You associate the community with yourself. That's interesting. I've worked my entire adult life with Unix systems so I'm aware of the issues. Given that IBM's As/400 was designated "Unix" the definition can run pretty wide. But I don't have an issue with AAPL's technology per se. Rather I object to their anti-competitive and therefore anti-consumer ways. The same is true of MSFT although it's generally accepted that Windows is a disaster on the server side compared to the Unix model. However, I have softened my stance on MSFT given what they've done with the .Net framework, ie. their technology is getting better and more open. Agreed, but it doesn't mean that MSFT/Windows is crap. Life's never black and white. That's all I'm saying. Thx D
It's an editorial "we"... I don't even want the lines blurred between Windows and Unix / Apple really... Windows is not now nor, apparently, will it ever be "internet ready". We should give up the ongoing deception that comes out of Microsoft and the blacklisting industry regarding security... it won't ever be secure. A whitelisting firewall doesn't even guarantee security, it is a big step in the right direction though and basically the only real solution for a Windows machine... I didn't realize that until the day I set up my Hotbrick to whitelist in only the few url's needed for trading... it's an epiphany that many could benefit from... even if a rogue programmer put code in the TWS to upload my intellectual property to his site, it can't happen, my firewall will block the upload... I don't think I'm going to be happy with my computers here until I swap out this surfing box for an Apple.. or even Linux but wow, the Apple runs fine out of the crate....
I will stick with XP Pro and my hardware firewall. I have seen insufficient reason to upgrade to the newest bugs, bells and memory-hogs. I am a trader, and need neither Vista nor Windows 7, as all of my trading software runs quite swimmingly on XP. Every workstation of other traders I have seen is slower executing simple commands and programs than my XP box.
I don't have a W 7 . In your opinion, is the out of the box W7 faster then XP for ordinary web surfing and one platform/account tradidng ? Is it possible to strip W7 out of neccessary start ups like it was done with Vista ? Thanks
Which is fair enough. It's applications that have driven Windows domination up until now, which is why I run a Windows desktop. As your issues are more with MSFT than with Vista then ditching XP and going to some other platform is pretty much a no brainer. I agree that Windows does have several legacy issues. Technically, there is no reason that they cannot be overcome. But with a company like MSFT that is most likely a highly politics (corporate strategy) dependent decision and results process. It's my view that the changing dynamics of the tech industry are undermining some of the key strengths of Windows and so may force a major strategic reworking of their OS. When might be? Who knows. But if their hand is forced I wouldn't put it past them to get it right. The last few years have shown that MSFT can produce very good technology when they focus their resources in the right way. Thx D
Your opinion of it's performance doesn't jive with most every performance comparison that's ever been done... "The verdict? Windows 7 makes some performance strides over Vista, though in some cases we saw no clear-cut winner, and in one area Windows 7 lagged considerably behind its predecessor." http://www.pcworld.com/article/172509/windows_7_performance_tests.html "To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system. Sure the others look nicer, but in terms of performance I think Xp is the one to go with on average." http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/ "7 vs. XP If Windows 7 wasnât meant to light a fire under Vista users, then itâs XP users that are the target. Microsoft couldnât get them to move to Vista, so this is their second and possibly last real chance to move them before they become their own permanent faction of die-hard users. And to be frank, if Win7 succeeds here, itâs not going to be because of technical measures." http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666 "In a set of comprehensive Windows Web browser performance tests conducted by Betanews on August 7 -- our first test of browsers running on the final Windows 7 RTM Build 7600 distributed by Microsoft yesterday -- the five major families of browsers tended to run 13% faster on Windows XP Service Pack 3 than on Windows 7, and 29% faster than on Windows Vista Service Pack 2." http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows-XP-SP3-runs-browsers-13-faster-than-Windows-7-RTM/1249687071 There are plenty of other comparisons out there, with a similar conclusion, Win7 is faster than Vista, but slower than XP.
If all you want is a web-surfing box, then save your money and run a Linux distro, or OpenSolaris, or Net/FreeBSD. If you really must, you can even install OSX on the right PC hardware for a fraction of the cost (Google Hackintosh). The Snow Leopard DVD is quite cheap.
ditto. I'm beginning to think its all one big scam to create a software security industry. And if anyone wants to hack a computer bad enough , they probably can find a way. btw I can't think of a good reason to upgrade to Win7. other than it comes with a new machine. And why the fok are we paying for basic upgrade maintenance of a product anyways?? poc msft