[Spirrwell]

 Honza7, on Sep 13 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Windows 2008 R2 server standard x64 converted into workstation. Best OS I ever had.

I agree with this, I've got Microsoft Dreamspark because I'm a student, so I can get it too. Regardless of whether you need such and such functions, it's a great learning experience.

[Kathy]

 Mr.Flibble, on Sep 24 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

Besides the fact that when I first loaded up Windows 7, I was installing something pretty much every day...
Actually, several of my programs trigger it. I think it is because they were installed as administrator or something...either way, it makes running applications that I use everyday (for school) very annoying. I either have to go and set folder permissions or just turn it off...

Or don't use those peace of shit programs that were written by idiots who don't know how to make a program work with user privileges. It's good that MS enabled UAC. So that those amateurs start to think about making another program that would want admin privileges.

Btw, there is no R2 x86. It's the first Windows to be x64-only. Win7 should have been second.

[Martin]

Microsoft enjoy money way too much to make Win7 64-bit only.

[Spirrwell]

Actually, anyone ever test mapster in Windows Server 2008 R2? I'm kind of sick of it crashing in my Windows Vista, I just switch operating systems monthly because I get a new computer every month.

[Jamie-Jamie]

I'm with Lotan. Windows 7 x64 all the way. I'd be running it but I'm too poor to upgrade, so I'm running Vista x64. I've found that it's just smoother, especially under high-memory-usage scenarios.

Ssssmokin'.

I relegated Windows XP to the dustbin of technological history. lol

[The Commander]

I would move to Win 7 if I didn't rely on so many programs that only work correctly in Windows XP that I am not sure would work right even through the virtual desktop.

Plus there is that whole auto arrange debate thing I made a while back, have they fixed that yet?

[High Treason]

This thread is still going?

Well, you all know I would say XP as well, but why not multi-boot it? It's not too hard and that way you get the best of both worlds, that's what I will be doing with my machine next year anyway.

@Spirrwell; I can certainly say mapster32 did not work in Windows 2008 R2 for me at all, but it doesn't work on my other machine these days anyway and the 2008 machine I tested it on sucked pretty hard at everything else to be honest. Windows 2008 is a terrible OS, what kind of server OS does not have a seperate icon for each network, does not let me change in-depth network settings and Telnet comes as an option wheras all the pretty menu effects and stuff are installed by default? Even Ubuntu Server is better than that crap!

[Kathy]

 High Treason, on Sep 27 2010, 07:08 AM, said:

Windows 2008 is a terrible OS, what kind of server OS does not have a seperate icon for each network, does not let me change in-depth network settings

Errr... what?

Quote

and Telnet comes as an option wheras all the pretty menu effects and stuff are installed by default?

Telnet comes preinstalled but not enabled in every OS since Vista. What's the big deal?

[High Treason]

What's the "Err... What?" about? It doesn't let me do those things, and the control panel in general is a bitch because it takes three clicks more than it did before to do anything - that's when it actually allows you to change things, the Display Properties was worst, some of it opens a new Window, the rest opend in the same Window so after hitting apply I close it only to realise I have to go through the pain of finding the control panel again.

Why would I not want Telnet enabled if I am running a large enough network to justify having a server? I'd sure want that client to manage my routers, switches and printers. As for the Telnet server I didn't bother looking for that crap because I've always used KTS or other alternatives because the MS Telnet server is crap to be honest.

Edit: Also it was not cheap! I expect it to be better than Windows 2003, but no, even LANTastic was more intuitive.

[Spirrwell]

 High Treason, on Sep 26 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

What's the "Err... What?" about? It doesn't let me do those things, and the control panel in general is a bitch because it takes three clicks more than it did before to do anything - that's when it actually allows you to change things, the Display Properties was worst, some of it opens a new Window, the rest opend in the same Window so after hitting apply I close it only to realise I have to go through the pain of finding the control panel again.

Why would I not want Telnet enabled if I am running a large enough network to justify having a server? I'd sure want that client to manage my routers, switches and printers. As for the Telnet server I didn't bother looking for that crap because I've always used KTS or other alternatives because the MS Telnet server is crap to be honest.

Edit: Also it was not cheap! I expect it to be better than Windows 2003, but no, even LANTastic was more intuitive.

Eh, I just liked Windows Server 2008 R2 for the fact I can make it run more like Wndows 7. I also liked the IIS 7 better than XAMPP which I use to host websites.

[Kathy]

 High Treason, on Sep 27 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

What's the "Err... What?" about?

About changing network settings.

Quote

I'd sure want that client to manage my routers, switches and printers.

Did you ever heard of putty? I use telnet only to test whether or not port is open. Everything else - putty.

[High Treason]

@Spirwell, I use IIS myself, though I am still on IIS 6 because of my decision to stick with Windows 2003. And at the end of they day I guess it's a case of "to each his own".

@Lotan, I don't seem to be able to change as many settings, I had to do most of it with "netsh" because I could not find how to change settings for individual connections. Still, the most annoying thing was that it displayed all networks as a single icon in the tray area, I want a seperate icon for each network (three networks woud be active) so I know if one has gone down or what activity is on that particular network - this can not be done in 2008 but can in 2003.

I was going to mention putty in my last post but couldn't be bothered, I don't like putty, the putty telnet server has limited features and the client has a lot of issues, mostly in that it does not fully support several ASCII and ANSI codes and it seems to be intent on displaying the wrong font. A simple way to see what I mean is to use putty to telnet me - treason.dyndns.org - and see if it displays correctly (like this) without you having to change settings, my bet is that it will not do so, hence the notice I display regarding putty.

[Kathy]

For me they both display it wrong(not like in the picture). Besides, you can't use 'telnet' for SSH.

[MarkG]

 Martin, on Sep 24 2010, 08:19 PM, said:

Microsoft enjoy money way too much to make Win7 64-bit only.

Given that most new x86 CPUs are 64-bit capable (I believe the netbook Atoms are the only exception) and all new Windows-compatible hardware will have 64-bit drivers (AFAIR when I was writing Vista drivers some years ago we had to release 64-bit versions if we wanted the Windows logo on our box) there's little reason to have not made Win7 64-bit only. I don't use Windows much anymore, but the only thing I've been unable to run on Win7 x64 is Carmageddon because it's 16-bit and too graphics-intensive for an emulator.

UAC is pretty much a disaster ('Foobar.exe wants to write to your hard drive. Allow or deny?' 'How the hell do I know? What does it want to write to my hard drive? Where is it writing to? Is it trying to write to its own config file or install a rootkit?') and the Win7 interface moves everything around often for no obvious reason and generally feels a bit crappy, but I can't really see any reason to prefer XP.

[High Treason]

Aye, it's not finshed yet. That apple one is probably the worst I have seen, those symbols are standards compliant, it's a ruddy joke the way these newer terminals work.

[Skulldog]

 Pikachu, on Oct 3 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

I should break out my Win 3.11 box and kick it oldschool. :3

Funny you should bring windows 3.11 up. It works in DosBox. I mounted a folder in dosbox and installed windows 3.11
and it works great. Had to find S3 display and Soundblaster drivers online. Had it going in no time.

[Striker]

Windows 7 x64. Works like a dream.

 The Commander, on Sep 26 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Plus there is that whole auto arrange debate thing I made a while back, have they fixed that yet?

Apparently there's a registry key you can change to make folder arranging like in Windows XP that's been there all along. If only I could dig the article back up again... :\

[trencheel303]

 High Treason, on Sep 26 2010, 07:08 PM, said:

Windows 2008 is a terrible OS,

You got that right, I have to support that dogshit at work, unfortunately 2003 servers are becoming more and more rare. We insist on selling XP instead of Windows 7 or Vista, yet my manager can't see that the same should apply to the server side, instead we install 2008 servers and then have a shitload of problems... wonder why... 2008, 7 and Vista all have a fairly similar build under the hood, so if we won't supply Windows Vista or 7 on the basis that it's shit*, why do we have to sell 2008? Grr, no one listens to me anyway.

Microsoft Exchange 2007 is also a huge step backwards, because it now seems to be seperated from active directory, unlike Exchange 2003 which allowed more control from the AD itself. Creating a new user is now even more of a clusterfuck because you have to set up the email part in Exchange manager.

I think XP is definitely the NT 4 of today. A bit rocky at first but once it matured (by SP1, or 2 I think) it couldn't be beaten. I'm still running XP at home and I probably will be for as long as the Earth orbits the sun. Sure XP uses a bit more resources than 2000, but it's usually just as snappy (in default configuration XP's explorer is actually a hair faster than 2000) and it's actually useful. That's the problem with mdoern software, very little of the fluff it introduces actually has any use.

*When we consider that 7 or Vista require a much more powerful computer to do pretty much the same thing as XP did, albeit with a bit better security model, it is still immature too when it comes to networking (network printing on Vista still seems to be a disaster) it suddenly doesn't seem so attrractive. As for the way Vista and 7 looks, it seems to take longer to do just about everything as well as more clicks. The same applies for Office 2007 and 2010, utter tosh, no more useful than Office 2003 and twice as slow. Apple aren't any better either, Leopard was a huge resource hog compared to Tiger and introduced nothing exciting, and even Linux these days is trying to copy the "bloat is chic" rule.

[Skulldog]

 trencheel303, on Nov 5 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

You got that right, I have to support that dogshit at work, unfortunately 2003 servers are becoming more and more rare. We insist on selling XP instead of Windows 7 or Vista, yet my manager can't see that the same should apply to the server side, instead we install 2008 servers and then have a shitload of problems... wonder why... 2008, 7 and Vista all have a fairly similar build under the hood, so if we won't supply Windows Vista or 7 on the basis that it's shit*, why do we have to sell 2008? Grr, no one listens to me anyway.

Microsoft Exchange 2007 is also a huge step backwards, because it now seems to be seperated from active directory, unlike Exchange 2003 which allowed more control from the AD itself. Creating a new user is now even more of a clusterfuck because you have to set up the email part in Exchange manager.

I think XP is definitely the NT 4 of today. A bit rocky at first but once it matured (by SP1, or 2 I think) it couldn't be beaten. I'm still running XP at home and I probably will be for as long as the Earth orbits the sun. Sure XP uses a bit more resources than 2000, but it's usually just as snappy (in default configuration XP's explorer is actually a hair faster than 2000) and it's actually useful. That's the problem with mdoern software, very little of the fluff it introduces actually has any use.

*When we consider that 7 or Vista require a much more powerful computer to do pretty much the same thing as XP did, albeit with a bit better security model, it is still immature too when it comes to networking (network printing on Vista still seems to be a disaster) it suddenly doesn't seem so attrractive. As for the way Vista and 7 looks, it seems to take longer to do just about everything as well as more clicks. The same applies for Office 2007 and 2010, utter tosh, no more useful than Office 2003 and twice as slow. Apple aren't any better either, Leopard was a huge resource hog compared to Tiger and introduced nothing exciting, and even Linux these days is trying to copy the "bloat is chic" rule.

LOL, job security. D n't Upgrade.

[Hank]

 Skulldog, on Nov 5 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

LOL, job security. D n't Upgrade.

Isn't it the other way around? Anyways, stick with gaming programming. IT guys are sooooo misssarrbllee At our the office too, actually we have not seen him since the upgrade.

[hath80]

Windows 7 x64. That' me. It's great.

[Spirrwell]

 hath80, on Nov 23 2010, 07:57 PM, said:

Windows 7 x64. That' me. It's great.

Yeah, unless you want to make maps for eduke. I still have trouble when I'm running mapster under XP. I'm going to test Ubuntu today, there's too many compatibility issues under Windows.

[Martin]

I would personally only get Windows if I was dual-booting with OSX or Linux, using the former exclusively offline, and the latter for everything else. I find Windows gets fucked over with viruses and problems extremely quickly if it is connected to the internet. To be fair to it, I do not like installing anti-virus software, since to be effective it must run in the background all the time, slowing your computer down. I also pretty much hate anti-virus software, since it would make very good business sense for these anti-virus software companies to actually create viruses in order to artificially inflate their own space in the computing market. Whether they actually do or not, the thought that they probably do makes me not want to support them.

Last I heard from my Windows-using friends is that XP is pretty much still where it is at. The more recent versions of MS' flagship software are filled with bloatware, with myriad unnecessary processes going on in the background, resulting in slower general performance than other operating systems. Of course, gaming is non-existent on Linux, and pretty much so on Mac. So you will want to have some version of Windows if you want to play modern PC games.

[Kathy]

 Martin, on Dec 10 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

I find Windows gets fucked over with viruses and problems extremely quickly if it is connected to the internet.

RTFM
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library...28WS.10%29.aspx

[Jeff]

For me, I found that Windows 7 ran better than XP. That, and I didn't want to stay in the past. Some games such as FSX actually run better on Windows 7 than XP or Vista as well. Depends on the game though.

[Hank]

 Martin, on Dec 10 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

I find Windows gets fucked over with viruses and problems extremely quickly if it is connected to the internet.

I think Linux is not immune to viruses or attacks. The only difference is that Linux users usually know their computer, they have to, Ubuntu is not a plug and run with it software, for example. In other words the only one's getting screwed are those who don't pay attention surfing in Windows, not Windows itself.

[Kathy]

 Hank, on Dec 10 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

I think Linux is not immune to viruses or attacks. The only difference is that Linux users usually know their computer, they have to, Ubuntu is not a plug and run with it software, for example. In other words the only one's getting screwed are those who don't pay attention surfing in Windows, not Windows itself.

The only difference is amount of malware for Windows and Linux. From my experience people who "know computers" still could have lots of malware on their Windows system. Of course, they would know how to deal with this but being a pretty experienced users doesn't save you from having malware on either Linux or Windows.

Actually, I find that experienced users bitch more about working under a non-administrative account on their computer than those without experience. So they work under admin thus inviting malware while surfing the net.