Microsoft believes Apple is winning the battle on the desktop?
Microsoft believes Apple is winning the battle on the desktop using "lies" and "myths" against Windows Vista, and has promised to fight back. Evoking the spirit of his apple-cheeked little daughter, Microsoft's vice president for Windows consumer product marketing Brad Brooks promised partners that by telling the "truth" about …
... It's a damn sight better than XP.
It's just not worth spending large sums of money on. Don't bother upgrading hardware, and don't bother spending lots of cash on upgrading (if your a business).
However, if it comes OEM on a new PC, or if your a sensible IT Manager and upgrade your hardware every 3 years and get free upgrades from MS then it's a great platform. Took about a year for the majority of the 3rd parties to get drivers out, and also for hardware to play catch up - but now there is no good reason to avoid Vista.
Solid, stable, secure and fast platform on any hardware built since 2006. Go for it.
it's ubuntu. I can deal with the functionality issues, but between M$ and HP, they have made it clear that I am not in charge of my PC, they are. It was about then that I turned away, n'er to return.
How bout they listen to the consumer rather than the Pro IP groups?
Trusted computing can not be trusted.
MicroSufferers may snigger at Apple fanbois and their silly overpriced white toys but at least they love the products and the company.
We, meanwhile, don't just hate Windows, we detest Microsoft. Their overpaid bullies bleating about how the latest turkey is misunderstood ain't gonna change that.
Just give us an operating system that's slim, reliable and cheap -- that's the only way they'll earn any respect.
While I certainly think Vista had problems in it's first year, since the release of SP1 I have moved all 3 of my work systems over to Vista and it runs very well (even on a 3GHz P4) Very rarely crashes compared to XP and is just a much nicer place to be.
Vista media center runs my home entertainment very well and even Apple's front row pales in comparison.
I'm sure M$ will learn from their mistakes and since Win7 will be using the same kernel it will be nice for M$ to stick with the system for a while like with XP.
I have been running Leopard X86 and it does seem to run faster than Vista on the same hardware, although Leopard does seem to be a step back stability wise from tiger, It also seems to still have a few performance bugs on intel(as witnessed on my wife's macbook).
I think most of Vistas detractors are just unable to move to a new system and actually manage to learn the differences in the new system before they run screaming back to what they know, bear in mind most of the incompatibility problems came from software houses trying to suck their customers dry for "Vista versions" of their software instead of just releasing a compatibility patch (ADOBE I MEAN YOU !)
If Apple really want to fight M$ then how about a PC version of OSX, Redmond would shudder to its core !
I don't watch TV anymore, but I do remember those annoying Apple commercials (though when I saw them, they were not mentioning Vista specifically). And yes, those commercials did raise my blood pressure because they were factually inaccurate, and some where definitely downright lights. There was misinformation and lies they spoke about "PCs" (especially since Linux runs on "PCs" as well), and there was misinformation and lies spoken about Apples. Did any of us expect any different, though?
Vista is, not to put too much of a point on it, a piece of crap. It came installed on my notebook and I tried to use it for a couple days, but it was too bloated and too slow. Even the automatic updates couldn't get me any meaning time estimate. I wiped it and installed XP and never looked back.
"There's a conversation in the market place right now and it's plain wrong," he claimed. "Windows is awesome... Windows Vista is a good product."
The way he is quoted, it sounds like the second part of his quote is the conversation referred to in the first part of his quote. In that case, I'd have to agree.
so windows is 'awesome' but vista is just a 'good product'
which is better 'awesome' or 'good'?
and which version of windows is 'awesome'?
for the record using a mac, for a whole range of reasons, one of which was being wrongly called a pirate for having installed XP on the same machine three times in a week in an attempt to get the video card to work (drivers kept killing it, *not* microsofts fault). after WGA I gave up.
XP is actually pretty good, OS X is better..
windows application availability v OS X application availability...
everyone knows the answer to that. (sorry apple)
Yes, Ubuntu is very nice... Just want to remind some and inform the rest that, its a Debian heart that beats inside of Ubuntu.
We have been using full blown Debian desktop computers for many years now.
Running with half a dozen good web browsers to choose from and tremendous office products I would have to say that people still dependent on Windows for most common desktop needs are flogging themselves with obsolete products.
Any really good Linux will outperform the best Windows has to offer with a certain ease that leads to confidence in computing.... But my vote goes to Debian :)
"" Also, Microsoft needs to get partners familiarized with Windows Vista ahead of Windows 7, as that OS will use the same hardware specifications. "When you make an investment in Windows Vista, it's going to pay forward into the next generation of the operating system we call Windows 7," Brooks said. ""
Is that going to be like Vista-"capable"?
Mine's the one completing my tux...
Its not that its a bad OS, it isn't too bad really. but my laptop, which is about a year and a half old now, wouldn't run it very well, so it makes sense to use Ubuntu on it, because it is fast stable OS with good support for most applications, and I can do everything I want to do with my laptop using ubuntu. My main desktop uses XP. Its a pretty good OS, and runs rather smoothly, and whilst it remains to be a good, well supported OS, I have no interest in moving to Vista, because XP is perfectly good.
Cancel or allow? That is plain annoying. I wanted to copy a file to my program files folder from a network link and I ended up getting 3 dialogs for this one action. The first was a pretty dialog asking me if I really wanted to do that. Next was a plain dialog asking the exact same question. Next was a dialog telling me that I could not do that. What a pain. Ask the question once, please or we will all have to turn this crap off.
I have to say those little things Microsoft have done of late.
Blocking what I can do with the machine,
Removing little buttons I rely on, and just making buttons change location depending on what I do, - This incenses me.
asking me if I want to do something when I've just started to do it, - I almost want to smash the computer at this point.
Hanging for no reason.
Putting some ridiculous combined search when I know what I want to doContinually thrashing the disk to Index Gigabyte sized files that I could never open with ay application.
Having some ridiculous front end. I've just got into the habit of automatically converting back to "Windows Classic, Show All files and their extension, remove language bar, Remove ludicrous menu filtering," because I've done it a thousand times, and they introduce more stupid look and feel.
Why can't I just defrag now?
I'm so angry with Microsoft, because I know quite a lot of their guys, and all the backend guys are super geniuses who are so good that the only competition they have is from the courts because they make everyone else go out of business, just look at Linq or instance, but there's a load of artists, who should be paid nothing, demanding what it should look like and how I should tell it what to do, none of whom would be there if they had to work for a living, and none of them who have to develop stuff in the interfaces they've provided for me.
It's the same story as XP, it needs some debugging and polish. It's too hungry on memory and too slow on low end machines.
The user protect system can't be used because it has the ten second memory of a goldfish..... is it ok to run this program? is it ok to run this program? is it ok to run this program? I guess lawyers insisted on that? I turned it off.
It's DRM'd badly, it can turn off outputs to enforce content protection in a way that previous versions of Window didn't. You lose some control with Vista. I won't use it on a media machine.
Fonts are smooth scaled, and less hand optimized, not as crisp at the normal working sizes but smoother at larger sizes.
Calender pops up for no apparent reason in bottom right corner.
Software hangs a lot, but perhaps that's the software. (e.g. Visual Studio class browsing prone to this).
If you press Alt-Tab the little mini views are updated live. (Although you have to figure out what the application you want to switch to would currently be showing in order to see which to switch to,).
There's a key that stacks the windows diagonally. Don't use it myself, but it looks pretty and the view dynamically update.
It has nicer clocks.
I'm not really sure why anyone would upgrade. For what gain? The marketing was 'it's about the Wow', meaning eye candy, but the candy has all been seen before and better on other platforms.... it was very late and the glitz did kind of wear off.
What can I do with it, that I could do with XP? Seems to me I lose a little with the DRM, but I can't see what I gain?
@ Frank Thomas
I couldn't agree more. I eventually ditched XP for Ubuntu and haven't looked back. I'm now in control of my machines (and not, as you say, MS, HP, Adobe and the other corporate upgrade and bloatware pushers), These days I run unrestricted computers that don't issue me with 'permits' for the tasks I wish to perform and the tools I wish to use. I've spent the last year and a half learning real skills that in many cases will last for decades as opposed to MS's next marketing campaign or upgrade drive. I've broken out of the proprietary software trap and it feels great; computers are fascinating again!
Any regrets? Perhaps inevitably, games, and one or two industry standard graphics tools. But then that's what consoles and Macs are for, isn't it? (Besides, who has time for games?) ;-)
This post has been deleted by its author
""When you make an investment in Windows Vista, it's going to pay forward into the next generation of the operating system we call Windows 7"
Personally I take it as a threat. What this means to me is that the only people that will find Windows 7 bearable are those that have had the awfulness deadened somewhat by using Vista.
Vista is a damn sight better than XP? I'll take an ounce of what you're on mate. I suppose if you think your computer is running too fast or you don't like security software taking up valuable resources that could be devoted to shiny objects, then yes I reckon you'd be right in saying it's better.
All I know is if XP patches stop and the only alternatives are Vista or something worse than Vista, then I'm going to find myself a third option.
As for Macs gaining market share, well duh! If you create an OS with hardware requirements as steep as Vista is it really any wonder that Macs have actually become a viable option?
This is the famous trick of the PC. It requires hardware so powerful that only the informed understand its possible to run a decent GUI on sensible gear.
You can't really blame them, because their experience is such that using what should be a normal amount of resources results in an unstable and slow system.
It's like saying my car is so powerful, it needs a 4 litre, V8, turbo charged engine with a nitro kit to run at 30mph, and is so fuel efficient it can actually drive 100 miles on a single tank of 250 gallons of petrol.
So no, I won't be installing Vista. And I won't be using Windows 7 either if it requires experience of Vista to make it bearable.
..that Vista is better than OSX, starting with Steve Ballmer:
Anyway, I'm an XP man personally, I've tried Leopard and Vista and hated them both, too many stupid animations and flashy graphics which are a waste of time. I just wanna get on with using my damn computer!!
These Mac adverts have bugged the hell out of me for 2 reasons. Firstly, they skim over the really important details. Secondly, they should be illegal in the UK where advertising is not allowed to directly mention or slag off competition. If the same advert were run in reverse it would be illegal, but PC was judged to mean a general category of product - not just a Microsoft product - despite the fact that the vast majority of PCs run Windows.
I really wanted to run a counter campaign - and if I was rich enough I would have done. Something that goes along the lines of:
PC: "I run all the software you need for your business."
Apple: "I can draw pretty pictures, slowly, and that's it."
PC: "I run on loads of different hardware."
Apple: "I run on 1 type of hardware, it's pretty, but also damned expensive."
PC: "There are tonnes of developer tools for me."
Apple: "Because I'm a crippled version of another OS, lot's of developer tools will fail when you run them on me."
Linux will take another step forward this month with the full release of KDE 4.1. I've been using he betas on Kubuntu for the past month or so and have to say it's a big step forward over KDE4.0 and dare I say it, even KDE 3?
As for Vista....er, no thanks. When I do have to use WIndows it'll be XP until Vista becomes necessary. Anything else proprietary, well that's what my Mac's for!
BTW 6.6% OSX share? Is that only counting new sales? I thought it was just under 8% installed base now?
This is so boring! How many ucking times do we have to listen to this argument, and worst how many people even bother taking part!
Windows is good for people who want it *easy* (apart from when they really need it easy)
Linux is good for anyone who cares enough to recompile their entire lib....la wah wah wah every time they cough, sneeze or change a screen saver
MacOS is great for my mum who finds it hard to work the oven timer, and then finds it even harder to even work out how to use her mac.
IT ALL DEPENDS! And at the end of the day even working in IT I really couldn't give a flying! My customers can use whatever the hell they want AFAIAC, whatever they use they'll spend thousands securing it and complaining it's too slow / complicated / not compatible / not secure / expensive / not future proof* but they will end up with whatever happens to fit best within their org- stop dreaming about an amazing OS that does it all, one day you might wake up and see there's more to life than supporting a ruddy OS.
*delete and replace as you see fit...
I think the phrase that annoyed me the most in the apple ads was "Macs don't crash" .... AARRRRRGGGHHHH somebody get me a gun.... They have clearly never had to use pro tools on the mac.
Hopefully, in an ideal world, Apple would get to have 15-20% of the market.
And MS would have 15-20%.
And Linux distros another 15-20%
And Solaris, yet another 15-20%
Then everyone would be forced to REALLY follow standards, write portable code, and etc. It's that old, tired car analogy all over again: imagine if each car model had a very different user interface, or operated on very different mechanical principles, or used completely different materials, etc. Somehow, we put up with that in computers. Is it really necessary?
Anyway, I finally got to use Vista for a couple of weeks, as I vacationed back home and all I had to use was Mom's laptop. A 6-month old machine, dual core, 2 GB RAM. Vista was not too bad after finally started, although it definitely was a waste of resources -- not very responsive, but usable. Booting time was loooooong (as was shutting down), but after that it performed acceptably enough -- way slower than Ubuntu running from a 4GB USB stick on the same machine. And don't yap about those other apps being loaded; they are essential to a Windows machine, so it IS fair to count their load time as Windows loading time. Anyway, I did not see anything special about Vista, compared to XP, say. The interface does not seem better, in many cases it's just changing for change's sake, it seemed to me (which is irritating when you're trying to find something you *used to know* where to find but now is elsewhere). Pretty pointless, really. Oh, and the "security" is really irritating, most of the time. No wonder they need to force people (apart from the fanboys, of course) to "upgrade" to Vista.
I just didn't use the Ubuntu stick all the way because the USB wireless modem there was a Windows-only piece of crap, i.e. no net with the Penguin... That's what I meant with my first lines up there.
Vista has been at GA for a year and a half, and has had its first service pack. It is now the only version of Windows which is available at retail, and has been pre-installed for over a year. Only Vista offers Direct X 10, which is being used by new games. Yet its take-up in the business sector is still minimal, and MS are saying "it really isn't as bad as everyone says".
It really is bad for MS. Domestic users like my mum and dad don't want to change anything on their machines, but XP out of the box *will* degrade with use once you've combined Indexing service, variable sized page files and usn journaling sprinkling unmovable blocks through filesystems - they just get slower and slower. Domestic users don't tend to rebuild their machines, they think "I must get a new computer", and until WEEE, we ended up with loads of heavy metals ending up in landfill because Win 95/98/2000/XP is configured out of the box to self destruct over time.
Most people who might have a computer now have one, and a good proportion would keep it until the hardware fails were it not for Windows. So, despite this upgrade treadmill, they are having trouble getting people to use Vista despite giving them no choice. How bad is that?
or, I could take that improved hardware, run a decent os, or even XP, and since the system is running faster than the old machine (as opossed to just running the same as the old machine if you install vista on the new one) and take the performance bonus thatactually justifies the it spend
"No wonder the world hates their IT departments. You''ll all a bunch of nerds."
You'll regret saying that when your subnet drops out when you are trying to download your donkey pr0n.
I've been farting about with Macs, Windows boxes and Linux machines recently, and so far my favourite *nix is whatever is installed as the backend to my draytek load balancing router.
Mmm, failover, mmm.
Steven "Nerd" Raith :-)
> While I certainly think Vista had problems in it's first year, since the release of SP1 I have moved all 3 of my work systems over to Vista and it runs very well (even on a 3GHz P4) Very rarely crashes compared to XP and is just a much nicer place to be
Well great... That's just great. I've got a media center, two workstations, and two laptops running XP, and the fastest of these is a 1.8 Ghz Sempron. And Vista runs well *even* on a 3 Ghz P4? This leaves me with nowhere to go... These machines work perfectly fine; I'm not inclined to turn them into toxic landfill anytime soon.
Although I agree that the Apple ads are irritating and full of lies I switched to using one recently. I was a die-hard (no I don't run around in a vest carrying guns) XP fan the constant patch updates and need for annual reinstall to get around the performance time-bomb really got on my tits.
I needed a laptop and couldn't be doing with Vista so chose a Leopard endowed MacBook. It has it's faults but so far it's more bearable and requires less maintenance - time may tell a different story - and all users in my household are ok with it. The iMovie and iDVD software is up to the job for the novice user and a welcome freebie.
I did consider Linux but I use Lightroom for my photography and, sorry *nix fans, the GIMP doesn't cut it (especially as it's more of a Photoshop competitor). There was an option of using BlueMarine but it was still beta and lacked the abilities and polish. Also the linux movie editing software did nothing for me. However Linux does power my raid enabled media/file server and always will. This is a job that it does outstandingly.
I have kept XP on one machine for the following reasons: Mathematical software, EAC, DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, AutoGK. This software is where it excels - I have tried Mac the ripper and FFMpegX but they just don't quite work as well. It also used to be a media center PC until I got a DVD player that played just about every DivX/Xvid variant. It may go back to that role when more HD content becomes available.
What am I prattling on about? Simply that each OS has it's pluses and minuses and I think my usage show this. Apple for arty media stuff, Linux for server (or mom and pop desktop) and XP for the extensive free applications and ripping tools.
Ha! Vista came installed on my Dell Dimension E521 with 1GB of RAM. It was unusable due to lack of memory until I added another 2GB (3GB total) of real RAM. At this point I tried Windows XP/64 on a second disk. My applications ran a lot faster under XP/64. So I went out and paid $130 for an OEM version of XP/32 - and that runs faster still.
If Vista or Win/7 needs better hardware than an AMD 3800+, Nvidia 7600, 3GB of RAM and an Audigy sound card then you can roll it up and sit on it. I'm not buying new hardware until something critical fails on this setup.
To say I dislike Vista would be an understatement. I could write pages about how much I detest this albatross of an operating system.
But you know what, when Windows 7 is unleashed upon the world it will be Microsoft themselves that says Vista sucks, please rush out and buy our new Windows 7. It will solve world hunger, bring world peace, cure all disease and and...just buy or the puppy gets it!!
And why not? Because I just never encountered a reason to. I'm still running 2000 on my windows machine, and the only problem I've had is that I can't watch live videos on netflix. That's it. Everything else works. So . . . why upgrade again?
Microsoft is right in that they completely failed to get out the message of why people should upgrade to Vista. I heard the hype before, during, and after it got introduced, and not once did I hear any actual discussion of what it could do that older versions couldn't do. What I gather is that they redid the DRM and the security, made some changes to the user interface, and greatly restricted the range of hardware that it could run well on. And that's STILL all I've heard about the difference between Vista and XP. If there are any other differences, I can honestly say I've never even heard of them.
Anyway, these days I'm usually on a mac. Which also works. Pretty much the same way, once you get used to the differences in the UI.
"Linux is good for anyone who cares enough to recompile their entire lib....la wah wah wah every time they cough, sneeze or change a screen saver"
FUD. Pure FUD. I've been using Linux (various flavors) for the better part of three years and exclusively for seven months and have compiled three times from scratch, ONLY because I wanted to learn how. I'm even using an "experimental", "In Development" window manager (Enlightenment) and am having fewer problems overall than I EVER did under any Win system. I will, however, say you are partially right. People will use whatever fits and all computers crash at some point. There isn't any such thing as a perfect OS. But you WILL keep hearing this argument until MS AND Apple stop claiming to be the perfect, fits all OS that does everything, never crashes and runs everything all the time.
Paris. Because you can't have a comments section here without her.
re: So let's be clear ...
"Vista has been at GA for a year and a half, and has had its first service pack. It is now the only version of Windows which is available at retail, and has been pre-installed for over a year. Only Vista offers Direct X 10, which is being used by new games. Yet its take-up in the business sector is still minimal, and MS are saying 'it really isn't as bad as everyone says'."
You forgot the part where companies such as Intel and IBM have publicly stated that they will not use Vista because of its incompatibilities and poor performance. That wasn't exactly a "pro" on the Vista pro/con list :)
re: *Even* on a 3 Ghz P4??
Heh, I got a kick out of that comment, too. I find it absolutely amazing how many of the Vista supporters point out things like that as if they're some major feature. These people actually seem surprised that an operating system (even with no applications running) can manage to operate on what really is high-end hardware. Yes, we have faster processors out there, but 3GHz really is high-end, as is 1GB+ of memory. These same people act as if it should be expected that your newer, faster, expensive computer visibly runs at the same speed as the "outdated" one you're replacing. If it runs at the same speed, then why am I "upgrading"?
If you told me ten years ago that my Athlon 64 3800+ 1GB system or my Core 2 Duo T7200 2GB notebook would visibly run as slow as my K5-166 64MB system, I would have said you were crazy. Systems with 20-30X the raw speed performing just as slowly? It would never happen. And yet here we are. The operating system should be small and fast. Quite frankly, so should the GUI. And patching any software product (for example, the browser) should not require a reboot.
How many times do we have to have these arguments?
There's the "Linux is better than Windoze and OSX" crowd. Yeah, Linux is just great for running my music recording software and games.
There's the "Apple are better than Microsoft" crowd. Yeah, Apple *really* love their customers, so much so they force them to pay a ~30% premium for the *same hardware* as PCs and do what they can to screw the users, offering no choice other than the Apple Way. And have you seen the security holes in OS X? They make MS of "I Love You" days look like Fort Knox in comparison.
There's the "I prefer XP" crowd. This is the n-1 crowd. They will always prefer the last iteration of any MS product. They are the same ones who were saying "Who needs XP? We've got Win2K!" and "Who needs NT4.0? We've got 3.51!".
You know what, I built myself a new PC a few months ago for £700, including Vista 64 (runs Crysis at 1900x1200 with everything on, beautifully). Cheaper than a Mac, runs everything I've thrown at it (unlike OS X and any Linux dist you can mention) and I've had no driver issues. I've not seen the BSOD (or whatever it is now). It's quick, looks good, and it even manages to Hibernate properly. Sure, it's not perfect; the Gadget/Widget memory management is pretty poor, but otherwise I quite like it. Don't love it, but then again, I've been using computers long enough to know that you don't love something that doesn't love you back ;-).
>> GM/Toyota/Benz may release a new model each year, but this does not force me to consider updating the vehicle which I bought just two or three years ago.
Nor does it force you to update to the new model where the Steering Wheel is now mounted on the front bumper and the foot pedals are now in the boot following extensive customer research.
Most people and corporations have years old XP computers that works fine. Typically these have a 1.6 to 3.0 Ghz CPU and 512 Mb or ram with crappy integrated graphics.
These machine are fast enough to run 99% of todays business applications, so why should corporations upgrade? The same is true for the average non gamer home user. Vista itself isn't a reason enough, what users want is to use their application, not Vista. MS should have planned the Vista hardware requirement to match what current applications could actually benefit from and provided better compatibility with legacy application and drivers.
IMHO, the time when computers were upgraded every 3 or 4 years is gone, and Microsoft failed to account for it when they designed Vista. Now the focus is more on portability and energy efficiency than on pure power. The Netbooks are the new hot thing, quad core CPUs and huge amounts of ram are not that exciting anymore as beside vista and games no application actually uses that kind of power. Vista is the complete opposite of the netbook concept...
And neither is the bloat!
Vista is slow and full of unnecessary, frustrating features. I don't see the point of 'upgrading' when you can do exactly the same things quicker and more easily under XP. Of course once XP is retired this may become a different situation, but until then: give me speed and stability over pretty graphics.
My EEE does exactly what I need, and boots up in under thirty seconds from its SSD. I've just switched my work laptop that runs Vista on, and it's taken 1m45s to get to the login screen, and then another 1m28s to get to fully loaded and ready to use. Given that this is a much higher spec' system, can MS tell me the 'truth' that I'm not seeing here?
Also, I never used to think I'd say this but MacOS X is a better OS than Vista. It's quicker, more stable and while it is perhaps a little too pretty for my liking, this doesn't seem to be at the expense of performance.
Paris because she also gets going quickly and is easy to use.
Ask your local Sysadmin what machine he's got at home. An inordinately large number of them will mention some form of Mac, usually a laptop. Even the Linux nerds, more than you'd expect of them will have a Mac laptop.
In fact, the only thing you can really be sure of is that none of them picks Windows.
Excuse me, I've got to go and manage some Linux and Windows servers for clients-you've-heard-of on my 23" monitored Mac Pro.
This post has been deleted by its author
"You'll regret saying that when your subnet drops out when you are trying to download your donkey pr0n."
"Mmm, failover, mmm.
Steven "Nerd" Raith :-)"
So when the subnet fails and your failover - um, fails, he'll not regret saying. "incompetent nerds?"
Or would that circumstance be a case of vindictive, unprofessional nerd?
At least you're not trying to pass yourself off as a geek ;)
Face it IT nerds, your average dumb-arse user makes use of about 0.1% of any OS functionality. You can wank on all you like about Ubuntu, or which ever flavour of Linux is flavour of the month at the moment, but it's never going to be used by the mainstream PC user.
Macs have made some inroads with people with too much money who have been watching too many hollywood movies and think that somehow they'll look cool if they're wandering round with macbook. They're great for graphic design and running i-tunes but that's about it (don't get me started on Safari)
Meanwhile, the rest of us (80% of the market) will carry on with our windows OS, running a wide range of software and still using our windows compatible hardware. Yeah it's sometimes a bit crap and frustrating, but let's face it, it's the helpdesk calls that keep you guys in a job and you love it - "have you checked that the power lead is plugged in? Try rebooting" - sound familiar?
So carry on trying to impress each other about how you recompiled your kernels, the rest of us will be having a life.
This isn't an irrational opinion, I'm that guy in a group of friends who's good with computers, and as a result every one of their friends, family members, golf partners and casual acquaintances come to me to fix their machines when they're broken or running slow.
Having spent a while listening to all their issues, I now just install XP and let them get on with it. Vista is slow, and quite obviously an unfinished product.
There are still MANY UI bugs, not game-over type bugs, but annoyances. There are also plenty of more serious ones which end in you having to restart the machine.
My main gripe with Vista (apart from those widly discussed) is that like with XP, the machine fills with bloat VERY fast. You may have a reasonable quick computer when its a fresh install, but set your average user loose on the it for 6 months with an internet connection, and come back and see how fast its running.
"Vista is a good product"
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... ha ha ha ha ....
No it's not, its XP with a load of pointless crap bolted on and then covered in pretty glitter to hide the fact all the background screens are from XP.
And Windows 7 according to
Where he was told by MS it is a warmed up vista.
Still I look forward to the clever add campaign where they try and gloss over the sales figures, big business uptake, the fact acer and dell offer linux and XP still as a direct result. The UAC being anything but annoying, viruses, spyware, hardware requirements, why it won't fit on the new tiny laptops that everyone wants to buy because they are cheaper and what people actually need.
"If you press Alt-Tab the little mini views are updated live."
Funnily enough, XP does this once you add in the taskswitcher Power Toy. So, one of your three rather dubious plusses for Vista isn't.
Of course, if you want the full Vista experience you can add Windows Live Desktop Search to XP as well. Then it'll thrash the disk all the time, slow down like it's hit a brick wall and you'll feel right at home. The advantage over Vista on this one is that if you don't particularly like MS, Google can give you something very similar that will achieve the same results.
Serious enthusiasts might wish to peruse the websites of the manufacturers of their hardware and peripherals. You never know, you may be able to track down a complete set of version 1.0 drivers to complete your XP to Vista look 'n feel.
You're kidding right.. that's the 'even-on-this-its-ok' benchmark?
I just bought a 2nd hand G4 eMac - 1.25GHz - and installed the latest greatest OS X on it (from my 5 licence family pack) and it performs just fine with Office 2008, itunes, iPhoto etc etc etc.
By fine, I mean it's entirely usable - not click, waaaaaiiiiiittttt.
that, folks, is a 6 year old computer.
I hate Vista, although my preferred OS remains XP due to how many games I play which won't run under Linux. I do have a Ubuntu box at work and a Mac Mini running Tiger mind you.
For me, I do have Vista dual booted with XP, I've played around with it a fair bit and I just find it to be a messy OS to use. XP is quick, clean and streamlined (if dated) in comparison to Vista's shiny but messy and bloated appearance. Take "Display Properties" for example. Under XP, it's a nice small tabbed window. Under Vista, a big window with half a dozen sentences of text explaining what all the options mean. Useful I suppose for a novice user, but just plain messy for anyone remotely competent with machines.
And before anyone starts, my PC is a dual core system with 2GB of RAM, a GeForce 8800 etc. and is not a slouch. I don't hate Vista because I have an old PC, or because I've never used it, I dislike it simply because it's too big, slow and messy compared with XP which does everything I want in a quicker and cleaner way.
Some people seem to reckon that the slow file copying is because of bad OEM master installs, but an OS that can be screwed up that way in the install by specialists has to be defective. The new OS sucks all the extra performance out of my new machine and offers little or nothing in return that couldn't have been incorporated in XP. How is that an improvement?
"I just didn't use the Ubuntu stick all the way because the USB wireless modem there was a Windows-only piece of crap, i.e. no net with the Penguin... That's what I meant with my first lines up there."
A Windows-only USB wireless modem? Are you sure?
I had bad experiences with a Voda/Huawei E220 on Ubuntu, until I ditched the Voda Mobile Connect software and started using QtWvDialer/wvdial. Now I can connect using the E220 over USB or Nokia E65 over bluetooth in a couple of clicks, much more reliably that I could even on Windows.
It would be nice if the Ubuntu folks could get this stuff working out of the box like it does on an Eee.
Now, if I could just find a way to get the crappy ATI drivers to dynamically switch between multiple external displays...
In general I agree with you Jesse :) .. I think it would be better if they used terms like "slightly less sometimes" or "slightly more in certain circumstances" - i'd love to buy a product that trumpted itself as that!
The linux comment was illustrative of my experience but simply designed to show that for some it's more *complicated* than some of the alternatives...
I'll get my coat because it's raining lots today :o(
Well that's a great argument and it must have taken ages to type it all so well done. Unfortunately, it applies to barely 25% of the average computer user. The rest need a word processor, email client and web browser. Logically, Linux wins being cheap, reliable and open. Mac wins because many people are shiny pretty gadget obsessed. Windows wins because it's all people know (or did know before every magazine from geek to "intro for oldies" started bundling Linux CDs).
This is how it works on the ground.
Customer: I want to buy a laptop with XP like my old one.
Salesman: You can't. They all come with Vista these days.
Customer. I don't want Vista. My partner / son/ daughter bought one of those a few months ago and it's crap
Salesman: It's not. (insert Microsoft proganda. Customer is unconvinced).
Customer: Haven't you got *anything* else?
Salesman: well, you could buy a Mac.
Customer: but aren't they horribly expensive?
Salesman: well ... how does £xxx sound ...
Customer leaves with a Mac, or nothing. In a variant the customer is talked into buying Vista, discoverers it's even worse than he feared, and joins the crusade to tell his friends not to get ripped off like he was. In a rare variant (to become commoner? ) he leaves with an Eee PC running Linux.
I fear Microsoft are falling victim to believing their own propaganda and spin. True, they've shipped a lot of copies of Vista. That;s because they've used their monopoly power to deny customers the ability to choose XP. Corporates just use their right to "downgrade" to XP. Private individuals either buy a Mac, or go back later to pay extra for a retail copy of XP (if they still can? ) or end up with a loathsome piece of bloatware, and tell their friends how Microsoft ripped them off.
Don't bother entering a propaganda war with a competitor. Instead, sit down and make a list of how you fcuked up - and take steps to ensure it never happens again.
Then, tear up Windoze 7, which is almost certainly ME3 (or Vista 2).
And start with a clean sheet of paper. Try thinking of what customers WANT, rather than useless gimmicks they don't want or need. Think 'lean' rather than 'bloat'. Think 'first release works out of the box'.
And tone down that bloody stupid WGA so it doesn't deactivate genuine versions - I didn't find that AT ALL amusing.
The answer it the problem is to make customers happy - not piss them off. Trading insults with Apple isn't going to help you at all. Unless you want to foster the 'whining bully' image?
Penguin because even I (who don't really want to use it) can see THAT'S the real danger to M$...
There was someone on Radio4 this morning talking about computer users managing their Data and not their Documents. If that catches on M$ and Apple are stuffed.
The Great Vista lie is the great Microsoft Lie: "Office software is useful."
Office software is only useful to home users - in a company it becomes a one way encryption system that you will be hacking for the rest of the life of your company.
(Oh boy I know as I write this, I'm gonna get flamed by both sides...)
I won't have Vista. I won't have an iPhone. For the same reason.
The reason being, that in each case, they offer lots and lots of additional "extras" that I don't care about, whilst failing to do well the basics that I *do* care about.
*iPhone (1st gen) won't forward a text message, allow me to delete a single text etc, without installing 3rd party apps. I don't care about mobile "real" web browsing - I spend enough time a day looking at a screen as it is. I want to be able to use calling & texts.
*Vista file manipulation (copy, transfer etc) is dog-slow. I use this a lot. Interruptions in the form of dialogs are a PITA, as they cease progress until dealt with. I don't care about pretty interfaces as they're irrelevant to what I'm actually doing. I want an OS that just allows me to effectively use the apps I need to.
In both cases, my current gear (Nokia 6111 and XP) do what I need them to do, and well. As someone above said, "I just want to get on with using the damned computer", and all the irrelevant flashy bits in the world are no good to me if doing what I *need* to do is more difficult than it is at present.
If there is a relevant functional improvement in an upgrade that makes my life easier, I'll upgrade. If it does the basics worse than my current version (or I need to spend time and trouble to get it to do the basics) but looks great doing it, I'll pass.
Paris is ineffective, but looks great...
"If Apple really want to fight M$ then how about a PC version of OSX, Redmond would shudder to its core !"
That will never happen as the whole basis of Apple's reliability and stability claims rely on OS-X running on specific hardware configurations that are thoroughly tested by apple on their own hardware. If you think about how many different internal configurations that windows has to deal with on a myriad of different PCs, you would have to admit that they do a pretty good job on that score.
The trouble is the bloatware that they constantly try to foist on us...
What are Microsoft going to do about the fact that my two windows machines still work perfectly well, but (despite the "Vista Capable" sticker on one of them) will not run Vista very well? And before any Vista fan starts spouting off about how it'll work on any machine built since 2006, my desktop was bought in 2001 (800MHz processor, 128MB RAM etc etc, XP runs fine). I don't need high-power for the work I do (any modelling I need has to be run on something bigger than a home-based machine).
Are Microsoft gonna cough up for a new machine for me? In the current climate, where we're supposed to be reducing our impact on the environment, shouldn't we be concerned we're throwing away machines that still work? And microsoft want to abandon me to the sharks by removing support for my ageing OS? Will they pay to off-set the extra CO2 and many other nasty chemicals that will leach into the environment as my PC rots in some landfill (because the EU's recycling regs are blatantly not working).
What are Microsoft going to do about the fact that I've recently installed Linux so my ageing PC can still run a supported OS?
The problem is not that Vista is fundamentally a broken product - it is stable and now (mostly) has decent driver and application support, even if some vendors are still trying to pretend Vista x64 doesn't exist.
For a new machine or a new OS license it doesn't make sense to buy anything less than Vista. If you're buying Business/Ultimate, the downgrade rights are included in the license.
The problem is that for the additional memory and processor requirement it doesn't give enough back. Better searching, slightly better interface (except for the useless 3D bits), nice Unix subsystem (Ultimate/Enterprise only), better networking etc.
For the average user that boils down to : a better search, and you can get that for free on XP.
Most people don't care about new security features, Unix, an improved network stack, WPF applications, better imaging and group policy control, a DirectX version no-one is seriously using and a new mail app. They don't like being told they can't do something (UAC) or can't overwrite files willy nilly, even if actually it's for their own good (the main reason UAC is annoying is due to crappily programmed software that demands higher rights than it should need).
Vista needed to change more than then internal plumbing and didn't particularly succeed.
Windows 7 needs to contain something genuinely new, and some of the proposed Windows 7 features (heteregenous graphics driver support, for one..) should be backported to Vista as soon as possible to keep people happy.
Of course, OS X is not necessarily in a much better position. 10.6 is basically dropping PPC code and speeding things up with few extra features. In windows, this is called a service pack - not a release. Apple had better hope that Windows 7 is a damp squib when it is released 6-7 months later, as it's likely to be another 6 months at the earliest before they release something with actual functionality in it.
Even a child can spot you now ...
Outdated FUD once more about recompiling kernels and application compatibility that really doesn't mean anything for the majority of the real world.
Here's a hint at why FOSS is winning. The large development shop I work at dropped the very expensive development IDE it was using about 5 years ago in favour of NetBeans. Since then, when a project has decided what IDE to use, there are only two factors considered now, first and foremost, that it's free, and as a distant second,it supports the technologies we want to use on the project.
The point is that as experienced users, we've long become sick of IDE's that claim to do everything for you, but do so very badly. So we know we just need a decent editor that will accept the libraries we use. And we don't feel we should have to pay through the nose for it as its a commodity technology now.
As computer adoption has pretty much peaked now, even that mythical Joe Bloggs is in the same position. He just wants a cheap OS that does the basics - browsing, mail, possibly some photo editing or movie downloading. A Linux distro like Unbuntu does all those things for free very well on existing hardware. Plus the user doesn't have to shell out £100 for Photoshop Elements or Paintshop Pro. Or get hold of a dodgy copy and worry that its been infected with malware.
As more users become aware that they have no need to pay the Microsoft upgrade tax on a regular basis, just to do the same thing they've always done, the louder Microsoft ( and it's shrills) will have to shout.
After all, with their current setup the chances of Windows 7 being priced realistically and free of bloat are pretty remote.
Ok been IT manager myself my decision on not upgrading our infrastructure to Windows Vista is not based on some lame condescending adverts from apple but rather that Vista not a worthy OS compare with XP. I getting fed up with Microsoft execs telling me how great Vista is. Granted there are some great things in vista, I would be lying if I said other wise, but they do not out way the bad points. We ran tested with vista and XP side by side, XP was running on the same system as vista except the XP pc only had a gig of ram where as the vista had 4 gigs and the xp we performed a simple copying task and the XP machine was 17% faster. This alone is enough to say no to vista. So if the powers at be at Microsoft think that people are not buying vista based on some lame adds from apple ten they are wrong its because vista sucks and no amount of advertising is going to change that. I hear them use the words myths. So its a myth that many people in the same position as me are not upgrading to vista for the same reason ummm the words dreamland come to mind. There is reason apple are doing so well at the moment and its not th adverts. Before Microsoft go on some massive apple attack campaign maybe they should take another look at vista and realise that Vista is not the perfect OS they all seem to think it is.
Granted, my PC is now silent as the onboard audio has stopped working, perhaps a SP2 issue. Or maybe it died? Dunno. And though it did work for a while I can't get Unreal Tournament to go any more, but apart from that it's quite nice. I will admit though that I haven't used an Apple since the tiny cube things at school and don't necessarily have a particularly relevant point of reference. I do have a Ubuntu though. But I've seen prettier Linuxes. And even this one's too hard for me.
Well I am not one of them, it is complete bloatware, why should I have to install 2gb ram just to be able to use the system properly, yes you can run it on 1gb, but try to work in photoshop with just 1gb, XP on the other hand has been stable for a long time now and has much better software compatability than Vista does and uses a LOT less ram, I dont care if my desktop is pretty or not I just want it to work and not suck up all the system resources making me go and buy new hardware just to run a new OS, once I can no longer use XP then at least on my home machine I shall migrate to Ubuntu, at least my hardware will last a little longer, and I get the added bonus of not having to activate my OS, or make sure that it always has a connection to the net just so it can phone home from time to time to make sure that its still a leagle copy.
"Also, Microsoft needs to get partners familiarized with Windows Vista ahead of Windows 7, as that OS will use the same hardware specifications."
Isn't that like saying,
"Also, you need to familarize yourself with an Austin Allegro ahead of buying a Mercedes, as that car will use the same petrol."
Vista is yet another example of Microsoft not forseeing the market, not quite one to rank with their failure to take the lead as the internet exploded into people's lives, but still significant. The netbooks coming onto the market represent an area that Microsoft currently cannot compete in, except by allowing a kludge of XP to be installed on some sub-notebooks.
Cheap internet capable computers that anyone can use are the new growth market, not Vista capable PCs, nor those white, shiny, expensive Macs. XP will be 9 years old by the time Vista ME comes out (which we can assume will come with a sub-notebook edition), and already looks very dated compared to the leaner, prettier and more functional Linux distros out there.
I bought a new computer and because XP pro was a pain to find i bought Vista 64bit with it.
I still have not found those magic features that make Vista so much better then XP.
The Aero interface was the first thing that went away as soon as i figured out how to disable it.
The interface has changed just enough that some one who has been using XP since it came out has to spend time figuring it out. And no its not intuitive or does not have a better layout.
It seems it was changed only for changes sake.
I have 2 computers now, one running XPpro and the vista one, and i still find myself working on the XP machine because it just seems a bit snappier.
If you are wondering if i installed Vista on an underpowered machine, the answer is no.
Unless Vista is not supposed to run on computer that cost less then $1500 in hardware without a monitor.
My next os will be one of the Linux flavors, i have tried ubuntu and some other distros and the only thing that keeps me away is lack of game support.
The only way Microsoft will get me to buy another OS of theirs is if they go to their root, No more registry, no more DRM crippleware, no more candy coated interface(leave that to MAC people that know how its done), and most importantly i want OS fully customizable and i want to chose what parts are installed.
I am not going to hold my breath...
My delicious desktop runs XP quad core 1333fsb with 4gb of 1333mhz memory and a cheap graphics card that has hdmi out. No theme engine, the only eyecandy I need is Tanaka Reina wallpaper. It can run games, 3d rendering software, graphics software and play high def media.
The only time it crashed was when trying to run vlcplayer.
I was running win98 on my 900mhz 1gb of memory desktop until last year - when the processor died becouse the fan failed. It was great, it ran many games, it let me use the interwebs and it was all in all a wonderful machine, I shall miss it greatly.
I have a large laptop, with fancy graphics card for its time, 1.6ghz turon in it, a gig of memory and a win xp install, it works wonderfully for taking to my mates house plugging in and playing games. The only time it crashed was when it had the ASUS graphics perfomance thing installed. It's about 2 and a half years old.
I have a umpc with win xp installed, it has a 800mhz processor and a gig of ram, it runs well and can handle multiple failfox sessions, word documents and standard def movies. It hasn't crashed. It's about 6 months old.
There is no room in my life for vistaids, it brings me nothing but fail.
wonder what group that is, perhaps that is the group of people who develop most of the software, understand the most about computer systems, and fix most of the computer problems.
They are also the ones who invested the most into computing, and have the ability to ensure a technology project succeeds or fails.
MS need to get back in touch with that group, marketing is not the solution, the relationship with technologists is.
For a large number of years now UK advertising has been allowed to mention, and critises the opposition. Most don't because if Product A is bad because of B, then Product C is bad because of D. Much better to say why you product is the best (which Mac do very well). If Vista is so good , why does Microsoft need to bring out Windows 7?
OK, let's just back up a second. You can't blame M$ for wanting to kill the rumours concerning Vista. However, I prefer the idea of deeds rather than words, and I suggest that M$ needs to listen to what is being said now rather than just try to force unwanted code on us. What is the business case for a lot of the bloat?
What M$ really need to do is come up with a good reason for change. That isn't just "oh, we need you to change because we don't want to support the old stuf anymore" or something stupid like that.
Yes, I got sucked into Ultima Vista world.
1)Texas Hold 'em Poker (Yeehaa, why play the neighbours/friends, play MS!)
2) Bitlocker HDD encryption (that needs to format the drive - oh, I'm already using my data drive....)
3) Dream Scene (your desktop wallpaper can be a video - and crash in my case)
4) 36 Language Packs that on every upgrade ask to be installed.
5) 2 Sound Schemes Pear and Glass - nothing like the Win 98 Plus but some watered down effects so limp that you'd forget it had been installed!)
Fortunately, I'm not a business user, so I don't need business docs that are easily compatible. I'm a gamer and I need Direct X 10. Or is that Direct X 10.1? PC Games are flourishing (not just the MMO ones) and Age of Conan, Bioshock, Crysis are some of the newer games out that flaunt their DX10 labels. But you do have to look hard to see the improvements. But heck, I was future proofing for this home machine. Supposedly the onboard 7.1 sound cards of many motherboards is significantly improved by DX10, but seeing as I went Creative Audigy....
Also as a home user, I now need a new scanner because Vista 64 drivers don't exist for my model. Fortunately the Epson printer works, but at work (also running Vista 64 but business edition) I'm having issues connecting to various printers HP and Epson.
On the plus side, not very many crashes or BSODs, and my machine is relatively fast (but then it is a hot rod gaming rig getting 5.9 Windows performance rating).
"This campaign will reach a "crescendo" in the next couple of months, with Microsoft dominating the airwaves, we were promised."
"Reaching a crescendo" doesn't make sense, as 'crescendo' is the increase towards a climax, not the climax itself. When you "reach a crescendo", you have not actually got anywhere but you have the intention of moving towards something in the future.
Actually, this is Vista we are talking about, so maybe they are aiming to "reach a crescendo" after all.
Have some people been living in a timewarp? I have two PCs, a 2.0Ghz AMD single core machine (3.2Ghz Intel eqiv) with 1GB or ram and a dual core 3.0Ghz with 4Gb or ram.
Machine 1 runs XP and i'll never upgrade it to vista as its not powerful enough. PC no 2 runs vista fine (nice looking DX10 games too).
I've had the 3.2Ghz machine for 4 years. Sorry, but a single core 3Ghz equivalent machine is NOT top end!
This discussion seems to be like the old 'Windows 95 is crap as it runs slow on my 486 DX2' or 'Windows XP doesnt run on my P2' arguments of old.
I like playing with the bits and pieces of hardware too much to buy something that needs to be purchased as a fully finished product. But I love the Mac commercials. MS's problem is they hit too close to home. I especially like the one with the PC repeating "I'm happy to report I haven't had a glitch in over a week."
The sooner MS admits Vista was a huge failure on some technical level, and works to fix the technical problem, the quicker they will recover. Right now Vista, regardless of what true merits it has (I sort of like my 64 bit multi-processing behemoth), is killing the PC market. I still won't recommend it to friends who aren't techies.
And the song is always the same from Redmond; "This one IS better, look it's shinier, and we promise it'll do what we say... eventually. You just need more ram, a faster processor, better graphics, and a bigger hard drive!"
They said it with Win3.1, they said it with 95, they said it with 98, NT, ME 2000, XP, and Vista.
Now they're saying it about Windows 7, and even Windows 8!
(Think I'm kidding about Widows 8? look here: http://uxevangelist.blogspot.com/2008/07/windows-8-confirmed.html )
Ponder this: todays average desktop can outperform a ten year old supercomputer, but it runs today's version of Windows slower than a ten year old desktop ran Windows then.
OK, I have vista at home (admitedly, on a beast of a machine) and it runs fine. No crashes, its FASTER than my old XP machine and I do like the pretty shiny things like the preview of screens alt tabbing etc, I'm a sucker for shiny. Before the anti-vista crowd's flames reach a temperature high enough to initiate fusion, I'm gonna also agree with them. For all the extra good it is, I wouldn't have got it if it didn't come with the PC, XP did and still does everything I need.
Few general points:
1) there are always (as someone before said) n-1 people, "what is wrong with what we have?" well, with that attitude we would still be running around caves lucky to have a tiger skin to wear, never mind 50Mbit fibre optic broadband.....
2) Well gee davey, the new OS has new features and needs more resources to run. What the HELL is wrong with that? if your machine can't handle it, don't buy it. Its like moaning because your rocket ship uses more fuel than your ford KA.
3) THERE IS NO SUPERIOR OS! I run a network for a school, I LIKE features like group policy that means I can change one thing and affect all 300PCs in the building. We don't use firefox, not because I don't like it - I love it, because it can't be remotely configured or locked down so that the brats can't access porn in school. Some people like MacOS, others need their linux servers for reliability and speed. Bottom line is, like I said I work in a school and we don't need to recompile the kernal to make it 3% faster the bulk of the use is "type a document" or "make a presentation" or "find this on the web". Also, if the computer crashes we just reboot and move on, the PC doesn't need to be on 24/365. To go back to my car analogy, some families have 10 kids and need a minibus. Others are single guys and can live with a motorbike, what is right for you is not right for everyone.
4) I hate this argument since it is such a straw-man but jeez, you think you could write a better OS that for 99% of people just works out of the box despite the billions of variations of computer out there?
Stop squabbling children, no-one else cares what you think. I'm happily assuming no-once cares what I think either.
Here’s what I do with my PC.
I browse the web, send/receive emails, write/edit documents (all formats), pdfs.
It’s the server for my Squeezbox, piping music to my kitchen.
I scan my old photographs, edit them & spruce them up, and upload them to my Flickr/Picasa accounts.
I record music from my dusty cassette collection, edit it, process it, and burn it on to CD.
I don’t play games. I’m a grown up (you may have guessed this much!)
There’s probably a few other things too, but that’s the bulk of it.
My PC is an old Compaq Presario P4, 768M memory. All I’ve ever done to it was add an extra hard drive (to house my CD collection).
I do all this under Linux. I am doing this for ZERO cost, go on, count it, add it all up, it costs ZERO. Never had a virus or spyware. I recently upgraded to the latest version of Ubuntu, 8.10, (yes, for free) and you know what? I didn’t need to upgrade my hardware. It just worked, and goes like a rocket. And it looks beautiful, and yes, I have wobbly windows, rotating cube etc etc.
And you know what else? I never have to recompile anything. Ever. I don’t do it. I wouldn’t want to. I don’t need to. Got that? No recompiling.
Now, you guys tell me, how good life would be for me on THIS PC if I switched to Vista. I’m listening….
PS "the new OS has new features and needs more resources to run. What the HELL is wrong with that?" Well, gee Simon, because it's expensive and it shouldn't be necessary. I've never needed a hardware upgrade to get new bells & whistles with Linux. That's what programming is for, isn't it?
Boo-smegging-hoo. Microsoft have been spreading lies and myths about their competitors for years (most recently their disingeniously-named "Get the facts" campaign against Linux) but being your typical bully, they're unable to cope when they get some of their own medicine back.
Next time they should try making a product that stands up on it's own merit instead of rushing out a half-assed unfinished product, then whining about how everyone has it in for them.
I've been using Vista Home Basic64 for about 8 months now. I dont get where all this DRM comes into it?
So far nothing has stopped me playing any media content on my PC whether ripped or commercial or stopped me doing anything really.
I dont see what the issue is.
I have a Zune as well and all I hear is folks banging on about "oh Zune DRM DRM DRM!". Again I havent had any hang ups or problems.
What is it you have to do to have a problem with this?
Myths? Microsoft thinks Vista is being stopped by an assortment of urban myths? Ha! I have news for them. Vista is being stopped by the pure and simple fact that it's shite.
Yes. Shite. There I said it. A big steaming heap of smelly stuff.
What justification do I have for this? Oh, that's easy. My wife's Laptop, a Toshiba. Nice box, decent hardware, runs like a pieces of $250 crap from a yard sale. Oh, yes, it runs Vista.
Regular lockups? Check.
Fancy new GUI? You must be joking! On this hardware!?
OK, seriously let's look at some very, very simple facts.
Windows 3.11 - the first real 'Windows' OS. Ran on everything from an 80386sx upwards. It only needed a couple of MB of RAM, and it came on floppy discs.
Windows Vista needs 1000 times the memory. At a conservative estimate a typical processor of today os several hundred times faster than an 80386sx by the time you account for higher clocks, and more done per cycle. Hard discs are 1000+ times larger than they were when Windows 3.11 arrived. The installation requirement for Vista is equally bloated.
Given the incredible increases in speed and capacity of our beloved PCs, why is it that it still takes about the same amount of time to do the same tasks? Vista manages to negate every hardware advantage we have now, and what does it do in return? This is why it's shite. The PCs now are super computers compared to the pathetic calculators disguised as PCs we used to run, and yet what have Microsoft chosen to do with all this capacity and power? Soak it up like a sponge and give nothing in return except annoying and intrusive security and DRM that attempts to tell me what I can, and cannot do with MY computer.
And Microsoft thinks that this is OK, and we should all pay them for the pleasure of crippling our PCs? Oh, yeah, it's myths that are stopping Vista from selling. Oh yeah. It's just myths.
Are they really trying to say that Vista has better audio capabilities than XP?
Perhaps this is because Microsoft have finally licensed Dolby Digital for the OS.
Thing is - that's all it can do. You may have Cyberlink PowerDVD BD edition and a shiny Blu-Ray player, but the audio you're getting at your speakers is Dolby Digital - even if the disc audio is Dolby Digital Plus 7.1.
The internal pathways on the PC (either the internal bus or software paths through Windows - I left before I discovered which) are unable to pass a wider audio bitstream than Dolby Digital - something my Windows 98 PC was able to do via its Creative DVD drive, hardware decoder card and Live1080 card was able to do.
What currently happens is that the DVD playback sw decodes the 7.1 source audio then downconverts that to Dolby Digital and sends it to the soundcard for digital connection to your amplifier. The Amplifier (if its 7.1 compatible) sees the incoming stream as Dolby Digital and then upconverts the 5.1 to 7.1 and plays it out. This works really quite well, but it isn't true 7.1 channel descreet audio, and is no better than machines ten years ago were capable of. Nor is it any better than a £300 Tesco's special running XP.
I have no idea how the PC handles DTS' 7.1 audio streams, but would imagine it is dealt with the same way.
AFAIK the only way to get more than 5.1 channels of audio out of your PC is to use a direct audio connection from the BD drive to a suitably equipped soundcard - just like in the early days of CD-equipped PCs.
I'm not sure if this 'feature' has been fixed in SP1 as I don't have Vista (i stuck with XP), but my understanding is that it is a fundamental issue that is not easily fixed...
Well said sir! That's the real argument MS are trying to stop people from seeing.
Ubuntu is a real step in the right direction for getting real users onto Linux, and if anyone can sit and watch a very basic user get started with Ubuntu, and see how quickly they can pick it up if they give it a chance, and then still claim Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS they're just lying to themselves.
I'm not saying it's going to de-throne the big dogs, right all the wrongs of the world or cure all cancers, but it's definitely not doomed to reside in the dark and dusty halls of geekdom for all eternity, if it continues on as it currently is.
I will disagree with you very strongly on one line of your post though, albeit slightly off topic:
"I don’t play games. I’m a grown up"
There are plenty of grown up games out there, and even many which require you to work your grey cells, just as there are equal amounts of childish material on the television and even plenty to be found on the bookshelf. Someone who plays computer games is not necessarily more childish than someone who uses some other form of entertainment to pass their time.
Just like someone who uses Linux is not necesarily a techie or nerd, which you so effectively argued.
Sorry Oliver Jones but I'm not listening. Like a lot of other people after many issues with Microsoft I've made the switch to Linux and since then I haven't looked back.
If you want to run Photoshop or Dreamweaver under Linux just use Wine it's as easy as that and seriously if you shelled out for CS3 then your going to have a Mac or have a PC dedicated for that purpose anyway.
Open Office is more than adequate for most of us and it makes PDF's a damn sight faster and easier than Acrobat and Distiller ever have.
The point is that if Microsoft keep messing up more and more people will shift out of necessity. No it wont be a big threat to Microsoft but so what, let people get on with it. Life is a lot easier under ubuntu these days so I for one am happy now.
This post has been deleted by its author
What a crock of shit spouting from the linux dweebs and the mac goons.
Linux Dweeb: Yeah, I hate m$, I use linux. In fact, I use a really rare 'experimental' version of linux. Why use Windows, I run my linux of a 1976 casio calculator. I am so fucking hardcore I don't even need a gui. In fact, I am so 'into' linux, I speak directly to the kernel in machine code. Anyone who doesn't do this is a dickhead and is no way as cool as me.
Translation: Some sad junior network administrator training for his MSCE who uses windows every day and is fed up of getting the boring jobs (password resest) every day. Has really bad acne and poor social skills. Goes home in the evening to have a relationship with Linux (his girlfriend), because they understand each other.
Mac Goons: Yeah, I hate m$. I own a Mac.
Translation: Works in telesales. Uses windows every day. Still lives in shared accomodation after leaving university with a 3rd in Hopsitality Management. In the evening goes for a local overpriced coffee with his mac. Pretends to his drinking partners he is a graphics designer and thats why he has a mac when in reality he has paid over £800 for a laptop case merely to go on facebook living the "lifestyle"
Oliver Jones (above) said it all. Linux is basically great for fiddling with Linux. I say this as the owner of an EEE PC who hoped to discover that Linux was the ticket. Um no, it's definitely not. Maybe someday...
Microsoft, pull out of this slump for God's sake. Give us something we WANT. Faster, smaller, lower power consumption. CUT THE BOOT TIME TO A FRACTION of what it is now. Drop UAC. Drop DRM. Put the 'up level' button back in Explorer. Quit patronizing me, quit telling me what to do, quit trying to rope me into someone else's money-making schemes.
Dell, HP, Acer, the rest of you OEMs - drop the shovelware crap, just install the OS and get outta my FACE, thank you..
Otherwise you guys are going to see Apple slowly eat the entire pie.
I still find it funny that the only comback the pro vista crowd has is "Upgrade your PC" - To which my still unanswered response is: XP Does everything an Operating system is supposed to do, and faster. Why not put that on the new hardware, and actually get a productivity boost, instead of just trying to make things as productive as they were.
Or, better yet, if you're really wanting to push vista, name one killer feature that is worth such a big performance hit.
That is why Vista Sucks. It slows the system more than it has to, and offers nothing back in exchange. Yes, I could upgrade my PC to run it, but thats just spending money to end up back where I was before I "Upgraded" my OS.
6.2 didn't even meet its promises, because the "Microsoft disk compression technology" was proven in court to infringe on Stac Electronics properties. 6.21 Was then released without compression and 6.22 had a new compression scheme.
The main reason DOS met its promises is because it made so few. It was a single-user, single-tasking OS with paltry drivers and no security, but MS didn't build a web of lies around it saying otherwise.
If MS can prove a competitor has been spreading outright lies, that's for the courtroom. If they're calling someone a liar that they can't prove is lying, that's defamation. They should spend more time making the software do what it's supposed to do and less time convincing people it's alright that it doesn't.
I'm in the sometimes small minority here. I like Microsoft. Okay...I used to like Microsoft. But Vista is one huge c*ck up.
It flaky, its too resource hungry, it's gives me very little that I "need" that I can't do with XP MCE, google and other toys installed.
It's a shame, XP was really good as a M$ product. Win 2003 is great (and I hear good things of 2008 from a server perspective).
But I fear that good ship M$ will blunder on with bolting more cr*p onto Vista and whine that people are just not listen to the message properly (guess they get PR tips from Gordon Brown).
If they want real success shove Vista in a nice Bin (already full with BOB, Windows ME and Tablet PCs) and build on XP. They should also try and get out of their bunker mentallity and really ask questions about why there is such a swell against Vista (even from previously happy M$ buyers) .
Long term its a real and significant risk to M$ itself. If they keep trying to shove this unwanted product at people without addressing the problems more and more IT people will migrate to other alternatives (because they have no options from M$). If enough developers and infrastructure people do this then the IT managers and buyers of the future will not have the same M$ leaning that a lot have at the moment.
Oh and while i'm kicking them...SQL Server 2005 is great but SQL Management Studio sucks big chunks...they've buggered up SQL Books Online and Windows Mobile is a big piece of chunky poo (why does every M$ OS have to be Windows...christ have they only got one idea for a UI?). On the plus Visual Studio 2008 is great (so far).
"It's okay. >90% of the world isn't listening to the Linux fanboys either. So it's not like you're in any way representative of the majority."
I wasn't aware that my using Linux instantly makes me a fanboy? Wow.
I'm also really not bothered if I am part of the majority or in anyway representative of it at all. I just want what works for me. Which was kind of the point of the post.
"Still think Linux is the panacea for all ills?"
No. I didn't say it was. What I did say is that whilst it will never threaten Microsoft it works for me why flame Linux, just let people get on with it.
"I'm refuse to take anyone seriously who thinks Linux is actually ready for anyone who uses their computer to do real work."
Tell that to Novell. Also I guess that means that running my own business I don't do any real work.
What do you consider real work? Using Office applications only? Or would you include use as a graphic workstation, optimization software coding, network systems analysis, etc etc.. That's real work for the people that make a living out of it. If you think that Linux is only good for web, email and open office then you are kind of implying that you have never used the Linux OS long enough to explore the applications that it runs and what it is actually very good at doing. Which is another reason to live and let live isn't it.
Congratulations. We have another Webster Phreaky!
That's the last I'm going to comment on this. I'm not going to get accused of turning this into yet another pointless Win / Mac / *nix flame war.
"A Windows-only USB wireless modem? Are you sure?"
Mostly sure... When booted up with the Ubuntu key, I could see the modem as one sees a "mass storage device", but it would not recognize it as anything else. All the files there were .exe and the like, Windows only stuff that (I assume) was executed in Vista to make the thing work.
Maybe there was a way to make it work in Linux, but since I was on vacation (and I'm just a biologist to begin with, not even an IT guy) I did not feel like digging in too much further... :-)
'William' - what's the point of spouting a load of stereotypical diatribe??
It's not even stereotypical come to think of it. You've just created two imaginary figures in your head that have no basis in reality.
I like the way you start with "What a crock of shit spouting" and then proceed to spout the biggest pile of shit on the entire page.
Typical MS bull, insist that the public "needs" what MS wants to force upon them instead of what the public wants, then when you eventually find your competitor gaining ground because of this you suit-up your PR department instead of making the needed changes to windows.
Vista isn't the worst OS out there but is clearly not what most want. Their market share will continue to slide until they realize one size does not fit all, that the entire world's PCs are not all used exactly the same and having overkill towards that end is the opposite of most people's goal.
Paris, because she thinks the money will get her through anything but life is never that simple.
Vista IS expensive for business. I just had to replace a central box in my company that ran Windows 2000 Pro. It ran for years serving many functions. The only thing I could get was Vista. NOBODY at the vendor, HP, Microsoft, etc. could tell me how to acquire the XP downgrade by the deadline except to say go buy a full retail version! Not.
So here I sit with Vista. Over half my expensive software won't run on it. Compatibility mode doesn't work. MS and HP support are worthless. The bottom line is it would have cost just as much to go with Mac since I have to buy all new software anyway. MS doesn't like the expensive software I have that runs just fine. They pop up and say, MS doesn't like your software.
The computer and the OS are the cheap part of a major business system. The software is the killer. Now that I get to buy over $12,000 in new software, please Balmer, throw a chair and tell me how much I'm saving by going with Vista!!!
To the 'Oliver Jones' of this world, Linux has become one of the building blocks of the Internet and of business in general. God you must hate that fact. If you had to acquire non-Microsoft skills to simply survive in the job market I'm not sure you could.
You just want to snuggle up with mummy Microsoft and have her whisper sweet nothings and reasurances into your ear. About how the nasty Linux and *BSD trolls will stay under their bridge and that OSX is just a nightmare that will go away. Besides honeybunch, mummy Microsoft has something else for you to suck on.
Alternatives to Microsoft software are available, they are being developed and used successfully in the real world. And despite your desperate protestations to the contrary, the world is starting to see beyond your blind reverence for the Microsoft ecosystem.
This post has been deleted by its author
Having had the misfortune to use Vista on one of the spare works laptops, initially with 512Mb of RAM and now a whopping 1Gb, I can safely say that there is no sensible reason whatsoever to go with Vista, long may it be known as "the new ME"
Even the girlfriend hates it on her new dual core Dell laptop from work, with 3Gb RAM and a proper graphics chip! If I was allowed, it'd be upgraded to XP.....
Oh, and maybe this is why MS are scared of Linux?
Enjoy the rest of the ads!
last night i climbed into a Mig3-U (1942), took off from a concrete strip, climbed to 4,000ft over a glacial valley, then swooped down to make a running pass on a Bf109 that had lost momentum. Missed! - climbed with radiator open, but ended up receiving lots of attention from pursuing Fw190/Bf109s. Rudder shot off. Used cloud (avoiding hillside by luck), dropped onto a friendly grass airfield, got shot up on the ground, retired. About 340 people taking part over 50 scenarios. 100s of aircraft to choose from; Immersive modelling of cockpit; external views/padlock/tracking; voice chat.
what could MacMan do?
William, you know, I get the impression you’re a little annoyed at something.
“What a crock of ….. etc etc”
Translation: I realise at last that my argument was lost ages ago. I shall now resort to insults.
I think you need a lie down mate.
You got me right on one point though, I am a Linux user who doesn’t have a girlfriend. I have a lovely wife, and a daughter too. Which is the real reason (Aetyr) I don’t play games; that’s what I was clumsily referring to when I said “I’m a grown up”. My apologies if I offended gamers. Between wife & daughter It’s a miracle if I get more than 10 minutes at a stretch on the PC, so games aren’t an option. In the past though I was known to get lost in “Doom 3”. And thank you “J”, I did mean Ubuntu 8.04, I stand corrected.
To get back to the point, in a desperate attempt to get this post back on-topic, if MS had put out a decent OS in the first place, there would be no “myths” to dispel. I will give Microsoft credit as the company which put a PC on everyone’s desk in the first place. But they’ve got a bit of a whiff about them now.
@AC (it’s about critical mass). That’s nothing. My mam knitted me this jumper.
I wanna flame Mike Crawshaw but I can't 'cause he's right. I play games... fek off - I can be a kid in my 40s if I want and that's exactly what I want. I build ma 'puters to play games. I build, fix and upgrade my friends 'puters (or more ofter their kid's 'puters) so they can play games. To me, a 'puter is a toy. So I want an operating system that accepts games and lets me connect to game servers. I don't want any extra bloat - I can download and install all the freeware anything i fekkin want, when I want, if I want... but what I really really want is to play games. Now then...
Can somebody please please please write a linux based windows XP emulator so I can install Ubuntu (or whatever) and then use the emulator to install XP drivers (for the stick-of-joy, steering wheel, whatever), directX (wine almost works) and any off-the-shelf PC game that I want. That's what I want. That's what I really really want... that and twenty four hours stuck in a lift with Jessica Alba of course.
What MS Office interoperability issues?
The same ones you get if you don't have EXACTLY the same version of MS Office as the one the document was written on?
In which case, you're eagerly bending over for MS to do as they will with you and pay for the process.
And not necessarily figuratively...
"I'd like a new phone please" I said to the assistant.
"What do you use your phone for?" he replied.
"To make phone calls" I retaliated.
"This one has a camera, email, web browser, calendar, multimedia messaging, drone drone drone".
"But I only want a phone" I pleaded.
"Sorry, they don't do those anymore, there's no call for them"
Then we get told off by phone manufacturers that we ONLY use 40% of our phones' features. I ONLY WANT 40% OF THE FEATURES ON MY PHONE.
Sound familiar? I never asked for fancy graphics, I never asked for wizards. I just want a reliable, usable, secure operating system on my computer.
Hey MS, might get further if you market a version of Vista without the bloatware.
That's quite possibly the comment to end all comments about Linux.
I agree that it's not suitable for the majority of real work. This might be boring, but the REAL work that most companies do happen on Word Documents, Excel sheets, Access Databases, MS Project plans, Sharepoint projects, Powerpoint and Outlook. They probably use some industry specific apps which are unlikely to have been developed for Linux given that the majority of users are using Windows for all of the apps mentioned above.
The amusing thing is that while all the Linux fanboys are talking up how good it it (and it is if you are an IT admin) they presumably work for IT departments in companies who operate Windows on 99.99% of desktops.
That must suck :)
This post has been deleted by its author
So I'm just watching this from the sideline, fresh popcorn in hand.
Silly Micro$oft - it's not YOUR computer, it's MINE. You don't get to control it, *I* do. To quote a Star Wars line, "the more you tighten your grip, the more we slip through your fingers." Or something like that.
From Beta, it has been as easy as reading suggestions from compatibility page. Theres NO Way Ultimate is Better Than Server 2008 & Last Out Was Home SERVER. So if You Want Real Quality That Hops like Little rabbitt or Aero glass or home Telco via wireless, You Got something TOP Notch. or You Can Just Cram Some Basic Starter handicapped Vista edition in some Old stuff & Pawn it or give it to kids, second lifetime, of sorts.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
that is still using 98SE , behind a Smoothwall fire wall[stopped all that vulnerability crap] and those pings from china stay unanswered..,actually I am going back to it, i do not like xp home, it suck 's compared to the 98se i had on this clawhammer 3200+, tho i did like my friends xp pro [ past standards ms dos 3.3 ,5 ,6,ibm dos 7[which i really liked],red hat 9,ubuntu,pclinux[ also like and use]..xp home.
buy what works, and if it still works , who cares what others use..
another neat thing about 98 is that i can move it up to new hardware, legally.....