"Microsoft finally launches the long-awaited Windows Vista today, promising better security and improved search and claiming it will be the fastest ever adopted operating system it has released. But some users have already questioned the business benefits of upgrading to Vista, citing the relative stability and security of Windows XP and a lack of compelling features in Vista. Based on using the second beta version of Vista here are the five things to get excited about Vista for - and the five things you'll hate it for."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-11-13
Now, why would anyone want to write about Vista based on second beta when BOTH RC-1 and RC-2 were available for free?
It's so lame.
Not to mention that RTM version is available too.
I'm not sure it matters, the issues that he wrote about are still issues in the RTM release.
The only exception might be limited user access, which is cleaned up in the RTM.
Edited 2006-11-30 17:42
Member since:2006-10-10
Regardless of what issues have, or have not been addressed yet in the OS, I agree with gonzo. They're commenting on Beta 2 as if that's the only release of Vista that has been out. Did they miss the press release of Vista RTM?
I mean, Beta 2 was just so bad.....so very bad. To base any official feature reviews, good or bad, on a product that was still, at that time, 6 months away from release is just ridiculous. Ebert and Roper aren't going to review a new movie theatrical release by watching the post-production dailies. That's just stupid.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Vista, as it stands now, is so much better than Beta 2 showed it to be. In my opinion, someone at MS really f'ed up releasing that build.....beta or not.
Member since:
2005-12-02
Well, I used the Betas and I agree with this. I have also been using RTM since I could download it from Technet. The UAC is annoying, however to protect the average user it is a good thing. For the more advanced users it can be turned off.
Of course, as it was with XP, some companies are using this to force you to upgrade to newer hardware. I will use my hardware as an example. I have a Logitech Webcam Orbit, purchased in December 2005. Logitech is not going to support this camera, but rather will support the Orbit MP. There is no real difference in capabilities between the 2 cameras, but the hardware is different enough on the inside to use different drivers, which are available for Visdta for this camera. Basically Logitech wants me to fork out another $120 to replace a perfectly good camera. The bright side is the Orbit MP is supported on XP, Vista, and Linux with the kernel UVC driver.
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-12-02
"Have you tried running XP under emulation (ie. VirtualPC, VMWare) and seeing if the camera is visible under XP's driver model?"
Not under emulation, but on an XP machine. It runs on a regular Windows XP box great. Loading the XP driver in Vista, it knows the camera is there, evidenced on boot, however it will not communicate with the camera to get any video after the machine is booted. This is normal behaviour from what I have found on other forums as well, and the response from Logitech that it will not be supported with drivers. Not a deal breaker, as I did expect some hardware to break. When I upgraded to XP from 98 I had to replace my flatbed parallel scanner. If the webcam is all that needs replacing, not as bad or costly as prior software upgrades.
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2005-12-02
"So you just can't install XP's driver for the camera in Vista? I had to use an XP driver for one of my peripherals and Vista did actually recognize it correctly."
Yes, I tried the XP driver. The camera is seen on boot with that driver, however trying to run it once in Windows causes it to error. I am using the XP driver for my HP Laserjet 2600n and that is working fine. Sometimes the XP driver works, othertimes not. This camera is a case of it not working. No big deal as the camera can be replaced easy enough.
Member since:2006-10-10
Sounds like you know what you gotta do. I just hate to hear anyone waste money on redundant hardware due to something so stupid as an unsupported driver. Now if this was a VESA Local video card from 1993, I'd say something else. But to not support a device in an OS that's really not all that different from the predecessor it's based upon, that's just really bad business.
I think I'd find another camera manufacturer and let the company know about it.
Member since:
2006-03-26
Of course the hardware drivers will be updated in time.
What bothers me more is the user account protection window popping up constantly when doing (adminstrative) work.
I can imagine that a lot of people click "yes" to make sure it just works. And that defeats the basic concept of the whole system no matter how safe you "think" you are
Member since:2006-03-12
Member since:2005-12-02
"I see no reason at all why anyone who bought something to work on XP should expect it to work on Vista"
Well, that depends on how long ago the hardware was purchased actually. If the hardware is recent, then there is every right to expect the manufacturer to continue to support it. See my example in my other post. That camera has only been on the market less then 2 years, so it is not even as old as it's warranty yet. On the other hand, if I have hardware that is 3 or more years old, then no, I would not expect it to work with Vista.
Member since:2006-03-12
"Well, that depends on how long ago the hardware was purchased actually. If the hardware is recent, then there is every right to expect the manufacturer to continue to support it."
Again Why?
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=23417102951&a...
Thats the most popular PC on ebuyer its a nice little machine, XP will run lovely on there. Its a good price. Will it run Vista? I wouldn't advise anyone to do it, and this is the main component of Vista.
Member since:2005-12-02
"Thats the most popular PC on ebuyer its a nice little machine, XP will run lovely on there. Its a good price. Will it run Vista? I wouldn't advise anyone to do it, and this is the main component of Vista."
Well, actually that machine should run Vista just fine with the specs listed. It does here on a similar machine with the same basic configuration for memory etc.
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-12-02
"So, to use an analogy, you bought a particular automotive component for one car -- and then you now expect it to work without modification on another different-model car? Such a quaint notion."
One can look at it that way, but then ashtrays are interchangeable. Ashtrays are an automotive accessory, not a component, just like a web camera is a computer accessory, not a component. See how car analogies fail? The camera was bought as an accessory to my computer, not an accessory for Windows XP, so totally different analogy as the computer remains the same model. Now if I had purchased "Elite Tools for Windows XP" software, then no, I would never expect that to work. Either way this is not a bash of Windows Vista, or any other OS, as I use multiple OS. It was more a point of fact trying to point out something I had seen, in case others may have seen the same thing. Kind of a warning if you will that this type of thing will happen with some items.
Member since:2006-01-06
One can look at it that way, but then ashtrays are interchangeable.
Not all ashtrays are interchangeable. Good luck putting the ashtry from my 911 in your Chevy Nova. Ain't gonna happen.
Ashtrays are an automotive accessory, not a component, just like a web camera is a computer accessory, not a component.
The point isn't whether it's an "accessory" or a "component" noun. The point is the interface. Interfaces differ between accessories/components and whatever they're being plugged-into. You apparently think that it's reasonable to expect a component which worked on one car to work on any other. I disagree.
Either way this is not a bash of Windows Vista, or any other OS, as I use multiple OS. It was more a point of fact trying to point out something I had seen, in case others may have seen the same thing. Kind of a warning if you will that this type of thing will happen with some items.
I'm glad that you're being reasonable, then. Vista isn't at fault here. Vista improved the driver model, at the cost of reduced compatibility. The problem is the manufacturer: They need to provide updated drivers.
Member since:2005-11-11
//Not all ashtrays are interchangeable. Good luck putting the ashtry from my 911 in your Chevy Nova. Ain't gonna happen.//
Agreed.
Pushing this analogy a little further, Microsoft cars are the only cars that do not take "standard, interchangeable" ashtrays. Once you have bought a Microsoft car, you can only ever buy components for your car from Microsoft. Your car will run only on Microsoft roads, using Microsoft gasoline. Microsoft are trying as hard as they can to make it difficult for anyone else to make a car that will run on Microsoft gas or drive on Microsoft roads, and even if other manufacturers can manage to do that, they will still have to pay a royalty to Microsoft.
Microsoft are trying hard to make it illegal to build any other type of road, and they are lobbying the government for that law to be passed. Certainly they will make it so that a Microsoft car won't drive on a non-Microsoft road without expensive added extras. Microsoft will also pretend that their customers don't want to go on those other roads anyway. Microsoft are also lobbying to have a huge tax applied to non-Microsoft gas. They are also trying to ensure that car dealers are not allowed to sell or advertise any type of car except Microsoft cars. If car dealers want to get Microsoft cars at trade prices to sell to end customers, then the car dealers must display a big sign that says "We sell and recommend Microsoft cars".
There is nothing whatsoever "special" or "advantageous" about Microsoft gas and Microsoft roads compared to other gas and other roads, apart from the lack of inter-operation with other manufacturers products. Microsoft marketing spends huge sums trying to make it appear to the public that the only cars you can buy are Microsoft cars, and that other cars do not exist.
One can assume that once Microsoft have made it illegal to make generic roads and non-Microsoft gas, then after that time the price of Microsoft gas will skyrocket, and all roads will be toll roads.
Edited 2006-12-01 02:16
Member since:2006-01-06
Once you have bought a Microsoft car, you can only ever buy components for your car from Microsoft.
Not true. There are plenty of manufacturers that sell components that have been created for a particular Microsoft car.
Your car will run only on Microsoft roads
Again, not true. Microsoft doesn't own the roads (ie communication networks). Those belong to your cable provider, your phone company, etc.
...using Microsoft gasoline.
Nope. Power company. Software written by third parties.
Microsoft are trying hard to make it illegal to build any other type of road, and they are lobbying the government for that law to be passed.
WTF do you come up with this garbage?
There is nothing whatsoever "special" or "advantageous" about Microsoft gas and Microsoft roads compared to other gas and other roads..blah, blah, blah...
I've already debunked that lame analogy...
RE[7]: User account protection is the worst
Member since:2005-12-02
"I'm glad that you're being reasonable, then. Vista isn't at fault here. Vista improved the driver model, at the cost of reduced compatibility. The problem is the manufacturer: They need to provide updated drivers."
I agree and know that Vista is not at fault, and never once thought it was. Logitech is the one at fault in this instance. I also agree about the interface part of your post though that I did not paste it here. I think we are saying the same thing using different scenario's/wording.
Member since:2005-10-02
The problem is the manufacturer: They need to provide updated drivers.
Okay, so if drivers are lacking for Windows, it is the fault of the manufacturer. When drivers are lacking for Linux, it must then also be the fault of the manufacturer.
If drivers are needed from the manufacturer, it also means that Microsoft isn't making such drivers, which means Linux and BSD actually has better native hardware support 
Vista isn't at fault. Vista is just an OS. Microsoft is at fault and so are the manufacturers. And the Linux developers are at fault, and so are the manufacturers.
Member since:2006-01-06
UAC, itself, isn't the problem. Many Windows programs were written to ignore security. UAC is merely pointing out those problems. As for people clicking "yes" to bypass the security notifications, what would you propose as an alternative to what Microsoft did? The UAC prompts are essentially the same as root password prompts under 'nix, except slightly less annoying.
Member since:2005-10-19
I agree. But don't forget that UAC is not just about the "annoying" popups which seems useless because they are only prompting for 'Continue' or 'Cancel'.
If you create a limited user account then UAC will prompt for the admin password - just like Mac OS X. They made a good work.
I think the only problem with Vista is the performance. But anyway... Mac OS X was a real pain in the ass until 10.3 and imho Tiger 10.4 is only a little faster than Vista. Well, in the end we all install SP1 for Vista and most of us will be happy.
Member since:
2005-10-02
...another stupid journalist who knows nothing about the functionality in NT versions since 4.0.
Desktop Search has been available since NT4 SP4 Option Pack. Nothing new here.
Built-in Diagnostic: Already available, in part through elements from MS, in part through third party applications.
More advanced help is also already available, if one knows where to look in Windows. And the more advanced functionality exist too. They are just not so obvious. The journalist knows very little about Vista and earlier Windows versions when he cannot see the difference between layout changes and actually adding new functionality.
The only new thing on page 1 is the "oomph factor". Not bad if you have a 1 GB USB key. Could be some nice caching, even when it's slower than in other OS'es using RAM directly for cache.
The 5 things one might hate about Vista don't seem to be particularly well-researched. UAC however, will probably piss off quite a few Average Joe's around the world (geeks will just turn it off).
Pretty much a disappointing and factually wrong article.
EDIT: removed the most embarrasing typo's - or perhpas nto.
Edited 2006-11-30 17:52
Member since:2006-01-02
While it is true that many of the features the author promoted have been available to windows users (in some implementation or another) for some time, they often require additional downloads or a rather advanced familiarity with the operating system. The key here, is that in Vista, these features have been more thoroughly integrated, upon install, making them readily available for Joe User to use and enjoy. So for many, despite not technically being new, it is their perception that these features are in new. And if the features were over looked in their previous incarnation, of course a marketing department is going to exploit that so that they can refer to these features as new to media and consumers alike. Otherwise, they'd have to admit that they were there for a while, they were just badly implemented so MOST people overlooked them. Anyway, enough with my rant-like opinion.
Member since:2005-10-02
Yes yes, and it's the media who have the responsibility to point out to Average Joe, what is new and what isn't.
Just because Average Joe is in error and marketing departments in companies take advantage of this doesn't mean the media should just let it go. They should correct errors in Average Joe's perception rather than introduce errors.
### Start of Sarcasm ###
Thanks to whoever modded me down. Nice work.
### End Of Sarcasm ###
Member since:2006-01-02
Yes, you have a good point. I agree with you that media do have the responsibility to point out errors. However, if you implement a feature in a new way, you walk a fine line as to whether or not you can boast that feature as being new. Media can make a choice which way to spin the story, but if you're going to run an article on the new windows OS and you're audience are not OS hobbiests, it's a much more interesting spin to say that something has new features, than to say that something has the same features presented in a new way - the latter is rather dull.
Member since:2006-04-18
Member since:2006-01-02
I guess we're dealing with an issue of marginal benefit here. What is worth spending an extra dollar on... saving some time and effort, completely new features, a splashy new interface, bigger icons, heavier system requirements.. the answer will be different for different people and sometimes the answer will be shocking. We make decisions based on perception, even if we don't want to admit that. Reality and fact are only what we interpret and perceive them to be.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2006-06-28
UAC may be annoying, but the UAC prompts will decline in frequency over time as programs are updated to Vista application guidelines (except for Administrative programs, which will obviously continue to prompt you when you are in Admin Approval Mode).
The thing about the guidelines is that half of the stuff developers are supposed to do (use Application Data and Local Settings, etc) have been around long before Vista, but as everyone knows, most third-party Windows software is written very poorly. Vista is finally going to force developers to do some of these things.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-10-02
The poor thing about Windows security is that Microsoft designed windows to allow it. And even worse is the fact that the first (and most often only) user in XP has Administrator rights. Had it been done the normal way in the Windows NT-line, we would have had to enter a password for Administrator, and then create a normal user account with limited access.
That would years ago have forced developers to code for security.
Many applications are still released that writes directly to HKEY|LOCAL|MACHINE and to "Program Files". And it's a big no no. Running as a Restricted User requires quite a few special access rights, unless you want to run half of your applications as Administrator ("Run As...")
The OP is actually right.
Member since:2005-07-09
What, only God can make a tree so it follows only MS can write an app? I only see that kind of trash in narrow vertical market niche apps where the not a programmer president of the company designed version one and hacked it together with student help. Some third party apps are written better. Broad generalizations are rarely ever true. I don't think just being a first party gives them some kind of halo and pass from writing bad software. Small independent developers are focused, large code mills are barely able to focus, case in point: http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/
Member since:2005-10-02
Of course others than Microsoft can write an app. I can't remember having claimed Microsoft _can_ write an app (One can be in doubt on occasion).
Problems with software written to violate the rules are often something you meet when using freeware applications, or some of the more obscure programs coming with scanners, webcams and stuff like that.
The big players tend to do things just right, incl. FLOSS developers. The latter one is no surprise considering the *nix inheritance for most of the applications.
Member since:
2006-06-14
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2006-06-01
NOD32, Nero and WS_FTP Pro don't work on Vista...
Nero 6 works on RC2. It gives me the occasional error message. But it burns ok.
NOD32. These instructions for getting it to work on Vista are 5 months old: http://digg.com/software/NOD32_on_Vista_2
Member since:
2006-03-31
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Actually not. If you read my posts, you'll see I have praised Microsoft quite a few times in regard to the technological contents of Windows. I do however tend to bash the management in Microsoft, but so does several former Microsoft-employees.
When it comes to Desktop Search Microsoft was actually ahead of Apple and Gnome/KDE for many years. Unfortunately Microsoft chose to hide it away, for some obscure reason. Good technology - bad management.
Member since:2005-10-02
Just a few. Mind you, I often mix critique and praise of Microsoft in the same post. You might find it offensive.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16575&comment_id=185870
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16575&comment_id=185888
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16372&comment_id=177912
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16442&comment_id=180652
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14589&comment_id=123908
If you had read my posts the last couple of weeks, you'd have seen they have been quite MS-friendly, considering you have labelled me a GPL- and Linux-zealot, and a MS-hater.
If you want some posts really MS-praising, I once had a discussion with sappyvcv about Microsoft and IE7, where he flamed MS and particularly IE7 and I praised MS. Perhaps he can still remember it. It took him quite by surprise
Member since:2005-10-02
Well well, since I haven't run Linux on my machine for weeks, you're probably right. And of course I'm also a GPL-zealot, and a fanatical RMS-believer, and most important I consider all Microsoft-employees to be extremely evil and a curse upon mankind.
Puh-lease. Just because I'm not particularly bigworded in my praise, doesn't make me a Linux-zealot. I have written no worse about Windows than I have about Gnome/KDE or Mac OS X.
You cannot find in those posts anything that can be considered to be a statement about "Linux being better". Actually in some of those posts I write exactly the same as you have written, like Microsoft having pretty much catched up with OS X after the release of Vista.
You are a MS-zealot, while I am neutral. I don't believe in any particular OS, since there is nothing to believe in. There is good things and bad things in Windows, and one can easily find good things and bad things in GNU/Linux. I'm not exactly impressed by the performance of Gnome or the main Gnome applications. Just take a look at gedit and see how slow it is to load - and it's merely a text editor. Visual Studio 2005 loads in about the same time, and is arguably a lot more than just a notepad replacement
Member since:2005-10-02
Yes, this one is surely a Linux-praising, Microsoft-bashing post.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16601&comment_id=186808
I'm neither a Linux-zealot nor a Windows-zealot. I'm in opposition to the extremists in both camps, without hiding the fact that I prefer FLOSS whenever possible. Of course, I'm inconsistent, because I always choose a proprietary solution over a FLOSS-solution, if the proprietary solution is better. That explains the excessive usage of proprietary software on my machine.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
BTW.: If you want to see knee-jerk reactions take a look at gonzo or CuriosityKills - not to mention NotParker.
You can also find quite a few in regard to GPL. A few days ago I was involved a few days in a heated "battle" about the nVidia kernel module, but incredibly enough they didn't mod me down that much - not as much as I had expected. MS-shills appears to be worse than RMS-disciples. Or perhaps many Linux users have a nVidia-card.
Member since:
2006-06-01
he forgot some points why to hate vista:
6) new era of DRM
7) they don't brought much culture in vista
8) it comes in 6 editions (home basic is so similar to XP!)
9) it's nearly a photocopy of OS X
10) the text editor, paint, word pad and so on were not improved (e. g. outlook express was only renamed to "Windows mail" and got a junk mail filter.)
Member since:2006-01-06
6) new era of DRM
Yeah, God forbid they should actually try to protect their investment...
7) they don't brought much culture in vista
WTF?
8) it comes in 6 editions (home basic is so similar to XP!)
You can't find ONE that will meet your needs?
9) it's nearly a photocopy of OS X
That should appeal to Mac fans. Er, wait, maybe not -- now, they'd realize they paid too much for the same features ...
10) the text editor, paint, word pad and so on were not improved (e. g. outlook express was only renamed to "Windows mail" and got a junk mail filter.)
You can't find better alternatives to the cruddy utilities shipped with Windows?
Member since:2006-01-06
6) new era of DRM
Yeah, God forbid they should actually try to protect their investment...
7) they don't brought much culture in vista
WTF?
8) it comes in 6 editions (home basic is so similar to XP!)
You can't find ONE that will meet your needs?
9) it's nearly a photocopy of OS X
That should appeal to Mac fans. Er, wait, maybe not -- now, they'd realize they paid too much for the same features ...
10) the text editor, paint, word pad and so on were not improved (e. g. outlook express was only renamed to "Windows mail" and got a junk mail filter.)
You can't find better alternatives to the cruddy utilities shipped with Windows?
Member since:2006-06-01
6) new era of DRM
Yeah, God forbid they should actually try to protect their investment...
7) they don't brought much culture in vista
WTF?
>> e.g. try to add some meta data for a file, you have to do more than 4 or 5 clicks. With a mac you need just one -> culture (= developers think about usability)
8) it comes in 6 editions (home basic is so similar to XP!)
You can't find ONE that will meet your needs?
>> no I can't, I won't use this crap
9) it's nearly a photocopy of OS X
That should appeal to Mac fans. Er, wait, maybe not -- now, they'd realize they paid too much for the same features ...
>> WHAT? Mac OS X Tiger: 149€ - Windows Vista Ultimate: 359€ -- who paid too much???
10) the text editor, paint, word pad and so on were not improved (e. g. outlook express was only renamed to "Windows mail" and got a junk mail filter.)
You can't find better alternatives to the cruddy utilities shipped with Windows?
>> I won't buy a operating system to search my tools on my self, because than I could stay with XP
Member since:2005-06-29
Yeah, God forbid they should actually try to protect their investment...
That's not what the DRM's for. It's for other companies to "protect" their investments. So, it's to attract media companies to continue supporting their products on Windows by giving them "secure" DRM.
That should appeal to Mac fans. Er, wait, maybe not -- now, they'd realize they paid too much for the same features ...
OS X is cheaper, what are you blathering about. The hardware is pretty comparable at this point as well, especially if you're looking at quality hardware.
You can't find better alternatives to the cruddy utilities shipped with Windows?
You shouldn't have to.
Member since:
2006-07-25
The meta data in vista is incredibly poor, importing media lost most of the meta tags. And most other formats such as word wasn't really accessible either. The meta data capabilties in Mac OS X are much easier, just a simple box in get info etc..
As for some of the application not working in Vista, it's not a case of vista needing to be fixed, more a case that the applications need to be fixed.
I remember having compatibility problems when using early easy cd creator with Win2k. A patch wasn't long around the corner which fixed the BSOD.
I think most of the features in vista are not really features to be touted, more features that users now tend to expect. Millions of files and more and more media on pc's mean that advanced search and meta capabilties are really a basic requirement not a luxury. Which are the features i am really looking forward too, having used spotlight for over a year.
Yes there are add on's such as Windows Search 3.0 etc.. however the implementation is usually clunky, requires a lot of memory to run and are pretty slow. Having the search functionaility built into vista has made the same functionaility a lot quicker and more accessible.
In the case of the launch of Win95 and the fanfare that it arrived in (p.s. i loved the launch, getting Weezer's buddy holly on the install CDROM and playing it full screen is something i will always remember). They always say that any publicity is good publicity, and so far what everyone has been hearing about is vista, either bad or good, it's been at the forefront of news, blogs and forums over 2006, so im sure that the general public launch is going to do pretty well.
Overall i wasn't too impressed by the Beta's of Vista but the RC's i tested were solid systems and seem to work well, with the amount of changes under the hood, i expect some little niggles but im sure Microsoft will have them ironed out pretty quickly, i can't wait to grab a copy of Vista.
Member since:2006-01-06
RE[2]: meta data and applications
Member since:
2005-07-05
Member since:
2005-07-07
The 5 reasons do seem like a lot of barrel-scraping.
Desktop search - Nice but I'm yet to be convinced by "you'll wonder how you lived without it" Spotlight on OS X has not changed my life.
Built-in diagnostics - it could be useful. I'm at a loss to say anything more interesting than that.
ReadyDrive - using USB to make up for a RAM shortfall. That's not clever. Your company should value you more than topping up your RAM with an old pen-drive!
SuperFetch - not exciting, but a nice idea.
Low Priority Input/Output - it may stop wasting CPU time on virus-checking, but is that the issue? First, Windows software needs to pay the user more respect and stop wasting your own time - don't install pointless things in your system tray, don't interrupt the user with messages, etc.
Enhanced Help - can't really argue with that.
Edited 2006-11-30 19:19
Member since:
2006-04-11
Extremely poor/outdated software management.
On my Ubuntu machines, I can hit one button and update ALL of my software.
Not only that, but I do not have to "Activate" them after they are installed.
Let me know when I can hit one button on Windows and update Photoshop, 3ds Max, Visual Studio and others in a few seconds (without any prompts).
Vista feels so 90's.
RE: One thing I hate about Vista:
Member since:2006-03-12
"Let me know when I can hit one button on Windows and update Photoshop, 3ds Max, Visual Studio and others in a few seconds (without any prompts). "
Its a valid point that I'm pretty certain that Vista is trying to address. I noticed someone had knocked together a little program for updating Open-source applications on windows, which wasn't very good, but Microsoft themselves has I'm sure some kind of partnership program for updating third-party applications though windows updates, although I have seen nothing about this recently.
Member since:2006-04-11
Unfortunately, "Trying to address" and doing it are two separate things.
I wish Debian would finish multiarch support so I could run 64-bit Ubuntu without all the hassle. There's one good thing about Vista, it already supports multiarch. Only a few linux distro currently do. Although, software support is spotty on Windows 64-bit, so I guess they lose there again.
Windows Vista = The best operating system 1996 has to offer.
Edited 2006-11-30 20:14
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-04-11
By commerical, you must mean closed source.
With those applications, the answer is: yes. If the vendor provides a repository, updates will most certainly be managed by the "Package Manger."
There is one caveat, that is small for most end users. Because you are using shackled software, you cannot have the package manager download the source and build a package on your machine. That would be impossible with closed source software.
Commerical is merely how the software is used and maintained. Red Hat is commerical, Ubuntu is commerical. I use open source software at work, so that is commerical as well.
As I said in my original post, Windows Vista has no such functionality built-in or even available and tested. apt-get, yum, etc. all have these qualities and modern Linux distributions have them.
Why again does Windows not have this functionality?
The entire Windows ecosphere is built around a hodgepodge of 3rd party systems/application vendors fighting each other (and Microsoft) for control of your system.
Windows is chaos. Linux represents calm.
That said, this article is about Windows. Despite this, the Windows zealots repeatedly bash Linux... go figure.
Edited 2006-11-30 22:04
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-11
I never have any of the problems you're talking about. "Broken code" has not been my experience.
I have GIMP, Blender and Eclipse, which are all very comparable to their Windows counterparts.
Are there really 19,000 text editors? That's amazing. I knew there were quite a few, but not that many.
Edited 2006-11-30 20:09
Member since:2006-06-22
"Those apps/libraries are never tested well before they are released. No QA at all"
You obviously have no clue what so ever about software development
"That is why every major distribution's new version is available every six months or so"
You obviously have no clue about major distributions
"I hear that it's that bad that some people actually have something like apt-get dist-upgrade running every night!!! Beat that, ha?!! Even than, every six months, you need new ISOs."
More of the same ... All in all you generally have no clue, right?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2006-04-11
Here are just a few things:
Software should be effortless to install. After all, you are using the computer to accomplish something and that requires programs. You should be able to modify the software to meet your needs. You should be able to move your software and media from machine to machine, as you see fit, when you see fit.
There should be no registry keys, files that are tied to your hardware, etc.
The desktop should be accelerated, smooth and easy to use. Everything should be double buffered and you should not see redraw.
It should obviously be secure from intruders, and access prvileges should be clearly separated based on usage.
That's all I can think of right now, but there are probably a few more big ones. (These aren't in any particular order).
Edited 2006-11-30 22:28
Member since:2005-07-06
emmm i think you should be looking at http://www.ubuntu..com
Member since:2006-04-11
Member since:2006-10-10
I like Ubuntu too, unfortunately I also like to play video games from time to time. That pretty much means I either pony up for a console (not going to happen) or I keep XP on a free partition.
That said, until the day Wine can actually run something other than Minesweeper (seriously doubtful), or ReactOS is 100% binary compatible....looks like I'm stuck suckling the great whore that is Microsoft if I want to play something other than ports of 10 year old id games.
I enjoyed the 90's comment, though. It made me smile. The 90's were good times.
Member since:2005-07-25
You can update Office now along with the rest of Windows. Microsoft will soon be adding the rest of their app base to Windows update is my guess.
The day you are able to update anything else is the day Microsoft starts producing it, which will also be the day you start crying "OMFG monopoly".
The only reason you can hit "update" in Synaptic or whatever is because you are completely and utterly tied to the distro. Deviate one iota from what's in their repositories and you're no better off than you were before.
Member since:2005-07-25
'The day you are able to update anything else is the day Microsoft starts producing it, which will also be the day you start crying "OMFG monopoly".
The only reason you can hit "update" in Synaptic or whatever is because you are completely and utterly tied to the distro. Deviate one iota from what's in their repositories and you're no better off than you were before.'
Don't you think that MS could make an interface for a program which would check *third party websites* of all your software and let you download updates or installers?
Member since:2005-11-11
//The only reason you can hit "update" in Synaptic or whatever is because you are completely and utterly tied to the distro. Deviate one iota from what's in their repositories and you're no better off than you were before.//
Not correct.
http://labix.org/smart
"The Smart Package Manager project has the ambitious objective of creating smart and portable algorithms for solving adequately the problem of managing software upgrading and installation. This tool works in all major distributions, and will bring notable advantages over native tools currently in use (APT, APT-RPM, YUM, URPMI, etc)."
http://labix.org/smart/features
"Channels are the way Smart becomes aware about external repositories of information. Many different channel types are supported, depending on the backend and kind of information desired:
* APT-DEB Repository
* APT-RPM Repository
* DPKG Installed Packages
* Mirror Information
* Red Carpet Channel
* RPM Directory
* RPM Header List
* RPM MetaData (YUM)
* RPM Installed Packages
* Slackware Repository
* Slackware Installed Packages
* URPMI Repository"
Smart works in all major distributions, and it can handle packages in formats from many distributions.
Combine this fact with efforts such as the Linux Standards Base:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_standard_base
and the Portland Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Project
... and you are no longer tied to any one distribution's repositories.
Not that it matters much anyway. The same applications are in all of the repositories anyway, pretty much.
Member since:2005-08-27
>Let me know when I can hit one button on Windows and >update Photoshop, 3ds Max, Visual Studio and others
>in a few seconds (without any prompts).
The problem is that you don't have a single one of these awesome programs to begin with on Linux.
You can add a program like this to to the same thing in Windows. All of the programs that are being updated are open source. It wouldn't be that hard to make one standard package program for Windows and create that as a standard. Use your brain dude.
However, linux kids need to put down windows so it can make them feel better.
Member since:2005-07-25
"It wouldn't be that hard to make one standard package program for Windows and create that as a standard. Use your brain dude."
Actually, I prefer MSI installers nowadays. The interfaces look a lot more polished than the Nullsoft Installer and they also have "repair", "update", "install this for me/for everyone", "install this for me because I'm a Limited User", "install from web"-style and "modular install you can always change later" functionality. They also don't insist on restarts, unlike some other installers.
The worst is probably InstallShield, which installs a tray icon to provide you with software updates, and Wise Install, which still takes up the entire screen.
That said, some installers are pretty good and they don't fit into any of those categories. Firefox has been good since 1.5 or so.
Member since:2006-01-10
Honestly, how hard could it be for software vendors to do this in Windows? All they would need to do is have a repository where patches are submitted, the software updater would only need to have the option of automatically check, automatically install or manual. It could hit the individual websites even.
For example; When you install Photoshop, it puts an entry inside the software updater, that tells the software updater that it's there (similar to add/remove programs) and where it can check for updates. Then Adobe would only have to put a new update within the software updater and it'd see that there is a new update.
The TRUE reason why this is not done on the Windows platform has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft themselves aren't distributing the software, but has everything to do with the fact that with commercial software, they don't give away free upgrades. They are PATCHES. Maybe if someone released a Click N Run style software updater it'd make more sense. One which will check what software you have installed then search and say "Hey, there's a new version, would you like to purchase it?"
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-07-25
'Extremely poor/outdated software management.
On my Ubuntu machines, I can hit one button and update ALL of my software.
Not only that, but I do not have to "Activate" them after they are installed.
Let me know when I can hit one button on Windows and update Photoshop, 3ds Max, Visual Studio and others in a few seconds (without any prompts).
Vista feels so 90's.'
I read somewhere (no source, sorry) that they wanted to add this at a very early stage. I think they were going to have a Windows Service which your applications would "register" with and then when you press Update then the service would load files from the app's websites (i.e. the repository would not be centralised). Of course, chances are that it would only work with their own MSI format...
Member since:2006-06-01
On my Ubuntu machines, I can hit one button and update ALL of my software.
So, lets say you are a corporation with 1000's of users. And you want to keep each machine in synch for training purposes and because you some versions updates will conflict with other software.
In a Windows environment you can use Group Policy, permissions and WSUS or SMS to update when the corporate policy chooses.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-07-01
Member since:2006-03-12
Ignoring the resources used, and I suggest strongly if you haven't used it you should go get yourself a live distro running compiz/beryl and try it out on a r200/r300 ati card or any intel card, and see for youself.
It makes things look pretty - and people underestimate pretty, with a smoother mouse, dragging windows, allowing the user to feel more in control.
It allows you to make a better use of a multitasking environment, whether its through transparency, multiple desktops, or full application switching. Which potentially could make someone more productive(sic)
It more Visual feedback, buttons can glow, when a job has finished an application can giggle.
Its a bit of fun.
In reality I suspect you will be better off getting a bigger monitor, than a copy of Vista for a real improvement from a productive perspective
Member since:2006-10-10
I think it's basically the "oooh, aahhh" factor for the casual emailer and web browsing people....Joe Average, I believe someone said before. Basically, it's for anyone who wouldn't ordinarily make use of the 3d hardware that's in their computer.
Anyone that plays games, for example, are just going to turn all that superfluous crap off. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't.
Member since:
2005-07-06
"Your current hardware won't fully run Vista - Get ready for the media blitz. Get ready for the frustration. Although many computers in use today will be able to update and run the new operating system, they'll only be able to run it in what Microsoft slyly calls 'Windows Vista Basic'. In this mode, you'll have the ability to search files but you won't have 3D Aero graphics, live animation along the Taskbar or smooth streaming graphics on your desktop. Unless you buy a new PC sometime in 2007, or add a high-end video card and some extra memory to your current PC, you probably won't get the full visual Vista experience."
Oh how often I see this in Vista articles.
Listen, guy ... any decent PC from 2004 and up will run Vista in all its glory. A Radeon 9200 is capable of doing Aero. "New PC in 2007" and a "high-end video card"? As if.
Freaking clueless writers.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
"Listen, guy ... any decent PC from 2004 and up will run Vista in all its glory. A Radeon 9200 is capable of doing Aero. "New PC in 2007" and a "high-end video card"? As if."
This is simply not true. "In all its glory" can only refer to Aero Glass. Aero Glass requires 128MB of graphics card memory and recommends 256MB. Cutting-edge PCs from 2004 may meet that requirement, but not "any decent" PC.
Heck, the laptop I'm typing this on shares 32MB of system RAM. Has no trouble running beryl with wobbly windows and rotating cubes a go-go. Aero Glass? Hah, don't make me laugh. Basic Aero? Er...maybe.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-19
Member since:2005-07-06
Well, I'm terribly sorry my computer doesn't meet your requirements. Fortunately, it meets all of mine.
I use this system mostly for my work, which involves a lot of email, a lot of forum work, and a little work in text editors and office software. Why in the world would I want or pay for a graphics chip with 128MB of dedicated memory for that?
The laptop in question cost less than US$1000. To buy a laptop in the same form factor with a graphics chipset capable of running Glass would easily have run me another $500 or more.
Now go and think about how many others are in the same situation as me.
Also remember that you said a decent system FROM 2004. I do not accept the idea that in 2004 a system was only 'decent' if it had a dedicated graphics card with 128MB of memory. By 2004 standards that is a reasonably high end dedicated gaming card, and as far laptops (remember, more than 50% of the new system market) you could forget it unless you were buying an extremely high-end desktop replacement system.
Member since:
2006-02-06
It might have been mentioned before but:
Virtual file folder - what, like saved searches? I can't remember anymore if it's actually part of earlier Windowses but it's in plenty of applications.
Gadgets on the desktop - like I already have from Opera (Widgets)? And let's face it, they're usually in the way and just take up space.
Built in diagnostics - great if it would actually work. I'm pretty sure Joe User will still be lost with all the cryptic or even with some of the better explanations. But I don't have much faith in that sort of automatism anyway.
Need more oomph - great, the one thing that sounds really good. And: You'll need it.
Enhanced help - I remember the sorry state of the help system to the tune of 'make sure the cable is plugged in'. Oh my, even a toddler would probably be of more assistance. Even Knowledge base hardly ever had an answer to my particular problem - if you had a real one you were lost. Enhanced help sounds good but somehow I seriously doubt the efficiency and that the automation will not muck up my system completely. Remember most people do not have a clue and will just click yes to all defaults. Somebody take over my PC? Not as long as I can prevent it, and businesses have always been able to do this from their IT departments.
"You can also go online..." I would hope so in 2006.
"...and search MS knowledge base or contact technical support." Just like with Windows95.
Member since:
2006-11-30
I don't understand why you people are all ranting about Vista being useless, unix being superior etc-etc... (vice versa as well)
Just take things as they are, you don't have to go spreading pointless propaganda everywhere.
Anyway, this is my take on Vista:
1) I've been using the Windows x64 platform for roughly two years now. At first it was a bit hard to find apps and drivers, but I don't see any problem now. I'm x64 all the way...
For Cd-burning Nero 7.5.7.0 works just fine, for antivirus NOD32 2.70.xx is the best.
If some occasional applications or games don't work, then to hell with them. I can live just fine with out them. I'll use stuff that do work.
2) It does seem strange that Vista takes like 10GB of HD space although there's not that much stuff in it. 500MB of RAM out of 1GB while running idle tends to be a bit on the high side, but do you remeber back when XP came out? PC-s mostly had 128 MB of RAM in them, some had 64MB, or if they were top notch then 256 MB. And yet you could run XP just fine. As time passed, memory requirements grew but so did the amount in PC-s -> mostly every good new PC tends to have 1 GB of ram in it now.
So I'd say that Vista is a bit hungry on the resource side at the moment, but in a year or two it won't be much of an issue anymore.
3) Fancy eye candy and the like -> highly required. When the OS looks good it also makes the person using it feel good. Which also adds to productivity and such. The effect is psychological and probably not so evident at first.
One of the reasons I don't like linux is that all the distros just look lame. They don't have a good default coloring scheme, the cursors, the scrollbars, the fonts and especially the X for closing an application - just horrible.
Vista on the other hand looks and behaves perfectly in every aspect in it's default form, asuming you leave out some minor "inconsistency" details.
Mac OS simply isn't my taste. If anything then it's somewhat childish, too artistic, etc.
4) Many editions of Vista -> if you have a good comparison table, then it ain't all that hard to choose the right edition (Ultimate for me 
). Luckily, Microsoft has opted for such a solution, that even if you do buy say Home Premium and find out that you need a better edition. You can buy a new key (discount price) insert the Vista dvd and upgrade your machine. At least it was supposed to work something like that. Haven't seen anyone try it out yet. Wonder if it works backwards (buy Ultimate and then choose to opt in for Home Premium, will I get my money back??)
5) All those people who think that it's Vistas fault that their year old Camera or Printer or game or whatever doesn't work in Vista (but does in XP) => god, I'd like give you a good kick in the balls (assuming your male)!!! Don't you understand that it's up to the manufacturer to update their drivers and software to work with Vista, or are you just plain old stupid?!? Mind you that we had the same situation when XP came out, practically no old drivers nor games worked (they weren't supposed to anyway). It does takes time for manufactures to update their stuff you know. Vista was finalized just a couple of WEEKS ago you know!!!
6) The fact that wordpad and the fonts dialog weren't updated to fit with Vista is laziness and ignorance at it's finest (would like to kick some MS employee ass for that), but let's not forget that the power is in the people, in us! Let's make some noise, send out some e-mails to MS, get in touch with MS employees through their blogs, etc. They will listen to us sooner or later. But if we act now, we might see some needed updates with Vista SP1 or even through Windows Update!!
7) We had to wait 5-6 years for Vista. Some say it's terribly bad. I don't agree. A 5 year cycle is quite reasonable as long as Service Packs are released in every 1-1,5 years, which add new required features and updates. That way we can give time for the industry to grow, to make it's steps, to choose the next path. If you end up creating a new OS version every 2-3 years that changes the fundamentals of the OS and thus everything on top of it (drivers, games, etc) then we wouldn't be able to keep up. Would you like to relearn on which side of the road to drive every 3 years (if it were to be changed like that)??
And by the way, Mac OS isn't currently creating new OS versions, they're basically creating service packs. The thing is, that service packs usually aren't sellable so Mac has to market them as a "new" OS.
**************************
Vista does still have some bugs in it. Even the MS employees acknowlodge it. But the shipping date was near and something had to go out the door. Vista RTM is good, but I've allready stumbled on some bugs. A wrong image, an annoyance issue with remote desktop, a bug when leaving PC running for an hour while logged off (it just hangs when you return to it), etc.
I wouldn't install Vista for corporate use currently, because it's wrinkles aren't ironed out yet. Also it wouldn't work seamlessly with Windows Server 2003 nor Small Buisness Server.
Just have to wait for "Longhorn" Server to be finalized a half a year from now. Also Vista SP1 should be rolled out somewhat at the same time.
Meaning Vista will start it's true spreading sometime in the late 2007.
I could go on with my story, but I think it's time to sum things up.
In my oppinion, Vista IS that much better than Windows XP. It WILL drive the PC world to the next level. It SHALL start a new era.
The seed has been planted, all you need to do now is give it some time, some rain and some much needed sunshine 
Edited 2006-11-30 22:36
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-04-11
Member since:
2005-07-06
"Unless you buy a new PC sometime in 2007, or add a high-end video card and some extra memory to your current PC, you probably won't get the full visual Vista experience."
That is simply not accurate. Even My GMA 950 gave me a decent "visual experience"
Now I have an ATI X1600XT (normally regarded as a mid-range video card) and Vista scores it 5.9.
Member since:
2006-11-20
“Your current hardware won't fully run Vista”
I have 3 year old Toshiba M200 and it runs Vista perfectly with all bells and whistles. My four (or more) year old computer at work runs Vista as well (with Aero and stuff). On both machines it’s feels better and snappier than XP. The fact is Vista runs on current hardware very well. The only problem can be a video card (must have one with 128MB of memory) but it’s dirt cheap these days (I bought mine for less than $30).
“Vista's Aero graphics eat laptop battery power”
Wrong. For the last two weeks I’ve been running Vista with Aero on my laptop I noticed that my battery life is no shorter than on XP. Actually, my perception is that it became longer. Aero doesn’t consume much power at all. And there are a lot of battery saving features in Vista that compensate for Aero with ease. For example, I’ve notices that my hard drive periodically stops to save the power. More thorough memory use for file cache helps as well. My conclusion is that Vista is more battery friendly than XP.
“User Account Protection”
This is a good thing. GOOD THING. Seriously. Vista is the first OS in Windows line that makes it easy to work under normal user account. Stop being an admin. Make yourself a user and you’ll feel no difference in experience on Vista. When you need to install anything (or do other admin tasks) Vista detects it and presents you with a dialog to enter admin password. It’s that easy. And since you’re just a user you can’t harm your machine in any way. With UAC I felt immediately at home, because this is what I was accustomed to when I worked on Linux. And it feels good. Nothing can do any harm to you. No rogue web site, no malicious e-mail. You won’t worry about whether you missed any important update to your system. ‘Cause it’s goddamn hard to hurt you if you’re just a normal user.
“Missing drivers and incompatible applications”
Haven’t you noticed? The consumer launch is still two months away. Drivers will catch up. Incompatible applications are only a few and between. Nothing to worry about. All hardware on my laptop got recognized out of the box.
“Troubled sleep”
That’s just a problem for a particular columnist. Isn’t it amazing how any little insignificant hassle becomes a problem of a paramount importance for those columnists? “Man! People will hate Vista, because it won’t go into standby on my laptop!” Wrong. If standby on your laptop worked on XP it will work on Vista, granted the drivers are at least as new as the ones you used on XP.
Member since:2006-01-06
I'd hazard a guess that much of the FUD is coming from people who are a little annoyed that MS has done such a good job in narrowing the perception gap between Linux and OS X. You'd think that people would be _happy_ that MS did something right for a change. But, apparently, in the tech world ... people aren't happy unless they're miserable. ;-)
Member since:
2005-09-20
"First, Windows software needs to pay the user more respect and stop wasting your own time - don't install pointless things in your system tray, don't interrupt the user with messages, etc."
Every version of Windows since 3.1 has either been trying to point out what an idiot I am or settings that need to be done are buried in some obscure registry (another part of windows that really sucks!) entry with NO help available to perform the necessary change since someone, including the people that write "Using Windows XXX" books, are clueless about just what competent users of computers want their computer to do. That being: Let me do anything that I want, without constantly interrupting me with unnecessary dialogs questioning my intelligence. Grandma & other casual users do need the hand-holding, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES!
Member since:
2006-11-18
