gotten tons of improvements. Althepal (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"but people shouldn't bash Mac OS X and make comments..." - same goes with Vista and, in fact, every thing out there. Just because you don't like it does not mean its bad, it just means it doesn't suit your needs. --soum ^talk 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, okay. ;-) Althepal (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I thought you wanted to debate, but I took your smile as you were joking. :) Soum said what I was going to, you can't have it both ways, if MS guys can't bash Apple, then Apple shouldn't bash MS.

Windows 2000 mainstream support just ended in 2005 and extended support goes until 2010. So here we have XP folks crying out to Save XP when 2000 (the OS before it) is still in a support phase. As long as MS sells XP, it moves up their mainstream support which they have to cut it off so they can let it phase out with newer technology. Vista being the longest span between OS, there is enough people that can't change that they'll fuss and go great lengths like in SaveXP. I haven't checked XP, but I bet extended support for it will go until about 2013. What is so funny is that when 2013 gets here, we'll have a SaveVista website!!! Does anybody agree? WinCEB (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Save Vista? No, I highly doubt that. Windows 7 will be much better than Vista in so many ways. M1 installed on Vista already drastically improves performance, and they will have a new kind of compatibility layer to support ALL programs from past versions of Windows. Vista looks to me like a wobbly stepping stone which a lot of people are jumping over. BTW: I don't mind debate, but I always want to avoid arguments. If I get the hint somebody is getting annoyed at me and it's becoming less of "how is this different from that" and more of "stop cramming your view", I smile to show we're cool. (I smile for jokes, too. :) Althepal (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found that Vista SP1 has been a good boost for performance as well. It wouldn't surprise me if Vista SP2 was a big deal in the same way that XP SP2 was; Microsoft is hearing loud and clear that Vista has some big problems with performance and it'll be very much in their best interest to get as many fixes of this nature into Vista, instead of banking on Windows 7 to solve their problems. -/- Warren 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that SP1 provides some performance improvements but it's slower than pre-SP1 for some things. Who knows... SP2 might bring better performance. I heard XP SP3 brought improvements. But Windows 7's not that far off. I think Vista is going to be the past pretty soon. Althepal (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

XP got so popular because of the length of time on the market. It became the defacto standard, so Vista regardless of how good it is, it has to break through. I think discontinuing sales is the best thing for a number of reasons already mentioned above and to get people to start using the new technology. I have an analogy: it is the same reason the government is stepping in to order that all analog TV sets be discontinued and broadcast stations to seize broadcast in favor of digital. At least you can keep using XP, but with TV you have to buy a new TV or get a converter box with a new digital antennae. At some point, we have to move on to new technology. Sorry SaveXP, your voice should be ignored for some better reasons. I thought Vista SP0 was already stable (no crashes for me), but maybe SP1 will already be significant like XP SP2. WinCEB (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too: Microsoft delayed Vista so much that XP became so standard that Vista would have to be nearly perfect to draw new customers. But that doesn't mean Vista is better than XP, either. Better in features, yes, better for speed, no. Althepal (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I disagree with you a little bit on the performance. For a computer with 512MB or 1024, XP probably does better since it hogs less RAM while running but Vista is smoother and more tuned when 2GB RAM. With the right hardware, Vista can outshine XP. I know that might be a lot compared to XP or Leopard, but you have to think what Vista is all about, lots of features working for you. A beautiful interface that uses more memory. You can still disable Aero and come pretty close to XP requirements, down to 512MB which is pretty close. I never recommended less than 512MB for XP anyway. We agree on the defacto standard, XP is NOT going down EASY! Message to MS: "Do some big advertisements on TV about Vista" WinCEB (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to a guy running Windows XP Professional 64 bit. Benchmarks all show XP is faster, no question. Althepal (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ here. Benchmarks are all idealization, and more often than not do not translate the same way into real world usage. What I agree is on the same (low to mid end) hardware XP out-performs Vista. But that the high end, (I have a quad-code 8 GB system, and I am saying from my experience), Vista flies much much better than XP. I see Vista more like a platforms release, where much work was done at the architectural level. Windows 7 will be the one with end user stuff. This is much like Windows 2000/XP. With the solid architecture of 2000 in place, MS went to work on the features that users would want in XP. And see what a success it achieved. --soum ^talk 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a news story where some guy at computerworld listed some reasons why Vista is better than Mac. I totally and 100% disagree with what he said. Here is a link where the author quotes the article and makes his pro-Mac response. How about we fill up his forum, rather than my talk page? That will get wider attention anyhow. link Althepal (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Okay not 100% but 80%. I actually agree with pt. 5; just that I don't automatically translate that into hate for Mac OS. --soum ^talk 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I posted my opinion on that page. Another Mac lovin' page, geeze. :-) WinCEB (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So did I. hehehe Althepal (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, which name did you use because I didn't see your comment. WinCEB (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Al. Maybe they don't show up right away? I noticed you commented twice.... I hope that's the case, because I commented, it showed up, I tried to make a comment to someone else, that did not show up, I purged the cache and refreshed and both comments were gone.... :-S Althepal (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, the person I was commenting to had his post also removed. And it's not like it was really offensive. In the past, I've had my comments removed from that site, and I asked the author "what's up?" and he put them back in, saying he didn't know how that happened. So whatever, maybe that's not the best forum. Althepal (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, now my first comment and the one I was gonna respond to are back. What's up with that site? Althepal (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know what's wrong - they are using Macs, obviously, since they are bashing MS, my next comment will be "upgrade to the NT kernel for maximum reliability" hehehehehe

I still don't see your post called "al". I accidentally posted mine twice since I didn't think it went through.

Seriously though, that site is too slow. WinCEB (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yeah, right. ;-) Well now I see all the comments, including mine. But they have both pro and anti vista nad mac stuff on that site, you know. Maybe they're using Windows servers, hahaha. That is a slow site you're right. ;-) Althepal (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Xpvistaleopardchangewave.png

Can you do an SVG version? --soum ^talk 19:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can, but it won't look as nice and it would take some time to draw... is there anything wrong with the PNG? I can do it in a different res if you want, but I don't know if it's worth the time to draw the SVG unless there is some reason. You see, I did it in Numbers so it was pretty much typing in the different numbers and boom I got a nice chart, but if I make an SVG in Inkscape, I would have to measure the different values, plus it wouldn't look as nice with the 3D and all. Althepal (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you export the spreadsheet to Microsoft Excel format? If you you can copy the graph to Microsoft Visio and save it in SVG format. If you don't have Visio, you can send it to me. --soum ^talk 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Visio. I have Excel, and I could export and then upload an Excel file somewhere online, but it would be easier if you just make the chart in Excel yourself. Purchase rate, Q2 08 is 20% vista, 53% xp, 8% leopard. "Highly satisfied" corporate user rate is 8% vista, 40% xp, 53% leopard. Althepal (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The textures are not vectors. :-( --soum ^talk 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well how important is it that we have SVG? Althepal (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not very. Thats why I have given up! Its just that if it ain't photographic, vector images scale much better. Thats why I prefer SVGs if it is possible. --soum ^talk 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer SVGs too, but that chart already looks soooo nice. :-) Like I said, I could make it a different size if it's needed. (I don't know how the graphics in Numbers works, but I can stretch or squeeze them. Maybe it's vector with texture. You can do those, you know.) Althepal (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I recreated the graph with Excel, but since Excel does not come with these textures, I had to get it from your graph. When thats exported to SVG, the textures are embedded as bitmaps within the SVG file, and MediaWiki worse-than-chokes on them. So, unless the textures can be exported as vectors, we are stuck with PNG.

Yeah the chart looks nice, but I tend to prefer ones with solid colors and gradients, not textures. Like this. Anyway, that is not something to edit war over. :-P --soum ^talk 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to change it, it's okay with me. You can use solid colors in excel, with or without 3D, and make it SVG. I don't mind that much anyhow. Althepal (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception Section Unbalanced Again

Hello Althepal, been a lull in our conversations so I thought I would spark it up again. In your reception section it is unbalanced again now that you added a twist to the end about the benefits of gaming to make it a question whether it is better. The whole section now seems to be a vista crusher rather than sticking to the facts. The amount of debate over Directx 10 is so small, it doesn't warrant adding that sentence in to throw it off. Developers switched to DirectX 10 as soon as hardware was for sale. All the information I have found show HUGE benefits over DirectX 10 in performance and visuals. If you refuse to remove it, I will add a sentence after that to a notable source showing the huge benefits in performance over DirectX 9. On my PC dual booting XP and Vista, all my games, including DirectX 9 games runing 33% to 50% faster under Vista which contridicts the sentence you added about gaming performance being debated. I haven't looked at that other site in a few days because the comments are too slow so if you been writing me there, I may not see it. Take care WinCEB (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chad. I didn't add that, and it looks like soum already removed the questionable text, so that settles that. :-) I don't think I'm gonna be on Wikipedia much for a while, so don't expect immediate responses to talk pages, and don't be surprised if I don't change the Vista article or go to talk pages at all. Cya, Althepal (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, hope I haven't made you mad or anything. Nothing has been at you other than just debating. You are a very smart person and your POV is certainly just as good as mine or anybody else. You have become quite a friend to me. Hope you stick around!!! By the way, I got me a new camera, the Canon S5 IS. Have you ever seen it in stores? WinCEB (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not mad. Just kind of busy. The S5 is a really terrific camera... if I didn't already have my Fujifilm, I might buy it. Or the new Fuji, or the new Sony. They're all really good. Have fun. :-) Althepal (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I guess I'm not as busy as I thought. But still, I'm kind of done with Vista's article. I put in a lot of work to make sure it had all the important reception information while still being NPOV, so it's pretty good, and I'll let the article take its course now. If you bring up something on my talk page, I'll probably respond, and you know it's fine by me to discuss cameras and nature photography, not just computers. Althepal (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cameras

Hey Althepal, that sounds good! I haven't looked in the past couple of days, but the article is balanced enough that I might throw in my vote. Especially as long as the reception article talks about gaming since gamers and developers have soaked up DirectX 10. I need to get a new card soon as nearly all new games require it I think. I have a curious question that maybe you can answer. I have an older Canon 10D with a 28-80mm lens. Pictures normally turn out dark, especially inside. I have bumped the ISO to 800 or 1600 and it does help but most of the time the frame is underexposed. I am pretty good at setting the camera but nothing seems to help. Now, my Canon S5 IS bought recently blows the socks off the Canon 10D. The quality is unbelievable. I am so amazed that I do not understand how a $400 camera can make a $2000 SLR camera ashamed. I know the 10D is 4 years old but surely camera technology has not advanced this much. Really, I almost do not want to pick up my 10D again. But I still like an SLR and sometimes it takes awesome pics. Which of these do you think: 1) 10D sensor is bad 2) lens 3) settings ... SLR has a CMOS sensor and the S5 IS has a CCD sensor. WinCEB (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Camera tech improves faster than computers, and you know that you can get a better computer today for $500 than you could two years ago for $1500. It's surprising, but that can make a new prosumer better than an older SLR for many situations. Now, I'd say the settings are bad on the SLR. Try this with the 10D indoors: in manual mode make the aperture f/2.8, shutter 1/15s, and ISO 400. See how that works out. Then you can tweak the settings to fine tune the exposure. But I'd take the S5 IS over the 10D almost any day, so unless you want to spend $600 on a new "low-end" 10MP SLR with a lens kit, the S5 will be the best choice. Get one of the new inexpensive SLRs with a nice lens, make sure you get proper exposure and focus, and the quality should be EXCELLENT. I still am using the FinePix S5200 but I want to get an SLR. The ones on the market now are within my price range and look awesome, but I'm waiting a bit longer to see what the future has to offer. :-) Althepal (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! So you are thinking the S5 IS is so much advanced that it leaves the 10D in picture quality? The S5 amazes me with exposure, saturation, and detail. I haven't taken many, but so far every picture has needed ZERO tweaking in PhotoShop. I have actually printed them directly to printer using pictbridge and used P.I.M (with auto correct options off) and every picture has been perfect. I am stunned how it does better than the 10D. The 10D does perfect outside, it is inside that comes short. The S5 has no trouble for some reason but I'll try your suggestions on the 10D and see what happens. I thought your Fuji pics are awesome, but I highly recommend this S5 if you want a new non-SLR camera. It puts shame on my 10D which I thought I was some guy with a big camera! Like I already said, the 10D does well outside so it apparently needs more light. If I buy a new SLR, I like that Rebel XSi. Have you seen it? It was just released and comes bundled with a 18-55mm IS lens. (may be 18-70mm IS ?) IF you are happy, you certainly won't go wrong waiting on the next model because I have a hard time believing how much cameras have advanced. I don't like HP cameras now (yuk!), but I remember buying HP's first digital camera in '97 and it was horrible by today standards. It featured a whopping 1.0 Megapixel sensor!!! Then I thought it was awesome. WinCEB (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, camera tech is really something different from 10 years ago. It's amazing. Yeah, well that 10D isn't a "point-and-shoot", and the Canon aims to have everything work with one click. I do want the S5, and that XSi looks really nice, too. I personally had my eye on the Sony Alpha A200K, which is 10MP, built in image stabilization, bundled wide angle lens, and it seems overall very good. And that's surprising since Sony is a general company and Canon and Nikon are the real SLR experts (not saying that their stuff isn't great too). I'm still waiting a little longer to see the next generation of cameras before I buy something and right away I'm like "I wish I had that one!" :-) Just wait a few months and you'll see the S6 IS and be like "WHY DIDN'T I WAIT!? Aww, man! It has 10MP and 16x zoom with an ISO range of 8 to 6400!". hahaha Guess what I had before the S5200. An HP 630. I hate it. It's a grainy, 2MP, 3x zoom, slow battery hog. It made me really appreciate my Fujifilm. :-) Althepal (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fallen in love with the S5. I almost waited on the S6 but my tongue kept touching the floor when I walked in Circuit City so I had to stop that embarrassment. I'm sure when the S6 comes out I'll be sad. I'm disappointed in my 10D. Do you think the 28-80mm lens is a little bit to blame? I've thought about buying the 28-105mm lens with a metal mount. WinCEB (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) Now I doubt you could blame the lens, unless it doesn't support a wide aperture or something. Did you have any success with changing the settings? Althepal (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this one only goes to 3.5 aperture. I tried your settings but it just doesn't look as vibrant as the S5. It is hard to explain but the 10D has an overall tendency to be darker than it should be, especially inside. And it has some dust specks on the lens where blowing doesn't get it off. Do you have a suggestion for that? WinCEB (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but does the SLR have any options to change saturation? Increasing that would make it look more vibrant. But really, if I were you I'd probably never use the SLR again... it's just obsolete technology compared to the S5. About dust... maybe it would help if you could get a Q-tip swab for the dust, or you can wipe the front of the lens with a lint-free cloth. If you ever need the camera, that is, which probably isn't the case. :) Althepal (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, it actually does have saturation control but I prefer adding saturation in photoshop. That S5 amazes me how it is spot-on. Put it like this, the 10D usually requires a tad of work in photoshop, the S5 can make the photographer lazy!!! I'm sure you know this but one thing very important is always set your white balance according to your shot. I see more photographers leaving their camera on AWB (automatic white balance) and the human eye is really the only thing that can do white balance. It is hard for me leaving the 10D behind to collect dust but I will definitely use the S5 on trips since it is so small. The 10D paired with its 28-80mm lens weights in excess of 1 lb. On the dust, sorry I didn't clarify, but my question was about the sensor. It has a few dust particles that the air blower will not dislodge it. Online articles say to not make physical contact with the sensor so how in the heck are we supposed to clean it? Air is obviously not doing the job. Have a nice day... WinCEB (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sensors. You can do a Google search or go to a website like http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/ for info. I think compressed air might help, but there are cleaning tools and liquids you may be able to use just like cleaning the lens. Best bet: Take it into a camera shop and ask them to clean it for you. Saturation: Yeah, I know. That was actually the reason I bought the S5200 (compared to the S2 IS which was its competition at the time). It has a nice custom white balance tool, but its automatic and daylight white-balance settings were practically perfect in every way. The Canon over-saturated reds and wasn't much more color-accurate (in fact it may have been less color accurate) than its previous S1 IS. Not to mention purple fringing differences, a sharp lens, and a low-noise sensor. (But by choosing the S5200, I gave up on an extra 2x zoom and really nice macros, plus a few other goodies.) I guess they got the color stuff right by the S5, so that would probably be my choice now. But I'm gonna wait. ;) Althepal (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I think your suggestion is wise, however I hate to sink another couple hundred dollars in an aging SLR. I sure have mixed reception of either the Sony A200 or the Canon XSi. Both are awesome. You know competition in cameras are good when you can't decide which is better and I am honestly split on the two entry level SLR models here. What is your take? http://www.steves-digicams.com is an awesome site that reviews EVERY camera released. Have you ever look at that site? WinCEB (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really like that site and I use it for my camera research. But my favorites are the Digital Camera Resource and Digital Camera Info Althepal (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, you didn't say which model you liked better? Tough question isn't it??? WinCEB (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's tough. I think I like the Sony better, but I would really need to do more research. Althepal (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft download site

I tried to download something from Microsoft. It asked me if I wanted to try the beta of their site with Silverlight. Which I have. But it didn't realize that. Is this some kind of problem with Microsoft? Or just an incompatibility with my Firefox 3 beta? Althepal (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it is an incompatibility with Firefox 3 beta. I've tried it on XP with IE 7 and I like the new beta site. Looks like MS is moving their entire site to Silverlight. You may think I like it because it is MS, but I really like the sites built with Silverlight. The new MS download site looks so futuristic and pleasing on the eyes. As long as you have a Mac or Windows PC, you can enjoy Silverlight but Linux folks must wait a little longer I believe. Do you happen to have the latest non-beta version of Firefox to install on your Tiger to see if it works? WinCEB (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about downloading version 2 of Firefox, but then I just tried it in Safari instead. It does look nice, I'll give it that. A few problems are that scrolling seems a bit slow, it didn't take me to the download that I was previously viewing, the top splash images are supposed to cycle but I only see an ad for Live Maps (which I like; one of the few things I prefer in Microsoft), the site doesn't look as intuitive to navigate as it could, the visible search box is wider than the actual search box, the search results say that it didn't find any results before it actually does show the results, regular download pages are still in the old, 90's style, and that search Microsoft box can't be moved out of the way of the splash image (it really should just be a fixed non-window in the empty space below it), but hey, it's beta, right? Anyway, I got Remote Desktop Connection beta 3 for Mac, but I'm not able to connect to the XP computers on my network, and it doesn't integrate with Microsoft Messenger. Any ideas what's wrong? Or am I just thinking that this program is supposed to be something else? Althepal (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What errors are you getting when connecting to XP system? Are the XP systems configured to allow RDP connections (thats disabled by default)? And what exactly are you looking for in Messenger integration? --soum ^talk 05:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the setting allowing remote connections on the XP, so I don't know what's wrong. I put in its local IP address and user name but before establishing a remote desktop it just says that the XP disconnected. About the Messenger: when you use Messenger there is an option to share programs or request remote assistance, but the Mac version of Messenger doesn't have this option. I was hoping that with Remote Desktop it would act like a plug-in to Messenger. Althepal (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the firewall is blocking access. Do you have any third party firewalls installed? Out of curiosity, try disabling Windows Firewall temporarily to see if you can remotely connect to it? As Soum points out, be sure RDP is turn on (1) right-click My Computer (2) click Properties (3) click Remote Tab (4) check appropriate boxes ***If not of this helps, be sure the computers can ping each other*** WinCEB (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, forgot to watchlist your page. RDC doesn't act like a plug-in, sorry. Anyways, Chad gave you the most plausible reason. Also, try telnetting to port 3389 on the Windows computer to make sure the RDC connection request does reach the server. --soum ^talk 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong. I have enabled remote connections and disabled my firewall. But I can't use Messenger to begin a remote desktop, the Mac version of Remote Desktop doesn't work with the remote assistance invitation files, and I can't start a connection from the Mac. Am I just missing something, or is something seriously wrong? Althepal (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, were you ever able to ping each other? WinCEB (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to ping. Can you give directions so I could try? I do know that I'm able to share files and the printer between the computers. Althepal (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how on the mac but really you only have to do it on one PC. Go to your Windows XP computer and (1) click start (2) click run (3) type "cmd" in the run box and click ok (4) a black command prompt box will open, type "ping X.X.X.X" and hit enter. It will say "Reply from X.X.X.X" four times or it will say "Request timed out" four times. If it says Request timed out, then it can't reach it, but if you get replies then all is good. The X.X.X.X is the IP address of the other computer. You would need to get it on the mac before going to the Windows computer and doing the ping. After all of this and you get replies on your ping, at that same black box on the Windows computer, get the ip address of it by typing "ipconfig" at the command prompt. Then go to the mac, open up the remote desktop app, and connect using that ip address you obtained on the other computer. Any luck? WinCEB (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was able to ping the Windows PC from the Mac (I didn't try pinging the Mac from the XP yet though). (I found you could ping by going to Applications > Utilities > Network Utility > "Ping" tab (which is GUI equiv of what you could do in the XP command prompt). So that worked. Then I went to the remote desktop, put in the XP machine's local network IP, the user name in XP, and this was the result. [2] But the internet and everything works fine, so either I have some horrible misunderstanding with the computer program or it just won't work because of some bug. Althepal (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Check if port 3389 is accessible on the Windows machine. Use telnet to connect. (Don't know about mac, on windows the command is telnet <IPAddr> 3389; syntax should be similar on mac). If it does not connect, some firewall is masking that port on the Windows system. --soum ^talk 04:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I went into the Mac's network utility again, clicked the Port Scan tab, typed in the XP machine's IP and asked it to scan ports, and it only said "Open TCP Port 135, 139, 445, and 515. Is that the right test? Maybe I'll double check if there are any firewalls up on XP. I only disabled Trend Micro, but I'll check if the Windows firewall is also up for some reason... BTW: Scanning my IP showed different open ports, but not 3389 there either. Althepal (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The terminal services server listens on port 3389 and if that is not accessible, RDC won't work. Try disabling all firewalls and AV. --soum ^talk 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Althepal (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does it need pro?

I'm connecting to a regular XP home computer. Does the host need XP Pro? If so, that would be the problem :S Documentation should be clearer on that. I only see the checkbox for "Remote assistance", not remote desktop. Which means I have to start it from the XP computer and only to another Windows computer. That's one of the things I just hate about Windows: it will only have its full feature set if you buy the most most expensive version; there isn't just one fully-featured well-priced option. *sigh* Well if that is the problem (requiring XP pro) let me know.Althepal (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, home doesn't have the terminal services server. --soum ^talk 05:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess that answers that. Thanks for your help, but I wish that both it would be more explicit that it requires Pro and that you wouldn't need pro. Oh well, thanks anyway. At least now I know how to do it for a Pro computer, right? :) Althepal (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is right, didn't think about that initially but XP Pro is the only one that you can remote desktop in. Since you like to play around like us, you need the pro version anyway! :-) On Vista, I think you need either the Business or Ultimate Editions to remote desktop in. WinCEB (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Mac OS X is only one version, and it supports remote desktop, but most people with Vista won't have that option. However, I guess I should mention that the remote desktop program for Mac is a few hundred dollars. :( At least you can still use iChat for desktop sharing, just like in Windows Messenger. Althepal (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Mac ever grows to be desired by many other market segments, I bet they'll offer different flavors too. I like the different versions of XP and Vista because you buy only what you need. I admit the Vista Home Basic is pretty lame, having Home Basic and Home Premium is pretty numerous. Should have only been Vista Home, Vista Business, and Vista Ultimate. 3 would be perfect, and 5 is almost ridiculous. I guess that is the only thing I liked about XP was the names, only XP Home, XP Professional, and XP Media Center. I also guess I was just used to the name "professional" since it dated back to 1999 with Windows 2000. Oh well, change is always imminent. WinCEB (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but seeing as Apple prides themselves on providng only one fully featured version I doubt they would offer more than one version. Like, why wouldn't a home user want desktop accelleration for example? Well I guess we agree on one thing: 5 is too many. I also think that 1 would be better than 3, but at least 3 is pretty reasonable. Althepal (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an easy work around. Install RealVNC on both your XP and Mac computers. It is downloadable for free at http://www.realvnc.com for personal use! Did that work? WinCEB (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't try it, but I bet it would work. It seems there is a free trial, but it's not a free program. I don't really need remote desktop stuff (at least not now), I was just interested in the new beta from Microsoft and wanted to give it a spin. Thanks for the link, maybe I'll use it in the future if I need it. Althepal (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English Budgie

Okay, I like all your pics but there is something about English Budgie that I like. This guy just looks like he enjoys the picture moments! Good job on your pics. WinCEB (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's quite a character! Always getting into stuff... :) *sigh* Thanks for the compliments. Althepal (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New icon

Hey Althepal, that new icon for the Windows wikiproject is great... I like it better than what's there now, and I'll certainly support its use. -/- Warren 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I'm hoping it replaces the current bland or off-colored icons. I suggested it on Warren's talk page so maybe he could do something about it. I'm not sure where to nominate a change or if I should just change it, so I just told Warren about it. If you support that icon, that's great! :) Thank you. But now I'm really not going to be on Wikipedia for a few days, so I'll check back then and see if there has been any progress. TTYL, Althepal (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, I -am- Warren? :-) -/- Warren 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Oops, sorry. I thought you were WinCEB (didn't check, expected him on my talk, started with "W"). Well, then. So should I just change the templates? Althepal (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the templates. Hope it makes Wikipedia a nicer place! :) Althepal (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OS-specific userbox

Warren, what about OS-specific userboxes (eg "this user uses Windows XP")? You think I should put my icon in there too, leave those icons alone, or make different versions of this icon for XP, Vista, etc.? Althepal (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon sales

What do you think about this: Amazon's Mac vs PC meter. This is from consumers, not businesses. What do people seem to like? :) When I checked, it said that Macs made up 52% of their computer sales, while PCs made up 48%. Cool, huh? Now I don't know whether or not their methods were perfect, and maybe a lot of people buy Macs specifically on Amazon for convenience and lower prices, and maybe lots of people buy their PCs in stores, but this really does say something. I almost feel tempted to put this into the Vista's reception section, but I won't, don't worry. ;-) Comments are welcome. Althepal (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, one of the first sentences is quite interesting on that page. It says "Are you a supporter of Bill or Steve?" I guess Bill and Steve are treated as people we should pick one and follow! I saw something and forgot where it was located but it said Steve almost never contributes to charity and put everything he makes into personal wealth or the business. On the other hand, Bill has always been huge in philanthropy and providing huge discounts to education. In fact, it is reported that Bill spends most of his time during the day managing charity operations. Steve is busy getting your buck! Who would you want to follow?

Vista is on a dramatic increase now with SP1 out. When a SP rolls out, popularity starts to increase dramatically especially with businesses where most computers are bought. You have very little time to continue bragging about Apple because the tide is turning for Vista. Let's sit back and watch the market share increase quickly and especially with XP terminating in another month or two. SaveXP is out of touch with reality, XP has to be phased out like anything else, so XP will be like Windows 98 or 2000 in a couple of years from now. WinCEB (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this out, Vista is about to be accepted by the major companies!!! WinCEB (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd that they imply everybody likes Bill or Steve, like two enemies, though I think it's just a cute way for them to ask "Are you a Mac or a PC?" About Steve and Bill... think about this: Bill Gates is trying to push XP on OneLaptopPerChild. Linux is free and runs well on those laptops. They needed to strip-down Windows XP. My question is: is XP free? Next, it's true Gates does a lot of charity, but when called the richest man on earth, you can't just keep it all without your company being "boo"ed. And how about this: Jobs doesn't collect any salary. Plus, they give lots of Macs to lots of schools for super cheap. That's how my high school had modern computers.

About SP1? That article is from a long time ago, saying that businesses wouldn't switch to Vista before SP1, not that they would switch after SP1. Probably more companies will indeed switch from XP to Vista now, but I don't think SP1 fixed enough of Vista's problems for it to cause a huge shift in the market. Look: people from Microsoft keep referring to Vista as a work-in-progress; Windows 7 is the real product here. Reports show that Mac sales are staying steady (in the recession) while PC sails are declining. Apple is going to report their earnings very soon, so that might be interesting. And in a week, we can check Net Applications to see how the XP, Vista, and Mac market shares are holding. Time will tell. :) Althepal (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Apple's earnings were up 36% because of Mac sales. Ah, ha! :P Now we wait for Net Applications. Althepal (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apple buys PA Semi

You know Apple just spent almost 300 million dollars to buy a "green" microprocessor company, P.A. Semi? I wonder if they are trying to use that in their mobile products, replace intel processors with their own in the Macs (Windows compatibility??), or if they are going to use their processors to make competition for Windows Embedded or their own hardware products like Apple TV? Althepal (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, sorry for slow reply, been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days. I didn't know this about Apple. They may have some surprises up their sleeve, but it looks like to me they would focus on their iPod and Mac OS. That is their beef... I was in a circuit city today and I saw equal display of iPods and Zunes. I'm glad the managers of these stores are not mind-shut on the Zune or the Zune is more popular than we think now. The competition is fierce. I actually was looking for the Sony A200 and they didn't have it. The A200 and XSi is near equal. Canon is kinda like Windows (most popularly used), but I think the Sony can't be overlooked. I want to hold the A200 before I think of buying either one. Speaking of Sony, have you noticed any of Sony's PCs,....? If I was buying a PC based on beauty and beauty alone, Mac might have a hard time getting my buy after seeing the Sony I saw today. It was a gorgeous PC... I saw a guy with his tongue hittin' the table while using it... the good looks of the cabinet and Vista was more than he could handle. ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yup, Sony does make really nice looking computers. I was looking at their laptops, they're nice. But we all know that's not all that matters. By the way, it turns out that Apple says they are interested in PA Semi because of their intellectual property and smart workers, and may actually discontinue their power pc processor. I guess Intel is working well for them. Althepal (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Net Applications April

Huh. Net Applications info for April is out, and it looks like there's about 1 percentage more of XP users than expected, out of nowhere. Vista share is up by the trend, but XP is up like half a percent. Mac and Firefox are both down, IE 6 is up. This is what I think: NetApplications must have added another big business or something to their statistics, and we all know XP and IE6 are by far most popular among businesses. I still think, based on Apple's earnings, that Macs are still going VERY strong and growing among consumers. As well as Firefox. And Linux. That's what I think. By the way, I think Apple is getting ready go break into enterprise market, too. Althepal (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting!! You might be right about your theory. I would think most businesses would apply IE7 to XP because it is so solid against spyware. I still haven't seen an infected computer with IE7. The only hand full of times I have witness spyware on an IE7 computer is because it had the spyware before the user updated, but the spyware was handicapped from functioning. A few reasons why businesses won't update to IE7: 1) they don't know the advantages and are clueless, hence inexperienced 2) might be running a customized application that for some reason requires IE6...I don't think there is many but I have heard of a few programs that require IE6 and won't adapt to IE7 3) time to walk around and update computers....some business are so tight to keep it going, they focus on function rather than technology so their boss might not give the techs time to update to IE7 IF IE6 is working. Some bosses are micromanagers and that is not good because they usally are clueless with "What is Vista?" "What is IE?"

Is it just me or has the Apple hype leveled off? I don't hear as many people goo and gaaing over the iPod and iPhone. But, no doubt I agree with you Apple has been on the right path the last few years. But I think people will start seeing how secure XP and Vista has become. XP Service Pack 3 should be coming out any second now if not already. I still haven't seen a headline of a virus targeting Vista in the mass. Congrats to Vista!

Oh, I would like to add to your theory on why XP increased a percentage point. Some people and business are behind the times so they probably upgraded from Win98 or Win2k to WinXP. Think that might be it? WinCEB (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. XP still has decent market but I don't see why it would increase ahead of Vista. About IE6: There are lots of people who don't update anything, even if free, for the simple reasons that they see whatever they have is working fine and they don't know/care about updates. There is someone here who still uses Firefox 1.5 and IE6 and they don't want to update, even though I told them about the benefits (their reason is that they just like the way it is now). (I'm using Firefox 3 beta and IE7.) Well, I'm the type who always wants the newest stuff, but I still would tend to avoid Vista unless I really want some DirectX 10 games on a powerful computer and deal with UAC. And by the way, there are lots of rumors going around about the second generation iPhone. Some neat things look in store, but yeah, it's already been around a while and isn't amazing to people any more. Still, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere (it's staying I mean, not that it's not making progress :). And Microsoft said they'd release SP3, but I wasn't able to download it. Turns out that it had a compatibility problem with a Microsoft program that a few people have, so they wanted to hold off on releasing it. Go figure. Althepal (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psystar OpenComputer, HP

Hey, this looks like a very interesting link about the Psystar OpenComputer, which Engadget really got ahold of. I'd rather have a Mac, but this looks like a reasonably priced Hackintosh. I don't know what Apple's gonna say. But it does indicate that the Mac demand is high, huh? Here's another interesting link. Seems like HP made some kind of development in circuits or computer memory. Althepal (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Airtel-logo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Airtel-logo.svg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP Service Pack 3

Althepal, SP3 is out! It is about time. –Chad

Yeah, all these delays. ;-) I tried it out... don't see any major differences, but w/e. It's always nice to have a new service pack. Althepal (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Chad, I"m glad I use IE7 and that I haven't had any SP3 issues. Seems that if you use IE8, you can't update to SP3. If you want to use IE6 with SP3, it won't let you. (Freedom of choice, anyone?) And some people aren't able to boot their computers after installing SP3. Wanna bet on if that's going to happen with the 10.5.3 Leopard update coming up? ;-) Althepal (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Althepal! That doesn't make sense on IE6 because it says in the release notes that SP3 did not install IE7 and so if you wanted to upgrade to IE7 you had to install it separately. It so happen on the system I updated had IE6 and I didn't have any trouble so that is strange you had trouble. One thing I did notice is that the original installer of IE7 is not compatible with WinXP SP3. It gave an error and aborted. I scratched my head and knowing that I cleanly installed this system I KNEW nothing was wrong with it so I downloaded the latest IE7 installer from the download site at MS. It worked!! I think SP3 is a significant update just knowing some of these strange things. I think people satisfied with SP2 will be even more satisified with SP3. What do you think about IE8? I have not seen it yet. -Chad WinCEB (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chad. No, I mean you can't uninstall IE 7 and replace it with IE 6 even if you wanted to. Not a common occurrence, but still. Funny about the IE7 installer. It does make me a little annoyed when Microsoft has a hard time keeping compatibility between their own products, but whatever. I haven't personally used IE 8, but from what I read it's not all that different from IE 7 -- I guess the main difference is that they try to follow web standards more. What about real acid3 test compatibility? How does it score against IE 7 and other browsers? Althepal (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking Acid3 (where 100 on the compatibly test is the best), it looks like Opera and Safari get 100, Firefox and Konqueror get in the low 70s, and Internet Explorer 8 beta 2 gets only 18! Wow. I thought Microsoft said the beta 1 got 100%, maybe I was wrong. Let's hope IE8 turns out better than it is. Althepal (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong - wow - IE7 couldn't possibly be rated below the others. IE7 is the best thing MS has done in the past few years beside Vista. If I was voting, I would say IE7 tops the list, and Firefox following it with a narrow margin and then Safari and the others are way to the bottom. The only way someone can like Safari is if they have never seen IE or Firefox before. WinCEB (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a vote. The acid tests are unbiased compatibility checkers. Althepal (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How can the most widely used browser score the lowest on compatibility? Are web developers that misinformed? This is quite amazing to me. WinCEB (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft doesn't follow "official" standards. That is why many web developers code for Internet Explorer and not others (resulting in antitrust suits). The test checks against official standards. Everyone else follows them, but not Microsoft. I'm not sure what's not to understand here.... it's not the fault of anyone but Microsoft. Althepal (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, you may be absolutely right. However, on the flip side, Microsoft could be leading the way and creating their own standard along the way. Have you ever been on a website with IE that wasn't compatible? I would say IE is the standard and the others are "not following" the HTML standard. More often I find websites that do not display correctly when I tested Firefox rather than under IE. Just a thought. WinCEB (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft may have the most common way of displaying website data, but it's closed source so who can copy? Listen, you're missing something here. It's not that the web and browsers evolved together, and that they all happen to display html similarly. Making standards are up the the w3 consortium, not by the leading browser. http://w3.org So while most web developers have made sure to make it compatible with the most common browser, that isn't really standard. And by the way, I have seen proper code that works well in Firefox yet displays the information incorrectly in Internet Explorer, so the image elements were not properly aligned. Althepal (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, a market leader has influence on the standard. This can be compared to how the Apple iPhone is changing the phone! MS, I admit, has rushed out new versions of Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile 6.1 has come out faster than the phone companies can get out new phones. Linux has even come out with one that looks like the iPhone. Have you seen the Linux variant? When you have a browser that has more than 70% market share that translates to millions of users, you can bet that the little w3 consortium will need to modify their standards if MS introduced something new in HTML. However, I think the changes are subtle, I'm sure MS is not bullying too much. I do see the importance of a consortium to keep all the browsers in check. I downloaded the latest Firefox 3.0 release candidate today and I found it very good! I noticed some things they copied from IE7. But one thing new that I did like is that you can add a RSS feed on your bookmark toolbar and when you click on it, it drops down a list of the rss items on that feed. I found myself using both browsers today. :-) WinCEB (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your points. And I have seen a lot of phones targeted at the iPhone. But still, I'm just saying that basically Microsoft feels like what you're saying: they have the market share, so they can do what they want, even though it's not official. Hence the antitrust suits and Microsoft's beginning to try to be more compatible. If everyone would try to meet the standards, that would be the best for everyone. Now my main point is that everyone, excluding Microsoft, is actually doing a good job of meeting standards. Microsoft is at least starting an effort. Anyway, I get your point that MS should/could impact standards, making it surprising that Microsoft's browsers are behind the times in modern html 5 (and other stuff) compatibility, which none of the old browsers have yet had time to influence, but you can't just expect, for example, Sun Microsystems to modify java due to improper implementation on Microsoft's part, can you? And yeah, all the browsers take stuff from each other. Opera and Firefox started out with the tabs that now IE and Safari took up. Now Firefox is also doing stuff like anti-phishing... *sigh* Whichever is best, I use. I think Firefox beats IE in terms of actual modern standards compatibility (though I think Safari is actually better than Firefox). I think Firefox and IE have similar security features. Firefox has recently improved its operating speed. And my favorite is Firefox's add-ons, an area where the other browsers are lacking. Anyway, take it easy, Althepal (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux

Chad, I'm wondering your opinions on Linux. Novell and Microsoft do have some kind of deal. OpenSUSE (the community version of Novell's SUSE linux) seems kind of neat and nice-looking... what do you think? Also re Ubuntu and stuff. Compiz seems pretty good compared to Aero. What do you think? Seems like a nice fast type of operating system which can get most jobs done nicely. Althepal (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With the reliability of XP and Vista, I don't find Linux attractive as far a switch goes. But, I test drove Fedora a few months ago and liked it! Now that you mentioned it, I'm going to set up the latest Fedora this coming week and check it out real good. I don't know about Ubunto, but Fedora is extra clean. Is Ubunto similiar to Fedora? WinCEB (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All versions of Linux are similar. I think Ubuntu is based on Debian, where Fedora is based on Red Hat (which are slightly different from each other and have different automatic-installer formats), but really they're all pretty much the same, and they're all pretty fast (light-weight) and pretty stable. Ubuntu is the most popular. As far as looks go, desktop environments are kind of separate from the Linux distribution. (For example, Ubuntu, Fedora, and openSUSE all give the options to use KDE or GNOME.) I personally prefer the looks of KDE, but GNOME is probably more popular. The main problem I have with Linux is more limited software and, for much of the software which is made for Linux, instead of an automatic-installer option you have to choose between compiling source code (requiring the use of the Terminal) or having that software specifically listed in a software repository, not a major problem, and I guess software developers are more to blame than Linux itself, but still... Althepal (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are speaking to someone with limited Linux exposure. I simply thought I wasn't knowing what I was doing when it came to installing programs. Are you saying it has to be in the repository to install a program or you have to compile it? Is the repository located on Linux distribution servers and Linux makes connections to that when you install? I noticed when I tried to install something, I got the instructions to install it and it downloaded it from the repository. This is VERY stupid when compared to Windows and probably Apple as well. I guess since Linux is mostly used by geeks, it hasn't been required to make it easier. I thought I was learning the computer again when I installed apps on my previous Fedora machine. I'm about to try the new Fedora though. WinCEB (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Linux is only recently being even considered for consumer desktops, and it still has a ways to go before it matches the ease of use of Windows and Mac OS X. For Mac, you download the program itself (and put it into the Applications folder) or you download an installer wizard. Like Windows. But Linux.... There are two general branches of Linux. Debian and Red Hat based. (Fedora and openSUSE are based on Red Hat, Ubuntu is based on Debian.) They each have their own automatic installer format (like the installer wizards in Windows and Mac). That means that someone who makes a program for Linux should make installers in both formats. However, most Linux programs are just downloadable as a tarball. This requires the user to compile its source code. Nothing much, just going into the terminal, setting the location to the file, and putting in short code (something like ./compile program-name), but this is NOT good for general consumers. The thing about repositories... on Linux computers, there is a file listing online repositories of software that you can automatically download and install. It means you can use a little program that lists available software, and you just check what you want and it automatically downloads and installs. Or you can open the terminal and type something like "sudo apt-get install program-name" and it will automatically find it and install it. When you think about it, that can be more convenient in some situations, but the problem is that not all software will show up there, and there are some repositories that the user can only access by manually editing the file in Linux. I agree, this is very stupid, but Linux has made great improvements. You get what you pay for, I guess... I just hope it will get better. And all that stuff I know about.... that's what I had to learn before I could make my way around Linux. Aside from that, it's a pretty darn good OS, but I still almost never use it. Althepal (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be too much of a Windows fan, but I don't think Linux will ever be suitable for the average joe. Unless Linux becomes comercialized. What I find amuzing is that Linux is developed by people who think software should be free. Anything free is going to be crap, and Linux is crappy for the most part when sitting beside Windows or even Apple. I still like Linux though and am quit amazed it is good as it is free. I think Fedora is awesome and I'm sure Ubuntu is too. I wish other things in life was free like this, why can't we go to a superstore and pick out something free? The tiny bowl of candy at the checkout line is not even free!!!!!!!! Restaurants charge $0.25 just for a tiny piece of mint! The people behind the Linux distributions needs to wake up and decide if they want to take on Windows they'll have to charge so they can have revenue to make it better. I may be a little selfish, but I wouldn't waste 30 minutes of my time coding in Linux for free. Life is too short just to sit and code because I hate some company! Maybe you see my point on Linux. Apple is doing much better since they charge. But thanks for the tips in Linux... I almost have my new Fedora going again so I'm going to experiement more on installing other programs. WinCEB (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, OpenSUSE, one of the most user friendly versions, is based on a commercialized SUSE Linux from Novell, commercialized. Red Hat is commercial. Ubuntu is funded by an African company or something. People working on it aren't doing it just for free. Some contributors do donate their time coding, but that is nice of them. Software isn't like a physical item that you need to pay to distribute, so it is a little (not very) different.... Anyway, I do see your point. When a company is commercializing something, they both have more money to spend on development, and they also are driven to make it available and easy to use even for the most basic users. Still, I think Linux is progressing nicely. Althepal (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right here so I'm conceding. I guess my opinion is based on the idea that every Linux fan I meet has HATE toward MS. It is not the regular dislike or distaste but real hate. I honestly think programmers that work on Linux hate MS enough they will do it with that kind of energy. I guess there is nothing wrong with that but I think coding because you hate something else is not ever going to be good at the end. Code to compete not out of anger would be a better mindset for Linux community. One last thing, Linux forums on every line has something hateful toward MS. Linux community will never be successful with that kind of mindset. Don't let me offend you because I don't know your political preferences, but John Kerry lost to George Bush in 2004 because Kerry was too hateful toward Bush. People (in general) don't like hate and the Linux community is filled with hate. Just my opinion... WinCEB (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. And you are largely right. Truly, a large percentage of people who use Linux are avoiding Windows because they hate Microsoft. Here's a funny (depending on who you ask I guess) video I recently saw on Engadget. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/19/steve-ballmer-dodges-eggs-at-hungarian-university/ Steve Ballmer was giving a talk at a Hungarian university, and there was one guy really ticked off at MS who THREW EGGS AT HIM! Wow. Ahem. And Microsoft isn't really so innocent OR guilty. They make software that almost everyone who uses a computer is nearly forced into. Problem: no software is perfect, and Microsoft's is no exception. And you know when I have a bad experience with a company or their product, I begin to dislike, maybe even hate the company to the point that I will refuse to ever use their products again, depending on the extend of the product's bad quality or bad customer service. Like my HP camera which really stank and needed to replace, after forcing my way through HP's tech department. Now I tend to avoid HP products, all things being equal. That's the way things are. If you get a Sony mp3 player and it sounds bad and breaks after a week, are you going to buy a sony radio next week? With Windows, with its load of bugs, millions of people around the world have gotten BSODs, lost their work, waited for a slow OS to load all startup items, or their Microsoft Office didn't activate and Microsoft won't give them another key (if there is no receipt)or whatever, and I can only assume this drives people away from using Windows in the future. So what's the alternative? Linux. Something you don't have to worry about activation, BSODs, upgrade prices, hard drive erasing viruses, or slow boot times, or whatever. Even regular folks may choose Linux because of these advantages. The geeky who hate Microsoft OR want to help the open source community contribute to Linux. And the more who use it, the more who contribute to it, the more user friendly it can be or must be, and so on. Whether or not hateful people who contribute to it would have a negative effect, that's up for debate. Either way, most people aren't thinking, while coding "this will hurt Microsoft!". And by the way, Novell and Microsoft have a partnership. Linux people who don't like Microsoft complained to Novell about this, but that's besides the point. My point is that Novell makes SUSE Linux. And Novell has an open source edition just to help make the commercial version better. Lots of people don't use openSUSE because of that, choosing Ubuntu instead. Personally, I don't care about that and think openSUSE is a great choice. But I can bet openSUSE developers don't hate Microsoft, since they are in partnership. Althepal (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As I think about it more, the hate is probably not unique for Microsoft. I know with every company somebody hates them. It just seems to me that most Linux fans have enough hate that it occupies their lives to make something free. When you think about it, the costs for using Windows is actually less than the Internet service people pay. Take Vista for example which had similiar prices to XP. Make it $300 for simplicity, while the Ultimate is a little more. For 3 years you would pay $8.33 per month. Windows XP was out for 5+ years so that would actually be $5 per month assuming you bought it when released. But if you buy Windows with your new system such as HP, Dell, or Gateway, you are paying less for the use of Windows because MS sells it to them less. It is hard to say that is a rip off and we need to use Linux because it is free. The loss of compatibility and other features is not worth using Linux, they have absolutely no argument other than hot air. It is something different and it is neat to try something different, but anybody's main operating system should be Windows and Apple and Linux are nice for second systems to play with. I know you might disagree, but Windows is the defacto standard and it runs well if configured correctly. I would put it beside Linux or Apple anyday. It might have more memory (ha!), but we'll still be cookin' at similiar speeds. More seriously, I see what you are saying about the commercializing of Linux. I finally saw a box sale of Novel Linux in my latest PCConnection mag. It was actually a competitively priced $150, while the Vista underneath it was slightly more. For me, I would prefer to pay the slightly more for Vista... WinCEB (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox 3

Althepal, just wondering of your take on Firefox 3 beta? WinCEB (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been my primary browser since beta 5 came out. I think it's great (it's faster, it looks more integrated with the OS, and it has many more convenience and security features. Plus it's plenty stable. Actually, as I write this, I'm on a more recent nightly build which just has more improvements over the beta. I can't wait for the final version 3... I bet you'd like it, too... here tell me what you think: ~~ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-3.0pre.en-US.win32.installer.exe~~ – I hope it fixes the problems you see in Firefox 2... who knows, you may even like it more than IE 7 or 8. Wouldn't that be something? :-) Althepal (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RC1 link ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.0rc1-candidates/build1/firefox-3.0.en-US.win32.installer.exe Althepal (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, I'll give this a try tomorrow when I get back on my work machine! I will say that Thunderbird is MUCH better than Outlook Express! That might be the only time you hear me say something is beating MS. On one of my servers where I didn't want to install the full Outlook, I installed Thunderbird and it works great. I actually like the way it handles IMAP better than Outlook Express. I can't wait to get my new Fedora machine going as well. I wish you would try Fedora since it is free. WinCEB (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you like Firefox. It really is a good browser when you look at it, and even with the improvements of IE 7, I choose Firefox for its add-ons. Thunderbird too. I'm fine with Outlook Express, but I have a slight preference to the way Thunderbird works, its options, stuff like that. I may try Fedora... I have seen screenshots of it and it looks nice. I've got all these DVDs with Kubuntu, Ubuntu, ReactOS, openSUSE. Fedora isn't much different, you know. All Linux is pretty similar. By the way, if you could try Fedora with the KDE 4 desktop environment, that one is the most comparable to Aero or Aqua (nice looks and effects and icons and stuff). If you can get Compiz working on it, too, that brings some really neat desktop acceleration. Talk to you later, Althepal (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Firefox. I saw a screenshot of IE8 but saw no visible differences, maybe it is still too early since that screenshot was Beta 1. Seems like I remember that as an option... is it possible to switch between KDE 4 and the other or is that selection only during installation? WinCEB (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is possible to switch between KDE and GNOME, but I don't know how. Althepal (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy and paste edits

If you are going to copy and paste content from one article to another, please respect other editors contributions and make it clear where you are sourcing the content from by mentioning the article title in your edit summaries. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. Althepal (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Althepal, looks like you made some guy mad. It happens every time you turn. Have a nice day. WinCEB (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah.... Thanks. Althepal (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inkjet Printers, the future

Althepal, to add a spin to our technology debates, what about inkjet printers? I have noticed a steady decline in inkjet popularity in recent years. There was a sudden increase in popularity between the late 90's and turn of the century but the past few years the stores have slowly reduced their inkjet printer displays. I remember my first inkjet printer in 1994 that was a HP Deskjet 560c that was one of the first that had dual printheads so you did not have to swap the black cartridge for a color. It was $600 and printed a color page every 4 minutes!!! That was lightning fast huh? The inkjet technology has advanced tremendously with photo models when paired with the real stock photo paper can rival traditional photographs. In fact, Epson is the current leader in inkjet technology and their highend models feature pigment inks that can last longer than 100 years on photo paper! I do not know how HP has allowed Epson to past them but I think Epson is better now. HP was the original inventor of inkjets I believe and they have gone downhill after the Compaq merger. I have noticed some important key people at HP has been reassigned roles or retired because their inkjet printers are not what they should be. Regardless of all of that stuff, it looks like the laser may almost put inkjet printers in the history books as their prices continue to drop. Can you believe that HP now has a color laser for $400? Guess what else? They have their own branded laser photo paper too? Canon continues to shrink their number of printer models for sale. I think they are down to like 4 when they use to have 10 or more. It might be the economy but I see the inkjet printer fading slowly and the laser becoming the standard type of printer. WinCEB (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, laser is superior technology to inkjet. But inkjet really has been perfected, plus the price is right. I used to use an HP photosmart for my photography and text. It wasn't lightning, but compared to your 560c? ;-) It was pretty good. Now I have a really good Canon PIXMA that only cost like $100; really fast and high quality. Epson is also good. Canon, HP, Epson, and even Lexmark are good printer makers. I hope laser printers can be bought for $100, but for now I'm happy with my ink jets. Isn't a non-controversial discussion nice? :) Althepal (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first two sentences was spot-on! That explains the decline in inkjet sales because the technology is so perfected, they are having to really work harder to improve the technology. I still think Inkjets are best for real photographs but lasers have always been the frontrunner for graphics and text quality. I love to see a colored document printed by a color laser - it looks professional and gives you a good feeling. However, a laser photo leaves you with a strange feeling. But let your highend photo printer with 6+ inks on genuine brand photo paper spit out a photo and it will leave you stunned. For today, in year 2008, the ultimate office should have a color laser for general printing with a premium photo printer and you can print anything your heart desires. And the neat thing is, you can have all this for a mere $700. $399 for HP's color laser for low-end jobs (less than 10,000 copies a month) with either an HP Photosmart C series or Epson RX620. Both vendors even sport a model with fax capabilities, hopefully email has almost replaced the fax. One company I dealt with last week requested I scan it and email him the file rather than fax it. The trend is underway for the expiration of fax machines. But to my Deskjet 560c, you will not find anything in your junk room that is slower. I distinctly remember it taking hours for a hand full of color copies. It also took my Intel 486 processor with Windows 95 about 5-10 minutes to process the job to begin with before sending to the printer. The name spooler has been around for a reason, and the old printers, to put it politely was slower than a snail. We take it for granted today when we hit print and the printer immediately starts. But back to lasers, I still would like to see how the new ones are printing on the specially designed photo paper for lasers since HP is starting to brag about it now. I'm saving the rest for another rainy day... WinCEB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're completely right about the printers, but I don't think I've seen many laser-printed photographs. But FAX... *shudders*. Is there a worse method of transferring documents? Low quality, semi-reliable, takes up the phone line, slower than email, and both fax machines have to be on at once. Not to mention the sound.... "eeeoooohhoeeeezxxxwoo". Email is the only way for me I feel comfortable with. Even instant messaging with file transfers are nice. Althepal (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fax machines are obsolete. They need to be carried to the landfill. Why do they even sell them? You can't find typewriters anymore, so why are fax machines still sold? I don't understand. WinCEB (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!!!! Everyone has to move on from the technology of decades ago and get in touch with the real world of high-speed data transfer. Oh, by the way. http://www.amazon.com/Brother-SX-4000-Electronic-Typewriter/dp/B0000636X8/ :-) Althepal (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:TrendMicroInternetSecurity08.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:TrendMicroInternetSecurity08.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Guess somebody chose to replace my screenshot with a nearly identical one. Well, Mr. Bot, why would you think it may still be useful? I don't care. Althepal (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Althepal/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of Lavabit

[edit] POTD notification

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:MeizuM8.png)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MacosxlogoX1.png

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IBMlogo.svg)

[edit] Pricing comment

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg

[edit] PhotoLine 32

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winvista.svg

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows Vista

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Gimpiconnew.png

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SAT Logo.svg

[edit] AfD nomination of MinWin

[edit] Windows Vista Orb

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Encarta2007Screenshot.png)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Helicon soft logo.png

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hfocus410.png)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillafirefox2.png

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mozillathunderbird2.png

[edit] budgerigar photo

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Cs2andpixel.png

[edit] iPhomeOS.png fair use disputed

[edit] Image:iPhoneOS.png listed for deletion

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPhoneOS.png)

[edit] Moved List of Mac OS X software to AfD

[edit] Moved List of old Macintosh software to AfD

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iphone os.png)

[edit] Vista is the best!

[edit] edit line

[edit] Zune vs. iPod

[edit] Signature question

[edit] Now its the Mac's turn

[edit] edit line

[edit] Microsoft Surface

[edit] Lets poke fun at Microsoft

[edit] Gaming on the Mac

[edit] ReactOS

[edit] OS wars

[edit] edit line

[edit] Image:Xpvistaleopardchangewave.png

[edit] Reception Section Unbalanced Again

[edit] Cameras

[edit] Microsoft download site

[edit] Does it need pro?

[edit] English Budgie

[edit] New icon

[edit] OS-specific userbox

[edit] Amazon sales

[edit] Apple buys PA Semi

[edit] Net Applications April

[edit] Psystar OpenComputer, HP

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Airtel-logo.svg

[edit] Windows XP Service Pack 3

[edit] Linux

[edit] Firefox 3

[edit] Copy and paste edits

[edit] Inkjet Printers, the future

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:TrendMicroInternetSecurity08.png)

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search