Planning on buying Vista?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Garrot, Oct 13, 2006.

  1. When are you PC dorks going to figure it out? The number of viruses has
    nothing to do with market share. It has everything to do with how
    crappy Windows is designed.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wanna play games? Go buy a Nintendo!
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    And the same ol shit that you PeeCeeer's mantra about. Get a life, bitch...
    George Kerby, Oct 19, 2006
  4. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    I knew it. A retard gamer. A grown man with too much time on his hands and
    the mind of a pre-pube.
    George Kerby, Oct 19, 2006
  5. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    Interesting to see someone named Paul Allen dis Micro$oft...
    George Kerby, Oct 19, 2006
  6. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    Brown is not nice. Goes with the territory...
    George Kerby, Oct 19, 2006
  7. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    An 11 year old could write malicious code for that OS because it leaks more
    than a rusty bucket...
    George Kerby, Oct 19, 2006
  8. Garrot

    Paul Allen Guest

    I repeat. That horse is dead because Linux users are not bound by
    the policies of whatever vendor assembled their distribution.
    Of course! What else would you do if your software developed a bug?
    You're still deliberately missing the point, I think. It is not
    important that any particular camera consumer has the ability to
    fix their software. What is important is that *all* camera consumers
    have that ability. Some of those people have the ability and the
    desire to fix things, so things get fixed regardless of the policy
    of the vendor. The GIMP knew what to do with RAW files from my FZ30
    the first time I tried it, for example. That happens because people
    can change their software, and it cannot happen with closed-source
    Of course not. It had served me adequately for years before its fatal
    defect was revealed by my latest hardware upgrade.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Oct 20, 2006
  9. Paul Allen wrote:
    I wasn't talking policies, just asking what the typical Linux attitude to
    fixing bugs in older versions, rather than recommending upgrades to newer
    version was. If there is no typical approach, so be it.

    Not missing the point at all - "recompile the software" is not a realistic
    expectation for today's digital camera users. I find this attitude over
    and over again in Linux, and it's another reason Linux doesn't succeed as
    well as it might.

    Right, so what actually happened was that you upgraded to incompatible
    hardware, and it didn't work. OK, that's a tough way of looking at it,
    and you will have more sympathy from me if, when you bought the new
    hardware, you said "I want it to run Windows 98 with 1GB of memory". Did
    you stipulate that when purchasing? Yes, I am labouring this point a
    little because, as I understand it, in the UK at least had you made that
    stipulation you could have got a refund, as the good supplied were "unfit
    for purpose".

    David J Taylor, Oct 20, 2006
  10. That is a ridiculous statement. Bug fixes are of course
    released as upgrades... i.e., newer versions.

    The difference is that nobody has to pay $600 to get the bug
    fixed, and instead just simply downloads the newer version.

    You say "Not", and then demonstrate *exactly* what he said! You
    are deliberately avoiding the point.

    The fact that *anyone* can get the source code and fix a bug
    means that *someone* will do exactly that (though maybe not you
    or I). The corrected program is then available to *everyone*
    (including you and I).

    It has *nothing* to do with "recompile the software" (which you
    and I need not do). Saying it does is either ignorant,
    extremely naive, or deliberate obfuscation.
    Oh, go blow blue smoke up someone else's rear end. That's pure
    baloney (*after* it has been digested).

    You make up a strawman, and then beat the stuffings out of him
    while ignoring the real point of interest.
    Worthless minutiae.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 20, 2006
  11. It was a question - not a statement. Your answer implies that Linux takes
    the same approach as other vendors - no fixes for older versions, you must
    upgrade. Whether the upgrade is free or not depends on the vendor.

    [rude personal comments ignored]

    Not if you paid $1000 for that new piece of kit and it doesn't do what you
    want! Perhaps the law in your country isn't as supportive of consumers.

    David J Taylor, Oct 20, 2006
  12. My answer implies (explicitly) that there is a vast difference
    in the approach to bug fixes. If *you* want to play word games
    and refuse to accept reality, fine... but do not be surprised if
    you don't like the rude responses to such silliness.

    The bug fixes are free. The upgrades are free. They come
    labeled as a new version. That is one distinct paradigm for
    software distribution. There is no intention to deprive the
    customer of any functionality in trade for a more profitable

    A very different example is to provide (free or low cost) bug
    fixes separately from (seriously expensive) new versions. That
    particular mechanism is of course open to abuse when marketing
    does not want a particular bug fix provided for an older version
    because it will reduce sales of the new version.

    Confusing those two distribution mechanisms is difficult to do,
    and requires all the effort you seem to be willing to put into
    acting dense.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 20, 2006
  13. Garrot

    ASAAR Guest

    To keep saying such foolish things implies that you're either
    appallingly ignorant and dense (which I don't believe) or have
    committed yourself to defending Microsoft at any cost, no matter how
    foolish it makes you appear. Linux absolutely does not take the
    same approach as Microsoft. When bugs are discovered they are fixed
    for the *current* version as a minor upgrade, and it's usually a
    no-cost fix, other than the cost of downloading it. Microsoft, on
    the other hand, knew of the bug while Win98 was still being sold,
    but decided that the only true fix would go into a future version of
    Windows that obviously wouldn't be available at no-cost.

    For most people, they'd only get the fix by buying a new computer,
    for three reasons. One, the upgrade to any new version of Windows
    is moderately expensive. Two, only generic versions are sold, so
    the user won't be guaranteed to get a version that supports the
    original hardware as well as the original customized version of
    Windows did. Three, the new versions are always more bloated, so
    unless you don't mind poorer performance, newer, faster hardware and
    more memory is usually recommended when upgrading to a new version
    of Windows. A simple fix in a service pack would have been the
    right way to fix the bug. Again, since you keep looking away. This
    would NOT have been a fix to an old, obsolete version of Windows, as
    you're trying to spin it. Win98 may be old and obsolete today, but
    it wasn't at the time that the problem was known to many users as
    well as Microsoft.

    You may not like them but they shouldn't be ignored. And you DID
    earn them.
    ASAAR, Oct 20, 2006
  14. Garrot

    Garrot Guest

    Get a life, bitch? That's very out of character for a sandal wearing Mac
    pussy. Come on, out with the truth, you own a PC too.
    Garrot, Oct 21, 2006
  15. Garrot

    Garrot Guest

    I see, Apple flaming PC's on TV is ok but me flaming sandal wearing Mac
    users makes me a loser? See the irony yet?
    Garrot, Oct 21, 2006
  16. Garrot

    Garrot Guest

    I like your style Georgie-girl so I will let it go. :)
    Garrot, Oct 21, 2006
  17. Garrot

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Programs such as the newsreader I am using at this moment
    are kept up to date and will run on any reasonably non-ancient
    version of the kernel.

    That's all one can ask for. To make all versions of a program,
    past and future work with all versions of the OS, past and
    future, is impossible.

    Since the upgrade to a newer version of the software is free,
    all sorts of constraints are gone.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Oct 21, 2006
  18. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    Not all Apple, Linux and UNIX software is free.
    I am really only trying to find out what happens on an OS which I don't
    run. Let me try and make the question more specific:

    - photo editor, PictureMe version 17 (I made that up)

    1 - a minor flaw is found in some function

    2 - a major new feature is desired - e.g. 16-bit editing

    In case (1), I would expect a bug fix to be issued. I am asking what is
    the typical approach to (2) - would the Linux/UNIX guys say "that will be
    in version 18", or would they patch version 17? It is certainly my
    experience that on some OSes (and I don't mean Windows), that a major
    application update requires a new version, and that you may well have to
    pay for that.

    Perhaps it is too general a question to get a definitive answer?

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
  19. Paul J Gans wrote:
    Thanks for that - it is exactly the situtation I would expect.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
  20. ASAAR wrote:
    I am not defending anyone, simply trying to establish what happened.
    And that situation is this: when you upgraded your hardware, did you know
    of the incompatibility? Did you know that you couldn't run Windows 98 and
    1GB with the components you bought? I see a difference between:

    A - buying components or a system expecting that they will work, and then
    expecting help when they don't. Photographic example: buying a 3rd party
    lens for a digital SLR.

    B - buying something knowing that it may not work, and then expecting the
    vendor(s) to fix the problem after the event. Photographic example: using
    a flashgun with too high a trigger voltage and damaging your new camera as
    a result.

    I imagine your situation was (A), but the incompatibility you discovered
    was already known about.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.