Comments on: Use Windows. Because we’ve got you by the short and curlies. http://www.resurrected-entertainment.com/2009/09/20/use-windows-because-weve-got-you-by-the-short-and-curlies/ It's not dead until you take it outside and bury it Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:42:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: admin http://www.resurrected-entertainment.com/2009/09/20/use-windows-because-weve-got-you-by-the-short-and-curlies/comment-page-1/#comment-1637 admin Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:17:11 +0000 http://www.resurrected-entertainment.com/?p=201#comment-1637 Actually, it's relatively "old" hardware which was bought when Windows XP was still the only thing going, so the playing field is pretty much level. You're right, Windows XP is 8 years old, and that means a newer version of .NET is now available, which means various system libraries need to be upgraded, which in turn leads to more downloads and patches. However, you missed the mark on the download, since that only happened at the end, when I was too tired and frustrated to play the game anyway. So my frustration wasn't not centred on the download, although that was the straw which broke the camels back. I do understand that their can be a lot of issues with networking, and just because data seems to be arriving in a trickle on my end, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's Microsoft's fault. My frustration is with their software installation and deployment model. It's terrible when compared to other operating systems. Honestly, if I wanted to play a game on Linux, and the game required that I upgrade a core library like "libc," that's fine with me. Unlike Windows, Linux manages multiple versions of the same library perfectly. There is no such thing as "DLL Hell" on Linux or Mac OS X for a very good reason. Maybe that's less of problem in Windows 7, I don't know. And no, I have never seen advertising coming from an RPM package. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but placing it in the package could pose problems for the company wanting to get their software published on the package servers. When I want to play Fallout 3 and pieces of it require .NET v2.3, and a new version of DirextX, a new video driver, and a patch from such and such a product, and blah, blah, blah, that's all fine and dandy since that's just the way software works. But I don't want to spend my day finding all of those pieces and then going through the painful process of download, install, configure, and reboot. It's painful and a complete waste of time. To download some software, I need to go through the Windows Genuine Advantage crap, while other pieces require that I comb through various web sites looking for that diamond in the rough. That one secret link which will give me the software I need. The bottom line is that the process can be improved and I'm glad to hear that Windows 7 is addressing some of it, but it's a long way from approaching the ease at which I can purchase, install, and deploy a Linux or Mac OS X application. It just works and I am using the application in seconds. Actually, it’s relatively “old” hardware which was bought when Windows XP was still the only thing going, so the playing field is pretty much level. You’re right, Windows XP is 8 years old, and that means a newer version of .NET is now available, which means various system libraries need to be upgraded, which in turn leads to more downloads and patches. However, you missed the mark on the download, since that only happened at the end, when I was too tired and frustrated to play the game anyway. So my frustration wasn’t not centred on the download, although that was the straw which broke the camels back. I do understand that their can be a lot of issues with networking, and just because data seems to be arriving in a trickle on my end, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s Microsoft’s fault.

My frustration is with their software installation and deployment model. It’s terrible when compared to other operating systems. Honestly, if I wanted to play a game on Linux, and the game required that I upgrade a core library like “libc,” that’s fine with me. Unlike Windows, Linux manages multiple versions of the same library perfectly. There is no such thing as “DLL Hell” on Linux or Mac OS X for a very good reason. Maybe that’s less of problem in Windows 7, I don’t know. And no, I have never seen advertising coming from an RPM package. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, but placing it in the package could pose problems for the company wanting to get their software published on the package servers.

When I want to play Fallout 3 and pieces of it require .NET v2.3, and a new version of DirextX, a new video driver, and a patch from such and such a product, and blah, blah, blah, that’s all fine and dandy since that’s just the way software works. But I don’t want to spend my day finding all of those pieces and then going through the painful process of download, install, configure, and reboot. It’s painful and a complete waste of time. To download some software, I need to go through the Windows Genuine Advantage crap, while other pieces require that I comb through various web sites looking for that diamond in the rough. That one secret link which will give me the software I need.

The bottom line is that the process can be improved and I’m glad to hear that Windows 7 is addressing some of it, but it’s a long way from approaching the ease at which I can purchase, install, and deploy a Linux or Mac OS X application. It just works and I am using the application in seconds.

]]> By: stevex http://www.resurrected-entertainment.com/2009/09/20/use-windows-because-weve-got-you-by-the-short-and-curlies/comment-page-1/#comment-1627 stevex Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:16:14 +0000 http://www.resurrected-entertainment.com/?p=201#comment-1627 It's not nearly as bad as you make out. First off, it sounds like the majority of your frustration is a slow download. That's not really the OS's fault is it? It may still be Microsoft's fault, but it's not really fair to blame Windows for that. (And I'll bet it's a transient problem). You're installing an 8 year old operating system and probably trying to run it on fairly modern hardware. How well would that work with Linux? Grab a Linux distro from 2001 and try to install it on that box. I'll bet that wouldn't go smoothly either. Windows 7 has a much better installation model: They install everything into a folder where the definitive copy of a file lives, divided up into packages, and then when you enable that feature, they make hard links from where the files need to be available. It's pretty nice actually. Microsoft has a fairly good installer system; the problem is many companies just don't use it. Should Microsoft force them? Would the market tolerate that? (And why don't companies use Microsoft's installer? Often it's for reasons that have nothing to do with technology, like wanting more control over the installation experience. Tell me, are there hooks in "rpm install" for displaying ads?) Yes, Linux has dependencies. I've wanted to install some dinky little app on Linux and unleashed a chain of dependencies all the way back to libc. No thanks. Personally I like the way the Mac does it: After a while, you just declare the old version deprecated and supply an emulator. Want to run an old Mac app? It runs in Rosetta. I'll bet they do that for 32 bit apps within the next couple of releases. I'm willing to bet if you went through this same exercise with Windows 7, you would have ended up with a much better experience. And a game that works, too, since that's what really matters. It’s not nearly as bad as you make out.

First off, it sounds like the majority of your frustration is a slow download. That’s not really the OS’s fault is it? It may still be Microsoft’s fault, but it’s not really fair to blame Windows for that. (And I’ll bet it’s a transient problem).

You’re installing an 8 year old operating system and probably trying to run it on fairly modern hardware. How well would that work with Linux? Grab a Linux distro from 2001 and try to install it on that box. I’ll bet that wouldn’t go smoothly either.

Windows 7 has a much better installation model: They install everything into a folder where the definitive copy of a file lives, divided up into packages, and then when you enable that feature, they make hard links from where the files need to be available. It’s pretty nice actually.

Microsoft has a fairly good installer system; the problem is many companies just don’t use it. Should Microsoft force them? Would the market tolerate that? (And why don’t companies use Microsoft’s installer? Often it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with technology, like wanting more control over the installation experience. Tell me, are there hooks in “rpm install” for displaying ads?)

Yes, Linux has dependencies. I’ve wanted to install some dinky little app on Linux and unleashed a chain of dependencies all the way back to libc. No thanks.

Personally I like the way the Mac does it: After a while, you just declare the old version deprecated and supply an emulator. Want to run an old Mac app? It runs in Rosetta. I’ll bet they do that for 32 bit apps within the next couple of releases.

I’m willing to bet if you went through this same exercise with Windows 7, you would have ended up with a much better experience. And a game that works, too, since that’s what really matters.

]]>