OSNews

Your comments are pretty much on the mark, but Vista will be a big seller for Microsoft nevertheless. Why? Because Microsoft owns the OEM market. Furthermore, Microsoft Office really only runs *fully* on a Microsoft Windows platform, and most businesses are wholly dependant on Office.

Dave

Melkor:

most businesses aren't wholly dependent on Office -- they _think_ they are.

We have seen in real life examples that people have worked with SO/OOo without their knowledge. We have also migrated small business and we generally do not have support issues at all. In fact, we hear positive stuff like the pdf generation out of the box, stuff like that !

Yes, MS owns the OEM market and that in fact is the _only_ reason why it's seen so often. It's not really because it's good, it's all about the marketing practices and the well known "XXX recommends windows XP" on all advertisements. That's the problem.

In many respects, vista is nice; however, the MAC and linux variants show off better, have much more performance, more stable, more eye candy if you like and cost less. Even the MAC!

I'm going to pull you up on that one. A lot of businesses are very much dependent on MS Office. There are many specialised and in-house applications that extensively use the scripting of MS Office, particularly in the case of Excel.

I do not buy that Open Office can execute VBA code. I've dealt with many instances where it simply doesn't work without significant modification of the code and some times top-level logic, which adds serious levels of concern to the qualification, stability and proper business logic execution in the alternative product.

Businesses are also dependent on MS Office because their external partners use MS Office and the risk of poorly formed documents can cast shadows over a business.

As for PDF generation, this is a very easy (and free) addition to any SOE build or can be easily deployed with the appropriate infrastructure to do so.

for document exchange, the standard IS PDF. Word? Well, you must be sure that you have the same version, that they would be able to open your doc document.

People do exchange complex compound document, like embedding Excel sheet in a Word document. That feature often does not work too well in SO/OO.

I don't think that the standard for document exchange is PDF. I'd rather say that some applications of XML are. It is difficult to reuse information burried in PDF. RTF is pretty usefull, too

DG

I find it amazing that businesses do this.
As a development platform MS Office is hugely expensive doesn't scale and locks you in to using a single vendors product.

But for the office amature, VBA is easy to get started with.

I used to work as a programming consultant for Merrill Lynch in Jacksonville, FL. The group I worked with used Word and Excel macros quite heavily. It would be very difficult for them to migrate over to OOo.

Also, my wife works as an Accounts Payable clerk in the accounting department of a large contracting firm. They depend heavily on Excel macros to help them do their month-end processing. Again, it would be difficult and expensive to move them over to another office package.

Just my observations.

The "MS owns the OEM's" thing is an oversimplification.

If OEM's could sell machines with OSX they would be happy to.

They could sell machines with Linux but even Linux geeks would just format them and install some other Linux flavor anyway.

If you don't want to pay the Windows tax, you can get PC's with freeDOS instead from OEM's like Dell for a bit cheaper and install Linux yourself.

"They could sell machines with Linux but even Linux geeks would just format them and install some other Linux flavor anyway."

Maybe some would, but some others could buy a Linspire PC for their parents or for their old aunt.
But in any case a machine with any Linux on it should have pretty much Linux compatible hardware.

it has many times been demonstrated that it is MORE EXPENSIVE to buy machines from Dell, WHITHOUT windows, than with it.

The "MS owns the OEM's" thing is an oversimplification.

Not really. If an OEM doesn't give Windows preferential treatment, they lose the OEM rebate. When Windows makes up 90%+ or your sales, this is tantamount to blackmail.

Amen. It's really amazing that so many people can cast a blind eye to this. It's also amazing that governments can ignore this fact as well.

Dave

Yes, true. How useful is freeDOS? The problem is that Microsoft has OEMs by the you-know-whats. The market is already cut throat, they are forced to agree to Microsoft's terms for OEM versions of Microsoft Windows in order to financially compete with their competitors. And these companies are obliged to do so so that their shareholders still can earn a profit, otherwise the SEC will be breathing down their backs probably.

The easiest way is to stop Microsoft from being able to dictate the terms that it currently dictates. If the US government won't do so, then it's obviously fueling a monopoly for its own reasons.

Dave

>Vista will be a big seller for Microsoft nevertheless

I won't be buying it. This will be the first Windows that I won't be buying. I will be getting a new laptop and Vista will be part of it, but that would be because I need a new laptop rather than because I need a new OS. For me, XP works just fine (OSX too).

"I won't be buying it."

"I will be getting a new laptop and Vista will be part of it"

1) You contradict yourself.
2) You think that it come free with the machine ? The price for it is included in the price you pay for the offer.
3) Seems to me like to get the hardware you want , at the price that you want , you are forced to get an OS you don't want.

I think what is meant is that he/she will not be intentionally upgrading but just because it happens to come with the hardware.

Yes Moulinneuf, but that harks back to the problem that Microsoft has an illegal monopoly on the OEM market that the US government (or any other for that matter) refuses to investigate.

Dave

3) Seems to me like to get the hardware you want , at the price that you want , you are forced to get an OS you don't want.

And on the flipside we have Apple, who forces you to buy hardware you don't want in order to get an OS you want. What a wonderful world!

I'm with you. I can't justify upgrading any of my windows boxes to Vista. The only way I'm going to get it is on a new computer but my next laptop purchase is still more than a year away. Maybe that's a good thing because I'll get it when SP1 should be showing up and some of the bugs and other problems will be solved by then.

Yes, I wholly agree with you Eugenia, however, it'll still be sold with the laptop...you're paying for it whether you want it or not. Try and buy said laptop without an O/S and get a price discount and see if it's possible, it isn't. This is because of Microsoft's monopolistic and illegal anti competitive OEM contractual agreements.

Dave

Try and buy said laptop without an O/S and get a price discount and see if it's possible, it isn't.

There was a story some time back on OSnews about a guy who was able to get a windows xp refund from Dell because he was putting linux on the laptop.

Its possible just not as straight forward or as easy as it should be.

// When XP was released, I was trying to use Linux. From what I've seen, I believe Linux has come much farther in five years than Windows has. //

Sure has. I agree with you on that. Consider however, that Linux was also so much further behind Windows five years ago, and still is in many areas.

I'd agree it's also ahead in several areas too, rapid evolution being one of them, however this will eventually plateau.

In which areas are Linux behind, apart from mono, which is irrelevant for the End User (but most relevant for a developer) ?

As a desktop OS Microsoft has with Vista pretty much catched up with GNU/Linux, *BSD and OS X, even though Vista is behind in some areas, primarily in relation to system requirements and UI consistency.

Anything important for the average user has been in Linux, OS X and *BSD for years as standard, while it has been add-ons for Windows and still is.

Most of MS's problems were due to the crappy security model they had prior to vista and all the old code that needed to be fixed. If they had not made the mistakes back in the 809's and 90's that they made, then vista would have been able to be a product that focused on features rather than fixing.

"Windows is very eager to tell you what's going on. Constantly. Plug something in, and you get a message. Unplug something and you get a message."

I don't really get this argument. Firstly, if I plugin something I'd like a confirmation that the goddamn thing got recognized. How otherwise do I know that the computer really recognized the device? If it's something simple like a mouse then no problem. Just move the mouse. But what if you plugged in a camera? You open your favorite video editing program, do some clicking here and there, try to get the video from the camera. "Whoa!" - says the program - "can't do that." Why? No driver, bad USB cable, camera not working or what is it? You don't know and the system doesn't tell you anything either.

Secondly, it's just a bubble in the right bottom corner of the screen. It doesn't steal the focus from the app you're using. It's a tiny little notice: "Yeah, I got it, Chief!" You can simply ignore it if you like.

Sorry, I disagree. I really hate all this bubbles. The messages don't help you either. When they don't appear, what to do? Replug? How long to wait for such a message? 1 second? 10? Sometimes it takes up to 10 seconds for this message to appear (who know why).


There should be a notification, yes. But only if it does *not* work!

There should be a notification, yes. But only if it does *not* work!

How is the computer supposed to know that you tried connecting a camera but didn't push the plug in far enough for a connection to register?

With a Mac, you plug the camera in iPhoto opens. That is how you know it works.

Want to use something other then iPhoto, you can change that.

Want to use something other then the "default" then you do have to open that app after the "default".

Want to plug in the device and do nothing. Well that is weird.

The point is, it does something useful when you plug something in, not just a dialog that says, "Hey, you plugged this in".

and that kinda fits the butler comparison. that it helps you move on with your "work" without being in the way.

thing is that these are functions that have to be experienced to fully understand...

But what if you plugged in a camera? You open your favorite video editing program, do some clicking here and there, try to get the video from the camera. "Whoa!" - says the program - "can't do that." Why? No driver, bad USB cable, camera not working or what is it?

How will being told it's all golden help you when troubleshooting becomes necessary? I just don't see the point. If you know how to use the device, you'll know when it's not doing what it should be, and then whether you're qualified to troubleshoot from there won't be in any way affected by annoying popup messages. And for someone who does know how to troubleshoot, bubbles are cryptic sources of redundant information more reliably gathered elsewhere. They're far too top-level and "user-friendly" (and laggy, and hit-or-miss, and frequent) for diagnostics.

Secondly, it's just a bubble in the right bottom corner of the screen. It doesn't steal the focus from the app you're using. It's a tiny little notice: "Yeah, I got it, Chief!" You can simply ignore it if you like.

I disagree. If you planned on using that corner for any relevant pixels, or if you're prone to distraction, too bad: the bubble is on top. It OWNS that corner. You'll need to aim carefully and click precisely on the little X, or you might accidentally Take A Tour or Learn More. Some bubbles are dismissed with a click anywhere; some just get angrier. You better know for sure which are which if you dare take advantage of such conveniences.

I don't like the yellow messages down at the bottom of the screen either. Especially with regards to Microsoft's IM and plugging things in.

A simple icon in the task bar showing a device has been plugged in would be better (and cost Microsoft less since they wouldn't have to translate anything).

However, (and this is really off-topic, but I'm going to say it anyway) the biggest complaint I have against Windows is its prolific use of modal dialogs when there is no sense in using them.

There are times where a modal dialog is necessary, but Microsoft seems to be incapable of determining those times from times when it is not necessary and is actually a hinderance, so they compensate for this failure by using them almost everywhere.

I don't care as much about what color windows are or what they look like, what is important to me is that the control interface (meaning the start button, menus, toolbars, etc.) stay relatively the same.

With Microsoft, a new update of Windows, or especially Office, can mean a complete shuffling of these control interfaces. Heck, with Microsoft, it seems that alone is worthy of calling something an upgrade.

You obviously didn't use Vista yet and you're not familiar with UAC.

UAC presents itself in a dramatic way. Whole screen fades away and a single dialog appears. It's not possible to just click thru next-next-next.

Now how it helps with ILoveYou virus. A person receives a mail. She clicks on the attachment. It starts the script and then - Bam! - the screen fades and a dialog appears telling you that this program requires your approval to do this and that. If by this time you didn't recognize the virus I don't think anything can help you protect your computer.

If by this time you didn't recognize the virus I don't think anything can help you protect your computer.

Already now people are being warned before opening attachments, and people are still dumb enough to open them. I'm afraid your conclusion is correct. Nothing can help them protect their computers. An "Error 40" is difficult to beat

I disagree. I used Vista for about 2 weeks, all sorts of seemingly-unrelated actions cused UAC dialogs, by the end of the first week, I found myself just clicking the Allow button as fast as possible just to get the damn thing out of my way. And I work in computer security.

I disagree. I used Vista for about 2 weeks, all sorts of seemingly-unrelated actions cused UAC dialogs, by the end of the first week, I found myself just clicking the Allow button as fast as possible just to get the damn thing out of my way. And I work in computer security.

So what? My wife doesn't read any warning messages on her computer. She just clicks on whatever is the default. She often finds herself in all sorts of troubles and confusion. I'll pass on your message to her. I think she'll like a career in computer security.

I don't understand. You post that you think UAC will stop people from opening viruses.

I post that I don't think it will, because in my experience, the UAC dialogs are treated by the user the same as any other annoying dialog.

You then post something about your wift also ignoring warnings? If you're trying to indicate that you agree with me, then that's a pretty agressive method of doing so.

My daughter used to do this with Windows. Now she's at college doing graphic design with Macs (they're standard for professional graphics work) and has a Macbook she reads every message before clicking. Why? - because there aren't so many of them!

UAC is not a blunder, but i understand why it is difficult to understand.

A prompt asking people for their root password is not security, this is because it would be easy to spoof such a prompt. The OSX prompt isn't even system modal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_window).

Given the hundreds of millions windows users, even if just 1% of those users responded the the fake root/password prompt that 1% would still amount to several million users - a worthwhile target.

An interesting thing is that if you read between the lines of this article, you note that he logged into OSX as a non-admin user and logged into vista as Admin.

But isn´t that the problem already, people clicking "next", "next", "Agree", "Install", "Quit", without even looking at what is being installed or what is said in the EULA.

If people do it today, they will def. continue doing the same thing.

I completely agree. Actually UAC encouraged me to go even further and start using computer under user account. UAC is so helpful that it gives me the dialog to enter admin credentials anytime they are needed. I don't have to switch desktop to another user to perform admin tasks. It's a real time saver.

With UAC even if you still prefer to use admin account, you are still protected against vulnerabilities in the IE or any other program, because all admin priveleges are actually stripped from programs you use.

You can try it yourself. Run cmd.exe, go to c:windowssystem32 and try to delete any file. Access denied! If your IE gets compromised the exploit won't hurt any system files.

You are missing the point. It is a question of OS design philosophy.

In MacOS 90% of all apps you install do not require a password. Why is that? Because they just install in your home directory and they do not mess with the system. There is no risk that they can break the OS (yes, they could blow away your home directory though -- backups are a good thing).

In Vista with UAC I believe every single .exe you install requires your password. This is because in order for an app to be installed it has to do system things.

The two OSs are designed completely differently in this respect.

So whem MS decided to make Windows more secure, did they fix things so that you can install and run applications without messing with the system? Yes, they did a bit (but will developers use it!), and it is possible to do this, but mostly not. Mostly they just said, we will make the user enter his password for everything, and then if he does and it breaks something, it is his fault not ours.

This design philosophy comes from Unix, and rather then build windows with Privilege Separation and a full multi-user environment from the ground up they have just added on hack after hack to try make it sort of work.

This is not a Windows problem; it is a problem caused by lazy developers who just install stuff in the systems directories, when there really isn't any good reason to do it.

The changes in Vista will force many developers to fix this, and it's about time too.

You have always been able to install apps without interfering with the system folders, but bad habits die hard ...

He's completely clueless about how things work in Vista

I think part of the problem is that, it is a rather significant deviation from how Windows XP, 2k used to work.

Knowing what to type in the search field and it appearing is all well and good, but the problem is, what do you type?

The old format, you looked at it, and it was reletively self explanitory (solong as you went with the traditional view of control panel, and not the "new look" xp version).

However, I also thing, as with many things, the problem with a lot of reviews is that many many people just do not like "new things".

They don't like adapting, and having to work with a new environment, I know I have that problem often enough, and I have to make a concious effort to change how I work (and yes, it normaly means I become more efficient afterwards). A bit like learning to touch type, it slowed me down at first, but the gains one's proficient were enormous.

You can still do things the old way. The Control Panel can be switched to the old mode. The Start menu can be made look like Win2K Start menu.

How long did it take me to actually understand that Personalize is probably what I need to change display settings? 1-2 seconds, something like that (right click on the desktop, hhm, there is no "display settings", but there is "personalize", let me click on that, here you go!)

The most time it took me to figure out how to change file type associations. If you go to Explorer, Tools menu, Folder Options, there is no File Types tab anymore. Help got me nowhere. Then I tried Control Panel. Searched for "file types" and instantly found what I needed.

Search rules. It's integrated with the rest of the system and it really simplifies things in Vista. No more painful eye-balling the program list to find the app I need to start. No more going thru the huge list of installed programs in the add/remove panel to find what I need to uninstall. I'm never going back to XP for this single reason.

Yep, you figured it all out.

Congratulations. You are a smart boy. Not everyone is though.

Now what did this get you? Was it easier then in XP? Or was it just change for change sake so you thought you were buying something that was "new" and had "wonderful features".

Is it a better user experience or just a different user experience?

Want to do something with your programs? Open Control Panel, type "programs" in the search bar and here you go, the first link gets us to "Add/Remove programs."

Other than that, the guy is lying, and I have a screenshot to prove it. This is the bog standard default control panel in Vista, and it CLEARLY shows the "Uninstall a program" option, RIGHT THERE.

http://denux.org/thom/Stuff/vista/panel.png

Edited 2007-01-07 13:42

Other than that, the guy is lying, and I have a screenshot to prove it. This is the bog standard default control panel in Vista, and it CLEARLY shows the "Uninstall a program" option, RIGHT THERE.

http://denux.org/thom/Stuff/vista/panel.png

Or the control panel has become so cluttered that it is hard to see the option. The control panel was not very easy for me to find things when I had the RC 1 running on my desktop.

Also it's not lying if you don't realize that you are wrong.

Are you serious? Why should I have to type_anything_in the control bar's "search bar", when; 1) I didn't have to in previous versions, and 2) I'm in an area that, logically, should have the choice presented to me?

Guess someone needs to lay off the kool-aid....

Did you miss my reply [1] in this thread? The author of the article is lying when he says there is no easy way to find in the control center the add/remove programs dialog.

"Other than that, the guy is lying, and I have a screenshot to prove it. This is the bog standard default control panel in Vista, and it CLEARLY shows the "Uninstall a program" option, RIGHT THERE.

http://denux.org/thom/Stuff/vista/panel.png "


[1] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16882&comment_id=199279

Thom, how confident are you that Welch is intentionally lying? Could it be that he is legitimately confused when he sees something labeled "Programs and Features" in one of the dialogs?

Maybe he is not working in the same mode you are, perhaps he is looking at something completley different and is ignorant.

"Lying" is a very strong word and I do not understand why you would use it. Are you saying that there is no dialog in Vista where this functionality is labeled "Programs and Features"? Are you sure there is no other explaination for his error?

I was more speaking to the 'type in search bar, and ye shall find' sentiment than agreeing/disagreeing with the semantic argument of 'what links are presented where'. I find it amusing that someone's idea of 'ease of use' equates to 'search bar', in any OS.

But, yes, the link to Uninstall Programs is clearly there.

"He's completely clueless about how things work in Vista. What he just described is as easy as a pie in Vista. Want to do something with your programs? Open Control Panel, type "programs" in the search bar and here you go, the first link gets us to "Add/Remove programs." Want do change display settings? Control Panel, type "display" in the search bar, and... you guessed it, first link. How easier can that be?"


Of course if you want to do that in OS X Tiger all you have to do is click on Spotlight, type "Display settings" and click on displays. It opens up the Preferences panel right in display settings. And it has been in OS X for some time now.

Aside from that, it is not intuitive to the average user in either OS to do it that way. With OS X it is a two click operation to access the display settings and as the author pointed out it is a fairly obvious operation. Your method in Vista or OS X requires more time and keyboard/mouseclicks. And that is what seemed to me to be one of the two points of the article. How obvious it is to carry out an operation.

In reference to Obj-C, you really have to use it (esp. within the XCode/Interface Builder environment) to see what all the fuss is about. It's pretty cool. Obj-C 2.0 will be very nice too. It takes a bit to get used to the way you do things, but over all you'll probably love it once you "click" to how it works, very simple elegent language IMHO.

Having said that, I tend to write code that needs to work on more than one platform, so stick with Java (Netbeans on Windows and Macs) most of the time.

I'm interested in your rejection of the use of turning off Aero for a review. After all, the message from Microsoft is:
Vista has a great UI. The UI is great. Vista will run faster than XP on your computer. Look at the shiny transparency!

However these two (four? ) statements are incompatible with each other. Until people start buying x64 computers with GBs of RAM, People won't be able to appreciate both a speed increase (or even speed equality) AND the full Aero interface.

I know most of you say that Thurott has no credibility, well Welch is the opposite extreme (except that Welch's Vista review pales when compared to Thurott's when it comes to breadth and depth).

I'm not really a fan of Thurrott's writing, but I think he's been pretty much fair to both platforms he's used. He slated Vista through most of the beta, and the Mac community was perfectly happy to quote him as 'credible' then.

Thurrott [..] slated Vista through most of the beta, and the Mac community was perfectly happy to quote him as 'credible' then.

Not really: This is Thurrotts usual way to provoke people (Mac, *nix and Windows users) - probably to get more page hits.

Reading some of his opinion pieces easily shows Thurrott as being a Windows shill and that his "experience" is more or less limited to Windows (when it comes to OS architecture, digital media, *nix or security he's got no clue whatsoever but he will happily tell you that the "Windows way" is far superior to everything else on the planet *LOL*)

That might be the case, but considering Aero will have issues with running on a lot of computers...hell, I can put tiger on an old PowerMac G4 350mhz and it'll still run. Sure, it'll run a bit slow, but it'll run, in its full glory. Try running Vista on a 7 year old PC and turning on Aero...I dare ya!

Dave

We can always tell when someone has pinched a `nerve` on a McSoft user's shoulder by the length of a response.

I successfully Kerberized my Xserver. It's not hard.

I am happy that McSoft users now have a `better` system to work with. Maybe our overstressed IT people will get the break they need.

There's a ton of good information about it at Microsoft.

Yes, it is exactly the "tonnage" that is Microsoft's main problem. Too much of everything, - except simplicity.
.

UAC is indeed a better implementation then what is basically a GUI Sudo pop up box.

I should hope so actually since Mac/Linux/Unix privilege elevation dates from about 1970 and UAC is 35 years later.

The key point though is that UAC has to pop up all the time because of the underlying way the OS is designed, while Mac/Linux/Unix privilege escalation is an uncommon experience.

Implementing the UAC features to make it more secure on Mac/Linux/Unix would be a good thing. It would not change the fact about how often you need to use this on Windows vs. how often you need to use this on Mac/Linux/Unix.

You got modded to 5 for all that?

Mac OSX authentication dlgs can be snooped by malware. - Really? Any proof of this, or are you just trying to be controversial?

4) applications can't snoop the password as its being entered (contrast with MacOS) - 'yet', and 'Prove it' to the MacOS comment.

UAC dlgs are run on a different desktop than the main desktop; a "secure" desktop that no other app has access to. - yet.

I'd continue, but you get my point. I like how your argument is supported by other Slashdot blog posts, by the way. Very worthy of the 5 rating.

Maybe this will help.

It's a very straightforward example of the kind of spoofing vulnerability that UAC's is designed to prevent

http://alastairs-place.net/archives/000079.html

My USB2 stick was too slow to be used for superfetch (Windows DOES check this before allowing you to use it).

However a CF2 Card was fast enough to be used. I don't think that superfetch works like ram, it just recognises that seek times/transfer rates on fast USB devices can be faster than Hard Drives, think of it as more of a Cache than actual RAM.

USB or flash devices are not used as additional RAM, they *can* be optionally configured as ReadyBoost caching devices for loading and saving small files - 4k or less quickly.

This is because certain flash devices are much more efficient at small file access than hard drives and when used intelligently by a capable OS ReadyBoost can signigificantly boost system and application performance.

http://www.grantgibson.co.uk/misc/readyboost/

Yeah, it's gimmicky, but I can see people who have limited system memory like laptops or PDA's, or in embedded applications where this could be very useful.

The things/complaints mentioned in the article have been going on in Windows since Windows 95. Vista is merely perpetuating an annoying paradigm, by treating power users like 4-year old children. I don't need a plethora of dialogs asking me if I'm really sane and hiding information that's needed to make the PC operate the way I want it to!

StychoKiller - This is not fair statement. Vista treats you as a children far less than current Linux distro like Ubuntu which require sudo all the time and then they need you to type password.

I would rather click yes than give password because how the hell do i know if some fake program is prompting for my password?

Vista UAC control are also on a seperate desktop so an application can't automatically press ok on it.

"Vista is merely perpetuating an annoying paradigm, by treating power users like 4-year old children. I don't need a plethora of dialogs asking me if I'm really sane and hiding information that's needed to make the PC operate the way I want it to!"

A "power user" such as yourself would have no problem figuring out how to turn of UAC altogether and thus avoid the "plethora of dialogs". The default coniguration caters to security (unlike previous Windows releases). You ca always turn off the security features.

Edited 2007-01-08 03:30

Repetitive continue/cancel dialogs are provably not a good solution to security. Occasional password dialogs are a different story: You have ot at least recognize what it is and type your password instead of simply clicking it away because you're in the middle of something. The instinctual "get rid of it" reaction is gone before you can move your hand to the keyboard and type your password in.

But even too many password dialogs will not only annoy users but drive them to keep their password in the clipboard; and as such most OS'es avoid having them unless it's something they're very necessary for. Maybe Windows has a disadvantage because of all the badly deployed software that it currently has, but it doesn't help the issue with too many dialogs and reaction based ok'ing.

What happens when you shut UAC off? Do you become an administrator just like one administrator in XP? This sounds like a very thin layer protecting your system to me...

Repetitive continue/cancel dialogs are provably not a good solution to security. Occasional password dialogs are a different story: You have ot at least recognize what it is and type your password instead of simply clicking it away because you're in the middle of something. The instinctual "get rid of it" reaction is gone before you can move your hand to the keyboard and type your password in.

Vista supports this capability, and you can change it easily to require a password rather than a simple OK/Cancel for UAC. But I would argue that, for the majority of users, having to type a password isn't going to make the system more secure. What makes it secure is understanding the implications of the choice which, in my opinion, most users don't understand. So, it's a wash.

Thurotts article was hosted on "Super Site for Windows"--no one expected objectivity...Thurrott is a fanboy.

Where did Welch (or more importantly his editor) disclose his bias? Full disclosure would have moved this article from "hit piece" to anti-Windows rant.

Information Week's homepage presents this as a "review." Had this article appeared on Mac World, I would not have made a "hit piece" comment, as it would not have been necessary.

I whole heartedly agree with your entire last paragraph except for Vista being better than XP. Vista will be better than XP (assumably?) after MS releases some compatability and stability fixes. Right now Vista is not ready to be installed in a production environment.

Some interesting points you have made.

A "newbie" will very rarely see a UAC prompt. This is because "newbies" very rarely install device drivers, mess about with system services, or generally perform any administrative tasks. Newbies tend to buy computers all pre-configured.

Vista is a different OS to XP, a very different as far as security is concerned, the irony is that advanced/power users have much more difficulty understanding than general public.

Good point. I meant "newbie" as in new to Vista, as opposed to being a "newbie" to computers.

I could see myself going through those frustrations as I load up all of my software on a new Vista install and start trying to navigate my way around.

I could see myself going through those frustrations as I load up all of my software on a new Vista install

I think that is the point that folk are trying to make. The UAC is only a pain when you have to install software and make loads of changes. Once you've got it all set up, you're not going to see it that often. And once developers stop building installers that need higher privileges to work, you should see it even less.

Ah au contrare. A newbie is more inclined to fiddle with their operating system, and try to install things and screw them up. Furthermore, they're more inclined to screw up with viruses and malware. I see it all the time...

Dave

And Apple still has a missing gap in their PC line up: the low end PC the average computer user buys

Ever stop to think that maybe Apple is not trying to get into the low end market? The margins in that segment of the PC market are tiny. Not worth entering unless you can guarentee a large volume to compensate. Also, the low end PC and the average computer user are support nightmares. Between the budget hardware you get trying to keep the cost down, and the clueless users that need constant hand holding, they are a significant support drain when compared to higher quality hardware and more advanced users.

This is based on personal observations from when I did user support for a computer maker.

Ever stop to think that maybe Apple is not trying to get into the low end market? The margins in that segment of the PC market are tiny. Not worth entering unless you can guarentee a large volume to compensate. Also, the low end PC and the average computer user are support nightmares. Between the budget hardware you get trying to keep the cost down, and the clueless users that need constant hand holding, they are a significant support drain when compared to higher quality hardware and more advanced users.

That's all true to a certain extent, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a significant number of people who simply aren't catered for by Apple's current range of computers.

Apple may have perfectly valid reasons for not producing a large selection of systems. I think Apple's clear and simple product range is probably good for their profit margins. Unfortunately it means that their product line up is relatively inflexible, and they can't produce systems to meet the needs of every user. In comparison there's an almost limitless choice of different hardware configurations available in the PC world, the only major limitation is that they don't run Mac OS X.

I use a MacBook and own a MacMini, but my main desktop and media centre PCs run Windows. Apple's hardware simply doesn't meet all my needs well enough to replace all my computers. As much as I like Mac OS X I still end up using Windows most of the time, simply because of the hardware it runs on.

It's all very well for Apple fans to say "go buy a Mac" to anyone who has a problem with Windows. It isn't much use if there isn't an Apple system to fit their needs or budget.

Ever stop to think that maybe Apple is not trying to get into the low end market?

Reminds me of a scene from Spinal Tap...

<Ian's office>
Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked
into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it
seems that now, on the current tour they're being
booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh
I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity
of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all.
I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is
becoming more selective.

Mac mini?

Dave

OK, so what you are saying is customers are having to pay a LOT of money for a half baked, beta operating system that might be OK by the time SP1 or SP2 rolls around...in 18-24 months time...

You know, I enquired about the RRP for Microsoft Vista Ultimate with Microsoft Australia. The US retail price for it is US $399, which equates to around AU $510 or so. What was the RRP that Microsoft Australia quoted me? AU $751. I kid you not. I was flabbergasted. I asked the guy, why is it so high, and explained the US price and currency converted price etc. His answer? That's what we've been told the RRP is sir.

Now, would I pay AU $751 for Vista, or AU $199 for Leopard when its released? I know which one I'll be buying...and it won't be Vista. Hell, I'm only running Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP 2 because I use Adobe Photoshop CS2 for my photography (shameless plug: http://www.macro-images.com/). As soon as it runs under WINE, I'll be back in GNU/Linux land. After 9 months of hell using Windows XP I've had a gutful. Ten times more issues in 9 months than I had in Linux in Four years. A real nightmare.

Dave

Adobe CS runs great on the Mac (does on my daughter's). Would you have to buy it again to change platforms? Probably. Or do they put both on the install CD. I don't know - alhough I've been a pro photographer since 1962 I use Gimp (I find it quicker) on Linux (since 1999). I just couldn't stand the annoyance of Windows. (Click OK, now click OK, now... etc. etc.)

The installation CD is Windows or Mac, not a combined installer. I really wish Adobe would include both on the CD, it would cut their manufacturing and packaging costs down by a fair bit I imagine. The reason why they won't is that in such a scenario, there's nothing to stop you from using the installation CD to install one copy on a Windows based PC, and another copy on a Mac OS X computer.

I used the GIMP for quite a fair while, and to be honest...it lacks polish, the UI is poor, it looks ugly, it lacks features...I could go on. There's a reason why 99.9999% of the imaging market is owned by Adobe, and that's because Photoshop is superior to every other product in that genre by a country mile.

The GIMP is good, don't get me wrong. It simply does not suit my needs. I could buy a Mac version, but that means another big outlay...

Do you have a website of your images?

Dave

With Vista? The OS demands your attention, constantly.

I'd really like to know what the author is doing that "constantly" requires UAC to put up alerts so frequently. Because that's not my experience at all.

so true....I needed to disable IPv6 to have consistent networking with XP.

But, like you say, "We setup a vista test box..."

Which is all this OS is ready for...

So from start to finish, you can find the IP address of every active interface on my OS X laptop within six clicks of the mouse.

Great. In Vista, it's four clicks. Silly point this.

With Vista it's perhaps faster to windows+R and enter cmd and <ipconfig>

OSX will likely be alt+F2+terminal and ifconfig -a

And I haven't even touched on the fact that the author is running OSX as admin, and runs Vista in virtualisation (!); which explains why he ran it without Aero. How can you honestly review an operating system in virutalisation?

I did not even realize this until I read your comment.

In my mind this completely invalidates his review.

If I ran a hacked copy of OS X on a PC and wrote a review people would tell me to get a genuine Macintosh to experience the *real deal* and they would not take my review seriously.

I can't take his review seriously as a result.

`All in all, a very bad article. The author tries to hide himself in a shroud of objectiveness, and that is why this article is so bad. With i.e. Thurrot, you at least know who wrote it, and what to expect (get your salt, everybody)`.

Thom.

You as a managing editor have editorial control over the content of this site have a lot of control over in the direction of it.

That's fine.

I've worked for a real publication as a copy editor. I also have a degree in communication as-well-as sociology. Just a reminder that there are elements to which you can be held to account - especially when you call someone a liar.

Libel - A false, written, printed or pictorial statement that maliciously damages a person's reputation;

Slander - A false and malicious oral statement injurious to a person's reputation;

A false, written, printed or pictorial statement that maliciously damages a person's reputation

This guy is damaging his own reputation by:

- comparing an operating system in virtualisation to one running on real-world hardware;
- by not clearly stating this fact at the beginning of his comparison;
- by claiming "quite a few features" were removed from Vista, while in truth only 3 have been removed (from the immense list of new features [2] only a small percentage)
- by claiming OSX has a graphically consistent interface;
- by not understanding one bit about why UAC behaves the way it does [1];
- the remove programs thing [3].

In order to damage a reputation, you first actually have to have something to damage. Which is not the case here.

EDIT: eh, the order of the references are odd. Deal with it .

[1] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16882&comment_id=199268
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
[3] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16882&comment_id=199279

Edited 2007-01-08 14:55

Then let him damage himself. Just be careful you don't get caught up in the legal game. :-)

You are wrong on a lot of your statements.

First, OSX does auto set DNS servers. It gives you a box to put in optional DNS servers even with DHCP. I have never had to input a DNS server to be able to use DNS with DHCP and I've been using OSX for 4 years and I have carried my powerbook everywhere.

Second, my system clock is set to use the time servers and that has also been working for me just fine for four years. I don't know what you mean by it ignores most of the information. You would have to elaborate on this.

I have used a local proxy to debug some stuff for work in Safari and what I used worked fine. I do not use one all the time so I can't comment more than that.

Third, while it is true that OSX does not have a single theme, no OS has a single theme. Windows has several based on the age and api of the applications you are running. (IE 6 or 7 looks different from notepad etc). Linux has so many different api's all with different look and feels that it's incredibly difficult to be able to get the majority of your applications to have the same theme. On another note if you use ShapeShifter, you can make all of the windows in OSX have the same theme.

Fourthly, for the mouse mileage complaint, click on the mouse settings in the system preferences and change the tracking speed. It goes anywhere from snail speed to airplane speed. This really and truly is not a valid arguement at all.

Lastly, while it is true that not having text on the dock is hard for new users and even some not new users and is probably not the best UI, it is a dream for powerusers since I don't have to read text to be able to select an application or a window. This makes it much faster to select a certain application.

First, OSX does auto set DNS servers.

Yep, I guess that is why two OSX boxes can't resolve google if I don't enter DNS, while all other can (non-OSX).

Second, my system clock is set to use the time servers and that has also been working for me just fine for four years. I don't know what you mean by it ignores most of the information. You would have to elaborate on this.

Ever used internal clock servers? Without 3rd party it is a no go on OSX. (part of dhcp time-servers option)

I have used a local proxy to debug some stuff for work in Safari and what I used worked fine.

Never said it doesn't work, it often breaks Safari and auto configuration of proxy doesn't even exists. Proxy auto configuration is actually part of dhcp if you don't know (wpad).

Third, while it is true that OSX does not have a single theme, no OS has a single theme. Windows has several based on the age and api of the applications you are running. (IE 6 or 7 looks different from notepad etc). Linux has so many different api's all with different look and feels that it's incredibly difficult to be able to get the majority of your applications to have the same theme. On another note if you use ShapeShifter, you can make all of the windows in OSX have the same theme.

My linux boxes have, I use gnome exclusively. This is a choice from base install. No luck like that on OSX.
Again, nothing without 3rd party.

Fourthly, for the mouse mileage complaint, click on the mouse settings in the system preferences and change the tracking speed. It goes anywhere from snail speed to airplane speed. This really and truly is not a valid arguement at all.

Yeah, and by increasing speed I'm just changing one problem for another (mouse too fast to actually hit something). Good one.

Lastly, while it is true that not having text on the dock is hard for new users and even some not new users and is probably not the best UI, it is a dream for powerusers since I don't have to read text to be able to select an application or a window. This makes it much faster to select a certain application.

Obviously you take me as beginner. Au contraire, my friend. Beginners don't use many windows, power users do. And having 4 or 5 firefox windows minimized doesn't tell you which is which (please, don't think about tabs, I use more than one window with tabs up to 6 per window).

Edited 2007-01-08 12:50

My linux boxes have, I use gnome exclusively. This is a choice from base install. No luck like that on OSX.

Yes, you can get consistency in Linux if you stick to one DE and the applications created for it. Unfortunately that seriously limits the selection of applications available to the user.

If you can live with nothing but GNOME apps then that's fine, personally I can't do without software like OpenOffice and Scribus. If you start mixing apps from different toolkits then you get far worse consistency problems than anything in Mac OS X.

Yeah, and by increasing speed I'm just changing one problem for another (mouse too fast to actually hit something). Good one.

This is a real problem with having a single menubar, but no feature is perfect, every menubar style I've seen trades off one advantage for another. Personally I use two large monitors, but I still think that the numerous significant advantages of the single menubar more than make up for it sometimes being a more distant target. Considering all the annoyances and usability problems caused by a menubar in every window, a bit more mouse movement seems like a very small price to pay.

Maybe having the menubar follow the mouse between screens would be an acceptable solution to this?

Obviously you take me as beginner. Au contraire, my friend. Beginners don't use many windows, power users do. And having 4 or 5 firefox windows minimized doesn't tell you which is which (please, don't think about tabs, I use more than one window with tabs up to 6 per window).

Can you give me an example of a dock/taskbar that implements this better than the Mac OS X Dock? Maybe then I could see what your problem is with it.

In most of the taskbars that I've used, multiple windows get grouped together by application. If not then then taskbar can become so full that its buttons are reduced to an icon and a couple of letters. Either way, you can't see at a glance which window is which. You either have to mouse over them, or click on the grouping to display the individual windows, just like accessing a window through the Dock menu.

Personally I don't understand why you'd want to minimise multiple windows to the Dock. You can hide applications completely if they're not in use, and you can access specific application windows through the Dock icon.

I see minimisation to the Dock as a way of temporarily putting a window to one side, a bit like Windowshading in old versions of Mac OS. I hardly ever have more than one or two windows minimised to the Dock, even though I might have dozens of documents open in different apps. I think the Dock, its menus, expose and alt+tab are better solutions for general window management, and render constant minimisation of window unnecessary.

If you can live with nothing but GNOME apps then that's fine, personally I can't do without software like OpenOffice and Scribus.

OpenOffice is not out of place, not 100% consistant but not not out of place in Gnome. But it was long ago since I started using Abi and Gnumeric. Scribus I don't need.

Maybe having the menubar follow the mouse between screens would be an acceptable solution to this?

No, it would just pose another problem by introducing moving target.

/*Finishing this thread*/
But I have to say that I agree with your sentiment: no solution is perfect. If you'll read my original post you might notice that my point was marked with /*personal*/ because I wanted to give as biased opinion as author did just to show the fact that something can't be agreeable for everybody to say the same point you did. Author was clearly biased towards hating Windows interface. Not that I like it. But, I wanted to show that all people don't like OSX interface either. I am one of those. Having Mac (actually two), hating Mac. Hell, I hate Windows, but not even nearly as much as OSX and its deficiencies (again, this is personal part not needing answer).

And if you read parent post you'll notice the same sentiment author had when he posted that article. Not ready to say something doesn't work (like dhcpclient in OSX in this case, which is real horses ass) and all set on the fairy tale that OSX is best thing since sliced bread.

btw. Proxy autoconfig exists in safari as the last option in Proxies /*not visible because list box is way to small to display options*/ But you'll find zillion links how Safari suddenly hangs during page load when that or proxy is enabled, 10.3 was working in 90%, 10.4 and its safari is a terror.

Macs do not run the apps that you can run on XP, or Vista. For example: Games.

How relevant is playing games in a corporate environment?

Apps are absolutely critical. Nobody runs an OS just to run the OS.

I agree and can imagine enough professionals prefer to run applications such as Final Cut Pro,Logic Pro,DVD Studio Pro and aperture to name a few.

How relevant is playing games in a corporate environment?

Straw man. Desktops are used in nearly every home.

I agree and can imagine enough professionals prefer to run applications such as Final Cut Pro,Logic Pro,DVD Studio Pro and aperture to name a few.

But a far greater number run apps which are only present on Windows.

>>How relevant is playing games in a corporate environment? <<

*Sigh* . . .

Games were an *EXAMPLE* there are tons of apps that don't run on MacOS-X. Macs are less common in a corporate environment that a home environment.

>>I agree and can imagine enough professionals prefer to run applications such as Final Cut Pro,Logic Pro,DVD Studio Pro and aperture to name a few.<<

Enough to get 2% of the market, I suppose. Those sorts of things were always the strong points for Macs.

But forget about Macs making much progress in the home, or in the corporate world.

But forget about Macs making much progress in the home, or in the corporate world.

This is an incredibly huge blanket statement, right up there will stating always or never. In certain segments of the corporate world, Macs are growing by huge leaps. In the company I work for, pretty much the entire unix sysadmin group has gotten rid of nearly all of their Windows desktop machines and replaced them with Macs. In the software development groups, the Macs outnumber Windows atleast 3 to 1. From what I've read at other companies, Java developers are starting to make the switch to Macs. Granted, I doubt you'll see many Macs in the Accounting departments, but I'm sure they'll keep seeing growth in the technical and creative groups.

As for home use, if the *average* Windows user were to switch to a Mac, most apps they used on Windows will be present on the Mac in one form or another. Atleast for a little while longer, Office is available, web browsing and email is covered pretty well, Quicken has a Mac version for home finances, for the home office/small business users, QuickBooks is available. The options are out there, users just need to see that there is life beyond Windows available.