i think microsofts is ok ... its just the "business" thing and its hard just stop for a moment and "pondering" over it ... btw , how i wish i got 10% of his intelligence and luck ... that will be heaven ... ^_^

ok , lets get serious in our linux and let other do their business for fun ...

my verdict is why the hell people need windows when there is linux ... especially for home desktops ...



.

Well in a word, no. :D

I'm not astonished. And I don't think they're working that hard on it either, actually. Just making harder on the normies maybe.

na no buying vista never bought any ms os always had pirated versions :-)

OT - Wattdattdenn?
 

slantoflight: Whats a normie?

Why choose? Have both!

Yes, Microsoft is using monopolitistic practices to gouge its customers. As for economies of scale, why pass on the benefits to customers, if you don't have to?*

Also, the free market and its supposed benefits, it is simply blind ideology. Such a principle may work when all parties are of roughly equivalent strength. However, with the levels of inequality that currently exist in the world (in terms of economics and power), it is akin to a football match where one team consists of highly trained athletes at the peak of their condition, and the other side has a tank.

As for the idea that our political and legal systems are completely corrupt, does anyone seriously think otherwise? Granted its not yet quite like Frederick Pohl's The Space Merchants, but it won't be long before the choice on the ballot papers is between the candidates from Microsoft and Coca Cola.

Rob

*Consider also that, once the developement costs have been met, Microsofts main products cost virtually nothing to produce.

@Crito: Microsoft enjoys a natural monopoly, where customers actually get better benefit the more people use their systems. That's why they can pull such a ridiculous money.

@Robhogg: Supposed benefits? You are talking about marxist zero-sum theory! "When someone wins, someone else has to lose". Am I right? Ok, then kindly explain who we the humans have been ripping off the last 50 years when free market economics and globalization truly kicked in and lifted more people out of misery and absolute poverty than in the last 500 years (according to UNDP, 1997). Who did we rip off? Martians? Vulcanians? Borgs?! Oh no, not the Ewoks?!!

EDIT: oh and the question of this thread! No, not gonna buy it. Have it already. Has have it for 2 months.

I never bought XP... so why would I buy Vista? It's not like I was thinking of suddenly switching back after 7+ years without Windows. I think the last version of Windows I honestly used on my own computer was 98... and that came with the computer (which I won in a drawing) so I didn't actually pay for it.

My (debian) desktop system is a 800Mhz Pent3 with 512MB SDRAM (no graphics card). I haven't used Microsoft Operating Systems at home since about 2003. Do you think my hardware will be ok to switch from Debian to Vista?

I mean, I DO have 512mb ram. (That's what required right?)

Sep

>> "Am I right? Ok, then kindly explain who we the humans have been ripping off the last 50 years when free market economics and globalization truly kicked in and lifted more people out of misery and absolute poverty than in the last 500 years (according to UNDP, 1997). Who did we rip off? Martians? Vulcanians? Borgs?! Oh no, not the Ewoks?!!"

it can be more and way way more than that but people like you and me will be having slightly(just slighty) lesser ... ^_^

>> "My (debian) desktop system is a 800Mhz Pent3 with 512MB SDRAM (no graphics card). I haven't used Microsoft Operating Systems at home since about 2003. Do you think my hardware will be ok to switch from Debian to Vista?

I mean, I DO have 512mb ram. (That's what required right?)"

give me the best proper pc/s and i will just install common systems like linux , bsd and solaris ...


//is it really that hard for a home desktop ??


.

Slightly (OK, very) OT, but: Marxism is not a zero-sum theory.


Marx (Lenin, Trotsky...) accepted that technology leaps forwards under capitalism, and believed that it was a better system than feudalism. However, the benefits of this technology are increasingly unequally distributed, so that the global ruling class becomes obscenely rich, while the poorer layers of the world working class live in apalling poverty. Marxism's aim is to bring the means of production under democratic control, so that its benefits can be used for the good of the whole of society, and the effort of each person will benefit all.

In the world today, approximately 30,000 children die every day from easily preventable causes, people starve while enough food is produced to adequately feed anyone (and vast amounts are wasted), and a small fraction of military spending would provide clean water for everyone.

And before you mention Stalin, the system he ushered in was a betrayal of the revolution.

Not a chance!
 

XP already does everything I need from a Windows OS. All vista does is try to refine look and feel. No interest here at all.

In a word, no.

Windows 2000 is enough, I still haven't seen the advantage of XP...

Haven't ypu noticed, that global inequality is dwindling as global capitalism is spreading? Sure, globalization and international trade mean that some people can get richer than ever thought possible, but it has a price: average lifespan of succesful companies has decreased thanks to international competition. Nowadays to be successful in your hometown equals being succesfull globally.

I should really point out, that poverty and misery are "normal". Welfare and abundance is not. That is if we look it historically. Why whine, that 30 000 children die every day when the same toll was in the 80's during LiveAid closer to 100000? Shouldn't we be celebrating about the historical feat? Extreme poverty has been reduced dramatically, and that has nothing to do with world becoming more "socialized". Exactly the opposite! Borders are opening, Berlin wall is crushed, Vietnam is reforming, China is reforming, India has reformed etc. But then there are shitheads like Mugabe the marxist leader, much praised for his reforms by leftist media when seizing power: now poorest country in sub-saharan africa.

Not at all. Stalins system was based on Lenins heritage. It was Lenin who betrayed the revolution. As well as Kim Sung Il, Che "the Banker" Guevara, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, previously mentioned Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Evo Moralez, Fidel Castro and many more lesser dictators. Not to mention that modern leftist debate circles pretty much around national-socialistic thought, only wording is different.


Does this forum have any kind of private messaging...?:p

:p
Not really. From that journal of radical Marxst thought, The Times: Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets. (London Times, that is)

But we probably don't want to go on boring people with this OT argumnent here. It could be continued in another thread, or...

Only if you're a contributing member, but you can get at me via my MySpace page.