Aah the joys of Vista

[Tormod]

Likewise, Macintosh users seem to think that they are hip and cool and represent a rebellion within the corporate world.

 

I wonder if you've ever encountered a Mac-based network. At my workplace everyone except accounting use Macs. The average age is 50, and most of our staff are engineers who don't care what brand their computer is as long as it works. Our investment costs for Macs are barely higher than for PCs, but we have close to zero support issues.

 

So rather than stuffing Mac users into a square box, maybe it's worth considering that not everyone chooses their platform out of a desire to be hip and cool.

 

The irony of it is, Apple represents an approach to computing where the company that codes the operating system not only controls the OS, but also controls all of the hardware, software, and peripherals that the user can purchase as well, with exceptions.

 

I don't think you've used a Mac for a long time. These are all wrong. I can run Windows apps natively *within* OSX now, using Parallels Desktop. I use a Microsoft mouse (granted, I use an Apple keyboard but it could have come from Logitech). I use a Maxtor external harddrive connected to my MacBook Pro. As for "controls the software and peripherals"...that's pure nonsense.

 

Microsoft is more successful than Linux at this point in time because it:

E) because it is the current and future standard operating system, it has more money, has more customers, and is in a self perpetuating state of dominance. Being in this position perpetuates this position.

 

This self-perpetual state of dominance may be the very downfall of Windows. Innovation theory shows that if a new entrant to the market delivers a new OS that can offer Windows capabilities at a lower price, and that can solve the same problems for users, and can run on the PCs people have - they will succeed in claiming the low end of the market. The encumbent must then climb upwards to more profitable users, only to see the attackers follow. At the end, the encumbent loses because their market has gone elsewhere.

 

Microsoft is probably seeing the beginning of the downfall of their superiority of the OS market. This has nothing to do with marketing power or penetration. It has happened to just about every huge corporation that ever was...

[Neuro]

macs

Admitted, I have not used a Mac in ages.

 

The reasoning for my comments as to the latter half of the Macintosh paragraph was simple. The last time I used a Macintosh computer, it was a Mac, running MacOS, using a Macintosh keyboard, with a Macintosh mouse. I considered it an irony that exists when the majority of Macintosh fanboys seem to be in their positions because of their contempt for Microsoft and corporations. To myself, I think, lets hope that we are never using a Microsoft, running Microsoft windows, using a Microsoft keyboard, and using a Microsoft mouse. That was my point, really.

 

I was only really referring to infamous fanboys who 'hate on Microsoft' and not the individual Mac users. The Mac advertisement campaign has played into my thinking in a way quite the opposite of their intentions.

 

I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I am a fan of nothing. My posts in this thread are to defend the truth and to give my actual review of Vista while quelling the propaganda distributed by fanboys of other camps.

 

Corporate Downfall

Has to happen some day. Honestly, I think it is naive to think that the think tank at Microsoft is going to slip up anytime soon. Lets compare the two competitors?

 

Macintosh is for all intents and purposes, very similar to Microsoft. Philosophically it is just another company. The lines between Microsoft and Macintosh are continually blurred and are becoming more so with the release of Vista and bootcamp as well as the introduction of a two button mouse for Macs. What makes Macintosh appealing is that it is not the hegemon and is thus the underdog. Macintosh computers are, in anyone's opinion, very stylish, but, not as customizable. You could swap Microsoft's dominance of the market for Apple and the world of computing would not be entirely that different, it would just make Steve Jobs the richest man in the world instead of Bill Gates.

 

Linux... Now, I adore Linux. I enjoy the philosophy of Stallman and the success of a lone programmer named Linus. It really is a great story and it really is a great success. What it is not, however, is a great alternative to Windows or Macintosh for the home-user who has limited computer knowledge. It is free, but it is not simpler or less clunky than Windows.

 

People are crying about Vista's problems with 32 bit drivers designed for Windows XP, imagine how they would cry about an operating system that doesn't ship with a contract that obligates the creators to supply patches and fixes? Most home-users cannot be bothered to read an error message, nevermind the issues that would arise when they are to pick a mount point or install a driver from a lower boot-level. The problem is, for an operating system to replace Windows at this point, it really has to be devoid of any of these hiccups that would boggle the mind of a soccermom.

 

So, we can eliminate the basic home-user from a consumer of Linux, what about the average advanced-home-user? Long story short, it is not compatable with videogames unless you pay for transgaming which makes it not free. The fact that it is not compatable with games makes it disinteresting to most of the advanced home users who may be bothered enough to learn its complexity if 'twere compatable with their favorite titles. The problem is, it isn't, thus they do not bother.

 

Linux's niche is in business as far as I can tell and unless some major changes take place interms of game developer support and user friendliness, then I do not see that as a changing trend anytime soon.

[Tormod]

I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I am a fan of nothing.

 

Fair enough. I am a fan of OSX and Windows, myself. I'd prefer XP over OSX simply because I am more at home on a PC, but I love my MacBook Pro (but it belongs to my job).

 

My posts in this thread are to defend the truth and to give my actual review of Vista while quelling the propaganda distributed by fanboys of other camps.

 

:hihi: Come on, mate. "Defend the truth." Which truth? Yours?

 

Honestly, I think it is naive to think that the think tank at Microsoft is going to slip up anytime soon. Lets compare the two competitors?

 

First of all I don't think the think tank at Microsoft can help the mother company when things start slipping.

 

Second, it is definitely not given that Apple or Linux are the competitors that threaten Microsoft's dominance. I think we'll see unexpected players turn up. But it is not likely to happen in another few years.

 

What makes Macintosh appealing is that it is not the hegemon and is thus the underdog.

 

Of the two companies, which is most monopolistic? Microsoft or Apple? I don't think Apple would stand a chance at being #1. Their role is that of the "alternative". They had their chance back in the early eighties, but lost it when they decided to opt for their "Apple only" solution. That they have now left that stand as far as hardware is concerned is a good thing IMHO, but it is too late. We're seeing a trend in that a fairly high number of laptop buyers now opt for MacBooks, because they have come down in price and have a "coolness" factor which appeal to the same crowd that buys iPods.

 

Being a longtime user of both Windows (since it arrived) and MacOS (since 1995) I honestly can't say I like one over the other, but seen from a purely market perspective I do think that their markets will even out in the trendy segments, but Windows will remain popular with "most people". Linux gets the rest.

 

Macintosh computers are, in anyone's opinion, very stylish, but, not as customizable.

 

Like I wrote in my previous post above this is simply no longer true. Macs are no more bound to Apple hardware than any other PCs are bound to hardware from that manufacturer. Buying an iMac or eMac locks you in, but no more so than buying a laptop (PC or Mac) where your upgrade paths are limited due to form fits and customizations.

 

Linux's niche is in business as far as I can tell and unless some major changes take place interms of game developer support and user friendliness, then I do not see that as a changing trend anytime soon.

 

I don't know about this - most people I know who use Linux do use it for business *and* home stuff.

 

They sometimes play games on it but they usually also own at least one console. I think gaming will be less important in the future, and what people will need at home will be more related to the peripherals they own: Photo editors, web compatible applications, video editors, word processing etc - nothing here they can't use Linux for today, but it's a hassle to set up and thus Linux is not ready.

 

I think a new alternative will show up.

[pgrmdave]

That is a great story, I just read it. It made me laugh.

Well, now we know what you find funny :hihi:

 

I have problems with Vista. I think that the benefit of an operating system is in how it handles RAM, disk space, and processor time. Not in how pretty it is. Vista takes up a lot of disk space, and a lot of RAM. While I understand that it is designed for faster computers, I don't think that's an excuse to use more of the computer's power.

[Buffy]

Linux fans defend their operating system as if their identity is derived from it. There is an insane loyalty between a linux devotee and his linux....Likewise, Macintosh users seem to think that they are hip and cool and represent a rebellion within the corporate world.

Seriously, that's only the one's who don't make any money off of it. Folks that do this stuff for a living use the right tool for the right job.

Microsoft is more successful than Linux at this point in time because it:

To paraphrase you, it was there first and it has more money. Just like IBM was when they farmed the OS for their toy personal computer out to a couple of nerds in Seattle named Gates and Allen. Future standard? That's a fool's bet, but go ahead! I will agree that if anyone beats Microsoft, it will be Microsoft: that's what happened to IBM and DEC too!

It is the next installment of Microsoft Windows, in my opinion. It is an improvement off of XP in much the same way that XP was an improvement off of a fully updated version of Windows 98se. Microsoft did work hard to deliver a product that offered at least something new. It is an improvement off of XP, but not a major one. Who cares? XP was good, wasn’t it?

You're proving my point. XP was a gigantic step beyond Win98/ME. It was a whole new operating system. And the nice thing is that it was a relatively painless upgrade even for those of us who were upgrading ancient systems. Sure it required more hardware, but that's only a small part of the problem: we need our software to move too (and that's not just "a few hardware drivers," lots of software is failing on Vista).

 

Vista is nowhere near as big an upgrade, but its been made an order of magnitude more painful *not* for technical reasons, but for *marketing* reasons. We *know* Microsoft can do infinitely better than what they've done here, but with the unbundling of features to extract as much money as possible from users, and incompatibilities (many to try to kill off competitors, others just cost-cutting), they come across as *both* greedy and incompetent.

 

The point you completely avoid in your analysis of Microsoft as a leader is that there are downsides to that leadership position: the only way you keep it is by not antagonizing your customer base. When you're number one, the *only* way to lose is to shoot yourself in the foot, and they're doing it big time with Vista.

That is a great story, I just read it. It made me laugh.

We knew there had to be a way to make you laugh! Just put up a story where you can call someone a f***wit! Schwing!

The whole article builds up this character McCabe as a PC expert and then goes on to show him making a horrible mistake: He downloads vista and installs it from XP without burning the DVD to a disc, preferring to live on the edge and be a dangerous John Wayne and ultimately getting screwed and feeling extremely stupid when he happens to need the disc.

Nope. The download doesn't give you that option. I can also tell you've never bought a laptop: they don't come with install CDs either, the only choice for a laptop owner without a separate license is to wipe the disk and reinstall from scratch. Bye bye data!

 

This one was boneheaded stupidity egged on by greed to avoid providing a DVD at all costs because of both bottom line and pirate paranoia. Yarr!

 

To keep beating the drum: IBM.

Vista is meant to run on the PC of tomorrow but arrived a day or two early, that is fine with me because I have the PC of tomorrow.

Sure, but it perpetuates a problem that goes back throughout Microsoft's history: "Intel giveth, and Microsoft Taketh Away." Microsoft code sucks: I've seen it. The bureaucracy there makes it even worse. The 18 month reorg schedule ensures that no one retains any responsibility for the crap that gets written. You have to ask yourself: If you believe (as you've said) that functionally the OS's are identical, why are the Linux and Mach kernels so much smaller and faster?

 

Now the stuff *works* and as I say, I bet my business on it every day, but it could be sooooooo much better, and just this one issue would be the difference between 100 million units sold to the F500 this year rather than trickling up over the next 5-6 years. Honestly, this is stupid. They're being greedy but they're not even looking at the big picture! If I were a bean-counter, I'd tell the development team to make it small and fast and secure first! Make it look like a Mac later!

The problems arise when people running a 1ghz 512mb 32 bit PC install it over their copy of windows 98 and are confused as to why their system bogs down to a halt. These people generally are in the wrong for installing Vista on such a pile of **** and they shouldn’t be using the minimum system requirements as guidelines. Perhaps that is indeed Microsoft’s fault but you can’t claim that they are forcing the upgrade on anybody just by advertising it.

Where do I start with this one, Mr. Straw Man? Most Win98 machines are in the sub-Ghz range and are lucky to have 128Mb on them. No one is installing Vista on a Win98 machine.

 

Are you saying that people are "f***wits" to believe Microsoft's minimum hardware guidlines? Thanks for making my point! Why does Microsoft do this? (hint: has something to do with making money off of people who don't know better) If Vista is superior because its easy for soccermom to operate, why is Microsoft going out of its way--through programs like the download-a-nightmare above--to talk them into it. Why is it soccermom's fault? Is she supposed to be savvy enough to know that they're lying?

 

Isn't this the exact opposite of what you're arguing? That its good for naive end-users?

The last time I used a Macintosh computer, it was a Mac, running MacOS, using a Macintosh keyboard, with a Macintosh mouse.

My Mac sits behind a KVM switch, using the same mouse and keyboard and monitor as my 5 windows and one FreeBSD/Linux box. You should give it a try! Even someone like you might like it!

 

I considered it an irony that exists when the majority of Macintosh fanboys seem to be in their positions because of their contempt for Microsoft and corporations.

Contempt for Microsoft is really limited to Apple's marketing department. Most Mac folks I know just ignore Windows mainly because they can: there's so much compatibility these days that they can happily coexist without a problem. Its only the folks with an inferiority complex that *hate* other platforms...

I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I am a fan of nothing. My posts in this thread are to defend the truth and to give my actual review of Vista while quelling the propaganda distributed by fanboys of other camps.

You're right. You're definitely not a fanboy, whatever those are, but you are showing signs of either being in denial or being a techbot from Waggener Edstrom.

 

Can you think of any weaknesses at all in Vista? Mostly so far you've said it walks on water....

Macintosh computers are, in anyone's opinion, very stylish, but, not as customizable.

Actually OS X and XP completely flipped this equation on its head. I used to be able to hack all sorts of stuff into customizing Windows98/ME because it let me slip code in early in the startup process, even if it didn't do a very good job of letting me control load order, but XP is a total cypher. Conversely, OS9 between lack of memory management and no load control was much worse than any of them, although it did have a much more straight forward mechanism for creating and managing plug-ins. OS X is a customizers dream, because the unix kernel is right there, wide open to anyone smart enough to do anything with it.

 

This would not be clear to someone who did not know their awk from their grep, but its nothing short of amazing. For high-end systems integration work, Mac's are *amazing* and I know a bunch of people who do university research, NASA and DOD work who've switched over for every contract they can.

You could swap Microsoft's dominance of the market for Apple and the world of computing would not be entirely that different, it would just make Steve Jobs the richest man in the world instead of Bill Gates.

Isn't capitalism cool!

What it [Linux] is not, however, is a great alternative to Windows or Macintosh for the home-user who has limited computer knowledge. It is free, but it is not simpler or less clunky than Windows.

Oh my gosh! We have to run out and shoot it! It doesn't have a chance against Vista!

...imagine how they would cry about an operating system that doesn't ship with a contract that obligates the creators to supply patches and fixes? Most home-users cannot be bothered to read an error message, nevermind the issues that would arise when they are to pick a mount point or install a driver from a lower boot-level.

Have you ever had to support these folks? Isn't your face hurting from trying to stay straight while you claim that Windows is that much easier to support for users like your soccermom? That must hurt! No wonder you can't laugh!

Linux's niche is in business as far as I can tell and unless some major changes take place interms of game developer support and user friendliness, then I do not see that as a changing trend anytime soon.

Its interesting that you see the majority of the market being soccermoms and gamers. Keep thinking that. It will leave the real money for the rest of us in the business space....

 

Hacker soccermom,

Buffy

[Neuro]

Seriously, that's only the one's who don't make any money off of it. Folks that do this stuff for a living use the right tool for the right job.

Yes, I love the philosophy but virtually all of the points I’ve made on Linux still stand.

 

To paraphrase you, it was there first and it has more money. Just like IBM was when they farmed the OS for their toy personal computer out to a couple of nerds in Seattle named Gates and Allen. Future standard? That's a fool's bet, but go ahead! I will agree that if anyone beats Microsoft, it will be Microsoft: that's what happened to IBM and DEC too!

Agreed in some respects, I think you are too unrealistically optimistic about der untergang, though.

 

You're proving my point. XP was a gigantic step beyond Win98/ME. It was a whole new operating system. And the nice thing is that it was a relatively painless upgrade even for those of us who were upgrading ancient systems. Sure it required more hardware, but that's only a small part of the problem: we need our software to move too (and that's not just "a few hardware drivers," lots of software is failing on Vista).

.

I’ve ran into no software or hardware problems, maybe my device configuration was just lucky. This, perhaps, has given me an unrealistic appreciation for the OS because my transition from XP to Vista could not have been smoother.

 

Microsoft says that Vista’s advantages to XP are somewhat under the hood, though it offers the same functionality of running software and looking just a wee bit nicer. That is fine with me and it runs fine on my machine, as I said, I was left with not a single complaint upon installing it.

 

I have been following Vista beta versions since it was named Longhorn. I have dealt with a lot of versions that were simply broken and required hours of personal adventure to get your hardware working. In comparison to those past efforts, the final product is pretty swell.

 

The new file explorer and appearance of the OS are great. Visually, it is a great upgrade to XP. I have no driver problems, and I have no software problems, so, tell me, why should I join the hate Vista camp if I have absolutely no problems with the operating system and it runs as smooth as ice on my PC?

 

Vista is nowhere near as big an upgrade, but its been made an order of magnitude more painful *not* for technical reasons, but for *marketing* reasons. We *know* Microsoft can do infinitely better than what they've done here, but with the unbundling of features to extract as much money as possible from users, and incompatibilities (many to try to kill off competitors, others just cost-cutting), they come across as *both* greedy and incompetent

 

The point you completely avoid in your analysis of Microsoft as a leader is that there are downsides to that leadership position: the only way you keep it is by not antagonizing your customer base. When you're number one, the *only* way to lose is to shoot yourself in the foot, and they're doing it big time with Vista.

Honestly, you really cannot stand the fact that they are using their position to extract money, it seems. I have no problem with it because I am going to use what works regardless of how much it costs. If you don’t want to be involved in anyone’s money making scheme then I suggest you go live in the mountains because that is what is behind virtually everything.

 

Vista works and it comes with a price tag. I don’t care if they are intentionally making minor bits of the code available to security firms in order to promote their Windows Live OneCare subscriptions. I am using the software for the software, not the philosophy that fueled its creation.

We knew there had to be a way to make you laugh! Just put up a story where you can call someone a f***wit! Schwing!

It wasn’t to be taken literally.

Nope. The download doesn't give you that option. I can also tell you've never bought a laptop: they don't come with install CDs either, the only choice for a laptop owner without a separate license is to wipe the disk and reinstall from scratch. Bye bye data!

 

This one was boneheaded stupidity egged on by greed to avoid providing a DVD at all costs because of both bottom line and pirate paranoia. Yarr!

 

To keep beating the drum: IBM.

Hm, interesting. You are positive Microsoft didn’t have him download an ISO with instructions to burn it and install it? I would guess that they sent him an ISO, I’ve used Microsoft product betas in the past and they permit you to download an ISO directly from the Microsoft website with implicit instructions to burn it, then install.

 

I thought it a no-brainer that John Wayne (McCabe) had just said to hell with it and mounted his Vista ISO using Daemon tools only to **** himself for not burning it. If Microsoft isn’t offering ISO images of the disc and is in fact offering a setup executuable, then I will take the side that they are misleading people. If they are offering ISO images of the disc like they have been doing for all Microsoft products in the past two years, then I retain my position that McCabe is a ****wit.

 

I am almost positive that they are offering ISO images because I’ve gone through the process of this before with Microsoft. I may be wrong, they may have intentionally changed the service due to pirates, but, unless you know for a fact that they are offering random setup files then I am not convinced.

Sure, but it perpetuates a problem that goes back throughout Microsoft's history: "Intel giveth, and Microsoft Taketh Away." Microsoft code sucks: I've seen it. The bureaucracy there makes it even worse. The 18 month reorg schedule ensures that no one retains any responsibility for the crap that gets written. You have to ask yourself: If you believe (as you've said) that functionally the OS's are identical, why are the Linux and Mach kernels so much smaller and faster?

 

Now the stuff *works* and as I say, I bet my business on it every day, but it could be sooooooo much better, and just this one issue would be the difference between 100 million units sold to the F500 this year rather than trickling up over the next 5-6 years. Honestly, this is stupid. They're being greedy but they're not even looking at the big picture! If I were a bean-counter, I'd tell the development team to make it small and fast and secure first! Make it look like a Mac later!

Complaining that software takes advantage of new hardware as hardware and software co-evolve is a rather dull argument. Computers have been running at the same speeds since 1995 because those speeds are acceptable. With faster hardware the software gets bulkier and the speed remains the same. This doesn’t piss me off or annoy me, the software improves, the speed does not, and the speed is acceptable as is – no complaints.

 

Are you saying that people are "f***wits" to believe Microsoft's minimum hardware guidlines? Thanks for making my point! Why does Microsoft do this? (hint: has something to do with making money off of people who don't know better) If Vista is superior because its easy for soccermom to operate, why is Microsoft going out of its way--through programs like the download-a-nightmare above--to talk them into it. Why is it soccermom's fault? Is she supposed to be savvy enough to know that they're lying?

In my opinion, they do not do this. They are not advertising “Vista, the WOW starts NOW” on television like Macintosh is. They know that there are one of two ways to acquire Vista and that is through purchase with a new PC or through upgrading your PC you bought just a few months ago. Outside of these two groups, they do not really intend to advertise to anyone else and people draw themselves into the advertising crossfire and then go on to attempt to play games on their 1ghz 32bit PC using Vista.

 

Sure, they want money, they know when the product is sold that it is software which cannot be refunded, and so on. This isn’t a big deal. People buy their software, it works, and these people embarked on a software upgrade that their machine cannot handle. There are far worse things going on in the world of capitalism than a software company not telling people their machine is going to be a snail if they upgrade without the proper hardware.

 

Why not pitch a tent with Stallman and go protest against big oil and big tobacco instead? Fact of the matter is, Microsoft is great for home-users which Linux is most certainly not; just not the ones who are going to upgrade a bit too early against the understandings of hardware.

 

My Mac sits behind a KVM switch, using the same mouse and keyboard and monitor as my 5 windows and one FreeBSD/Linux box. You should give it a try! Even someone like you might like it!

From this point on in your reply you’ve insisted I am a Microsoft bandwagon member. It is interesting in my opinion because it reflects something that is a long time observable fact to me. There was a study once that concluded: People who are passionate about something are likely to find anyone of differing opinions to be of a complete bias.

 

I was using a distribution of Linux primarily for a good six months before returning to my native Windows XP in January so that I could install my upgrade edition of Vista on the thirtieth. During this time, anti-piracy advocates and Microsoft bandwagon members would practically harass me for using a free operating system. Now, I am back to using Microsoft, and alas, Linux and Macintosh fans are making their stabs at my neutral opinion because my opinion is not the same as theirs and thus makes me a fanboy.

 

Sorry folks, if I have no reason to dislike Vista and am not going to live in the mountains in fear of capitalism, I have no reason to bash it. The fact is, my position is that of a moderate, and you see it as that of a radical.

 

I haven’t tooled around with a Macintosh computer in some time but I will be damned if I am ever going to buy a Microsoft to run Microsoft. I will play with MacOSX when it is logical to do so on a PC built from the ground up and not a PC built in house at Macintosh inc.

 

Contempt for Microsoft is really limited to Apple's marketing department. Most Mac folks I know just ignore Windows mainly because they can: there's so much compatibility these days that they can happily coexist without a problem. Its only the folks with an inferiority complex that *hate* other platforms...

If you think I hate Linux, you are in the wrong. If you think I hate MacOS, you are also in the wrong. I am not buying hardware from a software company, and I use Linux quite a bit. Using Linux and being fluent in it doesn’t change the fact that Linux cannot play games, now does it? Having a personal affection for the philosophy behind Stallman and Torvald does not make the operating system any more marketable, no? Linux is great, like I said. It just isn’t “it”.

 

You're right. You're definitely not a fanboy, whatever those are, but you are showing signs of either being in denial or being a techbot from Waggener Edstrom.

 

Can you think of any weaknesses at all in Vista? Mostly so far you've said it walks on water....

It is everything it was said to be from Microsoft. I’ve experienced no problems with it.

 

Am I supposed to invent reasons to hate it?

Am I supposed to reference miscellaneous software and game incompatibilities that I make up?

Am I supposed to cry about drivers when I had _NO_ problems?

Am I supposed to cry about it using a lot of ram when I know that they’ve changed how Vista uses ram in comparison to XP, for the better?

Am I supposed to cry that it doesn’t offer a speed bonus over XP when this can be said of any software that has been a sequential upgrade to a predecessor?

 

If I have to make up reasons to hate an operating system that runs as smooth as ice and installed as easy as pie on my machine to be accepted on this forum, well, I think I’ll pass. The one weakness I will list that I’ve mentioned multiple times now is that Vista is simply not meant for your mother’s desktop. It is meant for a new PC, or an extremely fast and recently built PC. It is not meant for anything dated, at all at all. That is about all I can say without making up problems.

 

Actually OS X and XP completely flipped this equation on its head. I used to be able to hack all sorts of stuff into customizing Windows98/ME because it let me slip code in early in the startup process, even if it didn't do a very good job of letting me control load order, but XP is a total cypher. Conversely, OS9 between lack of memory management and no load control was much worse than any of them, although it did have a much more straight forward mechanism for creating and managing plug-ins. OS X is a customizers dream, because the unix kernel is right there, wide open to anyone smart enough to do anything with it.

 

This would not be clear to someone who did not know their awk from their grep, but its nothing short of amazing. For high-end systems integration work, Mac's are *amazing* and I know a bunch of people who do university research, NASA and DOD work who've switched over for every contract they can.

You could tell me that modern Macs can palm read and tell you the news of tomorrow today and I wouldn’t know much of a difference. I’ven’t used a Mac in years, and until I can use MacOS on hardware not assembled by Macintosh I am not going to bother. Lastly, I do not care to go through any hassle of porting their OS onto a PC unless it is reasonable to do so.

Isn't capitalism cool!

No, capitalism is ****, but, to favor one monopoly over another is idiocy. They are both the same poison. A rule of thumb is that the underdog is always going to be the best bang for the buck. Macs may be fun now, but if Microsoft had a reason to innovate and sell cheaply, they would.

 

Oh my gosh! We have to run out and shoot it! It doesn't have a chance against Vista!

Oh noes, I’ve said a fact of life that Linux does not run games and is thus not suitable for home users! Everything I said of Linux was accurate. It is good for businesses, not so much home users.

Have you ever had to support these folks? Isn't your face hurting from trying to stay straight while you claim that Windows is that much easier to support for users like your soccermom? That must hurt! No wonder you can't laugh!

 

Its interesting that you see the majority of the market being soccermoms and gamers. Keep thinking that. It will leave the real money for the rest of us in the business space....

What the hell are you talking about?

[C1ay]

Forced Software Upgrades Can Add Up for Vista Users

 

Rather than releasing free patches to update existing versions, leading vendors such as Adobe Systems, Symantec, and Intuit are choosing to add Vista compatibility only to new releases or still-in-development future products. Most of these new versions will add significant features along with Vista compatibility. And, vendors will argue, if Vista compatibility is a new feature, what's unfair about packaging a new feature only in new versions of their software, rather than going back and patching aging versions nearing the end of their product life cycle?

 

More....

 

A client of mine that uses Quickbooks for his small business called me because a power surge in the neighborhood took out his motherboard so he went and bought a new PC and he wanted me to salvage his data from his old one. I told him to run it over here and I'd take a look.

 

I put his old hard drive in the new machine as a slave and started to install software. His Quickbooks wouldn't run after it was installed. His Palm wouldn't work. His printers wouldn't work. By the time he priced new software and hardware to work with the copy of Vista that came on his new $700 PC he found that he was looking at another $1500 minimum to get the rest of his functionality back so we rolled his new PC back to XP. Multiply this by the number of small businesses across America and you'll see why Vista is a bad deal.

[Neuro]

I suppose that is a viable problem with the operating system, Clay. However, I do not have such an issue. All of my software works, thus, I am not going to invent problems that I didn't have for the sake of hating an operating system that for all intents and purposes, runs fine.

[pgrmdave]

We aren't asking you to invent problems with vista, merely to recognize that other people have had many problems, so these problems exist. I don't hate Windows, I rather like XP, but I don't think that I'm going to go to vista. Simply costs too much for too little - I'll start learning linux and go to that. I don't think that linux is better than windows in every way, I simply think that it's better for the cost.

[Neuro]

My Vista Home Premium 64 was both free and legal.

[pgrmdave]

Lucky you. That doesn't mean anything for me though.

[Buffy]

I’ve ran into no software or hardware problems, maybe my device configuration was just lucky. This, perhaps, has given me an unrealistic appreciation for the OS because my transition from XP to Vista could not have been smoother.That is fine with me and it runs fine on my machine, as I said, I was left with not a single complaint upon installing it....so, tell me, why should I join the hate Vista camp if I have absolutely no problems with the operating system and it runs as smooth as ice on my PC?

Just be aware, that if you ever try to get a programming job--even at Microsoft--if you can't pick out a single problem in a program, its taken as extremely strong evidence that you don't have much experience with it.

 

Honestly, you really cannot stand the fact that they are using their position to extract money, it seems.

Neither I nor my F500 clients minds paying money. What we mind is licensing and prices *in combination with* requiring lots of extra labor for dealing with incompatibilities that should have been dealt with up front, that force *tripling* of IT budgets. All of us are making money off of software, but this is extortion and torture, and worse, its *unnecessary*. This is exactly why Corporate America is buying into Linux in droves for servers: the increased cost of supporting Linux is more than balanced by the increased license fees on Vista. This isn't irrational hate: this is a bottom-line business decision.

 

And as a Microsoft shareholder, I'm really mad at them for being so boneheaded stupid about this. Its not even benefiting *this* quarter's profits because Vista upgrade activity is going to be way off projections! And long term, they're driving away customers, yes, just like IBM did with the cavalier roll-out of the S/390, which nearly led to that company's death (thank goodness for Lew Gerstner!)...

 

It is funny how you try to push everyone--including folks who actually promote it like me--into a "Microsoft Hater" bucket if we say anything negative about it! Its not about hating Microsoft, its about hating being tortured by them! And worse, if you're an investor, driving the company into the ground through business incompetence. Its possible to go along like this for a long time if you have a virtual monopoly, but it does not last forever.

 

So really, with your exclusively rosy view of Vista, its hard to tell you from a Waggener Edstrom bot....

 

Hm, interesting. You are positive Microsoft didn’t have him download an ISO with instructions to burn it and install it? I would guess that they sent him an ISO, I’ve used Microsoft product betas in the past and they permit you to download an ISO directly from the Microsoft website with implicit instructions to burn it, then install.

Uh, this is a consumer. Remember? The people who don't know an ISO from a CPU? The ones Microsoft is making it so easy for? No, they don't give you that option and its on purpose, and its been this way for some time.

 

If there is a place where the general public can download ISOs of Microsoft products from Microsoft, we'd be forever grateful for you to post it! :)

Complaining that software takes advantage of new hardware as hardware and software co-evolve is a rather dull argument. Computers have been running at the same speeds since 1995 because those speeds are acceptable. With faster hardware the software gets bulkier and the speed remains the same.

Huh? What are you talking about? In 1995 it took a half an hour to compile a modestly complex application. On a duo also running SQLServer its now a few seconds.

 

"Bulkiness" is quite acceptable if you get something useful. Thinking that transparent windows doubling memory requirements is acceptable borders on the bizarre.

 

Sorry, I want something for it. I need those cycles, and if the new OS is going to give me 5% more functionality but double my hardware requirements, there's something wrong there!

 

There's nothing wrong with your liking Vista. I think its really cool that it works so well for you. Of course there are many more and varied requirements out there than gamers who buy Alienware, and Microsoft's poor policies and decisions affect a lot of people negatively. To dismiss this issue is more than a little bit disingenuous. And that's really not because the people "hate Microsoft because its beautiful" or because they are all "f***wits."

 

Be sure to say hi to Pam for me!

 

Over 99% of everything is not under that rock, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Tormod]

They are not advertising “Vista, the WOW starts NOW” on television like Macintosh is.

 

Know what, over here (in Norway) the Vista craze is insane. All the online stores want you to buy Vista ... NOW ...

 

And frankly, Microsoft do advertise it everywhere else.

 

Just to be on the safe side of the hate-bucket: I'm going to go for Vista eventually. I don't belong to the "get it free" category and right now I can't afford it, and it won't work anyway because there are no drivers for my "Pro" audio card (not MS fault) but installing Vista would render my PC unusable for me.

 

But like you said, XP works like a charm and it is extremely well-behaved on my Athlon X2 / 2GB RAM PC.

[Neuro]

buffy

I am not here to defend Microsoft’s every action or decision. I have been defending Windows Vista as a next generation consumer’s operating system from the start and have not been advocating for the world of business to convert to an arbitrarily nice looking resource hogging OS when things like Linux and XP suit them better to boot.

 

Just be aware, that if you ever try to get a programming job--even at Microsoft--if you can't pick out a single problem in a program, its taken as extremely strong evidence that you don't have much experience with it.

I am not a programmer and have never studied programming. The most advanced endeavor I’ve been involved with has been learning to use Linux to the point where it is extremely comfortable without having ever taken a class or any of the like. I was successful in that task. I had downloaded tons of E-books and was busy tinkering with it for a year while in love with what a great humanitarian piece of software had to offer. Linux truly is great, I loved it. However, home users without free time and an interest in things a bit more complicated than flashy GUIs and next buttons aren’t going to share the same respect.

 

When I was back on XP I was using the Windows ports of Gimp, OpenOffice, and Gaim, all the while missing my Amorak. This faded in about a week when I installed Vista and Office 2007 and had the new Microsoft toys to play with. Unfortunately for Linux, Vista did not require I read any e-books and the transition was easier than booting off of a live disc.

 

Vista is a resource hog in comparison to XP, but it is also a crowd pleaser packed with entertainment features geared towards the home user. I don’t see it as much of a business upgrade either and I suppose that is your indirect point. In all honesty, I like the gadgets that Vista comes with as well as the ones that they allow you to download from Microsoft.com. Right now, I have multiple gadgets set up, all of which I use quite frequently, especially my BBC-Radio Tuner which alone could have sold me on this OS; but then again, I get my Microsoft software free of charge anyways.

Neither I nor my F500 clients minds paying money. What we mind is licensing and prices *in combination with* requiring lots of extra labor for dealing with incompatibilities that should have been dealt with up front, that force *tripling* of IT budgets. All of us are making money off of software, but this is extortion and torture, and worse, its *unnecessary*. This is exactly why Corporate America is buying into Linux in droves for servers: the increased cost of supporting Linux is more than balanced by the increased license fees on Vista. This isn't irrational hate: this is a bottom-line business decision.

 

And as a Microsoft shareholder, I'm really mad at them for being so boneheaded stupid about this. Its not even benefiting *this* quarter's profits because Vista upgrade activity is going to be way off projections! And long term, they're driving away customers, yes, just like IBM did with the cavalier roll-out of the S/390, which nearly led to that company's death (thank goodness for Lew Gerstner!)...

I agree with the idea that Vista is not meant for businesses, despite the Vista business edition. It is clearly a consumer OS in my opinion.

 

I do not think Vista is as big a problem for the world as everyone would like. The global upgrade is going to be slow and generally the bulk of upgrades will come from PCs that ship with Vista stock until the amount of new PCs begins to exceed the amount of old PCs. If Businesses do not adopt a consumer OS, that doesn’t make much of a difference to me, businesses aren’t there to listen to the radio and play with gadgets and transparency.

 

It is funny how you try to push everyone--including folks who actually promote it like me--into a "Microsoft Hater" bucket if we say anything negative about it! Its not about hating Microsoft, its about hating being tortured by them! And worse, if you're an investor, driving the company into the ground through business incompetence. Its possible to go along like this for a long time if you have a virtual monopoly, but it does not last forever.

 

So really, with your exclusively rosy view of Vista, its hard to tell you from a Waggener Edstrom bot....

You repeatedly question why I perceive you as a Microsoft hater but then you add that one liner at the bottom. The saying goes, if you perceive a moderate as a radical, then you are a radical. I am a moderate, and you perceive me as a radical, what does that make you?

 

That is the idea really. I believe I represent that average user’s thoughts on the subject and am being subject to ridicule in every way possible because I am not condemning a product that works and I am not advocating for a product that is only capable of doing half of the functions I’d need or another product that requires a science degree to operate.

 

Uh, this is a consumer. Remember? The people who don't know an ISO from a CPU? The ones Microsoft is making it so easy for? No, they don't give you that option and its on purpose, and its been this way for some time.

 

If there is a place where the general public can download ISOs of Microsoft products from Microsoft, we'd be forever grateful for you to post it!

From my understanding of it, the Microsoft download to purchase program in fact downloads an ISO to your computer. If it does not do such, please provide the text; I am saying such based on my dealings with Microsoft in the past where they have provided me with ISOs – yes, ISOs, disc images, for their own products, via their own website.

 

On top of this, I’ve done some googling, and virtually every resource I come across states that you can attain the Vista ISO’s via the Microsoft website, so, there goes that theory, huh?

 

"Bulkiness" is quite acceptable if you get something useful. Thinking that transparent windows doubling memory requirements is acceptable borders on the bizarre.

 

Sorry, I want something for it. I need those cycles, and if the new OS is going to give me 5% more functionality but double my hardware requirements, there's something wrong there!

 

There's nothing wrong with your liking Vista. I think its really cool that it works so well for you. Of course there are many more and varied requirements out there than gamers who buy Alienware, and Microsoft's poor policies and decisions affect a lot of people negatively. To dismiss this issue is more than a little bit disingenuous. And that's really not because the people "hate Microsoft because its beautiful" or because they are all "f***wits."

I enjoy the new operating system and it is a welcomed upgrade from XP. Most of its features can be made half-available in XP, but these features are simply better executed in Vista and are actually useful. I wouldn’t go back to XP if you paid me to at this point. Lastly, I like the gadgets –particularly the built in BBC radio tuner.

 

Here is a screenshot of my desktop and you will see the applications I generally use on a day to day basis. Using them in Vista is simply better than using them in XP. My computer has a lot of horsepower that would otherwise just sit inside the box and collect dust, at least with Vista I get to enjoy the fruits of having a powerful computer and at the same time utilize this power.

 

Here is the Alt+Tab interface for Vista, relatively unchanged from XP but still nicer looking overall:

 

 

Lastly, here is a screenshot of the new Flip3D interface --which runs extremely smooth and is a nice animated feature that I like. It is initiated in the same way as Alt+Tab but just substitute the Alt for the Windows key. [Win]+[Tab].

 

[pgrmdave]

I believe I represent that average user’s thoughts on the subject and am being subject to ridicule in every way possible because I am not condemning a product that works and I am not advocating for a product that is only capable of doing half of the functions I’d need or another product that requires a science degree to operate.

 

I am sorry if you feel ridiculed - I don't think there have been any earnest attacks on your character, merely friendly jibes. I think that the problem stems from Buffy and the others feeling like you are unwilling to accept that other people have had major problems with vista, even though you haven't.

[alexander]

Sorry to reign on anyone's parade here, and average users that like Vista's newly stolen interface and features have not used a mac or linux to know what Vista has been copied from and how much it stinks in comparison to a real OS.

 

Ok, so starting with what has been stolen from OS X.

Microsoft is well known to steal ideas from other operating systems, particularly ones made by the Apple Corp. From the beginning Windows was attemptably copied from a Mac. If you take a look at the pictures of Bill gates in their developement studio after windows 3.1, the ones where billy is all saused up and trying to look sexy on top of his table with a floppy, you can totally see a PC and right next to it, one of the second generation of Mac cubes.

 

Even back then, they were copying Mac OS interface, because it was user intuitive and had windows and stuff that DOS (another worthless OS) did not. Come around windows 95 and the first major overhaul of windows, and more and more it looks like Mac OS 8! By windows 2000 microsoft tries to copy mac os 9's interface, more curves more similar feel, which they only sined up for the XP interface.

 

And now the new Windows beast, beast because it takes up 15 million lines of code. And new interface that reminds you more and more of OS X. Infact if you have read another post i have made a while ago about the development of the shutdown menu and followed that to the original blog, you will read a line that says 'we were trying to copy the OS X UI experience' or something very similar to that. So what is taken from mac this time, aside from the stuff that was stolen before?

Well, File manager triangle that rotates unon collapsing of a folder, picture manager, the calendar looks so similar to iCal its not even funny, search as you type feature, and last, but not least widgets (called gadgets in vista).

 

So why is vista by far not the best GUI around?

It still creates a not very intuitive working environment, not as much as a Mac does. It also takes up loads of resources, and the slogan for microsoft should be, "Buy this new os we have made and get a discount on the machine that you are going to have to buy to run it". You need 3d acceleration to run solitare, you need a gig of ram to run the aero blue or whatever the newer shiny interface is called. That brings another thought, the window manager on mac is called aqua, the one in windows is called aero... M$ could not even come up with a creative name!

 

So is it the most shiny user interface? Um NO! That role falls to Linux, and for about a few years, or ever since the release of XGL and Compiz, there have been better and sinier interfaces for Linux then for any other OS. Now, with AIGLX and Beryl, even more so then ever, and nobody is stopping the development either. Anyone say dynamic true transparency, windows that wabble when you move them, multiple desktops, 360 degree backdrop to the cube, transparent cube, windows that zoom out, windows that burn up or down when you close them or fold/assemble together from 3d cubes when you create them, full feedback from windows when using quick switch and much much more...

here is a vid of some features of beryl in action: YouTube - Another Beryl 0.1.3 Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD6BiKnLzck

[Neuro]

Sorry to reign on anyone's parade here, and average users that like Vista's newly stolen interface and features have not used a mac or linux to know what Vista has been copied from and how much it stinks in comparison to a real OS.

This forum critiques my suggestions that the majority of my opposition have their tents in either the Linux or Macintosh bandwagon camp when the replies I get are this insane? It boggles my mind.

 

To start…

Ok, so starting with what has been stolen from OS X.

Microsoft is well known to steal ideas from other operating systems, particularly ones made by the Apple Corp. From the beginning Windows was attemptably copied from a Mac. If you take a look at the pictures of Bill gates in their developement studio after windows 3.1, the ones where billy is all saused up and trying to look sexy on top of his table with a floppy, you can totally see a PC and right next to it, one of the second generation of Mac cubes.

 

Even back then, they were copying Mac OS interface, because it was user intuitive and had windows and stuff that DOS (another worthless OS) did not. Come around windows 95 and the first major overhaul of windows, and more and more it looks like Mac OS 8! By windows 2000 microsoft tries to copy mac os 9's interface, more curves more similar feel, which they only sined up for the XP interface.

 

And now the new Windows beast, beast because it takes up 15 million lines of code. And new interface that reminds you more and more of OS X. Infact if you have read another post i have made a while ago about the development of the shutdown menu and followed that to the original blog, you will read a line that says 'we were trying to copy the OS X UI experience' or something very similar to that. So what is taken from mac this time, aside from the stuff that was stolen before?

Well, File manager triangle that rotates unon collapsing of a folder, picture manager, the calendar looks so similar to iCal its not even funny, search as you type feature, and last, but not least widgets (called gadgets in vista)..

You seem to think that because Macintosh has been glossy from the beginning, if Microsoft takes baby-steps over the years in the direction of improving the appearance of Windows, then, regardless of how unique the approach, it is a blatant rip off of Macintosh. To me, such an opinion can only be dubbed insane fanboyism.

 

All of the improvements Microsoft has made, both graphically and functionally, could be suggested by any independent individual who has never used a Mac. Have you looked at a computer running Windows 98 recently? The colour grey gets boring fast and with computers being as powerful as they are now, who would not round a few of the edges, filter the fonts, and add some colour? If such logical changes are, in your opinion, cloning Macintosh's innovative approach to computing, then your position is just ridiculous and I think you really should reconsider.

 

Linux, RiscOS, and various operating systems throughout time have had many of the features in both Windows and Macintosh. In truth, the fact that similar features have co-existed is not so much evidence of ripping each other off, as it is a matter of just naturally evolving with the technology available and coming to similar conclusions independently.

 

In your opinion, the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 2000 was an advancement in the direction of cloning Macintosh. More so, Microsoft copied Macintosh further with XP when Microsoft did away with the mono-colour-scheme of their Windows Classic environments. You do not see these opinions of yours to be in the least bit ill-advised?

 

According to you, Macintosh invented colour, search functions, calendars, chess, shiny finishes, command lines, and just about everything known to man. They even invented turning on and off a PC!

 

If this is the case, Macintosh should sue Google for being a search engine, Linux for being glossy and colourful, the Incan Empire for having a calendar thousands of years before them, cavemen for playing chess, and last but not least they should clearly sue the original inventors of Gadgets for stealing Macintosh’s invention from the future and inventing it years earlier. Oh, yes, I almost forgot -- the egyptions built pyramids a few thousand years ago and they need to be sued too, Macintosh invented the triangle.

 

Apologies for not taking your arguments too seriously but it is hard to do such when they are utterly insane.