OSNews

For all the reading I've done on Vista, the only thing I see compelling to buy it is for directx 10, but since I don't play games...

Security, maybe. But at my shop and home there's good security in place and I haven't had an infection in years.

XP will tied me over until Microsoft gets out of the per copy OS business and into the subscription OS business, at which time I will no longer use MS. So I suppose I am with you. None.

Cheap. But correct! ;-)

I would have to agree.

Admittedly, I have only read about and seen screenshots of Vista, but from what I've read, I can do without Activation, DRM, and so on.

To me, Activation, and software licensing in general, is like buying a car and being told that I can only take one additional passenger with me, on a non-transferable passenger license, and I can only go to a select set of "approved" destinations. Also, if I don't call the dealer within 30 days to register my one other passenger's name, my car will explode.

All other passengers/destinations will cost me extra.

Dumb.

Those are good analogies. If I had time, I think I could elaborate or give some of my own.

That's not quite grasping for the low-hanging fruit. It's more digging up and grasping for the low-hanging fruit that has already fallen off the branch, begun to decompose, and been partially-buried.

aww, you beat me to it. None is the correct answer for me.

Vista looks like an interesting os. But the restrictive license and price are totally unacceptable.

furthermore, the locked down media controls with specific hardware requirements - Unacceptable. who want's to buy a new monitor just for vista? No thank you.

The inability to transfer "your license" to other bits of hardware. Why pay for something, when it's like you don't own it, and can't even use it under certain conditions. like if you change your hardware too many times. It's Microsoft's software, and strangely enough they have the right to tell me how and when it can be used. But, why would i want to pay to be forced into something so restrictive. NO, no thank you.

"We can all afford it. And most of us will want it."

You live in USA, right? You surely can afford it, you live in a wealthy country. But not all can. I don't like Windows, so I won't use Vista. But even if I liked it and wanted to buy it, I couldn't. The prices are too prohibitibe. And the upgrade is useless. You can't upgrade your current XP home and expect it to work fine. So you must buy the whole Vista. Not the Home edition, because it's just a stupid way to throw money to Microsoft.

So we are talking of something like $400 for a piece of crappy software, slow, bloated that nobody wants (at least until SP1), with not so good hardware support that needs a high end computer to work fine. So I don't think we can all afford it and most of us will want it. I would rather think it's just the oposite. At least for now.

You can do a clean install with the upgrade...

When I was using Windows 95 and 98 upgrade, I didn't like to install Win95 and Win98 at each install. This was taking much time.

Now, if I had to buy Vista, i wouldn't buy an upgrade.

(sorry for my english >:) )

"$400?!? Are you high? Nobody pays retail."

So what do you have to do? Buy a new computer? Thanks.

"$400?!? Are you high? Nobody pays retail." - So what do you have to do? Buy a new computer? Thanks.

No no... smartie Joe W. Average will know where he can download the "Ultimate" edition and product key for free because he needs it (of course) and he doesn't see a reason why he should pay any money for software, because he's soooo intelligent and professional...

Or imagine this: "Hey Bob! Look what I've got! It's the new 'Vista' DVD!" - "Wow, Timmy, can you make a copy of the installation DVD for me? I'd like to try it!" - "Sure, my friend. I'll write the registration code on top of the DVD." (I assume "Vista" comes as a DVD.)

What I want to say: Surely the number of illegal copies will increase and "Vista" will be spread around very quickly. I don't think the majotity of new "Vista" users will care about features, editions, hardware requirements or even security, no, they just want to have it because it's "new" - that's all.

"No no... smartie Joe W. Average will know where he can download the "Ultimate" edition and product key for free"

You mean stealing? I thought it was illegal and unethical.

"because he needs it (of course) and he doesn't see a reason why he should pay any money for software, because he's soooo intelligent and professional... "

I need a car. I really don't find a reason I should pay for one. Should I go out there and make one for myself?

We should discourage thievery and pirating. It's wrong.

"You mean stealing? I thought it was illegal and unethical."

I completely agree, but reality seems to be different. Regarding software, most average users don't care. (I hope I'm not doing anyone wrong, it's just my individual observation.) It is illegal and officially prohibited by law, but in "small scale delicts" nobody pays attention. If there's no plaintiff, there's no judge. Software pirating is accepted throughout the society. At least in Germany. It's not that I like it this way, it's a fact.

"I need a car. I really don't find a reason I should pay for one. Should I go out there and make one for myself?"

Because people like car analogies... :-) A car is a material object, not an abstract one. You can see it, can touch it, measure its weight, calculate the price of steel (or wood, if you prefer it). With software it's slightly different: Here you pay for the development, for the time and the working energy of the developers, the testers, the marketing division etc. (Here you can see why most car analogies fail.)

"We should discourage thievery and pirating. It's wrong."

That's right. Software pirating us even not necessary because there are existing alternatives: If you don't want to pay money for a certain part of software, you won't have to; you just have to decide other software. It's simple. (Personally I only use free software - and software I've developed myself.)

Seeing a difference between "right" and "wrong", between "is morally acceptable" and "is unethical" requires a certain stage of individual personal development and intelligence (cf. Kohlberg: stages of moral development; Piaget: stages of cognitive development). Sometimes, I fear, this is not the case for some "average users", but it's not the majority, I assume.

Windows Vista Ultimate or Business are the only worthy versions I would consider to get with a new computer.

All the other editions are crippled in some shape or form.

Edited 2006-12-12 22:24

"If you keep your PC for 4 years [...]"

Who really does this? Especially gamers who will want to have "Vista" will surely buy new components after a few months of use and exchange the whole PC after a time not longer than one year.

"We can all afford it."

Because people like car analogies: I can afford a car - but I don't need one, so I won't buy one. :-)

"And most of us will want it."

I'm not sure Steven Q. Average will even know what "Vista" is so he won't want it. But I agree, he will get it as soon he purchases a new PC with an OEM version of "Vista" preinstalled on it. And because they don't know about alternatives (or don't want to know about it), they will stick with it until a new product from MICROS~1 arrives...

Ah... and I forgot: Most "little more than average" users will upgrade to the "Ultimate" edition for free very soon. :-)

Edited 2006-12-12 20:02

1 year? The whole PC. Not too believable. Most dicussions I've read suggest that gamers might upgrade their video card once a year at most. And PC's every couple.

Vista allows that.


And there lies the real issue. If there is even a question as to whether my OS of choice allows me to upgrade my own damn hardware, it will never touch my hard drive.

And there lies the real issue. If there is even a question as to whether my OS of choice allows me to upgrade my own damn hardware, it will never touch my hard drive.

It's not even a question. So lighten up, Francis.

Is that really so bad? Remember that multiple cores and HT are NOT included in that count so if you had two physical AMD 4 core processors you'd have 8 logical CPU's in your task manager....

Yes it's really so bad. Why buy 1 really expensive cpu when you can buy 2 cheaper ones. And who cares about what # I see in task manager. The end result is what matters and power users don't get the max cpu power available. Why? Other os's can do it.

Don't you see that this is just an artificial limitation to deprive choice in the market?

No... a dual CPU board is already expensive... the next step up is 4 CPUs which makes the wiring insane and thus really really expensive. You pay more for the system with 4 CPUs because of the mobo than you would for a 1 CPU system with 4 cores.

besides that, if you are running 4 CPUs (physical dies with the extra controller logic needed) WTF are you doing running home premium?

"No... a dual CPU board is already expensive... the next step up is 4 CPUs which makes the wiring insane and thus really really expensive. You pay more for the system with 4 CPUs because of the mobo than you would for a 1 CPU system with 4 cores. "

of course the 4 mobo is expensive. Only few people are capable of using it. If everyone was able to use it, then prices for those mobos would go down. This is the problem-you don't think what would happen to the market with more choices.

And of course, those looking for highest absolute performance aren't going to be happy either.

Only a very few need it or want it.

on top of that it will remain expensive because it is still HARD TO MAKE.

Yes it's really so bad. Why buy 1 really expensive cpu when you can buy 2 cheaper ones.

Because they're not cheaper. Price them.

Actually, you're dead wrong.

A Tyan Tiger K8WE retails at around 300$.
Two AMD Opteron 265's cost around 200$ each or 400$. (Even less if you choose the ebay route)
The total price of CPU + board: 700$.

An entry level Intel Kentsfield starts ~750$.
Most Kentsfield compatible boards circle the ~250$ mark.
The total price of CPU + board: 1000$.

Once Clovertown is released, the CPU price will be lower, but at least in the begining, it'll require an uber-expensive Xeon board.

- Gilboa

I beleive that 2 physical cpus is s licence limit rather than an actual limitation of the software even though they state otherwise (so 2cpus for Vista according to that graph).

Doesn't Vista share the same kernal as Windows Server 2003?

I went at looked at a graphic workstation vender and they have machines that are configured with four or eight proccessors (eight to sixteen cores). One of the OS choices was Windows Server 2003 64bit.

So it looks like if you want more than 2 CPUs, you need to run Server 2003 (or don't run Windows). But it seems to me that the limit is based on how MS wanted to liscence their software.

I believe you are right in the licensing question. But on whether Vista shares the same kernel as 2K3, that's not the case. Vista is version 6.0, which is mostly rebuilt or built from scratch, whereas 2K3 is version 5.2. It is however correct that the development initiated from verseion 5.2 (which of course is more sensible than to scrap 5.2 and build on XP/5.1).

Vista is version 6.0, which is mostly rebuilt or built from scratch, whereas 2K3 is version 5.2.

Vista development did a "reset" after Windows 2003 SP1 came out.

Vista is based on Windows 2003 SP1.

I agree. I think Vista is a fairly solid Windows release (as evidenced by my review), but this 209535 different editions nonsense is just plain bullshit.

Seriously. This is so wrong.

The tighter you squeeze, the more will slip between your fingers.

Good in the short term, bad in the long.

I love windows but I hate Microsoft.

I agree. I think Vista is a fairly solid Windows release (as evidenced by my review), but this 209535 different editions nonsense is just plain bullshit.

The reality is that OEMs will decide which edition goes on their boxes -- and customers will only have to "decide" between them if they understand that there are differences between them ... which is unlikely.

"I do run Windows on a number of Systems. Windows Server 2003 that is. Even on my laptop. It lets me control things the way I want and does not get in the way and try to tell me what to do like XP."

Not everyone can afford a $999.00 license for Windows Server 2003 Standard for all of their machines. Unless you're getting your copies from Pirate Bay, Server 2003 is NOT a viable option for home users.

Edited 2006-12-12 19:44

Not everyone can afford a $999.00 license for Windows Server 2003 Standard for all of their machines.

Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

It also comes with a whole lot more.

MSDN (more expensive) also comes with Windows 2003 Server.

Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

I have heard users claim multiple installs for that service, but from what I see on Microsoft's site ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/ms772427.aspx and other pages) indicates that it is not a free-for-all license. It seems to limit rights for one user, for evaluation only. So, using it as your primary OS would be a violation of the EULA, as this is intended to be used by developers checking out compatibility for different platforms, etc.

It might take a call to Microsoft to verify this for sure...

That is correct as far as I know also. TechNet is for EVALUATION only.

"Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

It also comes with a whole lot more.

MSDN (more expensive) also comes with Windows 2003 Server."

Good point, though there is the gotcha's. Technet can only be installed for evaluation and can not be used for production. MSDN can only be used for development and not production...so you can install to evaluate, then to keep using it for production you need to by a commercial license. You forgot to mention those gotcha's.

Nah, I does not cost $999.

Most of my systems are Dell Servers that were bought with Server 2003. At the moent £688 buys you a SC440 and Server 2003 with 5 CALS.
I do software dev o these and my laptop when I visit clients. My main non work OS is Ubuntu.

Edited 2006-12-12 21:26

Also, why does Microsoft think that almost everyone want all that Media Centre Sh1t?

HP and D*** sell MCE now on almost all of their consumer PC's.

Every HP in consumer-type computer stores has MCE on it.

All the D***'s (except for basic models buried deep on the website) have MCE on them.

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Choice. Its a wonderful thing!

Choice. Its a wonderful thing!

as long as it's Microsoft's choice, huh?

as long as it's Microsoft's choice, huh?

Hey, by all means exercise your choice to install Linux or OS X. I think that most of us could care less.

HP and D*** sell MCE now on almost all of their consumer PC's.

Every HP in consumer-type computer stores has MCE on it.

Right.... Because Microsoft offering lots of money for people to ship it == people actually buying it. I see very, very, very, very few people buying Media Centre PCs. I, personally, haven't seen anyone buy one.

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Judging from the woeful sales figures, they don't. It's just that Microsoft has a bee in its bonnet about getting into media and into the living room and is able to bankroll it.

Everyone is buying it.

Poor b*stard consumers have no choice in the matter...

/sarcasm

So do most Gateways.

Don't you mean G******s? :-)

"Everyone is buying it."

No, not everyone.

Just the Sheeple, who buy whatever is on the shelf because someone else decided that they need it or it is the latest thing.(Marketing)

I have built every computer I have ever owned except the first one. (A whopping 4.7 MHZ Model)

But then again I am one of those weird people who want their phone to be just a phone and their camera to be just a camera and so on.

The only thing I really like that is multi-use is my swiss army knife.

Just pointing out the fact that Dell and Gateway and HP doesn't make up "everyone".

None of the people I work with and around would buy any one of those. So obviously not everyone is buying it.

Not everyone is bound by what is "on the shelf" is the point I was making.

I do decide which icons I will use and which font. Don't you? Or do you just use the default set?

I also will decide what goes into my computer, not someone else's idea of what I want or need.

I didn't mean to impress - only educate.

Just pointing out the fact that Dell and Gateway and HP doesn't make up "everyone".

D*** and HP are #1 and #2. I forget where Gateway is.

Just because I didn't list every top supplier, doesn't mean most of them aren't shipping MCE.

Not everyone is bound by what is "on the shelf" is the point I was making.

I've never bought a name brand PC either at work (if I was given a choice) or at home until this go round.

I've spec'd out lots of servers from parts when prices warranted.

This go round, D*** was cheaper than I could buy the parts myself. Quiet too. At work the defect rate of D***'s has been really low too. (I detest the bean counter who ordered a bunch of Acers to save 50$. 20% defect rate on some batches.

Edited 2006-12-12 23:52

The only thing I really like that is multi-use is my swiss army knife.

So you never use your computer to listen to music or watch a DVD?

No, viewing p0rn is single-use.

But that does imply at least some, erm, multi-tasking. At least, assuming we're talking about a media-preceding-the-massage situation.

Of course not. Most are sold online from D***.

Yer. I've noticed that Microsoft are trying to sell them as ordinary PCs in order to keep the sales figures just above absolutely, woefully poor.

Go to D***'s website. Try and find a non-MCE PC. 95% or more have MCE on them.

All that tells me is that Microsoft has been strongarming Dell into exchanging a lot of their Windows XP licenses with MCE ones to try and boost the sales figures. Microsoft knows as well as everyone else that ordinary PC buyers can't buy a PC with anything other than Windows.

Everyone is buying it.

You seem to have real difficulty distinguishing between Microsoft spilling lots of them on their OEMs and popularity - which the Media Centre isn't.

I don't see it going head-to-head with a television and a DVD player in a consumer's thinking.

That remote control is great if you want to play MP3's from across the room or movies or show photos.

Listen. The living room entertainment business (or the hub as they call it) that Microsoft and others want to get into is dead. I can do about a hundred times more with a bunch of open source apps like MythTV and Amarok.

With Amarok I can connect to the Musicbrainz service and get all of my MP3 tags without having to fill them in, and I can connect to a lyrics site to get song lyrics directly as well as biographies and info from Wikipedia. With MythTV I can record any TV program I want at any time, and I can keep it forever, and I can rip my DVDs to my hard drive for easy retrieval.

What do I get with MCE and Windows Media Player? Not a whole lot. Most of the stuff any consumer would find useful has been crippled beyond recognition by DRM requirements (transferring digital rights on WMAs to other machines, broadcast flags, borrowing a friend's film?!), and it's at that point that people throw the whole thing away as any kind of Media Centre.

As long as DRM restrictions exist on these devices, forget about the entertainment hub. It's laughable.

That remote control is great if you want to play MP3's from across the room or movies or show photos.

The people who want that stuff are already doing it, and a hell of a lot more besides.

Choice. Its a wonderful thing.

I doubt whether Microsoft would agree with you because most are choosing not to, or they're being put off completely after getting the thing home and getting stung.

Right.... Because Microsoft offering lots of money for people to ship it == people actually buying it. I see very, very, very, very few people buying Media Centre PCs. I, personally, haven't seen anyone buy one.

That's because nearly all of today's PCs have the processor power, media drive(s), and disk space to act as a Media Center PC. There's no need to have a special designation. The only thing that most lack is a $50 NTSC/PAL/SVIDEO card. Big deal.

Judging from the woeful sales figures, they don't. It's just that Microsoft has a bee in its bonnet about getting into media and into the living room and is able to bankroll it.

If I had a dime for every complaint that ABMers lodged against free software from MS, I'd be rich...

....and yet you're not (I assume)

Perhaps I should have said "richer"... ;-p

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Actually I think they are putting MCE on because MS killed XP Home.

Edited 2006-12-12 22:31

They like bitlocker not being there in the lower versions but love that "Instant Search" is built in to every version. Like with Spotlight, no longer will they need to do extensive work to find what they are looking for.

No. I can't think of a single linux vendor which offers six different versions, unless you include those for non-Intel architectures. Which Vista doesn't.

No. I can't think of a single linux vendor which offers six different versions, unless you include those for non-Intel architectures. Which Vista doesn't.

Try 600 distros, most of which are incompatible.

Try 600 distros,

From one company?

Actually I think you've overestimated the number of distros there by a factor of 2.

most of which are incompatible.

Yes, dear.

Yes, dear.

Don't try to ingratiate yourself with me.

Hahah, I wouldn't bother if my life depended on it.

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, and Ubuntu Server. That's five, and that's not counting unofficial variants (Fluxbuntu, Linux Mint, etc).

...except they're not different version. Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE installed. My Kubuntu has Gnome installed as well, so it's both.

There's no pricing difference (they're all free), no differences in arcane licensing schemes (free software), it's the same help guide (ubuntuguide.org) and forums (ubuntuforums.org)...

Hey, I don't even really consider myself a Kubuntu user. I use Ubuntu with KDE.

The "real" versions of Kubuntu are Dapper Drake (LTS), Edgy Eft (most up-to-date) and Feisty Fawn (developement).

They're not different products, they're variations of the same product.

But by now I know that reality doesn't really concern you. All that matters is the propaganda framework you've set up to support your overwhelming pro-MS bias.

You're either a fanatic, or an astroturfer. I'm leaning for the second.

Yes, those are separate desktop environments. Windows as shipped from the vendor does not have separate desktop environments. So why the 6 versions?

Look, yes, the number of distros available to use can be confusing, if you take the view that they are all the same. They are not. There are a very clear top 10, most if not all of which correlate with Distrowatch's top 10. The existence of multiple Linux versions does not make Linux a bad product, anymore than the existence of TVR and Skoda as well as BMW, Jaguar, Ford, and General Motors makes cars a bad product.

Come to mention it, General Motors makes no less than 15 brands of vehicle, according to Wikipedia, most of which are not available in all markets (Chevrolets are not sold in Britain, Vauxhalls are not sold in Europe or the United States (though the same bodies tend to go by the name Opel in Europe)). Again, that does not reflect on the quality of cars in general or of General Motors vehicles in particular. So why should it reflect on the quality of Linux?

So why the 6 versions?

Why does nVidia make so many kinds of video cards? Why does Intel make so many kinds of processors? Because it makes sense to sell products with different capabilities at different prices. Users who don't need everything the high-end product offers can buy something farther down the scale, which saves them money.

I wasn't attacking Linux. I love Linux, I'm running it now (Arch at the moment). In fact, I wiped Windows off my drive last week. I was just trying to make the point that both Windows and Linux have different versions, with different capabilities, for different tasks. That's a good thing. Especially with Windows, where users with few needs (Office/web/email types) don't have to pay as much as the Power Users who need Every Feature Under The Sun.

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, and Ubuntu Server. That's five, and that's not counting unofficial variants (Fluxbuntu, Linux Mint, etc).

And, then, believe it or not..

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntuce

The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is not to bring Christianity to Linux but to bring Linux to Christians.

One good thing though is:

Q: Is Ubuntu Christian Edition designed for Protestants or Catholics?
A: Both! Ubuntu Christian Edition will always try to cater to the needs of all Christians.

LOL

Now THERE are two groups of loonies that we don't need teaming-up.

Not all Christians are like Bush or Limbaugh.

Some of them are actually genuinely nice, sensible people.

no offence

Religion is in my opinion just a naming convention.
My problem is though what name should i use for something i have never seen.jo don't have to go to church in order to believe.God is real unless declared integer.

no offence

None taken. I'm not Christian, I just know some pleasant folks who are.

.God is real unless declared integer.

Heheh.

Not all Christians are like Bush or Limbaugh.

I'm glad.Though i doubt they are real ones.If they where christian the people from Louisiana and area would have had some help more quickly.

ROFLMAO!!!

... I used to complain about the six editions (which I still think is daft), now I have seen everything!

I take it all back!

of course, with all due respect now the developers need ubuntu muslim edition, buddhist edition, and so forth and so on. of course, i would love to see ubuntu athiest edition.

Edited 2006-12-13 17:12

everything revolutionary has been stripped away from the final release. all we are left with is a bunch of new fluff

I and millions of others wouldn't call it fluff.

And Microsoft plans to add the few features "stripped away" later on for no additional cost.

Some of them needed Longhorn finished anyway before they would be useful to the Vista Client.

all we are left with is a bunch of new fluff

Fluff? You're in need of education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#End-user_features

Would that be: Vista - Dead Man's Chest edition

only 2 cpu's allowed, even in ultimate. hmph

2 sockets. Unlimited cores.

If you want 8 cores, buy a dual I**** 53xx box with 4 cores on each CPU. That is supported.

what if i want 16 cores? remember this is for ultimate

what if i want 16 cores? remember this is for ultimate

Hehe :-) I think your definition of "ultimate" somewhat exceeds that of the Microsoft marketing division.

what if i want 16 cores?

Buy Longhorn.

Or Technet Plus.

Or MSDN.

Or wait until Intel offers an 8 core CPU.

Or get Linux.

Or Solaris.

Or *BSD.

:-)

So you're admitting that people (including businesses) that have 16-core PCs are better off with a *nix solution?

Well, that's a first. I think I'll have to report you to your manager, you're supposed to defend MS at all cost, even if you need to fudge statistics, misrepresent other people's words, or make outrageous claims!

Meanwhile, I remember specifically that you tried to bring in multi-core cpus when you made the very weak argument that market share by revenue was more important than market share per unit for servers...as usual, you change your tune every time it suits your agenda.

"If you want 8 cores, buy a dual I**** 53xx box with 4 cores on each CPU. That is supported."

Damn it, NotParker, you don't need to put stars in every single sentence!
See: Dell, Intel, Amd are no curse words.
Whoever modded you down that one time probably had about one million reasons to do so and you mentioning Dell was not one of them!

I know it's off topic but it makes me sick.

On topic:
Vista looks sweet but I would at least wait for SP1 to come out.
The problem with Vista is not just the cost of the OS itself but you also need pretty powerful hardware.
Of course, you can get it with a new Pc pretty cheap.
But you don't get to really configure and tweak your system then and the OEM-version will give you trouble when you upgrade parts.
Generally speaking, buying OS and PC, printer, TFT, whatnot in a bundle is great unless you intend to change _anything_.

I can if I want to. Free speech and all that.

WhatEVA! You don't control me, I do what I want!

Edited 2006-12-13 04:43

Damn it, NotParker, you don't need to put stars in every single sentence!
See: Dell, Intel, Amd are no curse words.
Whoever modded you down that one time probably had about one million reasons to do so and you mentioning Dell was not one of them!

Indeed. I modded down the post for basically linking to an computer ad. NotParker jumped on this as an occasion to attack my character. I told him many times it was perfectly fine to write company names like Dell or Intel, but he childishly continues his charade, not realizing it makes *him* look foolish.

BTW, NotParker, see how you *don't* get modded down when you make on-topic, respectful post? (Or not as much, anyway?)

This *is* off-topic. Please mod down this post.

CPU limits are mostly used to prevent using Vista desktop as a server, expecially if you consider that, as far as I know, IIS verion which ships with Vista Business+ has no websites limits like XP one.

Only a few subset of users will need more than 2 CPUs and while gamers are among them, they probably think most multi-CPU systems will be used in servers field.

"CPU limits are mostly used to prevent using Vista desktop as a server, expecially if you consider that, as far as I know, IIS verion which ships with Vista Business+ has no websites limits like XP one. "

aha so there we go. It was never about Microsoft's inability to do it.
btw use Firefox 2...typos should be history on the web.

I don't think so. With quad core CPU's CPU limits are not the issue.

IIS7 does have limits on Vista. Just not the same ones as on XP.


http://www.iis.net/default.aspx?tabid=2&subtabid=25&i=1100

"The Professional Editions places a limit of 10 simultaneous requests that can be processed."

"The IIS 7 simultaneous request execution limit for the Vista Starter and Home Editions is three."

Thanks for showing that Vista's limitations are arbitrary, artificial and only to create product differentiation where none would exist. Most people will opt to run Apache on Windows if they happen to be stuck with Windows, rather than put up with nonsense such as only 3 simultaneous connections on a web server.

"The IIS 7 simultaneous request execution limit for the Vista Starter and Home Editions is three."

Vista Starter and Home editions will have no IIS7, according to that document. IIS 7 will be available on Vista Home Premium+.

Still I believe they tried to limit Vista use as a server, the same way they do with XP (which, if I can remember it well, supports up to 2 CPUs). I could be wrong, of course.

"But NO version of vista is supporting more then 2 cpus, not even the business edition. And while a 16 core workstation will newer be the normal business computer, there are quite many uses for such a beast, but I guess they will have to keep running Windows XP"

Ermm..Windows XP also only supports 2 Processors....

My bad... The server system supports more than that right?

If you want to do something with 16 CPUs and are not running a server then use Linux.

well since the most popular vista version will be "basic" which only supports 1 cpu, that won't significantly lower the price for even 2 cpu pc's.

No edition is "right" for me.

Since my field of work is IT, I will probably run Vista on one of my boxes to play with it...

Why not simply avoid Vista entirely and let your skills degrade...? That sounds like a better option... /sarcasm

Umm... just install them!!!

cripes the software is already on your system which is why the updates are marked. Remove the server software (apache is server software) and you will not get those updates.

Umm... just install them!!!

cripes the software is already on your system which is why the updates are marked. Remove the server software (apache is server software) and you will not get those updates.

Nope. Been burnt twice already. I do not do "just install the whole shebang" updates. Figuring out what exactly did it, digging all of it out, and re-downloading several copies of corrupted programs was so not how I wanted to spend most of one Saturday afternoon. (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't an update to OO or Firefox that caused me all my grief.)

My point is, WTH do I even have apache on a desktop focused distro?! It should a package I download later or (as with OS X) buried deeply enough that I don't get bothered about it.

It's also one of the reasons my DH does not have a Linux machine. He couldn't make heads or tails of those descriptions and I'd get a lot of phone calls about "do I need to install this?" or "What does this do?"

Then again, he's presented with a list of about 7 upgrades to install. In Xubuntu, I've got nearly 20. (Which is the downside of all the choice Linux gives us.)

I have NEVER had corrupted files download from ubuntu... or any other linux system... what repos were you using?

My point is, WTH do I even have apache on a desktop focused distro?! It should a package I download later or (as with OS X) buried deeply enough that I don't get bothered about it.

That's strange. I don't have Apache installed on my Kubuntu laptop. I installed the basic package setup...are you sure you didn't install the server version? Or is it a decision taken by the Xubuntu maintainers?

I agree that Apache is basically useless for a desktop/laptop installation...but I don't see it on mine, and AFAIK it's not on the default install of Ubuntu either.

(Most) Linuxes: One size fits all.

Hear, hear.

I find it ridiculous that MS cripples lower-priced version simply to increase its revenue stream. This has nothing to do with the quality of the overall product, and everything to do with *greed*.

My original complaint still stands: too many versions. And home edition premium should have the ability to be Remote Desktoped in.

It does. Thats why the chart says "Remote Desktop" is limited.

But for those versions its called Remote Assistance. You can email or IM an RA request to your techie of choice and get them to take over your pc for troubleshooting.

I want to dial into another headless PC. I don't have an IT dept at home to take care of download/ftp server.

It still escapes me why OS desktop providers don't push this feature. It's so useful.

"It still escapes me why OS desktop providers don't push this feature. It's so useful."

Well, there are tools out there for this as well, such as VNC. That is free I might add, and will work on any OS.