Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:24 UTC
Windows Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has written article in which he wonders if your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it? If what you're running now works for you, why should you move 'up' to Vista? Joe Wilcox responds to SJVN: "Colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols asks 'If your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it?' The very question is the problem. The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place - long after their real usefulness is gone."
Order by: Score:
Why bother
by mcduck on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:32 UTC
mcduck
Member since:
2005-11-23
RE: Why bother
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:36 UTC in reply to "Why bother"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Most of those features mentioned at Wikipedia are already present. Most of the mentioned features are _updated_ features and not new features.

And several of the new features has been backported (which I might add is quite nice).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why bother
by Kroc on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Why bother"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And most are in other operating systems too. Spare DX10, there's not a lot there that hasn't already been done somewhere else. I'm not a gamer, and even if I were, I would not enjoy the thought of being forced into 'upgrading' to Vista by Microsoft's strong-arm tactics with games companies.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Why bother
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

In that regard I'm quite lucky, since I'm quite conservative in regard to games ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why bother
by vimh on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I'm not sure where the strong arm tactics are regarding MS and game companies. I am a gamer. Several of the games I play use DX (and many that use OpenGL but wei'll ignore them for now) however none of those games require full DX9 to run. That's not to say they don't requre DX9, just all of the features available.

Some of my favorite games actually only require a minimum of DX7 class hardware. DX8 hardware is required for additional graphical features and DX9 is icing on the cake. Shader model 3.0 hardware support is a big plus as well.

Let's look ahead. I see a lot of games on the horizon pushing the graphics envelope however DX10 isn't a requirement. Though I'm thinking that the minimum requirement will become DX8 class hardware instead of DX7. DX10 isn't a requirement because you kill your market.

Vista adoption will take a long time and because of that game companies (Microsfot included) will move slowly on requiring DX10 as a minimum. They will continue to support DX9 as much of the market will remain on XP for quite a while.

Of course Microsoft is pushing DX10 big with developers, but even they recognize that they cannot ignore the portion of the market that won't be using Vista until their next PC purchase (in which case Vista will be pre-installed).

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Why bother
by Kroc on Fri 15th Dec 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why bother"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft buying Bungie, Lionhead, Massive; Games for Windows branding; Made for Vista branding. Microsoft are certainly not standing still when it comes to gaming, and cajoling the industry onto Vista.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Why bother
by vimh on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why bother"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

Well, you're right. Microsoft is definately pushing their branding big. MS definately wants to bring everybody into the fold. From a game company standpoint does it make good business sense to go Vista only? I don't beleive it does. At least not for a few years.

And the cajoling is for the Windows platform, not Vista specifically. At this point Vista is Microsofts new big thing, so of course that's where they are focusing their marketing. The purchase of Bungie was to get a good XBOX title. I think the Windows release must have been an afterthought.

Look at Crytek. Their new engine is sort of a poster child for DX10. But there remains DX9 compatibility so those of us running XP won't be left out in the cold. Though I have no plans to play the game. Their first title was pretty lame. The only reason I played it was it came with a video card. You can have pretty graphics. That won't make a fun game.

On a side note, news of Bungie's purchase by MS was a sad day indeed. I remember watching the Halo demo shown at Macworld. Being a fan of both Myth and Myth2 and seeing a soldid Mac/PC developer go the way of MS was truly disapointing.

The purchase of Bungie by MS is one of the biggest reasons I personally prefer a little variety in my development choices. My goal is to release my games on Mac, Windows and Linux.

Not everybody will upgrade to Vista. Not everybody has a PC. But I would like everybody to play my games.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why bother
by sbenitezb on Fri 15th Dec 2006 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

"I would not enjoy the thought of being forced into 'upgrading' to Vista by Microsoft's strong-arm tactics with games companies."

There's always the good old OpenGL (plus other libs) for the game industry if they feel too much strong-arm'd by Microsoft. Anyway, I don't think the game studios really care much about Microsoft tactics. They use DirectX for a reason (and don't come up with that shit of easy to use and all that crap).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why bother
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Why bother"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The question isn't whether some of the features are already present. The question is how much better they're implemented on Vista than on previous platforms -- and I'd assert that the new implementations are head and shoulders above NT4 and XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why bother
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How well they are implemented is of course a different issue. And for Average Joe there can be no doubt the desktop search has been greatly enhanced when comparing with the basic search in earlier Windows versions, though the Vista experience in that regard isn't better than Windows Desktop Search for NT5.x.

But when comparing functionality in a bare XP system and a bare Vista system, the implemenation in Vista is clearly better. But it still doesn't make the functionality new ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why bother
by l3v1 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:27 UTC in reply to "Why bother"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, why bother indeed

It's not about features they include, it's about features you'd need. If there's an overlap, that's a reason to go along. Otherwise "why bother" is quite valid.

Reply Score: 5

Why bother - 2
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:38 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The author's primary reason for updating is "perceived benefits".

Then I'll ask. Why bother with an update if you don't think there is any "perceived benefits"?

Besides that - the real usefullness isn't gone as long as the old technology works. The real usefullness is gone the moment the old technology becomes a problem. And not any sooner.

Reply Score: 5

no, really, why bother
by pjjmartin on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:39 UTC
pjjmartin
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't think Wilcox has made the case that the "if it ain't broke..." mentality dosn't apply to technology. After all, aren't cars and washing machines pieces of technology, too? Wilcox (and Microsoft) need to made the upgrade compelling. It's not enough to prattle on about Moore's Law and technology trends...

You also have to consider that there's a great reason NOT to upgrade right away. There is always some work and cost involved and you risk breaking things for real. Better wait until service pack 3.

Reply Score: 5

RE: no, really, why bother
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "no, really, why bother"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Better wait until service pack 3."

LOL, that might mean: wait forever (or almost)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: no, really, why bother
by Kroc on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: no, really, why bother"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

More like wait for a year after the next OS has already been out (read:XP-SP3)

Reply Score: 3

No choice
by chrono13 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:52 UTC
chrono13
Member since:
2006-10-25

I have to support users who will eventually be using Vista.

It wouldn't matter if Vista was the worst possible OS (which I don't believe it is), because of existing deals with OEMs.

Your family will soon be using Vista, many businesses will begin using Vista because Microsoft all but refuses to secure XP (Service Pack 3? Beuller? Beuller?). And in the end, many of us in end-user support will have to use Vista.

It is a slap-in-the face wake up call when Microsoft releases a product and we see so much "why bother" but it is widely accepted that we will all soon be using it whether we would like to or not (a new OEM PC, support, development testing, gaming, etc).

In a very real way, much of us in IT/IS have to do and move in any way Microsoft deems fit. It is unfortunate that most of these moves seem to be toward solidifying this self-feeding juggernaut. Apple, Linux, and others are successfully, albeit slowly, slowing it, and forcing it, much against it's will, to give us what is best for us, rather than what is best for Microsoft.

I'm already running the beta, and will have to continue to use Vista beyond the beta expiration. I won't want to, but I don't have much choice. Many people like myself, gamers or developers will have to use Vista. And the average, uninformed computer users don't know that they have any choice at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No choice
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:02 UTC in reply to "No choice"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Fact is I'm not amongst those who will be updating. My Win2K3 installation will last a few years yet. And the next OS isn't going to be Vista (NT6). Perhaps the next Windows again if it fits my upgrade pattern.

Reply Score: 3

RE: No choice
by backdoc on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:19 UTC in reply to "No choice"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Wow. I think this is very well stated. I just really hate to admit it's so. I guess the only difference between you and I is that, although I do see things the same as you, I absolutely refuse to accept it. I will not buy Vista. I think it safe to promise that. I may never buy another PC because of Microsoft. Since I run Linux, I will probably someday upgrade hardware, but I'll build it myself without buying Windows. At work, I might have to accept a different way of life. But, at home, I can do whatever I want. And, I'm digging in my heels.

Oh. And, I might add that I will definitely be buying a Mac. I've never owned one. But, I think I will buy a desktop and a laptop. Getting my wifi to work on Linux is such a pain in the ass on my Dell laptop that I still run XP on it. And, I have to keep XP around until I buy a Mac because I use **sticks finger down throat** Intuit products. But, they will run on Mac, so I'll get rid of XP when I can get a Mac.

Edited 2006-12-15 16:24

Reply Score: 3

[offtopic]
by JamesTRexx on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE: No choice"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

Have you tried (Free)BSD for your Dell laptop? It might just have the right driver for your wireless.. (never had trouble with FreeBSD and wireless cards)

Reply Score: 1

RE: No choice
by Kancept on Fri 15th Dec 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "No choice"
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

Maybe I'm an exception, but NO, my family will not be using Vista- EVER. Situations follow-

My dad uses OS/2 (and eComStation) and I don't think I'll ever see a day when he moves from his trusty ol P3. He has spares of it all should the hardware go south.

My mother reads Thai. Try getting a Thai copy of ANY Microsoft product here. Short of importing it through relatives it's impossible for a reasonable price ($500 isn't reasonable for an OS). The Thai language updates only do a partial language conversion of the OS. So she runs a linux distro, as it's Thai through and through. During install, I chose Thai, and she then read the screens to me as it converted it all over from the get go. Thanks Pango.

They also live in an area where broadband is scarce, so have no time or patience for updates. If they chose to use MS products, CDs should be mailed to them twice a year with things that need it.

My sisters both now use Macs. They were careful with Win boxen, but they are so "socially networked" on the web that they open every damn attachment they get. NO anti virus around can protect that kind of dedication to crappy vids and jokes, and anti-virus solutions can't stop what they don't know about to this day. Heuristics still suck. The user still has the fitnal say, and if the user wants to install malicious code, they'll do it. Moving them to Macs has saved me a TON of headaches in keeping their machines in shape.

In laws- most of my inlaws use a distro of linux now and don't know it. 2 of them do know, but their jobs require a type of unix to do as such. The others do light surfing and email. Maybe a picture or 2. They don't NEED pretty UIs or anything. Hell, most still use dial-up for their needs.

My wife owns a store and does web development. She uses XP now, but to this day still would rather be using 2000. She is now looking at a Mac, as it has all the tools she needs, especially since I've converted her to more cross-platform friendly applications.

Me- I now use a Mac, but my spare toy machines are all different OSes. I run OS/2, eCom, BeOS, ZETA, and Haiku. Hell, I even still have a DOS machine that I use for Mame.

So to say your family will be using Vista in the near future is a pretty crappy blanket statement. My family may be one of the few educated out there, but they've made their choices. Vista isn't even a consideration for them. There are more choices out there.

I think in the end, we just all need to help in the education of everyone.

On the same token, the author stating old tech == not useful, is full of crap. Needs vs. wants are totally separate fields. Productivity != new OS. I find having to work around say samba issues in the workplace and authorizing every web site you visit highly unproductive.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No choice
by AdamW on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "No choice"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"many businesses will begin using Vista because Microsoft all but refuses to secure XP (Service Pack 3? Beuller? Beuller?)"

I went into a bank yesterday and their teller terminals are still running Win2K. You think they'd do that if they weren't confident of its security?

Microsoft would LIKE to drop security support for its older stuff and get everyone to use the newer stuff, but historically they've not been ready to live with the media pounding they'd get for doing it. Hell, they only finally stopped shipping patches for 98 this year.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No choice
by ma_d on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: No choice"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Do their teller terminals do anything besides run a secure connection to an application hosted on a VMS or Unix machine? Possibly through a pretty custom graphical interface which just sends commands over a socket...

Because I'm quite sure they don't...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No choice
by pepa on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No choice"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

If that's really true (but I doubt it) they could save a HUGE amount of money by switching those over to Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No choice
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No choice"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

If they're running Win2K in a closed environment without really upgrading it or changing it, how are they spending any money? Once you've bought an MS OS, you don't have to keep paying. Switching has a cost... staying doesn't. Maybe they would have saved back then, but linux has progressed a lot in the past 3 or 4 years, so the choice wasn't clear in linux's favor when the machines were commissioned.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: No choice
by hal2k1 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No choice"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//If they're running Win2K in a closed environment without really upgrading it or changing it, how are they spending any money?//

You can't run Win2K in an expanding environment.

If you need to add machines to your network, they can't be Win2K machines, and you are forced to pay an upgrade cost. What is worse, it will be an upgrade cost for all of your machines, because you probably can't have just a few at the new standard and the rest left at the old.

If you are going to have to switch anyway to expand your network, then you are far, far better off switching to a complete Linux solution than going with XP, and immeasurably better off with a Linux solution than going with Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Yep
by Tymon on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:58 UTC
Tymon
Member since:
2006-05-23

My opinion exactly. I've been fooling around with Vista for the last couple of weeks. I really tried to dig in deep, learn as much as I could and be open minded about it. Microsoft made a huge lap going from ME to XP (as a desktop OS) so had my hopes up for the same kind of progres.

I have to say, in the beginning I was quite impressed by how smooth the new graphics compositing engine works, the new look and the search stuff. Though some days and countless hours later my opinion changed. To make it short:

pros:
Compositing engine is the future, no more tearing, no more "empty" windows when an app stops responding. The glassy look is quite good, for the borders that is.

Search works nice.

UAC probably is a good thing for mr Joe casual user, though I have my doubts, isn't the problem with such guys they just click YES always? Why would it be different here?

cons:
Of course this is pretty much subjective but to me, the new look just feels old and done (except the glassy borders), it's nowhere near the elegance of OS X in terms of overal design. The icons are hi-res, shady, shiny and all, but they look like they were designed for my 60 year old aunt. Also, the FX are getting on my nerves even after these few weeks or working with it! The fades when opening and closing an app are great to look at but after 3 days you wish they wouldn't be there. Then there is Flip 3D, well, this is Microsoft's weak attempt to steal OS X's Expose. It's looks nice but is totally USELESS, quite annoying because the technology is there to make a great Expose rip-off!

While search works pretty good if you keep the default settings, it's hell to configure it for other drives. I'm one of those users who keeps all documents on a different HD partition and I link places like "documents" and "pictures" to folders on that partition. That partition and all files and folders are set to not index in XP, this leads Vista unable to add these files to the Indexing service. OK, this can be fixed but it's way to difficult for user Joe. Again, much better and smoother implemented in OS X. On a side note, Google's Desktop search works much faster with lots of files indexed and is easier to setup.

UAC, Useless Annoyance Control, as I've seen it be called somewhere in the internet ;) I tried using it but it's just plain annoying! Again, this is much better implemented in OS X. And besides the annoyance I had to turn it off anyways for my apps to work correctly (music apps like Nuendo).

So in the end all Vista gives me is the new graphics which are not all that great to me. I'm staying with XP for sometime.

Disclaimer: I'm no Mac fanboy whatsoever (I don't even own a Mac but have lots of experience working with them) but I do acknoledge quality and give credit where credit is due.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Yep
by protagonist on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "Yep"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"So in the end all Vista gives me is the new graphics which are not all that great to me. I'm staying with XP for sometime.

Disclaimer: I'm no Mac fanboy whatsoever (I don't even own a Mac but have lots of experience working with them) but I do acknoledge quality and give credit where credit is due."

Since I am retired all the computer work I do is because I want to and not because I have to make a living at it. I have already told most of the people I support that when they switch to Vista they will be on their own. I recently sold my last Windows machine and now do all my computing on a Powermac G5 with dual PPC's and an IBM with a Pentium IV 3 GH processor with HT that runs Linux and all the other OS's that I like to play with.

Anyway, to get to my point, for me Vista truly is a "why bother" upgrade. It is just not worth the effort. If I install Windows on a partition it will be XP. There is just no compelling reason for me to get Vista and I think that is true of most people. Those that buy a new PC will have Vista and the rest will probably just plod along with XP until they do buy a new computer.

Reply Score: 1

Vista!....who cares.
by abraxas on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:02 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

"If your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it?" The very question is the problem.

The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place--long after their real usefulness is gone.


That introduction doesn't make any sense. If a technology has lost all its usefulness then obviously it is broken and needs to be replaced. Otherwise the first author is correct. If it aint' broke don't fix it.

Microsoft's success, too often dismissed by monopoly, is example of right priorities. Microsoft wasn't always a dominant software developer, and the company has continued to succeed in spite of its success; it's tough to sell products that most customers already own--yet Microsoft does just that.

It is a little weird that Microsoft can sell a product that customer's already own isn't it? I think this has more to do with Microsoft's monopoly position than despite it.

The Windows Vista finished product delivers a remarkably better experience than Windows XP. I'm noticeably more efficient using Windows Vista and Office 2007, and I enjoy working on a computer for the first time in years. I'll have to upgrade my household of PCs for Windows Vista, but I see the cost worth the benefits.

What a load of crap. I would love to have even one example of how Vista makes the author more productive. I can say Linux makes me 10 times more productive but that means squat unless I can back it up.

I challenge every IT organization to make the same evaluation--upgrade and see what Vista does or doesn't do for you. If you've been in the IT business long enough, remember back to when you upgraded the business to Windows 95 and Office 95. The problems Steven identifies--lacking applications and drivers, compatibility problems, etc.--were way more problematic moving from DOS/Windows 16-bit to Windows 95. Yet many businesses made the commitment, because of perceived benefits.

That's a very different upgrade. It was more extreme and although it made things difficult the actual benefit of moving to Windows 95 was much higher than moving to Vista is now. Most applications still are not taking advantage of 64 bits and many won't for years. Office doesn't offer much more than a prettier interface.

That said, Steven's example, of high-end video editing, doesn't cut it. Final Cut Pro's system requirements are significantly greater than Sony Vegas. Even under if Vegas were running under Vista, looks to me like Final Cut is power hungry, by comparison, on a Mac. Apple recommends 4GB of memory for high-definition editing.

Now lets take video editing out of the equation, because it's not what most people are doing. Vista requires much more resources just being idle than a lot of games require to be played.

Should 1.0 even apply to Windows Vista? I don't see how. From one perspective, Vista is version 3.0 from Windows 2000--and Microsoft is renown for getting products right on the third try. From another perspective, Vista is the desktop equivalent of Windows Server, which is the codebase from which Microsoft restarted the project in 2004.

Yikes. I don't think I would trust my money with a multi-billion dollar corporation that takes three tries to release an effective product.

If the benefits are there, or perceived to be, people will upgrade to Windows Vista. The aesthetics are compelling. If the IT organization doesn't see the value, fine. Microsoft is counting on the aesthetics and other benefits to generate some end-user sales pull.

Aesthetics are the worst reason to upgrade. I've seen a lot of software that looks prettier than the previous version but runs like crap. Look at the newest AIM client from AOL.

Unfortunately, most people don't much like change. If there's a major reason why people wouldn't upgrade to Windows Vista, resistance to change is going to be it. As I stated at the start of this counterpoint, that's the wrong reason.

Resisting change for the sake of resisting change is not good but if there is no real benefit from upgrading then upgrading just because a new version is released is just as bad if not worse.

Reply Score: 5

Grating assumptions.
by MacTO on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:08 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

These upgrade vs. don't upgrade articles are incredibly grating because they depend upon so many assumptions. But this is more true for the upgrade side, who likes to proclaim that new technology instantly means improved productivity.

There was a book published on the topic of computers and productivity a number of years back by Landauer. While I'm sure that people will dismiss the book "The Trouble with Computers" as being meaningless because of it's age, it is also worth pointing out that the dynamic was quite similar in the mid-1990s as it is today: salesmen have a product to sell, and they claim that newer/faster/better features mean an instant boost in business productivity.

Landauer's point was that it may be true, and it may not be true. Quite often, productivity and usability studies are not completed or are very shallow. So a new piece of technology may not boost productivity at all. Another central point was that productivity often depended upon implementation. So if that wonderful proven productivity booster was plopped onto the company's employees without planning the deployment strategy or re-training the employees, they would not see the desired effects (or even quite the opposite). Just imagine a company subscribing to the Internet, to centralize their inventory system and communicate with their clients. A big productivity boost, right? If done properly, sure. Done improperly, and your employees may end up using it for personal email and web browsing.

Adopting new technology takes time. It takes time to see what the true productivity gains will be, where the faults are, and to plan implementation. In businesses, and to some individuals, time has a real monetary value. Either way, software and the resulting hardware upgrades do involve money. So unless there is a clear cut and positive return from an upgrade, why even consider it?

Reply Score: 5

I'm so tired of this attitude
by eantoranz on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:13 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

I'm already sick of this "Whatever Microsoft says is OK" attitude from people.... and even more when it's IT people who spit it. Ugh!

I get sick at people who BARELY know what Vista is... but are willing to kill anyone who stands in their way to get it.

I feel so down at the time of writing this comment, guys.. really. :-(

Reply Score: 5

RE: I'm so tired of this attitude
by eggs on Fri 15th Dec 2006 19:29 UTC in reply to "I'm so tired of this attitude"
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

I'm sick of the people who see the word Microsoft and automatically start spouting off that smug rhetoric about how they don't need it and "MS is out to get me".

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

They probably do it because they're sick of Microsoft and its allies spouting off that smug rhetoric about how they don't need anything else and MS invented the concept of "innovation".

Reply Score: 1

eantoranz Member since:
2005-12-18

Well, eggs.... they are certainly not after me... just my money (and yours as well). ;-)

I will say what I have already said over and over: Microsoft is NOT a software company.. they are a marketting one.... but then why do people (specially analysts) talk about it like it's the non-plus-ultra of IT? Considering all the efforts they have put (and continue to) in locking up customers, IT people should be more apprehensive towards them. It's sickening, man!

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm so tired of this attitude
by pecisk on Sat 16th Dec 2006 08:55 UTC in reply to "I'm so tired of this attitude"
pecisk Member since:
2005-10-20

Marketing, baby, marketing.

All new Windows releases is hyped. Vista is hyped. Office is hyped. But even with all that hype, you must admit that overall sentiment is rather negative. Yeah, of course, OEM will pushed to install that, and Office 2007, but it won't change a thing in opinion.

Reply Score: 1

Vista will probably be good - but good enough?
by Larz on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:18 UTC
Larz
Member since:
2006-01-04

In my mind, there is no clear-cut reasons why you should either adopt or not adopt Vista. For some it will make sense, and for some it wont. It is all down your current infrastructure vs. your desired infrastructure in the future.

I do however see two general problems with Vista:

Firstly, I do believe that the importance of the desktop is diminishing rapidly. Good-enough functionality and performance of existing products (Windows or competitors), as well as more centralized application deployment (such as web applications), will drive out the strategic importance of the desktop.

Furthermore, I think (and hope!), that the this will be the last 'big bang' development of Windows. Re-training and development of new versions of software is an extremely expensive thing to do. Often much more expensive than the software, and the hw to run it. In the future software must be delivered in a much more incremental way. Ripping out and replacing the desktop infrastructure every x years, is simply not worth it.

Your mileage may of course vary - but generally speaking software deployment is heading towards maturity.

Reply Score: 3

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Firstly, I do believe that the importance of the desktop is diminishing rapidly

I agree wholeheartedly, maybe because of slightly different reasons. What I think is that the "desktop" [meaning the interface of an OS you interact through] shouldn't matter. I want a desktop which I don't even need to use. For me a "desktop" is just something I need to access my tools, my apps, my data, my files. What I want in it is that it should be as less obtrusive as possible, I don't want to have anything to do with the thing. Among my desktops [among many OSes and many GUIs] my favourite is my thoroughly customized kde desktop, with nothing visible except a slim taskbar with some frequently used icons.

All in all, I expect a desktop I use to _not_ be a resource hog, and I don't want fancy effects needing a gazillion gigs mem on a video card but I want nice fonts, clear borders, usable arrangement, easy access and overly free customizability. MS [and anybody else] has no clue how I, as a user, want my desktop to look like, so I expect them to let me customize everything as I see fit.

Vista is nice, to some extent, I won't argue with that. Feature-wise alright, GUI-wise too much too late too wannabe.

Reply Score: 4

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Small bangs don't create the correct environment of fear, "Oh lord we'll be left behind", type of panic required to milk the users properly. There'll be plenty more big bangs, you can depend on it.

Reply Score: 3

Yes, bother
by gonzo on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:25 UTC
gonzo
Member since:
2005-11-10

Also featured on the front page of eweek is another article titled "Yes, bother", a sort-of answer to "Vista: Why bother?"

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/vista_yes_bother.html

Reply Score: 1

Usefulness is gone?
by zambizzi on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:26 UTC
zambizzi
Member since:
2006-04-23

That's strange...because just a few months ago I remember seeing ads on TV for Windows XP...and all the many devices and software that run on it. MS was obviously pushing XP's usefulness quite hard until Vista popped onto the market.

Suddenly, XP has outlived its usefulness?

Hmm...that opinion probably has nothing to do w/ bias.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Usefulness is gone?
by l3v1 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:40 UTC in reply to "Usefulness is gone?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

that opinion probably has nothing to do w/ bias

No, it doesn't. All it has to do is marketing. You have to create the market for your product that is hard to push down on some throats. Even if it means downgrading your previous hero.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Usefulness is gone?
by markjensen on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "Usefulness is gone?"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

That's strange...because just a few months ago I remember seeing ads on TV for Windows XP...and all the many devices and software that run on it. MS was obviously pushing XP's usefulness quite hard until Vista popped onto the market.

They have OEMs, such as Dell, HP, etc. that depend on Christmas revenue. Since they don't have a Vista product to deliver in their PCs, they have to ship XP to consumers and offer "coupons" for Vista. I am pretty sure that Microsoft offered a concession of increased advertising to smooth any ruffled feathers these OEMs might have had.

It's not a statement of weather XP or Vista is "useful" or not.

Reply Score: 2

Skip Vista... Go directly to Linux
by acamfield on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:38 UTC
acamfield
Member since:
2006-11-17

I just think it's comical the way the windows "analysts" want to use things like TCO to justify staying with XP and not migrating to Linux, but when it comes to leaving XP and migrating to vista, it's "Don't worry about TCO. It doesn't really matter in the big picture." Why, do you think that is? Because migrating to vista is going to be very expensive. MS knows that and they can't hide it. So, they say ignore it. It'll only hurt for a little while. If you're going to go through the expense and trouble of migrating to a different OS, be smart about it. Migrate to Linux. For many years, I've heard many business owners talk about how they wished they didn't have to support multiple platforms in their IT depts. If you migrate to Linux on the desktop and you already run Unix on your servers, problem solved.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

but when it comes to leaving XP and migrating to vista, it's "Don't worry about TCO. It doesn't really matter in the big picture."

I don't hear people saying that. Can you provide a reference (besides SJVN)? Increased hardware demands don't automatically translate into higher costs. Hardware costs for memory, disk space, video cards, etc have come down substantially in recent years -- to the point that it's essentially a wash to compare the machine from several years ago to the machine of today. If anything, TCO for Vista will be more appealing because of the improved security & stability.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//TCO for Vista will be more appealing because of the improved security & stability.//

Hmmph.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16742/Hackers-Selling-Vista-Zero-Da...

So much for that idea.

Reply Score: 2

It's the applications!!!
by bolomkxxviii on Fri 15th Dec 2006 16:39 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Do home users really spend so much time playing with the OS that it is worth upgrading hardware, fighting driver issues, etc. to use Vista? Would the average home user know the difference of their favorite application (say itunes) running on XP vs. Vista? Until some piece of software comes out that I just have to have and it only runs on Vista, I will not "upgrade".

On a different note, I am interested in seeing how Vista's DRM effects home users every day usage of their computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's the applications!!!
by eMagius on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "It's the applications!!!"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

On a different note, I am interested in seeing how Vista's DRM effects home users every day usage of their computers.

It enables playback of HDCP protected HD-DVD/Blu-ray disks and more secure encryption of private files. Despite the FUD, there are no "DRM" drawbacks to Vista over XP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's the applications!!!
by raver31 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the applications!!!"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hahahahaha

DRM does not enable playback of HD_DVD/Blu-ray disks....

Google is your friend, please use it wisely.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's the applications!!!
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's the applications!!!"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

While studios have refrained from requiring HDCP for now, it is part of both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specifications. HDCP is very much DRM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's the applications!!!
by Kroc on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the applications!!!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

The drawbacks are if you want to exercise your fair use rights granted to you by law - particularly if you are in Europe. All this protected media path is going to make taking screenshots of video, and ripping DVDs and taking audio samples much more difficult.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's the applications!!!
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's the applications!!!"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

HDCP only affects HDCP-protected media. If the media is not HDCP-protected, it's just as easy to take screenshots/rip video, etc. with Vista as it was with XP. If the media is HDCP-protected, it's at least as easy to take screenshots/rip video, etc. with Vista as it was with XP (as only Vista can access it at all).

So how is Vista worse than the alternatives? Because it gives consumers greater freedom?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It's the applications!!!
by hal2k1 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's the applications!!!"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//So how is Vista worse than the alternatives? Because it gives consumers greater freedom?//

Vista is worse because it tries to supply a platform for "HDCP-protected media".

It would be better to provide a platform for this:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/12/16/2053210.shtml

and then see if content providers would support it.

Reply Score: 2

trinitrotolueen Member since:
2006-10-03

It enables playback of HDCP protected HD-DVD/Blu-ray disks and more secure encryption of private files. Despite the FUD, there are no "DRM" drawbacks to Vista over XP.

Sure there are a lot of HD titles to choose from.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's the applications!!!
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's the applications!!!"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure there are a lot of HD titles to choose from.

How is that relevant? HDCP (and thus the changes to Vista's DRM) doesn't affect non-HD-DVD/Blu-ray sources.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's the applications!!!
by raver31 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:14 UTC in reply to "It's the applications!!!"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting you should bring this up....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6182657.stm

from todays news on the BBC..

Some people will hear word of mouth from their friends about DRM and leave Vista well alone.

Pity Mr Gates had not thought about this BEFORE implementing DRM

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: It's the applications!!!
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the applications!!!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I love the way he now admits that it's a waste of space because "it's too complex for consumers".

As if we didn't know already that MS makes products for the one six-year-old in class who was held back a year.

Reply Score: 4

Vista
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:01 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

The thing is most of the end-user features of Vista can be in XP using 3rd party products. Hell, even UAC-type software is availible.

Whoever made investments in these products won't see much value in Vista and probably wait until they replace their systems.

Reply Score: 1

From what I have seen...
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:19 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

...Some programs are not compatible or barely compatible with Vista. Examples: Fritz 9 and similar (not compatible). Chessmaster 10 (barely compatible).
So you spend a lot of money for a new OS and find out that not only the new features were not worth your money, but that some of your favorite applications have stopped working: nice when the main reason for booting into Windows were those applications in the first place.

Reply Score: 3

RE: From what I have seen...
by trinitrotolueen on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:43 UTC in reply to "From what I have seen..."
trinitrotolueen Member since:
2006-10-03

..Some programs are not compatible or barely compatible with Vista.

Add Nero 7.x

Reply Score: 4

Rebuttal Article
by skwirlmaster on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:28 UTC
skwirlmaster
Member since:
2006-02-17

"The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place - long after their real usefulness is gone."

Is XP somehow no longer useful? Can i no longer do the things i need? I seem to be doing quite well, as a matter of fact the only reason i upgraded from 2000 to XP was because it's what i _have_ to support at work. Same reason i keep up to date on IE.

The bottom line is that windows Vista isn't any more useful now than XP, and it's far less practical. Perhaps the fact that so much Windows software is broken on Vista means that it is _LESS_ useful than XP. I'd go so far as to say Vista really isn't all that much more useful than Win98. I can install Firefox 2.0, VLC, OO.o, and thunderbird on a Windows 98 machine. That would take care of 99.9% of what i use a computer for.

Just because Vista has these new Wizzbang API's and a Foundation kit for every occasion doesn't mean it's useful.

Forgive the rant, i just take exception to the thought that staying on the Upgrade Treadmill is the only way to stay productive or to get useful things done.

Reply Score: 3

resolution independence
by arielb on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:34 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

thats a big deal for me as I have a CRT monitor capable of 2048x1536 but keep it at 1600x1200 so that nothing is tiny

Reply Score: 1

stop development?
by stooovie on Fri 15th Dec 2006 17:53 UTC
stooovie
Member since:
2006-01-25

What is Microsoft to do, cease development? These arguments are useless.

Reply Score: 2

RE: stop development?
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:08 UTC in reply to "stop development?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That's the problem, isn't it? The Microsoft empire is running out of ideas, but their products are still forcibly installed on 95% of computers.

If it goes on much longer it'll be as if the Roman Empire had managed to hang on in the West till about the year 1200, despite repeatedly being invaded by Rome-sacking barbarians.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: stop development?
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE: stop development?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Dude, talk about running out of ideas. Find some new analogies.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: stop development?
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: stop development?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

AFAIK that's the first time I have seen or used that one, thankyou.

Reply Score: 2

Let me think...
by merkoth on Fri 15th Dec 2006 18:36 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Why bother? Well, maybe because it's the OS that unfortunately will be installed in 90% of the computers in a few years?

As the IT drone that I am, I'm forced to get used to Vista as much as possible, mostly because I'll have to explain other people how to use it. Many times. And some of them will never learn, but I'm sure you all guys know what I'm talking about.

Moreover, if I ever get to work in the game industry, I'm afraid that I'll have to get even more used to Vista, unless I'm lucky enough to work for a game console (not the 360 though).

We can use other OSes as much as we want but, sooner or later, we'll have to face Vista. Anyway, I'm not dropping GNU/Linux anytime soon; using many OSes isn't that difficult.

Edit: nasty typos

Edited 2006-12-15 18:41

Reply Score: 1

RE: Let me think...
by arielb on Fri 15th Dec 2006 18:44 UTC in reply to "Let me think..."
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

it may be installed on 90% of new pc's but it won't be installed on 90% of the pc's that are out there now. I think most people will keep their pc's for awhile and there really isn't a compelling to get a new one. You don't buy a new PC just to run aero...that's silly.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Let me think...
by MacTO on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "Let me think..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

We can use other OSes as much as we want but, sooner or later, we'll have to face Vista. Anyway, I'm not dropping GNU/Linux anytime soon; using many OSes isn't that difficult.

For some people, perhaps. But not for all people.

I was using anything-but-Windows for more than a decade. It worked well enough, because the field that I worked in was very Unix-centric. I then went into a field that is dominated by Windows and the Macintosh. Not wanting to deal with proprietary and expensive hardware, I decided to use Windows simply to be cooperative with the people that I associate with.

To be blunt, it didn't work out that well. Windows XP itself is okay, but that ubiquitous Microsoft Office was more trouble than its worth. OpenOffice was just as compatible, more stable, faster, and friendlier to use given my needs. I was also shocked to discover that the few Windows/Macintosh specific applications that I do use worked fine under Wine. I have learned my lesson, and that lesson is simple: you can coexist with the outside world and still mostly do things your own way. So Vista certainly is not in my short term future, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that it is not in my long term future.

Reply Score: 3

2008
by Shaman on Fri 15th Dec 2006 19:04 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

Whether Vista is in my future or not doesn't really matter to me at the moment. I won't be touching it until at least 2008, when it should be reasonably stable and free of the biggest bugs they didn't have time to fix before pushing the thing out to early manufacturing for market reasons.

Of course, in my world it just loads my games anyways. I'll be using KDE 4.x for real work by then, I hope.

Edited 2006-12-15 19:05

Reply Score: 2

Not a chance
by Dudesdad on Fri 15th Dec 2006 19:35 UTC
Dudesdad
Member since:
2005-07-10

I already have two XP licenses that I don't use anymore.
Having migrated two of my computers to Slackware only status with the third dual booting just for remoting into my at work machine I think I will take a pass on Vista.
Microsoft does make some good stuff though.
Their optical mouse is pretty good.

Reply Score: 2

Ok Article
by ma_d on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:14 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

The article makes a good point: TCO is bunk, technology should be considered for how it helps and now how it costs. If you can afford it, and it helps, buy it. If it doesn't help, don't worry about it. It's definitely not the end-all-be-all.

But I'm not sure where he gets the idea that because Vista helps him, a writer, it will help everyone. What about cash register PC's. They run one program, full screen or maximized: Vista isn't going to help them, so why upgrade until XP is unsupported?

Need more?
Schools. Upgrades aren't just expensive, they're hard. I've not seen many American high schools where there's a competent system administrator. Getting upgraded to Vista proposes costs to approve in the budget and a lot of work for someone who doesn't know what he's doing. Besides, the kids don't need efficiency on those PC's: Their major use is usually web browsing to kill time or some minor thing in a class (where getting the kids to learn the software is the task of the day more than making them efficient with it). How does Vista help here? Better security maybe?

Libraries fall in about the same boat as the cash register. Many of the PC's are nothing but card catalogs.


So just sense it helps him doesn't mean it helps everyone. And besides, he didn't even mention weighing in negative things such as DRM.

Reply Score: 3

Its your customers stupid!
by shotsman on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:30 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Microsoft is pushing Vista for all its worth. However they do not see (as many replies have indicated) that the existing XP cutomer base needs as its USP (Unique Selling Point).
Give me good reason why I should move from XP to Vista? They Ask.
For the move from NT to Win 2000, the USP was USB Connectivity.
So, would some kind soul please give me the Vista USP that will make me move from XP to Vista?
What is that compelling reason?
Please, Please do not say DX10 and Games. The average user of XP is interested in nothing more than email, Surfing the net and writing a few letters and possibly a bit of home finance.
Would a Vista affictionado please enlighten us morons what it is that Vista will give the average user I have described above that will make him/her dig deep into their hard earned after tax income and shell out lots of $£Eruos, Yen, Krone etc for Vista.
IMHO, Mictosoft have lost the plot. They have lost sight of what it is their customers need. They are giving us what they think they want but not what they need. IMHO, the result will be disaster.
I really think that many people will not but a PC because Vista is installed. All my neighbours are happy with XP and have no plans to move to Vista.
So, what happens when the likes of Dell (to take only one example) go to MS and say, please dear Bill let us sell XP again. No one is buying Vista. Our sales are dreadful.
I know this is probably pure fantasy but I'm just playing the what if card.
Would it be so bad if MS had to withdraw a product due to bad sales. IMHO, it would shake them up so that they really concentrate upon what their customer really want.
As the Spice girls song went, what do you really want, what do you really want...

Reply Score: 2

ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Has friends that gets calls by Microsoft people. He feels that is stuff is ok for what he needs to do. Never reveals why he needed to upgrade in the first place? Was he told to upgrade by the company? Considering or told? Grey area.

Complains that a study by Softchoice reveals that most household PCs don't have enough RAM (1gig needed). And that it will have a hard time running older apps. Then goes on a tantrum about the many ways to turn off Windows! MacOS X and Linux distros probably have the same numbers of way to shut off their respective OS. Then cites a frustrated MS dev that didn't get his way.

He does the famous car comparison that osnews readers enjoy immensely. lol

Complains that an update from one Windows OS to another which is not debatable because it's quite true. Which is why most do full installs. And claims that Linux distros excel at upgrading. I am not familiar enough with Linux distro upgrading to make a solid remark on that one. Plugs openSUSE, his favorite Linux Distro.

This ranticle fails to deliver and is just a resume of other ranticles. Instead he could have burned MS for lousy Mail client, burdened IM, very little 3D explorer action, no DVD containing VS Express/MSDN and my favourite shitty app: WMP.

The real question would be: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, why do you bother writing a whole article when you've answered your own question in your own words in the paragraph starting with "But, it is some trouble,..."

The average joe isn't going to upgrade. (S)he's going to buy a new PC with Vista. ;)

Reply Score: 1

The whole argument is useless
by cmize on Fri 15th Dec 2006 20:53 UTC
cmize
Member since:
2006-09-17

Very few people are going to buy Vista as an upgrade. The vast majority of people will get it with a new computer.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

From the press release:

"Boston, MA—December 15, 2006—The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today launched BadVista.org, a campaign with a twofold mission of exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users' security and privacy rights."

Anyone who knows of some good links to counteract the Vista hype circus should suggest them to BadVista.org.

Reply Score: 1

I want MS to deliver something cool
by JeffS on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:22 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Even though I prefer to use Linux as much as I can, and I've become fed up with Microsoft's business tactics and a lot of their products, I very much want them to give me the "wow, that's really cool" factor in their latest OS offering. That's simply because I will be forced to use it eventually, in one form or another (My work is mostly a Windows shop, and we have both Linux and Windows at home).

So, since I have to play, I want it to be enjoyable.

But I'm not liking what I'm seeing in Vista - ridiculous hardware requirements, DRM up the wazoo, "trusted" err "treacherous" computing (where they can shut you off remotely on a whim), and just lacking anything that is particularly cool. Aero is mildly distracting, and the new interface is pretty and all, and supposedly security is improved (yeah, right). But this Vista thing is looking pretty much like a disaster for consumers.

I really hope that PCs pre-installed with Vista are a sales dud, so that the Dell's and HPs of the world go back to MS and say we want XP, or give us a better, leaner Vista.

Reply Score: 2

End of the line...
by dnstest on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:51 UTC
dnstest
Member since:
2006-06-11

I really have found Windows to be a decent platform for years. Or is that I haven't found a viable alternative for all that time?

My two favorite releases are without a doubt Windows 2000 (all editions) and Windows Server 2003. The two worst (NT family) in my book are NT 3.x and Windows XP 64-bit Edition (why did they release beta quality software?). NT 4 isn't on my sh*t list because of how much an improvement it was over 3.x. All the DOS-based WinDO(w)S can be tossed in the trash.

MS really lost favor with me after XP started getting torn apart by exploits. I found myself spending more time using Windows Update than Access or Excel. WinXP-64, VS 2005, and the IE situation made me finally give up. I am using what I expect to be my last personal-use Windows machine.

Ubuntu is the first viable alternative I have found, and although it leaves something to be desired, it is free and doesn't spy on you. I even have my Grandma using Ubuntu, and she picked up on using Gnome faster than Windows Explorer. I can't wait to see if more business-oriented software will begin to be ported to Linux. For various reasons, I have to use Windows for business applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE: End of the line...
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:07 UTC in reply to "End of the line..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

MS really lost favor with me after XP started getting torn apart by exploits. I found myself spending more time using Windows Update than Access or Excel. WinXP-64, VS 2005, and the IE situation made me finally give up. I am using what I expect to be my last personal-use Windows machine.

If you're happy with Ubuntu, then that's great. But, if security is your beef with XP, there are probably a few things that you should know about Vista. The Vista codebase is built on Win2K3 Server (not XP), and Win2K3 has a stellar security record. In addition to having all network services turned OFF by default -- and only turned on individually when specifically enabled -- users run in Limited User Accounts (LUAs). They don't run in Administrator mode anymore. Which means that malware can't modify the registry, overwrite binaries, and start up zombie network processes. The single largest vector for malware has been Internet Explorer in the past. But now, IE runs in a reduced permission mode under Vista that sandboxes the browser experience so, even if malware were to be able to exploit a buffer overflow, it wouldn't do any harm because the security context prevents it.

Reply Score: 1

Don't bother
by Arne J. on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:29 UTC
Arne J.
Member since:
2006-12-09

Funny the author mentions TCO, and practically discards it thereafter. It is Microsoft that almost invented this term, and uses it at random and in a biased way to compare its products with OSS. TCO is baked air. It cannot realistically be computed. It also is a brutality: I can compute my car's TCO to some extent. I own that car. But since you never really OWN Vista, there is no ownership.
I cannot take his professional level seriously, when he claims that Vista brought back his joy of using computers. He must be deaf and blind about Linux, BSD and OS/X.
I continue to be baffled by people claiming XP and Vista are superior to linux/bsd + KDE, gnome or whatever OSS desktop.
Microsoft is brilliant im making people believe they need (an upgrade to) XP (or Vista, in a few years' time). It creates its own demand, like drug pushers do.
He also fails to point out WHY his production has increased while using Vista. What's so immediate in his IROI jargon about Vista? I will tell you what is immediate: the 300 dollars or more that sets you back when you buy it. Or the price of a new workstation.

My biggest gripes about Vista are sixfold:
1) it is a memory hog: there is no lightweight desktop.
2) When you buy it, you don't own it. You cannot install it on another pc (more than once). You cannot look under the hood (imagine buying a car without a bonnet that opens up...)
3) It's not worth the money: I get a tenfold more worth of productivity with linux/pc bsd using an advanced desktop. E.g: Ubuntu EE is lightyears ahead.
4) I hate the closed source / DRM / proprietary shrine that hangs around it. Same applies to Oracle, not picking on just MS.
5) It shields you from its internals. From an educational viewpoint: you don't learn how (a networked system of) computers work(s). At the most, you can become a MCME (MS Certified Mouseclick Engineer).
6) It has no real free spirited community around it. There's no altruism. There's no intrinsic, engrained sense of educating and helping and sharing.

Finally, the author forgets one important thing: An operating system is a tool, not a goal by itself. I use applications on top of it, I don't see it as an altar to bring sacrifices to. At least not my hard earned cash. An organization derives its productivity from the professional and communication skills of its employees, as well as from the vision and organizational fit implemented by management. Not from some freaking OS.

Edited 2006-12-16 11:32

Reply Score: 1

Why bother?
by Tuishimi on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:22 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why bother with Leopard then?

Microsoft rewrote many of the underlying, unseen components of the operating system. Vista is a platform for the future hopefully made more resilient and amiable to change.

It's their attempt to create something that will stand up to change over the coming decade, but the features introduced were limited because they "ran out of time."

I am sure you will see a number of interesting things come out of Microsoft for Vista over the coming several years.

I am not MS advocate (all macs running Tiger here and soon an old PII at home for BeOS again) but they put years and years of work into this release and people just dismiss it because it has few shiny, new features. It's the potential, kernel potential that people should take a closer look at.

Reply Score: 2

Yes to Vista, but not now.
by axilmar on Mon 18th Dec 2006 13:40 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Vista has some features that can make life easier/prettier, but nothing essential. The leap from Windows 95/98/ME to Windows/NT/2K/XP is great, but the leap from XP to Vista is not so great.

Perhaps in one year or more where the service pack would be available and the major issues with this new O/S will have been resolved, Vista would be worthwhile.

Reply Score: 1

re:re:Skip Vista...
by acamfield on Mon 18th Dec 2006 13:56 UTC
acamfield
Member since:
2006-11-17

I expressed my opinion of the second article. The one by Joe Wilcox. I don't have to support my opinion. I have one about you, too. And you've already substansiated it, so you don't have to demand references.

Reply Score: 1

Money is the key
by Punktyras on Tue 19th Dec 2006 01:00 UTC
Punktyras
Member since:
2006-01-07

I challenge every IT organization to make the same evaluation--upgrade and see what Vista does or doesn't do for you.

Let's assume it doesn't. Are there any money back possibilities? No? What should I do then? Use it anyway - I've paid for software. Excuse me, paid for right to use software in manner MS tells me to use it...

Reply Score: 1

Money is the key
by Punktyras on Wed 20th Dec 2006 02:42 UTC
Punktyras
Member since:
2006-01-07

I challenge every IT organization to make the same evaluation--upgrade and see what Vista does or doesn't do for you.

Let's assume it doesn't. Are there any money back possibilities? No? What should I do then? Use it anyway - I've paid for software. Excuse me, paid for right to use software in manner MS tells me to use it...

Reply Score: 1