OSNews

Which printers don't work with OS X? StyleWriters?

My Canon LASER SHOT LBP-1120 doesn't work on XP64 or MacOSX. Just 32-bit XP.

95 was a big change (from the GUI That Was Less Than A CLI, Win 3.1) and times were good; it sold. Win2k also did well because times were good and what it (largely) replaced, Win98/Me, was so horrifically bad.

XP wasn't as much of a change: compared to 2K it's slow, expensive, no more stable or usable, and most of its new UI features are dubious improvements. It hasn't exactly taken over the world, and it's been shipping on most new computers for years.

Vista looks like more (or less) of the same. At the rate it's going, by the time it ships it will literally be a re-themed XP with a few new builtins. If new machine shipments slow down, Vista may turn into a very large embarrassment. Not only will Apple have their Intel hype going, but they'll have a cheaper OS that's (once again) several years ahead of Windows, after a close call in the 2K days.

"It hasn't exactly taken over the world"

XP is installed on 74% of computers according to thecounter.com, which gets browser and OS info from 60 million computers a month from a wide variety of web sites. If it hasn't "taken over the world" what has pray tell?

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/September/os.php

What is more interesting is the slow adoption of XP showed in the statistics on thecounter. According to their measurements XP didn't start to take off until 2004, which is possibly when people started to buy new computers (upgrading from the ones they bought 3-6 years earlier).
Considering that the lifetime of their new computers is going to be a lot longer (they are fast enough for most people), the adoption of Vista is going to wait even longer.
Now this is just my speculations. But I don't see people upgrading their computers a lot these days. Even my hardcore gamer friends buy new hardware less often.

Good thing for MS that they have the money to survive a few bad years. Because I think that it will take a long time before Vista has any significant userbase. Perhaps not until around 2010-2012.

So yeah, they really seem to be out of sync. But as I said, they have the money to cover that.

Edited 2005-11-02 00:01

Thecounter.com's 2003 stats didn't count XP apparently, check out pegasus's instead, which includes google's stats - http://www.pegasus3d.com/osshare-combined.gif - XP growth is steady and rapid since its introduction, reducing your whole argument to rubble. It's impossible to say so early and anybody can say anything since it won't be remembered, but I'm certain vista will be the #1 OS within 2 years just like XP was. There's at least 2 things in Vista that everyone wants, graphics and security, that XP didn't have, yet XP took off.

"graphics and security, that XP didn't have, yet XP took off."

Didn't mean to imply XP had NO security, just that it wasn't one of its selling points, to spair us a lame quip.

Man, if you're not a MS shill, stop acting like one! Are you that afraid of saying something bad against Windows that you must post corrections to your posts when you do?

In any case, XP certainly didn't have security when it came out. How long does it take for a Vanilla XP install to get hacked if you connect it to the net? Hint: it less than the time it takes for you to download the necessary security packages from the net...

XP SP2 solved many security issues, but not all. It is still a less secure OS than Linux or Mac OSX by default. Recently, there's been a rootkit being spread through an IM client!

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,...

That's not to mention that you can apparently install rootkits on a Windows XP PC simply by entering a Sony copy-protected CD...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1880572,00.asp

The question is, with Microsoft's dismal security record, how can you be so confident that the next version will be secure?

I'd also point out that "thecounter" bases it's stats on two faulty pieces of data: nonunique hits and agent strings.

Agent strings for non-IE browsers spend an awful lot of time set to WinXP w/IE because many sites won't permit you in if you don't (my Konqueror browser is set to that for USPS and many other government websites that work fine with Konqueror but balk at the Agent string).

Also, they make no attempt to resolve how many unique PCs are counted. Further, they focus predominantly on sites that cater to Windows users or that generate annoying error messages if the Agent string isn't set to something Windows / IE based.

Nearly all hits to MSN search are Windows users with IE, for example, if for no other reason than that's where IE brings you by default if you type something it doesn't grok in the location field.

"most Win 2000 boxes are vast amounts that are on internal LANs not having a browser what so ever installed, much less connected to the internet."

Where did you get that from, your ass? Personal anecdotes don't count for shit, and I doubt you have 24k anything except maybe stuffed penguins in your parent's basement.

Troll rating: 1/10

Thank you. Come again!

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe that msft have about 95% of the desktop. But, W2K only has 11% ? I am very skeptical about that.

W2K is not used much by consumers, but it is still very popular with businesses.

How does thecounter count?

How does thecounter count?

It counts hits on their counters. They provide a counter service for your website at a modest fee. I guess people who use the service will be small businesses and home users with money to waste who don't know how to set up a free counter.

There will be an obvious selection bias in the statistics produced as the sample set will not necessarily be representative of the web as a whole.

In October they reported about 80 million hits, my guess this is << 1% of Noth American web traffic, so in that sense it is quite a small sample.

Edited 2005-11-02 17:58

In other words, its biased towards semi-technical home users.

"At the rate it's going, by the time it ships it will literally be a re-themed XP with a few new builtins."

That's the most ignorant statement I have read all week. The amount of changes in Vista has been posted many times and is not hard to find. Go familiarize yourself with it and then come back and try to say that again with a straight face.

We'll see what Vista ends up being in reality, but that statement did manage to shake me up a bit.

Of course it's possible that Vista will end up as a rethemed XP with extra builtins... I just wonder how large extra builtins have to be before they count for more than a retheming of XP...

Anyway, Vista does not contain anything of value for me, so I'll stick with Win2003 Server and LinuxFromScratch.

I'll probably switch to a newer Win-OS (or Win-compatible OS) somewhere around 2008/09.

While it's possible they end up dropping stuff, at this point it's very unlikely, as most of the stuff is far enough along.

But you and I both know they are rewriting some core parts (driver models, sound architecture, network architecture, graphics engine, etc) in addition to adding in new stuff. I don't know if people get off on spreading misinformation, or they just believe what they read without looking into it for themselves.

Welcome to the internet, the Mininformation Super Highway.

Ok, so the statistics are wrong and that comment about businesses liking things because they were drab wasn't correct. But why was this comment moderated down?

When something is inaccurate, post a correction. Only when someone is being abusive or is trolling should comments be moderated down.

Maybe I missed something but I just don't see how this comment deserves a -3 rating, would someone care to enlighten me?

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

try win xp x64

I agree that adoption will be slow for Vista. PC sales growth is declining, and people have gotten used to getting reasonable performance on sub $500 (US) PCs. The Aeor GUI is one of the few killer features that has been left in Vista (since WinFS is gone, and I hardly think DRM is good), and to make use of this technology MS is calling for a video card with more than 256MB RAM, 2GB of DDR3 memory and a S-ATA 2 hard drive according to this article:

http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6

MS tries to cover up the outrageous cost of this kind of hardware with marketng spiel about declining hardware prices. If trends stay the same and MS can stick to their current release date, it will probably cost at least $1,000 (US) to get a Dell that meets the necessary requirements.

Either businesses and home users will run Windows 2000 and XP longer, or they'll start looking at more affordable alternatives such as GNU/Linux and Mac (yes, this will make the Mac look more affordable).

I'ld also like to comment on MS's belief that Office 12 will be a huge money maker. If you look at this screenshot:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/Figure1.htm

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to. Plus I am not aware of any must have features in the new MS Office that is going to entice users to upgrade. Even on the idea of improving the UI for users MS Office 12 is a bad idea. The central focus on a document is the document itself whereas MS has taken away from the document's screen space to add ever more bloated toolbars (btw, the tabs metaphor is not the best idea for every app).

They talked about how Vista will make extensive use of SATA2 technologies -- you took that as "It will need a 200 GB SATA2 drive". When is the last time you've seen an OS calling out for a specific drive interface requirement? Get a clue.

Yes, Vista does not need a SATA2 drive, but it is what they (Microsoft) are recommending (so you can take advantage of the Native command queuing). But, I will acquiesce to your statement being correct

And 256 MB video cards? LOL Minimum spec for Aero will be any fully-compliant 64 MB DirectX 9 video card. That's not to say you won't be able to run it at all on lower specs -- just without the glitz.

Considering the number of technologies that have been cut from Vista, glitz seems like one of the few things it has to offer. Considering that most people will not be able to just upgrade to Vista, but will need to purchase a new PC, 64 bit machines have an obvious enticement as that is the market I suspect MS Windows will push. On 32 bit machines MS claims the minimum requirements to include the glitz is a 64 MB Graphics card and 512 of DDR RAM, and on 64 bit machines they want you to atleast double the capacity of each. Couple that with the fact that in the past Microsoft's minimum requirements have always been insufficient (look at XP). You really need to double their requirements for a usable environment. But maybe MS is giving us useable numbers this time (I'm not holding my breath).

You actually believe that bullshit about doubling your specs for 64-bit? Come on, you can't be serious.

You certainly do NOT need to double everything just because you're doing 64-bit instead. That's flat out bullshit.

Actually... You shouldn't be able to run it with less than the needed RAM. There simply is a needed amount of RAM to store the frame buffer for every window you have open in VRAM.
A 128MB card would be a minimum in my mind, unless you aren't big on this whole multi-tasking thing...

Otherwise it's going to have to do widget rednering cpu side and waste system RAM and AGP time transferring the buffers for a final composite.

The glitz is only dependant on the GPU, and I don't think there's a GPU on the market that couldn't handle the nastiest glitz you throw at it (with the restriction of what would cause physical pain trying to understand).

A post from "Linux is Poo" that made some sense and was not denegrating anyone ?
surely this cannot be true ?
did someone steal his username ?

anyway - here is a +1 for you

I know, I was surprised as well...but then he replied to your post with more insults towards those he disagree with. I guess you can't change someone's true nature.

To Lippy: claiming that only 50% of your posts are inflammatory is being too modest. I've been reading your posts for a while and I'd say the figure is closer to 90%, perhaps even as high as 95%. Please grow up.

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to.

I personally think it's one of MS best moves recently. It's a bold move but a good one. The interface of Office has been pretty much the same from the start, they have just been adding features and features, leaving us with a crowded GUI that is confusing and ineffective to work with.
While I haven't used Office 12 I can't say if the new GUI is actually more efficient, but I applaud the effort to clean up the big mess it is today.
Businesses may very well see it as a long term investment to upgrade if the new GUI makes people more productive.

The OOo GUI is IMO just as messy. If MS are successful I sure hope that OOo choose to copy them. Otherwise, I hope they take a look at products such as Gobe Productive and KOffice which are both tons better in the usability department.

It looked to me like Office 12 was going to a more Frontpage-esque style. Where you seperate what you type from how you format it (sort of), and you give power users more fine tuned formatting control.

I like the idea. But, frankly, I've never seen Word processors as a big area for innovation anyway. It's all about making some poor secretary's job easier ... yet more annoying.

Give the poor person something simple, I mean geez a typewriter did the job a hundred years ago. We haven't changed *that* much in how our pages have to look before we can read them .

"While I haven't used Office 12 I can't say if the new GUI is actually more efficient, but I applaud the effort to clean up the big mess it is today. "

Personally I don't find the GUI of MS office to be any worse today than that screenshot, Office 12 sure looks interesting but my initial impression from the screenshots is that it's going to be frustrating to use until people get used to where things are in this new layout.

I don't mind the new look so much, but I hope if OO.o follows in that direction it's easy to switch it back to the way the UI looks now. IIRC Corel's Wordperfect Office can emulate the look of different office suites, including old dos ones, hopefully they will keep that up as it's a brilliant feature in my opinion.

I know some people think Wordperfect office is dead, but if they get their Linux version working and it's as good as the Windows version then I'd be more than happy to buy a copy. WP Office was the first office suite I had, it's my favorite, and the 2000 version still has some features that I haven't been able to turn up in MS Office 2003 after hours of looking.

The article also says this:

"If you move from 32 to 64 bit, you basically need to at least double your memory. 2 gigs in 64 bit is the equivalent of a gig of RAM on a 32bit machine. That's because you're dealing with chunks that are twice the size� if you try to make do with what you've got you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue."

So, why exactly should we believe what it says? It's simply bad information.

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

win xp x64 has that reputation

When vista arrives I will keep my linux and XP boxes...

And then join the horde that will flock to Mac(intel)

>When vista arrives I will keep my linux and XP
>boxes...

>And then join the horde that will flock to Mac(intel)

Can't wait to have to buy all new software again!

Instead of buying macs they are out buying IPODS. Macs are the new BETA machines. (They arn't free so screw em!)

Edited 2005-11-02 10:16

Didn't you hear, people use their computers for the OS not the apps .

Even though you jest, I think its true for a lot of folks. The desire for choice is so strong that many will accept limitations of applications just for the sake of the OS.

Look at how many people got new computers to run Half-Life2 or Doom3.

Why should businesses upgrade?

My company has a mix of PII with 32mb of ram running win95/98. I can only barely get firefox to load on one of them. Of course for your Point of Sale systems it is over kill and we don't even need that much. We should we spend 20,000 on new hardware and software when your existing stuff has run fine for 8 years. hell the Main file server is a Pentium 150 with 48 mb of ram, with 5 clients connecting to it for all their data. simultaneously, and any one client can print to any of three different printers at any one time.

now tell me why I need to go buy Vista or XP, and machines to run them? My network can use a 286 as a client. Heck I could get ambitious and port the setup over to Sharp Zarous handhelds connect wirelessly with zero loss of functionality. They would be more than fast enough. hmmmmmm

Most businesses will eventually upgrade because their support contracts will eventually require them to.

Even third parties only support older versions of Windows for a finite period of time.

>Computers are Designed for Ubuntu or Debian.

Amen! Freaking free dude! strait up!

So freaking free, it's like a flower child with every download!

Edited 2005-11-02 10:18

"A lot of XP growth is down to people like me, buying ex-corporate Dell P3 500mhz machines. Given a RAM upgrade to 256/320mb they run XP"

Sound dead cheap, just as a matter of interest how much did you pay for the copy of Stand alone XP copy? I've only seen it for half the price a low end cheapo PC

Second that, I have a celeron 1600 with 1gig of ram developer machine at work. The buildin gfx is a 16MB nvidia vanta. I'm still running win2000 (which is prefered by most of my coworkers as more stable than xp). So if we concentrate on corporate desktops whats left of vista, ...per application volume control:) ?