Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Jan 2007 17:42 UTC, submitted by danwarne
Windows "It's all too easy to get caught up in the million dollar marketing engine as we approach the consumer release of Windows Vista, so lets not forget that it isn't the second coming, and by all counts is an upgrade you can do without. There are many lists out there on why to get Vista, so here's ours on why not to." Update: I have written a rebuttal on my weblog. Update II: Another rebuttal.
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 17:53 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Yup, one of the best of such lists I've seen. Very real, very on target. The author is sharp to point out that Vista does nothing more (at this early stage) than what you already have. Upgrading would literally be throwing money away just for the sake of some fancy graphics and being an early adopter.

edit: To elaborate:
* Gadgets on Vista - Yahoo Widget Engine on XP (free), Opera Widgets (free), Dashboard on Mac (included)
* Skin on Vista - WindowsBlinds on XP ($) + Vista Skin http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40338929/ , or patched UXTheme.dll (free) and skin http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/45964754/
* System Wide Search on Vista - Google Desktop on XP (free), MSN Live Desktop on XP (free), Spotlight on Mac (included)

and so on...

Edited 2007-01-21 18:02

Reply Score: 5

To me, here's why I'd avoid Vista...
by villagerman on Sun 21st Jan 2007 17:56 UTC
villagerman
Member since:
2007-01-14

Over here, Windows 2000 with Firefox 2.0.0.1, VLC media Player, Emule, RealPlayer, Picasa, CCleaner, RegScrubXP, Video DVD Maker, Camel's Mpeg Join and OpenOffice does everything I'd like to do to my full satisfaction.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what I am missing in Microsoft's Vista.

Reply Score: 5

CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

Absolutely. For now, but the crux will probably be DirectX-10. A pitfall of propriatary (sp) software, as always. Atleast if you game. Certainly, you can feel the gentle squeeze against us 2K users? (the finest of the Windows OS's, I believe, perhaps barring 2K3-server). MSN 7.5/Live/etc. all don't work now, it's only going to get worse... and the worst, it's an arbitrary lock-out. grr.

Reply Score: 3

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

no idea ;-)

i can tell you, tough, why you might wanna try other stuff - linux respects your freedom, Mac OS X is easier to use. both need less maintenance, are easier to setup and new versions DO enhance your experience with them...

ok, you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. you're used to windows, you know your way. so it might not be worth it, sure. well, maybe it's worth a try, right? i'm sure you'll find the basics are pretty much better than XP, both in the modern linux desktop and Mac. you'll like it, really, even tough there are imperfections.

Reply Score: 4

deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Ok, let's say that's true for you (don't really know why, but that's your opinion). What are you going to do when you need to buy a new PC? Install the wonderful Windows 2000 on it? Doesn't work. Install the great Windows XP on it? Won't probably work either - simply because there won't be enough drivers. What are you going to do then? I'll tell you what you are going to do: Start up the PC with Vista and use it for the nest 3 - 4 years.

That's how it has always worked for MS - people are lazy in general and therefore cannot grasp that there are enough alternatives around. But it's funny to listen to all these people condemning Vista and hailing the wonderful 2000 or XP ...

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

[/] That's how it has always worked for MS - people are lazy in general and therefore cannot grasp that there are enough alternatives around. [/i]

In which case either NOT buying a new PC or installing Linux instead is the solution? That sounds pretty "lazy" to me, but also common sense, if your PC still works.

But it's funny to listen to all these people condemning Vista and hailing the wonderful 2000 or XP ...

Well maybe that's because Vista doesn't really feel like an OS that's been in development for five years? I doubt many of the people who were using Linux/BSD/BeOS when XP came out now think that XP is somehow a suitable replacement for Linux - indeed, the reverse is probably more true now than ever.

Think about it: five years and still there's no drivers or software or anything. I thought Microsoft were supposed to work closely with vendors or something (not least on Firefox, as reported by this very site some time ago, which according to the present article still has problems with Vista despite Microsoft's "help"). Although if their "help" writing apps is as good as the "Help" they put in their programs, I'd advise any old grannies needing to cross One Microsoft Way* not to accept their "help".

Honestly, with the number of apps needing an update to work with Vista and yet not coming out with one, you could be forgiven for thinking they' been spending the last five years converting them to work on Linux.

*Notice how they named it that without irony?

Edited 2007-01-21 23:41

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

What are you going to do when you need to buy a new PC?

Well considering that I think the OS was already far too bloated when XP came out, I will probably junk Vista for Linux anyway. So yes they will get £15-25 of my money - if I can't find a desktop PC with Linux on it.

But actually the last time I "bought a desktop PC" I built it myself, entirely dispensing with a Windows CD licence which I've found little reason to miss in three or so years. And the next PC I buy will probably be a laptop - with Linux preinstalled.

Reply Score: 3

wow
by superstoned on Sun 21st Jan 2007 17:58 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

if you see all the 'vista sucks' articles everywhere, you'd imagine it doesn't sell at all... but in a few years, the majority of computer users will be using it, despite the availability of (better) alternatives...

Reply Score: 5

RE: wow
by bob8 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:01 UTC in reply to "wow"
bob8 Member since:
2006-07-13

That's because it's going to come on every new PC after January 30th.

Reply Score: 5

RE: wow
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:08 UTC in reply to "wow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It doesn't have to "not sell" to be a flop. Just as long the number of people and companies switching away from Microsoft technologies continues to increase, then all is well. Microsoft's dominance is not going to go away in the forseable future, and Vista's success is nothing more than the success of eggs on a chicken farm, but as long as people are discovering better alternatives, the consumer (and end user) benefits.

Reply Score: 5

RE: wow
by Haicube on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "wow"
Haicube Member since:
2005-08-06

Sorry to say this. I'm hardly a fan of Vista, and completely agree with the 10 reasons stated in the article. Bu I definitely don't agree with you.

This sentence "despite the availability of (better) alternatives..."

Assuming XP is not sold anymore and OSX isn't available for any normal PC, I can't really see this "alternative" that is supposed to be better. Alternatives maybe, but hardly real alternatives for a whole lot of people. Some groups that come to mind are "gamers", "Officeusers" (which actually have tried and partially use OOo (such as myself) and realize it lacks a tremendous amount of features), "Designers" (which need Photoshop/Flash etc etc because photoshop is defacto standard like it or not) and say about anyone in need of specific software not available on other systems (Gee, that's quite a few).

It's getting better, it really is with web based apps and some alternatives getting more software every day.

But at the end of the day, what is "better" is what gets your job done! That means Vista will be THE alternative for say 60%+ of the computer using world. What I'm saying is there is LACK of ANY real alternative for a whole bunch of us

Edited 2007-01-21 20:29

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: wow
by superstoned on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: wow"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

i beg to differ. i agree many people are locked in to Windows pretty well, microsoft has succeeded there. but for many users, an average Kubuntu desktop can do what they need, and better than Windows XP (or Vista). linux' biggest drawback is that it's different, not that it lacks features.

Sure, the linux desktop isn't beter at everything. but for everything it does worse than Windows, there are three things it does better. and not just the maintenability, stability & security things you often here. The basic desktop stuff is better too. compare the KDE or Gnome menu to windows. if you are looking for an image editing app, where would you look? i'd say "graphics", not "Adobe"...

also plug'n'play is working better on linux in many cases. yesterday i gave a presentation, and my (very old) laptop had never seen an external screen. man, was that boring. i had already opened Kubuntu's screen config tool, and was prepared for some VI fun. but when i plugged the beamer's cable in, the screen just showed my desktop. no configuration at all, just working. well, i've worked at an helpdesk, and we got several ppl each day asking how to get windows to show their presentations...

really, i know it's hard to switch to another operating system, even if it's better than what you have. i have gone through that as well. but don't say just because it's different, it's worse...

sure, the linux desktop can't provide for everyone. but why should it? why not give ppl a choice? let the adobe photoshop lovers use a mac (it's superior in that area anyway). let game lovers use Vista and let everybody who wants to work on a pc use linux...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: wow
by arielb on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs.

But you know this won't happen and to me that is the 'fatal' flaw that prevents widespread linux adoption. There's also very little incentive to develop commercial software because most distros come with lots of free full fledged apps.

Why bother trying to invest in developing an app when the free version is 'good enough' and bundled with the OS and your app is hard to install? And if it's a kde app, people will want it for gnome and vice versa

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: wow
by ma_d on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wow"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[5]: wow
by arielb on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"http://autopackage.org/

Done."

Well, it's too early to say "done" -I have yet to see an app like firefox or opera using it- but I'm glad they admit the problem with all these linux packaging schemes:

The system of attempting to package everything the user of the distro might ever want is not scalable. By not scalable, we mean the way in which packages are created and stored in a central location, usually by separate people to those who made the software in the first place. There are several problems with this approach:

* Centralisation introduces lag between upstream releases and actually being able to install them, sometimes measured in months or years.
* Packaging as separate from development tends to introduce obscure bugs caused by packagers not always fully understanding what it is they're packaging. It makes no more sense than UI design or artwork being done by the distribution.
* Distro developers end up duplicating effort on a massive scale. 20 distros == the same software packaged 20 times == 20 times the chance a user will receive a buggy package. Broken packages are not rare: see Wine, which has a huge number of incorrect packages in circulation, Mono which suffers from undesired distro packaging, etc
* apt et al require extremely well controlled repos, otherwise they can get confused and ask users to provide solutions manually : this requires an understanding of the technology we can't expect users to have.
* Very hard to avoid the "shopping mall" type user interface, at which point choice becomes unmanagably large: see Synaptic for a pathological example of this. Better UIs are possible but people fundamentally don't expect a big central list of programs, when they are used to a search based interface like Google. Imagine if the same UI were used for locating websites!
* Pushes the "appliance" line of thinking, where a distro is not a platform on which third parties can build with a strong commitment to stability but merely an appliance: a collection of bits that happen to work together today but may not tomorrow: you can use what's on the CDs but extend or modify it and you void the warranty. Appliance distros have their place: live demo CDs, router distros, maybe even server distros, but not desktops. To compete with Windows for mindshare and acceptance we must be a platform.

They also note:
"If a package needs a library that isn't autopackaged and is missing, it'll break!

Well, you could try and convince the library maintainers to produce their own autopackages, you could produce your own (make sure upstream know you're doing this!), or you could statically link the library. Long term the solution to this problem is the development of a desktop Linux platform, so it's possible to predict with certainty what will be available on your users systems."

I don't see how the linux community could agree on a desktop linux platform.

Edited 2007-01-22 01:12

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: wow
by ma_d on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Firefox:
http://autopackage.org/statistics/display.php?table=version&rid=4

Gimp:
http://autopackage.org/statistics/display.php?table=version&rid=13

I don't think Opera uses it. Most distributions either package them or they offer a native package for that system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: wow
by ma_d on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually you're basis is wrong. Most binary systems do use a centralized physical repository, but they're usually distributed either by a load balancer or by a client side load balancing system with several "mirrors."

In source packaging systems, such as ports and portage, the source code is usually downloaded directly from the developers distribution site or from a mirror if that fails

You're right about the "shopping mall" interface. But I fail to see how this is a bad thing. This is how people buy software off a physical store shelf, they just don't get the search functionality and 3rd party summary. Keeping it small is only a matter of selecting user-visible programs and categorizing these. Which some distributions have done nicely (Linspire has/had this).

As for the appliance model I don't see what you're talking about. You've pretty consistently described the support agreement on a typical piece of commercial software: It's guaranteed to work in two dozen configurations, but once you extend it or change it in new ways you're on your own.
You can either lock people down or let them know they're not always supported. This is a fact of life for software. The fact that there are hundreds of freely available programs on Linux does make it slightly more appliance like in the sense that you don't pay for new functionality and it's still somewhat supported. But I fail to see how this makes it difficult to mod. This has more to do with system design than distribution.

To compete with Windows for mindshare we must be "normal." That's about it. You're giving end users credit and reasonable and intelligent creatures (which they are in other parts of life, just not with technology). They do what everyone else does, that's about the end of it.
And Linux (plus typical surrounding packages) is a platform. See the X11 spec and the POSIX specs (then check on what Linus has broken wrt to POSIX).
The amazing part is that you can develop code for Linux/BSD and then carefully make small build and packaging modifications and distribute it across dozens of systems: Because they're not very different.


Repositories are definitely a limited solution though. That's why I like the autopackage idea myself. But it's not nearly good enough yet to trust your system to it (heck, half of the time I hear users say it crapped out on their distribution).

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: wow
by fretinator on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wow"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs.

With most distros this is exactly what happens. The only hard part is knowing which file to download - .RPM for redhat-derived and .DEB for debian based (most apps provide both). However, this is rarely needed, as most apps can just be added with that distros add/remove menu (I love mine on Ubuntu). The advantage of using the version with the distro is it will automatically be updated. My Ubuntu laptop always has the latest version of all apps. Try that on Windows. Lastly, there are tools like InstallAnywhere for neutral distribution of applications. Many popular 3rd party apps do that. I'm tired of that "it's too hard to install apps" argument. That was 10 years ago!!

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: wow
by arielb on Sun 21st Jan 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

many windows apps can automatically update themselves without some centralized 'manager'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: wow
by anda_skoa on Sun 21st Jan 2007 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

many windows apps can automatically update themselves without some centralized 'manager'.

Yes, a pretty decend workaround for the missing updating infrastructure of the base system.

Unfortunately, since it is a workaround, it requires running all applications before they can update themselves, instead of having them updated when updates become available.

Especially when the application is only or mostly used in situations where bandwidth is limited, e.g. when the application in question is a tool for your UMTS card.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: wow
by twenex on Sun 21st Jan 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wow"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

[/i]it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs. [/i]

You seriously expect me to believe that typing in the name of some app into a google toolbar, clicking on the link, burrowing down to "products" or "downloads", clicking on "save as...", minimizing the browser, finding the place the app was saved in, clicking on that, clicking next...next...next...finish, and loading the program is easier than "go to synaptic on the menu, go to the application category, go to the app, click install"?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: wow
by arielb on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

I go to download.com, I see a nice description of the app with reviews and then i decided I want it. so I get it from there. After it's saved there's an icon on my desktop so I just click on that.

With synaptic (I've used kubuntu), I have to know what I want, it doesn't include all apps and I scroll through lots of dev tools and localizations and I have to enable the "universe" (huh?) and sometimes it breaks and now I can't download anything.

I wanted to download opera. ok I didn't see it in synaptic. I go to opera.com and I see 5 versions of Opera 9.1 for ubuntu. As if the typical user will know he has Ubuntu 6.10 versus 6.06.
Maybe about 50 versions for all the other linux distros and none for kubuntu. So I gave up on getting Opera.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: wow
by raver31 on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

There is your problem, you give up too easily. :p

However, it is not all your fault, there should be a default link on the desktop of a freshly installed Ubuntu to let you download Automatix2 for all the missing goodies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: wow
by chemical_scum on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I wanted to download opera. ok I didn't see it in synaptic. I go to opera.com and I see 5 versions of Opera 9.1 for ubuntu. As if the typical user will know he has Ubuntu 6.10 versus 6.06.
Maybe about 50 versions for all the other linux distros and none for kubuntu. So I gave up on getting Opera.


Wow, if you are not a troll then (K)Ubuntu really does mean too dumb to install Debian.

From a happy Ubuntu user.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: wow
by DigitalAxis on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wow"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Beyond my surprise that this person didn't know what version of Kubuntu they had or that it's just Ubuntu again, this is yet another reason I think Ubuntu should redo their branding.
Ubuntu (Gnome), Ubuntu (KDE), Ubuntu (XFCE), Ubuntu (Education), Ubuntu (FSF-edition), Ubuntu (Fluxbox), Ubuntu (Screaming Purple Clowns! Edition)...

Call it all Ubuntu (or at least the offical Canonical-supported Distros), because (maybe excepting gNewSense) they all use the same exact repositories and codebase, and can be used interchangeably.

It's like Legos. Who here, when they were little, never combined the Deep Sea Exploration model pieces with the Police Station model pieces to create a huge spaceship fighter jet that's more superpowerful than yours so nyah?

Well, my brothers and I did.

Ubuntu is Kubuntu is Edubuntu, and the recent proliferation of *buntus basically goes to show that 'Ubuntu' should really refer to the PROJECT, not one particular version of it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: wow
by archiesteel on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

arielb: Kubuntu == Ubuntu. There is no version of Kubuntu because it's all Ubuntu. I do agree that they should use the Ubuntu names (i.e. Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, etc.) instead of the numbers, as most people will have an easier time remembering it.

I believe the next version of Ubuntu will make it simpler to enable extra repositories, including commercial ones (which include Opera, IIRC). Synaptic shouldn't break, I'd be curious to hear what you did in order to break it...

BTW, Kubuntu now uses Adept instead of Synaptic. It's better in some way, not as good in others...I'm conflicted as to which one to use, actually!

For newbies, there's the new Add/Remove Program app. It's very user-friendly, and I imagine it will get better (with more apps) as development continues.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: wow
by arielb on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"arielb: Kubuntu == Ubuntu. There is no version of Kubuntu because it's all Ubuntu. I do agree that they should use the Ubuntu names (i.e. Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, etc.) instead of the numbers, as most people will have an easier time remembering it. "

I thought kubuntu would be different because of the kde.

Even still it is quite odd to have different downloads for different dot releases in the same version number.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: wow
by hal2k1 on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//With synaptic (I've used kubuntu), I have to know what I want//

No you don't. There is a "search" button, and the apps are divided into sections anyway for your convenience.

//, it doesn't include all apps//

Yes it does. Enable the "universe" repository (you can do that from the Synaptic menus) and 20,000+ packages are available.

// and I scroll through lots of dev tools and localizations//

Use the search, Luke.

// and I have to enable the "universe" (huh?)//

It is on the Synaptic menus to do this. It isn't hard at all.

// and sometimes it breaks and now I can't download anything.//

I call FUD here. I've never had Synaptic break.

If you are really genuine, and you think that (K)Ubuntu is too hard, then my recommendation would be PCLinuxOS. It is designed as a desktop Linux for "newbies" and it is easier to use and set up than (K)Ubuntu. There is decent online help available for it, and the new 2007 version (due out soon) has the makings of an excellent update with slick new looks and a 3D desktop.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17014/Review-PCLinuxOS-2007-Test-Re...

http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12764

It really is pretty cool.

(However, wait until this version comes out as a final release, don't use this testing release).

Edited 2007-01-22 01:59

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: wow
by arielb on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wow"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"// and sometimes it breaks and now I can't download anything.//

I call FUD here. I've never had Synaptic break"

you can call it what you want but I spent a lot of time on #kubuntu and they tried to help fix the problems. So I have witnesses ;)

I knew how to enable the universe. Most people won't. It shouldn't even be an extra step.

Yet another linux distro isn't the answer. I thought mandrake...mandriva...now kubuntu was the desktop linux for newbies.

My point is that linux needs apps and it's hard to make a case to small software developers to develop commercial apps for linux if their apps aren't so visible and easy to install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: wow
by DigitalAxis on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

It is if that's what you're used to.

That, and the lack of One True Package Format, much less One True Library Version (though they do/may soon exist, thanks to the LSB and the Open Packaging API thing that popped up here a few days ago)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: wow
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It is if that's what you're used to.

So everyone should just do things the Windows way, huh? No thanks, some of us want our computers to work.

Seriously, even if Linux were turned into some sort of Windows clone, have you heard of ReactOS? They started in 1996, and are now up to version 0.3.0. By contrast, by 1998 (at seven years old, rather than the 8 of ReactOS currently) Linux had already implemented most if not all of the non-proprietary parts of Unix, and was even surpassing it in some areas. THAT's how hard writing a Windows clone is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: wow
by superstoned on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

if you only want to use something as long as it works the way you're used to, NEVER use anything else than the first OS you used, right? the world would be running DOS 1.0 or something...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: wow
by hamster on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"sure, the linux desktop can't provide for everyone. but why should it? why not give ppl a choice? let the adobe photoshop lovers use a mac (it's superior in that area anyway). let game lovers use Vista and let everybody who wants to work on a pc use linux..."

Funny... i like to think i get work done on my pc's and yet i don't have linux on any of them. And none of them will be running it in the future either.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: wow
by superstoned on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wow"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

sure you can game on a linux pc, do graphics on windows and get office work done on a mac. but windows is often just better at games, linux is better (more efficient) for the basic office work and mac is better for graphics.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: wow
by hamster on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

I think you wanted to reply to the post i replied to. I did'nt even mention playing games on linux or macs.

Just how is linux better then any other system for basic office work? I have yet to see anything done on linux that makes it worth the hype.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: wow
by superstoned on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wow"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

well, point is, the basic interface is better in many regards. this lies in the small things, like the scrollwheel working properly, drag'n'drop and copy-paste working much more efficient, window management being far superior, things being more consistent, menu's much more usable, things are more configurable, stuff like that. you'd have to use KDE for a few months to be able to grasp these things, if you're used to the windows interface, with all it's limitations you don't even notice anymore, it's pretty hard to even understand these things.

let me assure you, you might feel a bit lost in a Linux desktop - but a linux user is much more annoyed by windows. you can do most things in linux you where used to in windows - and a whole lot more. but a linux user is used to a desktop with a working scrollwheel and many other interface stuff which is almost absent in windows. and i'm not even talking now about the tedious way of managing software in windows, having to go to websites and manually having to check individual applications for (security) updates and new versions, having to check for virusses and spyware, stuff like that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: wow
by hamster on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wow"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"well, point is, the basic interface is better in many regards. this lies in the small things, like the scrollwheel working properly, drag'n'drop and copy-paste working much more efficient, window management being far superior, things being more consistent, menu's much more usable, things are more configurable, stuff like that. you'd have to use KDE for a few months to be able to grasp these things, if you're used to the windows interface, with all it's limitations you don't even notice anymore, it's pretty hard to even understand these things. "

I'm more a fluxbox kinda guy then KDE. But i havent used KDE in a very long time so perhaps it's time to get it a spin to see.

"let me assure you, you might feel a bit lost in a Linux desktop - but a linux user is much more annoyed by windows. you can do most things in linux you where used to in windows - and a whole lot more. but a linux user is used to a desktop with a working scrollwheel and many other interface stuff which is almost absent in windows. and i'm not even talking now about the tedious way of managing software in windows, having to go to websites and manually having to check individual applications for (security) updates and new versions, having to check for virusses and spyware, stuff like that."

I have used linux quit a lot actually... been managing a few Redhat linux servers in production and i'm not to impressed. Same goes for fedora which btw double the ram windows server 2003 needed to run proberly. So it's not because i don't know my way around a linux box it's more that i actually have used it and don't see it being the silverbullet solution to all problems.

At home i have one computer running a windows. Win2k. I've never been a xp man. Oh and ofcause X isnt for linux only. And the other things you mention as being an advanted of linux isnt linux things only either.

Edited 2007-01-22 13:57

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: wow
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"let game lovers use Vista"

While I agree with your post, I have to disagree with that sentence. I have a whole bunch of Chess games and they other don't work in Vista or work poorly.
I suppose the same is true for many other games.
I believe the best OS for gamers will remain XP for quite a while.

Reply Score: 3

RE: wow
by ma_d on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:39 UTC in reply to "wow"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Why? That's not what happened with XP. I believe it took more than 3 years to overtake the 50% mark, but I could be remembering things a bit exaggerated. I do know that the uptake, especially in business, was slow even though "new computers ship with it."

Some people, businesses, install their old OS over the one that came with new computers.

Reply Score: 5

LOL
by pupdawg on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:04 UTC
pupdawg
Member since:
2006-04-03

XP is old and boring and Vista is at least interesting if you have taken the time to know what technologies it offers... WPF is a huge reason to upgrade.

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:12 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You mean WPF is a huge reason to upgrade... when there's something out there that actually uses it to its full potential.

Right now, all the power of WPF is producing a fancy skin with severe usability issues. There is no reason to upgrade to that, other than to sit and hope.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: LOL
by Nelson on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You obviously know nothing about WPF. Stop being superficial and actually take the time to read about what it is/does and how it works.

This is probably the same for the rest of your criticisms of Vista.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: LOL
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I was using WPF in .net back when it was called Avalon, thanks. Just because I've used something, doesn't mean I'm forced to shower it with praise. WPF /is/ a great technology, but it's barely used at the moment, and I'm not going to pay $400 for an OS that does not a jot more than what my Mac is already doing.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: LOL
by Nelson on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL"
RE[5]: LOL
by lawina on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
lawina Member since:
2006-01-20

"You're comparing a Windows Blind skin to the power of DWM and Aero"

Please let me know what are the differences that can make 'Aero' bring salvation to this world?

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: LOL
by Nelson on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: LOL"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Unlike pre Windows Vista Operating Systems, your Windows are composed offscreen then blitted to the framebuffer allowing for nice effects and "tear"-less drawing.

In a nutshell, that's what DWM does, however it uses the power of the GPU to store information and is able to perform 3D calculations on it and apply effects to the Windows.

Now, does this sound different to you?

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: LOL
by tristan on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: LOL"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

Unlike pre Windows Vista Operating Systems, your Windows are composed offscreen then blitted to the framebuffer allowing for nice effects and "tear"-less drawing.

In a nutshell, that's what DWM does, however it uses the power of the GPU to store information and is able to perform 3D calculations on it and apply effects to the Windows.

Now, does this sound different to you?


If by "different" you mean "the same as OS X has done for a couple of releases with Quartz Extreme, and X.org now does with AIGLX and the Composite extension", then yes ;)

Reply Score: 5

v RE[7]: LOL
by Tom K on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: LOL"
RE[6]: LOL
by leos on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

You're comparing a Windows Blind skin to the power of DWM and Aero

The difference is that it is theoretical power. Sure there is more power there, but does it make a damn bit of difference to the user, and is it worth the extra expense and power consumption? It might be eventually, but so far there haven't been any convincing examples.

What exactly is your Mac doing that even remotely rivals WPF? Nothing.

Have you actually used WPF? It's a good new API for windows development, but it is only revolutionary compared to what we had before on Windows, which was MFC and Windows.Forms, both of which were absolutely disgusting to work with. Anyone that has tried another toolkit (Qt, Cocoa, etc) knows how backwards and crufty MFC is compared to that. WPF finally gives windows devs a reasonable quality toolkit with a few nice features, but it certainly isn't anything magical.

Microsoft (primarily Vista) has arguably the best development tools of any platform.

I tend to agree. Visual Studio >= 2003 is probably the best IDE for C++ (haven't tried XCode).

It's developer APIs are unrivaled

Now I definitely know you have never used them ;) Unless you meant unrivaled in their crusty backwards way of doing everything which is the complete opposite of intuitive.

I'm excited about Vista, cause I like new things and WPF is a huge step up from the absolute garbage we had before, but I see it as a "catch up" release, not a "pulling ahead" release.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: LOL
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Stop making uninformed comments on stuff you know next to nothing about, it's annoying."

Informed? I think you'll find I've been following Vista very, very closely ever since the first whispers of Longhorn. I've watched countless hours of Channel9 videos, read Thurrot's blog religiously, used WPF and the early available technologies through MSDN and developer previews, as well as installing every major beta release since the 4000 builds.

I'm very well informed, if you don't mind; but I'm not a fool, and I know that what really matters, above anything, is what the end user sees on their screen. Macs have had hardware graphics acceleration since 2001, built in search years before Vista and a host of features that Mac users have been enjoying, and using, before Windows users have even begun to upgrade to Vista. I'm not a Linux user, otherwise I would correct you there too. So will you please stop telling me how informed I am, because I know that for myself already and don't need your assetions besides.

How good a technology is, is down to what's done with it, and how soon the users actually start using it. Microsoft have taken too much time delivering WPF, and lost me to Apple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: LOL
by kaiwai on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you look at GTK + Glitz + Cairo, the opensource community is delivering everything Microsoft promises but today - and better yet, we don't have to wait for applications to be 'updated' to the new API; if it is using GTK2; its automatically getting those benefits straight away.

If you compare Windows XP to Windows Vista, then sure, its a big step technologically, but when you compare the feature set of Windows Vista to MacOS X (current and future product) and on the various *NIX desktops, they're hardly revolutionary.

The only thing Microsoft has going for it is this; name recognition and a merry band of Windows whores in the form of third party vendors, who seem to love to hate Microsoft, but do little about correcting the situation by porting their product to a GNOME/Linux(or some other *NIX).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: LOL
by rayiner on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that's not true. GTK + Glitz + Cairo is nowhere near what WPF is offering. Glitz isn't even really a player at this point, given that nobody uses Cairo/Glitz, and AIGLX doesn't use it either. And of course applications don't get the benefits of these features automatically. GDK, which most apps are still coded to, draws via the core X protocol. In order to benefit from the new vector technologies, apps must be re-coded to use Cairo.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: LOL
by kaiwai on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: LOL"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That is assuming that the application digs that low in terms of the API; GTK is being ported over to Cairo, and eventually everything will float onto of Cairo.

Microsoft may make great technology, but they're rarely exploited by anyone outside Microsoft, and all you end up having is yet another layer of crap added to Windows which very few companies use.

Microsoft then go back to the drawing board, create yet *ANOTHER* piece of technology, and so the cycle of crap collection continues.

I don't blame Microsoft for lazy third parties, but at the same time, justifying an upgrade based on technologies that very few companies will exploit is a pretty terrible excuse to upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: LOL
by Bobe on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

Microsoft (primarily Vista) has arguably the best development tools of any platform. It's developer APIs are unrivaled and it's tools/IDEs are unrivaled in feature set and innovation.

You are joking, right?

MFC is an awkward, unintuitive, and backwards API. Almost everything else in existence is superior to it in every way. Windows.Forms really all that much better either. From what I've read, Vista's APIs are supposed to correct some of this mess, but "unrivaled"? I don't think so.

VisualStudio is a good tool, but it isn't anything spectacular. In some ways it actually encourages poor programming practices, I think. For instance. The effort to VB-ize web development. Simply awful.

Also, if a development tool such as VisualStudio doesn't support the languages capabilities completely in the UI, then it kind of fails the "good development tool" test, I think. One example of what I mean is templates when you are doing ASP.NET applications. ASP.NET supports nested templates, but the current version of VisualStudio will only support you one level down. Go beyond that, and you are on your own.

This is not a big issue for people like me who don't like 4GL development; ala VB and Delphi, but for those who do, VS doesn't support the languages abilities all the way so it doesn't support the developer who uses the graphical development abilities of VS. That can't be good.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: LOL
by pupdawg on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
pupdawg Member since:
2006-04-03

Vista is not even released to the public yet... take a look at the Yahoo messenger for Vista video's on the net. It is so easy to create WPF UIs developers will use it. I've been playing with Expression Blend and Visual Basic.net and I have managed to create some really cool stuff in less then 15min.

Edited 2007-01-21 21:44

Reply Score: 0

Missed one
by deathshadow on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:15 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

The advertising SPAM mailing that just went out...
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b243/deathshadow60/loki.jpg

LOKI??? I don't know if I want an operating system from the Norse god of Chaos, Christian angel of death, or House Steiner's equivalent of the SS.

Reply Score: 3

Homework
by mcduck on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:31 UTC
mcduck
Member since:
2005-11-23

You don't actually need it -- No, think about this. Vista doesn't do anything you can't already do with XP. About the only significant shift requiring Vista is DirextX10, but as no titles support it yet and, according to John Carmack (the godfather of modern gaming) there's no need to yet either.

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

4. Upgrading hardware -- XP was demanding at release, but Vista more so. If you have an older machine that struggles with XP at the best of times, Vista is out of your ballpark unless you spend even more money to upgrade. If this is you, see point 1.[/i]

When will they ever stop using this arguement?

If you want full use of any new 3d technology in any OS, you need a upgrade if your computer already struggels with XP. If you want the latest features, be prepared to pay for the hardware (You can get a Vista Premium ready PC dirt cheap).


6. Applications that don't work -- there's been plenty of coverage about applications that won't work without a vendor update. These include anti-virus, backup and security software such as those from Symantec, Sophos and ilk; CD and DVD burning tools like the suite from Nero need updated versions to work; and even basic disk management and partitioning tools such as Paragon's Hard Disk Manager are awaiting an update for Vista to be compatible. How many more will fail as Vista enters mainstream? Even Firefox has issues with Vista.

Upgrading to Vista takes 2 hours+ (setting up included). It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL.

9. DRM -- And to a lesser degree TPM -- were made for the RIAAs and MPAAs of this world, and the even tighter integration of copy protection mechanisms and 'Windows Rights Management' into vista are nothing more than a liability to you, the user.

Don't get us started on DRM. DRM was not a choice for Microsoft, and its not a choice for any OS that _legally_ wants to include the possibility to play HD-DVD or Blueray.

Of course, we forget that Microsoft's customers aren't you and I, afterall (see point 9). Aside from the backward thinking that is licensing, and not actually owning, your software new terms with Vista include being able to transfer the license only once

Maybe the author should do his homework. Microsoft changed the lisence to allow multiple transfers, before Vista was launched. This is simply false information he is spreading.

Maybe the author should actually try Vista?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Homework
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:42 UTC in reply to "Homework"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL."

I think that it's you who should actually try Vista. A lot of software is wholly incompatible with Vista. Nero, most Anti-Viruses, almost all the major Windows software I own wouldn't work at all, or only partially.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Homework
by jtrapp on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
jtrapp Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that it's you who should actually try Vista. A lot of software is wholly incompatible with Vista. Nero, most Anti-Viruses, almost all the major Windows software I own wouldn't work at all, or only partially.

There is an update out for Nero that makes it work.

The best two free AV (in my opinion), AVG and Avast both have working versions.

If you are overly concerned with application compatibility, wait for SP1. ISVs will have updates out by then and MS will have supplied a bunch of application compatibility updates by then.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Homework
by Jack Malmostoso on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:43 UTC in reply to "Homework"
Jack Malmostoso Member since:
2006-01-20

If you want full use of any new 3d technology in any OS, you need a upgrade if your computer already struggels with XP. If you want the latest features, be prepared to pay for the hardware (You can get a Vista Premium ready PC dirt cheap).
Not necessarily true. I am running Xubuntu with all the 3D desktop goodness on a PIII-550 with a GeFo2MX videocard. Try that with Vista...
I agree on the point that if you want to *fully* use an operating system of 2007, you need a PC from 2007.

Upgrading to Vista takes 2 hours+ (setting up included). It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL.

Depends on how much you value your time. Plus, what if all the software you are going to upgrade requires you to buy a new license? I can already see it: Crapware 8.0, now Vista compatible. Only 299$!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Homework
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:45 UTC in reply to "Homework"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Maybe the author should actually try Vista?

I got the same impression. I might be writing an article to counter his points, but for now, I'm busy on another OSNews project which will be 'unveiled' next week.

Feel free to email me if you want to know more ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE: Homework
by TBPrince on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:49 UTC in reply to "Homework"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Absolutely right.

Most of his arguments are simply ridicolous. "You don't need it", "overpriced", "you need new hardware", "license", "old application won't work". Ridicolous.

Writing hundreds of articles to state "don't buy it" is ridicolous. Using false assertions or, worst, not even "facts" but just miconception is, frankly, pathetic.

Ignoring facts won't help them. Producing innovative products would but I concede it's much easier not to do that and write that "you don't need that other product".

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Homework
by Spellcheck on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

ridiculous

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Homework
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Most of his arguments are simply ridicolous. "You don't need it",

Why is that ridiculous? If most games don't use DX10, most apps don't run on Vista, and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers, why do you need it? To help the RIAA restrict your freedom by buying HD-DVD players and discs (which almost no-one is, by the way) to play on crippled hardware? Yummy.

"overpriced",

When most Linux distributions cost around the same (in figures) as MS-DrOSs did 17 years ago (which because of inflation turns out to be a lot less), when even OSX plus a non-crippled copy of Quicktime costs less than Windows, exactly HOW is it not overpriced?

"license",

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.

"old application won't work".

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.

Using false assertions or, worst, not even "facts" but just miconception is, frankly, pathetic.

And what word would you use for the (admittedly much less than in previous years) amount of articles and comments like this stating that all these things (which microsoft have previously traded on NOT doing) are "irrelevant". Personally I'd call THEM pathetic - if not downright hypocritical.

Producing innovative products would but I concede it's much easier not to do that and write that "you don't need that other product".

I don't know if you've noticed but that guy is a "journalist". You may not know that journalists write articles not software.

As for writing "innovative" software, would you mind telling Microsoft that as they have now been claiming to have written "innovative" software for, ooh, 20 ? years, it might now actually be time to um, do it. Thanks.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Homework
by TBPrince on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Homework"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is that ridiculous? If most games don't use DX10, most apps don't run on Vista, and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers, why do you need it? To help the RIAA restrict your freedom by buying HD-DVD players and discs (which almost no-one is, by the way) to play on crippled hardware? Yummy.
That happens to ALL frameworks, platforms and OSes when they got released. I don't know where have you been lately, but when you release a new Linux (or KDE or Gnome) version which allows new functionalities, there are NO software initially running on that.

"most apps don't run on Vista" that's just not true.
"and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers" that just not true. In most cases, you can use XP drivers for them.

Maybe these people should actually try running Vista, not copying&pasting sentences by people who didn't try Vista either.

As for DRM, as other people explained in this thread, put pressure on content makers: OSes has nothing to do with that. It's simple: you want to hurt them? Don't buy their protected contents. That's the way wise people fight what they don't like. Of course, you can't look at their movies and fight them at the same time...

When most Linux distributions cost around the same (in figures) as MS-DrOSs did 17 years ago (which because of inflation turns out to be a lot less), when even OSX plus a non-crippled copy of Quicktime costs less than Windows, exactly HOW is it not overpriced?
People will decide if that's overpriced for them or not. If it is so overpriced, you will see a boost of Linux sales, as that happens in EVERY field when a product is overpriced. Of course, you know very well that won't happen. Ah yes: of course because of Microsoft PR dept. Sure.

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.
This has been covered very well in other posts.

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.
That's simply not true. You should get better information instead of reading blog posts of people who didn't try Vista and just write copying&pasting what they read on other (misinformed) blogs.

(ironically enough, that statement probably comes from a Linux or OS X user, systems on which backward-compatibility is assured... [pun intended])

As for writing "innovative" software, would you mind telling Microsoft that as they have now been claiming to have written "innovative" software for, ooh, 20 ? years, it might now actually be time to um, do it. Thanks.
Vista includes features no other OS has. You would know if you cared to check that.

But anyway, I agree to a point: people should not buy Vista unless needed and if their XP is doing its job, just keep it.

However, please notice that statement could apply to your car or dishwasher as well. Urging people not to buy Vista unless they need is like telling them to "remember to drink water, once in a while"...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Homework
by cyclops on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Homework"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

One of the Major differences with Projects like KDE and Gnome, is development is so open you can see what changes are taking places currently, and can submit your own code to these projects. Evolution is at a different level.

The reality is most developers *should* and *do* code for the lowest level of OS available...and with backward compatibly why do otherwise. A developer of any application will work with the largest Market share which will be XP for the next couple of years. Its one of the Major Disadvantages of the Microsoft model and why they want to move to a subscription based one. I have pointed out *some* of the disadvantages, but I'm sure you are aware of the advantages, advantages that add up to Billions in cash.

Vista is not 100% compatible with XP or 95 or DOS. This is of concern to companies that use often a mixture of these applications. To the home user...Not all programs will work, or as well on Vista. The choice is that the advantages of Vista outweigh this, and Microsoft will have made sure most most common applications work. It is their bread and butter.

Microsoft implemented DRM on Vista not the content makers, although they are one. If you want such schemes not to be implemented on other devices on your home. Inform people about Vista and what Microsoft stops you doing.

Understand the issues with FLOSS vs Binary platforms the issues of binary compatibility are completely different, by the very nature that the source-code is avilable. The same is also true of FLOSS applications on XP.

Vista *does* include features that no other OS has I would love you to list them, as they are so few, and are not *killer* features, and are only of interest to a tiny proportion of users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Homework
by TBPrince on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Homework"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

One of the Major differences with Projects like KDE and Gnome, is development is so open you can see what changes are taking places currently, and can submit your own code to these projects. Evolution is at a different level.
This doesn't affect the stuff we were talking about. Openness of a project doesn't matter here. What matters is that every new releases means developers need to change their code to use new stuff.

The reality is most developers *should* and *do* code for the lowest level of OS available...
That's just your opinion. Developers do what they want. If I want to develop for best of the breed, I will. It looks like you want to dictate what developers should do and create business/non-business plans for other people. Why?

Its one of the Major Disadvantages of the Microsoft model and why they want to move to a subscription based one.
This has nothing to do with a supposed "Microsoft-model". Subscription-based software is something completely different and doesn't matter for what we're talking about. It looks like you're not aware that it's not a Microsoft thing: almost any software maker is exploring ways to SaaS. And I didn't hear you complain about Google distributing their software as a service. I can't see any disadvantages in Microsoft model either. Plus, most companies are moving to a mixed ecosystem where they release stand-alone software and SaaS.

Vista is not 100% compatible with XP or 95 or DOS. This is of concern to companies that use often a mixture of these applications.
I can't see your point here. Apart from my consideration that backward compatibility IS a nightmare with other systems (read Linux and OS X. Other Unix systems, for example, have better scores there), Windows XP compatibility with 1989 DOS application WAS not perfect too. W95 applications will usually work unless you have special apps. See, upgrading IS NOT a must. It's a choice to get new features. Of course, if I need to use an application which is NOT compatible with Vista, I should not upgrade. This is part of the risk in software investment and it's common to ANY platform.

The choice is that the advantages of Vista outweigh this, and Microsoft will have made sure most most common applications work. It is their bread and butter.
Right. Most application will work. That doesn't mean some could not. But stating that MOST apps won't work is blatantly false.

Microsoft implemented DRM on Vista not the content makers, although they are one. If you want such schemes not to be implemented on other devices on your home. Inform people about Vista and what Microsoft stops you doing.
This is not true. This a very weak point. Microsoft implemented DRM that industry *asked for*. They did because they want people to use Vista to manage such contents and being unable to do so is simply crazy from a business point of view. Industry will just not provide contents to unprotected systems. Yet again, you could use Linux and avoid displaying such contents. If you use Linux AND only access unprotected contents, that would be a choice to be respected. But stating that you should be able to access ANY content is simply not an option. If you're interested in that, support (by providing them money) all authors of unprotected contents. That would be wise from you and I already do that as I hate DRM too.

Understand the issues with FLOSS vs Binary platforms the issues of binary compatibility are completely different, by the very nature that the source-code is avilable. The same is also true of FLOSS applications on XP.
That doesn't fit our discussion. I'm not evangelizing for Microsoft. I just hate when people support their arguments with lies and misconception. I'm not here to discuss which development model is better (which is clearly evident, IMO).

Vista *does* include features that no other OS has I would love you to list them, as they are so few, and are not *killer* features, and are only of interest to a tiny proportion of users.
We will talk about this when Linux will copy them and people will scream about how great Linux is. Don't expect to see them too soon, though.

Best regards.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Homework
by cyclops on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Homework"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

How does Openness not an issue when comparing a model that is released every 6 months, as opposed to every 5 years.

I did like your best-of-breed point, and would love to see the advantages of a Vista only application as opposed to one that will run on XP+Vista

The point is quite clear...XP has greater application support than Vista. Whether Vistas other features make this break in compatibility worthwhile is debatable, but has been included as a point.

Microsoft implemented DRM
Microsoft implemented DRM
Microsoft implemented DRM
They had a choice of how and if they implemented it.

You are very much discussing the FLOSS model every single time you compare the two. Thats the point.

"We will talk about this when Linux will copy them and people will scream about how great Linux is. Don't expect to see them too soon, though. "

Yes you want to keep those features of the OS hidden. It would be awful if those Linux people(sic) knew about them or even Microsoft's customers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Homework
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Homework"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That happens to ALL frameworks, platforms and OSes when they got released. I don't know where have you been lately, but when you release a new Linux (or KDE or Gnome) version which allows new functionalities, there are NO software initially running on that.

I don't know where you have been lately, but software is not usually "intentionally crippled" whether it's new or not. Also, there is a vast library of software for Linux that mostly merely needs to be recompiled for it to work on a new distribution or version. It may be true that all software makers only have to recompile apps for Vista too, but if so, they've had five years since XP came out and about 1 since Vista was RC'd. Where the hell are the apps?

"most apps don't run on Vista" that's just not true.
"and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers" that just not true. In most cases, you can use XP drivers for them.


OK, so why are people complaining about how their hardware doesn't work, then? Oh, I suppose the people who make their livelihoods reporting on Windows actually have a secret wish to see it fail, and therefore are just lying.

Maybe these people should actually try running Vista, not copying&pasting sentences by people who didn't try Vista either.

Newsflash: Ashton whatshisname wrote his two posts on the subject IN Vista. Is that a sufficiently large value of "run Vista" for you?

As for DRM, as other people explained in this thread, put pressure on content makers: OSes has nothing to do with that. It's simple: you want to hurt them? Don't buy their protected contents. That's the way wise people fight what they don't like. Of course, you can't look at their movies and fight them at the same time...

I don't intend to buy any DRM-crippled content. That doesn't mean that I won't be saddled with DRM-crippled hardware if I buy a new computer, or that Microsoft are not collaborators. If Linux distributors have the balls to stand up to the content providers, why doesn't Microsoft?

People will decide if that's overpriced for them or not. If it is so overpriced, you will see a boost of Linux sales, as that happens in EVERY field when a product is overpriced. Of course, you know very well that won't happen. Ah yes: of course because of Microsoft PR dept. Sure.

Are you actually implying that Microsoft make good products, outside of Office? Good grief.

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.
This has been covered very well in other posts.

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.
That's simply not true. You should get better information instead of reading blog posts of people who didn't try Vista and just write copying&pasting what they read on other (misinformed) blogs.


As my earlier comment.

(ironically enough, that statement probably comes from a Linux or OS X user, systems on which backward-compatibility is assured... [pun intended])

MacOS X has (or had) the Classic environment for running old apps; I can recompile stuff like xkeycaps (which looks like it hasn't even been updated in the time Linux has been out) on Linux no problem. Despite protestations to the contrary, or to the effect that you have to put one hand in an oven and the other in an alligator's mouth whilst singing backwards and standing on your head, compiling an app on which the compile goes well is not hard.

Vista includes features no other OS has. You would know if you cared to check that.

Like what? Viruses? Colour me orgasmic (/sarcasm).

But anyway, I agree to a point: people should not buy Vista unless needed and if their XP is doing its job, just keep it.

However, please notice that statement could apply to your car or dishwasher as well. Urging people not to buy Vista unless they need is like telling them to "remember to drink water, once in a while"...


Except not. A great many intelligent people lose their heads when it comes to computers, and Microsoft rely on that fact.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Homework
by TBPrince on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Homework"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, there is a vast library of software for Linux that mostly merely needs to be recompiled for it to work on a new distribution or version.
Are you sure you're talking about something you actually know? Recompiling won't let you use new system features. That will just enable you to be able to run your software on systems which don't assure backward compatibility. To use new features, you ACTUALLY need to change your code.

It may be true that all software makers only have to recompile apps for Vista too
As I said, you're talking about things you don't know. Most Windows applications doesn't need recompilation and that's why they get distributed in binary-form only. For example, you can develop against Win32 and if you don't use XP specific APIs, you can run your app on Windows NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista. No recompilation needed. Hey, this is just the basics! I'm happy that you know how to recompile your apps under Linux. Be aware there is people who enjoy not to need that.

[/i]OK, so why are people complaining about how their hardware doesn't work, then? Oh, I suppose the people who make their livelihoods reporting on Windows actually have a secret wish to see it fail, and therefore are just lying. [/i]
What's the point here? I just installed Vista on a AMD XP 2500 512MB RAM quite old notebook and it got installed and recognize most devices. The one which weren't recognized, I installed my XP drivers for. No troubles and this system is quite old. So what?

Are you aware that XP didn't support all hardware which were supported in W2000? So what? Some drivers need to be changed. Others will work out-of-the-box. That's nothing unusual. I can't see your point here. It's up to the user to check that before installing as it was in 2001 and back in 1995 and so on.

I don't intend to buy any DRM-crippled content. That doesn't mean that I won't be saddled with DRM-crippled hardware if I buy a new computer,
That's exactly misconception which people is spreading. When you buy a new PC which supports new-DRM and you play your old unprotected AVIs nothing will saddle you. If you won't buy DRM-crippled content as you said (really? Won't you rent a movie since now on??), you will never have ANY chance to be saddled. Can't see ur point here either.


If Linux distributors have the balls to stand up to the content providers, why doesn't Microsoft?
Have what? eheh Linux will just not play that content. Will this choice broaden its market share? Definitely not. It's not about balls, it's about choices. Microsoft wants to let their users play protected content in Vista, with Linux you will have no choice. It's about choice (go figure!).

Despite protestations to the contrary, or to the effect that you have to put one hand in an oven and the other in an alligator's mouth whilst singing backwards and standing on your head, compiling an app on which the compile goes well is not hard.
Recompiling apps! You must be kidding! Do you think I would spend my time recompiling my apps because Linux developers aren't capable (or too lazy) to create a decent ABI? No way. But don't misunderstand me: I think the best is when people do what they please. I will keep using my applications and if you're happy having to recompile your apps every single release, well, good for you. Why should we fight about this if we're both happy about our systems? Peace.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Homework
by anda_skoa on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "Homework"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

I haven't followed this very closely, but I think all earlier versions of DirectX are available for more than just the latest Windows version, while DirectX10 will not be available on anything older than Vista.

If this information is correct so far, it will be a huge difference for game developers, since they either have to code for two DirectX versions or miss out on all the people who keep running XP (or even older versions)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Homework
by raver31 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly.

I also cannot see any game developer ignoring the installed base of XP users for a handful of Vista people.

True gamers will not be switching to Vista because;

Gamers need every CPU cycle to be used on the game, not wasted on the OS.
Gamers need excellent working drivers for sound and video. Vista has not got these.
Gamers need their memory to be used on the game, not the OS.

DirectX has lots of life left in it, as does XP.

Edited 2007-01-21 23:34

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Homework
by draethus on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

Lukicly wine is apparently planning to make a Windows XP port of its DirectX 10 implementation (which will work on top of OpenGL).

Reply Score: 1

Visa is "Not fit for purpose"as an O/S
by shotsman on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:15 UTC in reply to "Homework"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

I have this very day installed Vista Business Ultimate on a system that also runs Server 2003 very well (3.6Ghz Xeon, 4Mb Ram).

After 10 hours and no less than 19 (yes I counted them) reboots I gave up.

This system is a bog standard HP DL360. I have had similar problems with a Dell SC1420. There are still several key device drivers not available. I was trying to replicate the Server 2003 installation but the documented shortcomings eg Signed Video drivers, no sound etc.

In the words of a prominent UK Politician(The Home Secretary), "Vista is not fit for service". When Server 2003 came out it was just the opposite to this heap of cow dung. It worked yet Vista is suppoed to be built on the same codebase and it does not. Would someone please explain how this is progress?

My conclusions
No doubt that things will improve over time but at the moment, put the DVD in the trash and get a life. Wait until SP1 and try again.
Note to MS, I hope the Vista Server is NOT like this or whatever % of the Server market you have will go down the plughole. Server 2003 is a nice O/S but so far my experience of Vista leaves me to seriously consider switching Server O/S.

Reply Score: 5

Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

OK, I'll bite. Why are you trying to install Vista (a client operating system) on a server. Checking with HP's web site there are no drivers for Vista for the DL360. In fact for all generations of the DL360 there are no drivers for Vista or XP on the HP site.

The vast majority of client PC's are not going to have built in RAID controllers (SmartArray 5.x or 6.x on the DL360), lights out management, etc. So its no wonder the system didn't work because Microsoft is not going to ship even basic drivers for server grade RAID controllers. And I seriously doubt that businesses are going to install Vista (any version) on a server. So what was the point of this again?

Reply Score: 5

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

OK, I'll bite. Why are you trying to install Vista (a client operating system) on a server.

Good question. I also can't understand why anyone would install Windows on a server.

They should just concentrate on the desktop, that's what they are good in.

And no, 2007 won't be the year of the Window server.

Reply Score: 4

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@anda_skoa

And no, 2007 won't be the year of the Window server.

Yeah, Windows won that long ago. Right after Novell handed them their own share of the market to MS.

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yeah, Windows won that long ago. Right after Novell handed them their own share of the market to MS.

Newsflash: Linux servers are growing at a faster rate than Windows servers.

Reply Score: 3

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

If you read what I said, I was installing Vista Business. This is (At the moment) the closest to Vista Server we can get.
The DL360 was used because it just works with Server 2003 and Vista is built on the Server 2003 code base.
The Dl360 was used because it was available. The Raid controller is configured for JBOD. Every other O/S picke them up without problem. Actually, Vista picks up the Raid controllers without problem It was other devices eg Sound that Vista failed miserably.
For an O/S that is aimed at media centre work to fail to detect a standard soundblaster card then sorry, Microsoft, you have failed miserably.
I can understand they aims it restricting 64bit drivers to signed ones but surely if they had got their act together then they would have had LOT and I mean LOTS of signed drivers available at Release? Is this not a simple question to ask?
If not then please explain why not.
This is also why I say leave it until SP1 before making any serious attempt to deploy or use Vista in any serious way at all.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"If you read what I said, I was installing Vista Business. This is (At the moment) the closest to Vista Server we can get."

Actually the closest you can get to Server would be Vista Ultimate. They are a desktop OS, and NOT a server OS in design.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

In the words of a prominent UK Politician(The Home Secretary), "Vista is not fit for service".

Are you saying Microsoft are going to split Windows into Vista: Justice Edition and Vista: Anti-Terrorism Edition?

Oh, wait, that would be two MORE Editions!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Homework
by gilboa on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:32 UTC in reply to "Homework"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

Don't let the facts *, get in the way of a bad argument.

Upgrading to Vista takes 2 hours+ (setting up included). It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL.

Let me spell it out of you.
SLOOOWLY. (Cause you seem to having problem reading)
He was talking about compatibility issues. Not about upgrade/installation time.

Don't get us started on DRM. DRM was not a choice for Microsoft, and its not a choice for any OS that _legally_ wants to include the possibility to play HD-DVD or Blueray.

Project Palladium [2] came long before RIAA/MPAA and rest of the vultures even thought about DCMA and DRM.
Heck, rumors about this project even preceded Windows XP RTM.
Yet again, don't let the facts get in your way.

- Gilboa
[1] Doom3, Quake4, UT2K4, X2, Farcry... and I can continue.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base

Reply Score: 5

RE: Homework
by kaiwai on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "Homework"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

I think the original argument was pretty bad to begin with; it sounded more like an excuse not to upgrade straight away in favour of waiting.

As for the original author, sure, Vista has sort comings, but why doesn't he let the 'informed consumer' make that decision as to whether its a good upgrade rather than taking the paternalistic view of "I know whats best for you".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Homework
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Homework"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

but why doesn't he let the 'informed consumer' make that decision as to whether its a good upgrade rather than taking the paternalistic view of "I know whats best for you".

When it comes to computers (whether you think anyone should put this right or not), consumers patently are NOT "informed" and probably don't want to be - if they were then MS wouldn't be able to tell people how great their software is (other Windows software is great, but Microsoft software itself? Blah) or how "innovative" their products are.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Homework
by kaiwai on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Homework"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And there is anything wrong with that? I mean, this is the same people who voted for a party because their daddy did, and their daddy's daddy did; make decisions based on emotional atteachment and 'coolness' rather than whether it does the job or not.

I'm quite happy to sit smuggly here with my Linux installation - as far away from the havoc that engulfs the end user; and heck, if I can make some money off the pain and missery of the average sucker, then its all good.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Homework
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Homework"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

And there is anything wrong with that? I mean, this is the same people who voted for a party because their daddy did, and their daddy's daddy did; make decisions based on emotional atteachment and 'coolness' rather than whether it does the job or not.

I thought the point you were trying to make was that users are NOT morons?

I'm quite happy to sit smuggly here with my Linux installation - as far away from the havoc that engulfs the end user; and heck, if I can make some money off the pain and missery of the average sucker, then its all good.

Yes, it's always struck me that the people who most love Windows and work in "IT support" on the systems are ignorant amoral assholes.

Reply Score: 2

Vista isn't worth it
by Tyr. on Sun 21st Jan 2007 18:54 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

I keep reading stuff like this. People actually using Vista and finding it really isn't a worthwhile upgrade :

"Three days into full-time Windows Vista usage, and already the Sidebar is making me crazy. Windows Gadgets are ultimately not much more than distracting eye candy."
( http://lifehacker.com/software/windows-vista/windows-vista-tip--dis... )

Oh and real life snippets from sources I trust like the above are much more convincing to me than "DRM" and "draconian license". Save those for when you're adressing the ubergeeks, other people don't care (not saying they shouldn't though)

Reply Score: 5

you can't do anything with it
by SK8T on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:15 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

Nobody want's Vista. We should not support this new era of DRM! We should fight for our freedom and boykott this wohle thing.

And as the author said, we don't need it.

Why should you need Vista? You can't do anything with it! - Make a web-blog, photoblog or photobook? IMPOSSIBLE! There are no tools. Expect freeware tools, but before you can get your blog online, you have to deal with a program to manage your pictures, one program to edit them, and one program to bring them online. You have forgotten what you wanted to say when you are ready to do it.

Or UAC, it's terrible. It's a good example how to make the "experience" for the user als complicated as possible. (I know nobody who like it to click x-times on the same window). The best thing on UAC in Vista is, you can't do anything when the window appears, it locks the screen.

So have we got anything else in Vista that you can't get for XP? Expect from the new Hardware requierments? If you use the classic styl in Vista, you got 2000 with higher Hardware requirments.

Imo time for Mac and linux.

Reply Score: 5

konkat
Member since:
2005-11-13

You can put out a list like this for any new product.

I've come up with excuses myself about every new Microsoft OS but sooner or later I eventually succumb to the need to upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You can put out a list like this for any new product.

I've come up with excuses myself about every new Microsoft OS but sooner or later I eventually succumb to the need to upgrade.


Funny, I was just thinking the exact opposite: Every time I think I should install Windows (either to run some application or just to get some "balance"), I remember that it's a pig to install (if you have anything else installed already which you want to keep) or realise that I just don't need that app.

I'm even considering buying a laptop with Linux preinstalled.

Reply Score: 2

I mostly agree with the article ...
by WorknMan on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:25 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Except for #9 and #10. DRM is a content problem, not a software problem. Nobody is going to shove DRM down your throat, but at least with Vista, you have the choice of playing the content if you so choose. If you're running Linux, you won't have that option, unless somebody has cracked it. Personally, even though I don't plan to go anywhere near it at this time, I like having the option to do so.

As for #10, I think another poster has covered that one quite nicely.

I myself do not plan to upgrade, but when I get a new machine, I sure as hell am not going to revert back to XP, and have no desire to switch to Linux at this time. I think on a new Core2Duo with a generous amount of RAM, Vista is going to run smoother than XP ever could. But for people who already have a machine running XP, probably best to stick with it for now, probably until you get a new PC.

As for old applications not working, somebody mentioned Nero, which has already been updated to support Vista. The anti-virus software will be updated soon too, if they're not already.

Reply Score: 5

An article bashing Vista
by ronaldst on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:40 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

And a nice set of links to Linux software with a bio of the author saying that "We all know that one day Linux will rule the world,"...

OH DEAR! The PS3 syndrome continues...

Reply Score: 1

Recommending this article...
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 21st Jan 2007 19:53 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

...Is not enough. I wish I could vote for it: 10 out of 10.

Reply Score: 5

new pc
by gfx1 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:02 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

When you buy a new pc is will probably very difficult to get it with Windows XP instead of Vista.
I tried Vista for a while, you can download the RTM and try it for 30 days without registering.

It looks nicer but all the animation stuff is getting anoying at day two. so that's turned off.
There is not enough improvement to make me happy, it's even slower than XP, it's annoying, stupid pop ups everytime I want to change a setting, Windows knows that I move the mouse pointer so don't be so daft that I didn't mean to click on something.

Reply Score: 4

college experiment worked
by buff on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:03 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I got into grad school last year. I was determined to see if I could just use Linux to do all my school work. I would write everything in Open Office and then export it to Word. The school's online system worked with Firefox so I could submit all my research papers online. I listened to online music using rythmbox. I edited digital photos using the Gimp to include in research papers. I kept XP around on a spare partition to run Turbo Tax. I recently saw that Intuit has an web application of their software running so I don't need to use the Windows software anymore. This is the first time I have ever been completely free of Microsoft stuff. God it feels good. Vista interests me for technical information but why would I buy it when I can get all my office software for free.

Reply Score: 5

RE: college experiment worked
by twenex on Sun 21st Jan 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "college experiment worked"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Let me just point out that TurboTax and such like probably isn't much use outside of the US and Canada. Intuit dropped support for UK tax forms, for example, some years ago.

So for users outside of North America, there's even less lockin. Happily.

Reply Score: 4

About Reasons...
by Kwitschibo on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:10 UTC
Kwitschibo
Member since:
2006-01-17

There is one Reason why Vista isn't a OS for me.

Because i use Linux on my Desktops (home and business) and Servers for years.

And there is no Reason for a switch to Windows.

What Vista want to be has Linux since many years.

Life is so simple. :-)

Edited 2007-01-21 20:15

Reply Score: 5

Agree with Thom
by DigitalAxis on Sun 21st Jan 2007 20:54 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

I actually agree with Thom's rebuttal, AND the original article.
Windows Vista LOOKS like a new paint job on Windows XP, but that's because they completely restructured the back-end stuff and your 'new paint job' is actually being presented a new and different way.

Thom is right, Vista has changed massively and can now do things Windows XP simply can't... but the article points out (taking rougly four items to do so) that if you don't care about the new features and XP does everything you want already, there's no point buying Vista. The article's got three more points devoted to the idea that you ought to wait for the dust to settle anyway, and then three items that are basically problems with Microsoft's mindset and love of control.

That said, if people are getting seriously annoyed with UAC and the new look & sidebar, recommending they try Linux is probably not such a good idea.

Someday I'm sure I'll end up seeing UAC and the new fancy black Aero look (and see for myself if it's really irritating, or just- God forbid- different), but it'll be if I get a new Windows-based PC. I'm not buying Vista via retail; I don't see anything in Vista I absolutely have to have.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Agree with Thom
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:18 UTC in reply to "Agree with Thom"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That said, if people are getting seriously annoyed with UAC and the new look & sidebar, recommending they try Linux is probably not such a good idea.

Why not? Linux' UAC "equivalent" doesn't pester you every five minutes (unless you enjoy doing things like changing your password every five minutes, I suppose), and asks for a password before continuing, rather than just the anonymous "yes or no"of UAC. (Which is a longwinded way of saying that it actually works.

As for how it looks, you can pretty much make Linux look like just about any OS in history; add in emulators and such for and that even includes old ones like RSX and ITS. Ironically one of the only ones it doesn't look like now is the Common Desktop Environment Unix boxen used in the 90s. But it can even do that, to some degree.

Reply Score: 3

getting vista
by arielb on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:04 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

Vista won't take over unless it makes sense to install it on existing pc's and cheaper.

most people already have a pc and you need a reason for them to get a new one. A new pc with vista isn't going to be much faster so why? to have more cheesy skins? It's not like XP which was a big deal compared to Windows 98 which wasn't so reliable. XP also had the Y2K crisis in its favor. Everyone was upgrading because of that.

The real alternative OS isn't linux or even the mac. It's the web browser. The trend is web apps such as gmail and google docs. Unlimited storage and access for the user and easy for the developer to distribute and update the app for everyone in one step.

that's why Firefox should be scarier to microsoft than any other app or OS. Free, easy to use and anyone can use it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: getting vista
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "getting vista"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The real alternative OS isn't linux or even the mac. It's the web browser. The trend is web apps such as gmail and google docs. Unlimited storage and access for the user and easy for the developer to distribute and update the app for everyone in one step.

Well I have a gmail account but although I still use it for access to email when I'm away from my own computers, I've recently switched back to using local clients. As for things like Google Docs, if your data is trivial enough that you don't want to pay for access to someone else's computer, then it's fine. But otherwise you will want to pay someone (so that they have a liability to you if they lose their data), and we already have PC's that can store loads and loads of information, so why bother? You could buy a subscription, or just buy MS/Star/OpenOffice. You can charge a subscription, or rely on advertising revenue, but does anyone ever actually pay attention to those adverts?

Reply Score: 2

Apple Vista!
by sp29 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:07 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

Vista is Microsoft's version of OS X! Nothing new on the OS or original that's not modifed from OS X and Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple Vista!
by helf on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:58 UTC in reply to "Apple Vista!"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

oh would you shutup. People have been spouting this for ages. You can make the SAME arguments about any OS. No one effing cares.

Edited 2007-01-21 21:59

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple Vista!
by sp29 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple Vista!"
sp29 Member since:
2006-01-04

No I won't helfer, because it's true. I will run out and buy it just because it's mac like and that's the only reason.

Reply Score: 0

finally comment
by milles21 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 21:34 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

I will finally comment I have used Vista RC and the full and final release enterprise edition I have started a pilot program for our office upgrade. The truth is that we will likely upgrade due to management. However from a technical standpoint Vista is truly less than amazing, our systems are 1GB memory systems brand new however Aero does not work on them due to the onboard Intel video not supporting them. HP DC5100 verify yourself.

The performance is not that great compared to XP, side note programming customize plug-in toolbars for office 2007 will suck. Second as someone has stated earlier OS X has had the features for years and they are not implemented great on Vista. The loss of WinFS was extremely damaging to the benefits of Vista. The DRM is a different story.

Vista is worth skipping but many will not have a choice. In other words I have been running it since Nov. full version not RC and it has been disappointing due to the fact that it is really XP in new clothing. I think the networking has been made to complicated for the end user and the re-teaching of office will be a nightmare for any IT department.

I think that leopard will far exceed anything Windows Vista has brought to the table.

Reply Score: 3

just fine for now
by heh heh on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:14 UTC
heh heh
Member since:
2005-07-06

Both my computers are circa 2005 so it will be a while
before i go to vista if i go. even a pent1 can run xp
let alone a celeron d and a pent 4 and since i use
pocket pc's often for the time being, linux is out
and just to prove how long a computer can last,
in the family we have a 10yr old laptop running win95
so yes it should be a while before we upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

v Vista must be really good
by ronaldst on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:24 UTC
RE: Vista must be really good
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "Vista must be really good"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

When you pro-MS astroturfers repent and stop with the propagandist lying?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Vista must be really good
by ronaldst on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista must be really good"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Any luck with the crusade lately?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Vista must be really good
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista must be really good"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm not on a "crusade". Haven't had any viruses, crashes, BSODs, installation hassles, product registrations or other generally Microsoftian bullshit to put up with either, though, thanks for asking.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Vista must be really good
by ronaldst on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista must be really good"
RE[5]: Vista must be really good
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista must be really good"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

And the bullshit you put out how will it help?

Well, even if it were bullshit it would help more than selling crap, like a certain ronaldst.

Fortunately I confine myself to helping people with their computer problems, whatever the OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Vista must be really good
by ronaldst on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista must be really good"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@tweenex

Well, even if it were bullshit it would help more than selling crap, like a certain ronaldst.

So you admit you're just spamming for your enjoyment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Vista must be really good
by twenex on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista must be really good"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Well, even if it were bullshit it would help more than selling crap, like a certain ronaldst.

So you admit you're just spamming for your enjoyment.


Erm, no. "Even if it were" = "It's not, but if it were". Can't you read, or do you just spew so much you're incapable of thinking anyone else could do otherwise?

Reply Score: 1

Windows and 32bit
by REM2000 on Sun 21st Jan 2007 22:35 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I have tried the RC's and Beta's and am now running Windows Vista Business RTM.

In one respect im suprised that there is a 32bit version of Vista as the one i am using takes about 1GB RAM to do simple file operations (moving, copying files) and run outlook 2007 at the same time. I can see me reaching the 4GB Limit real soon.

I have the full effects online, i am using an nVidia 7600GT PCIe 256MB video and 2GB RAM.

My experience is of vista is that i really do not understand where all of the memory has gone, i would have understood around 300-400MB but 600MB+ on startup is a little much.

I like the instant search, but this was really because i am used to spotlight so it's not really a new experience.

Games wise i haven't tried to many, however since the only drivers for my soundcard (Soundblaster XFI) then i assume some of the performance hit is because of sound.

Im pleased that my documents has been cleaned up with a seperate area for game saves, download's etc.. These things have been long overdue.

Found glitches here and there for many apps (Quicktime H264 sometimes plays jagged) Adobe Reader 8.0 for Vista wouldn't install due to some problem with the temp folder, although i managed to install after i extracted and manually ran the setup from another drive.

Sometimes i get great network (LAN) speeds (1GB network) sometimes it will crawl and stop all togeather.

Readyboost is a great idea, something i would like to see on the mac and linux.

I have found the gadgets pretty handy, but again i think this may be from using the dashboard. Gadgets and the dashboard are very subjective, i think they are really useful but the next person will never use them, so their's not much to really comment about these.

USB devices seem to work better in vista, i forgot to eject a usb 2.0 hdd and simply unplugged the drive, however i wasn't met with an error message telling me that the cache couldn''t flush and i may have lost some data, i tried this again with a USB Key and again not error message, impressive. (I gave each device a couple of seconds before unplugging).

I have been using windows for a real long time, the control panel, or should i say the settings are really confusing at the moment. I can find most of the settings to tweak but some i had to do some real hunting around. However i am not making this point as something negative about Vista, as with any new system it will take me a few days to get used to where everything is laid out.

So far the explorer shell seems to be pretty stable, a little memory hungry but it ran ok. The breadcrumbs works really well.

Overall i think Microsoft was never gonna win anything with Vista, we all know it was a long time coming and that Longhorn promised so much more. The problem with vista is that it should have been released in 2004/5. The other thing i would have like to see with Vista would have been a bigger push to 64bit, as ive said before 2GB for vista is equal to 1GB on XP. For gamers and other power users they are gonna want to have 3/4GB RAM (BF2145 used to bring my XP PC up to about 1.5GB RAM usage). So 32bit really seems like a waste of time, i know there is the driver thing, however we had a similar situation in 1995 with Win95 and the transition to 32bit from 16bit and after a few years with the pressure from users, wanting to use win95 it was worked out. We can see this happening now with the release of Exchange 2007 being a 64bit only release, it's a shame it just didn't happen on the desktop.

Reply Score: 3

richardstevenhack
Member since:
2006-12-30

Abridged to fit the 8,000 character limit.

"Can I change the volume on a per-application basis in Windows XP?"

Who cares?

"Do I have integrated system-wide search in Windows XP?"

Depends on what you call "integrated"? Google Desktop and a dozen commercial and OSS products do the same.

"Can I set the language on a per-user basis in Windows XP?"

Wow, really important for UN computers, I suppose. Anybody else need this?

"Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts?"

I don't even know what the hell that means. How about SIMPLIFYING email and contacts rather than tying it even deeper into the OS? Outlook is a freakin' joke compared to the point products.

"Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)?"

No, it's not irrelevant. Dozens of photo organizers exist, some for free.

"Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look?"

Again, who cares? What the hell is an "up-to-date, modern look" anyway? Are you a "fashionista"? Check the looks on some of the Linux distros with decent artists contributing some time.

"Does Windows XP have all those under-the-hood improvements...?"

The "new networking stack" WILL be full of bugs that cause more endless problems in networking Windows PCs than even XP did. Networking on Windows is a NIGHTMARE of stuff that doesn't work until you check at least 25 different settings, NONE of which are obviously involved with networking. Compare that to ANY Linux distro where a couple text config files set up properly gets your networking going RELIABLY - no suddent failures due to a Registry screwup by some Microsoft or third-oarty program.

Ever removed McAfee or Norton from a PC and had your networking stop working? MANY people have. Can't happen on Linux.

"Yes, no doubt about it. However, as said above, most people will get Vista via OEM."

Same response. Vista is NOT free unless you BUY A NEW MACHINE. We're talking about people who HAVE a machine WITH XP on it.

"Vista most certainly is demanding. However, on my hardware (two computers), Vista with Aero performs better than i.e. Ubuntu or OpenSUSE with Beryl. On top of that, Aero is a hell of a lot more stable than Beryl."

And for most people who haven't bought a machine with 1-2GB of RAM, they will have to buy a new machine or upgrade their current one to run Aero with any performance and the eye candy.

Most corporate machines will NOT run Aero's full capabilities - nor do they need to - which is one less reason for corporate desktops to bother with Vista over XP. Many corporate desktops get along with Windows 2000 - XP offered very little over 2000 that corporations needed. The same holds true for Vista - in spades.

"This is a typical ‘your mileage may vary’. Vista is demanding on resources, no doubt, but not as bad as some make it out to be."

Compared to whom? MOST reviewers I've read have said that 2GB of RAM is really needed to run multiple applications on top of the 400MB Vista needs WHEN IDLE.

[Hardware crippled] "Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics and audio."

The point is that Vista was LATE out the door because of SERIOUS development problems. It was not provided with adequate Release Candidate testing time, which is why the hardware and software manufacturers are racing furiously to complete their upgrades.

All this will translate to MAJOR bugs and problems for the first year for Vista.

"This one is kind of weird, as the author claims Vista has nothing to offer over XP - yet he does recognise it has a ‘new and untested’ architecture. Contradiction?"

No contradiction. A "new and untested architecture" merely means Microsoft changed everything again - not that it offers any significantly new features. Since MS couldn't get the file system database to work, and some other things, the stuff that HAS ben added is hardly earth-shaking enough to warrant such a massive redesign.

I'm also not convinced that it WAS such a "redesign". Given the ridiculous size of the OS over XP, I'm fairly sure that much of the XP code was dragged along to provide "backward compatibility." And given the lack of earth-shaking new features, WHERE did the new 20 million or so lines of code actually GO?

I'll tell you - features that nobody asked for. Which means bugs and security holes nobody wants.

"Multiuser an afterthought in Windows NT? Does the author even have the slightest understanding of what NT is and where it came from? NT has been designed from the ground up with multiuser in mind"

Bullcrap. Linux is an example of a TRUE multiuser system that was multiuser almost from the first kernel Linus wrote. Linux accepts any number of connections from the same or more than one user. Windows XP can't accept more than two. Windows XP has some crap called "fast user switching" and allows for multiple user accounts. This is as close to "multiuser" as it gets.

It's a joke compared with any Linux. EVERY Linux is the equivalent of Microsoft Server 2003.

"As for UAC, it’s not even half as annoying as some make it out to be. I do not find it any more annoying than sudo..."

If you mean sudo on Ubuntu/Kubuntu, I might agree with you. If you mean sudo on any other Linux system - WRONG. On every other Linux system, you use sudo only when you need to. In most cases, sudo is for the end users, not the admin. The admin uses the su command and does it ONCE to enter administrator mode. UAC pops up all over the place, by all accounts.

You also didn't answer the author's pointing out how SLOW it is.

"I have never come into contact with DRM"

So in other words, you know nothing about it.

Have you read Peter Gutmann's analysis of how bad the DRM crap in Vista is going to affect the ENTIRE hardware and software industry?

"The author has failed to mention the real weaknesses of Windows Vista, such as the idiotic amount of different editions or the simple fact that Microsoft’s obsession with backwards compatibility is hindering its development."

No. What is hindering its development is the fact that Microsoft doesn't know how to develop software. Jim Allchin went to Gates in 2005 and told him Vista would NEVER be completed unless they redesigned how they develop software. So they redesigned their procedures. Then last year we saw blog posts from Microsoft employees about how Vista was delayed because the testing process was broken. They also said that numerous times a Vista build would FAIL NUMEROUS tests - and management would make it "Approved for Component."

This means Vista is RIDDLED with bugs and security holes that will make it the WORST Microsoft OS ever released - even worse than Windows Mlllenium.

Thank you for playing, but your rebuttal doesn't even come close to answering the problems with Vista.

Reply Score: 5

camo r Member since:
2005-08-26

He gets a 4 for that?

That poster just wrote garbage without any PROOF and he gets modded up because he bashes MS.

Finishes up by saying "WORST Microsoft OS ever released - even worse than Windows Mlllenium"! Pretty bold statement. Funny...

How can this post be taken seriously when it claims "It's a joke compared with any Linux. EVERY Linux is the equivalent of Microsoft Server 2003.", yet intelligent people know that vista is written off the W2K3 codebase? Please explain to me how this gets modded up?

Is osnews becoming /. annex?

Reply Score: 3

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

that simply means with linux you can use it as a desktop or a server. With Vista, you need another version of Windows if you want it to be a server.

I may be too dumb to install debian but I'm not *that* dumb to not get that. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Is osnews becoming /. annex?"

Nah, we're ./'s retarded little brother.
You better get rid of that delusion of yours that post score has anything whatsoever to do with the quality of a post. It's just a rough measurement of how many people agree with you.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That poster just wrote garbage

Takes one to know one.

without any PROOF and he gets modded up because he bashes MS.

Where was your proof? Other than the slimy double-talk of the Uncle of Lies, which in this case doesn't even tally with what normally-obsequious analysts are saying.

How can this post be taken seriously

It can't. Oh, sorry! you mean the one you're replying to? Because it includes facts, not FUD.

it claims "It's a joke compared with any Linux. EVERY Linux is the equivalent of Microsoft Server 2003.", intelligent people know that vista is written off the W2K3 codebase?

Hmm, apparently intelligent people don't know that Windows doesn't include every option available with all of its OSes, and most Linux versions can install everything from TuxRacer to Apache (depending on what you want).

Or maybe some people are just posing as "intelligent people".

Reply Score: 2

APCMag is actually very pro MS
by unclefester on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 01:52 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

This is not an article from an anti-linux zealot. APCMag is the leading consumer computer magazine in Australia. Generally it would be considered very strongly MS. It has had a huge amount of Vista coverage for the last 2 years.

The market for PCs in Australia tends to be for low end notebooks and low to mid range desktop PCs which are hardly adequate for XP.

My general impression is that Australian consumers have little interest in spending big for something they see no need for.

Reply Score: 4

RE: APCMag is actually very pro MS
by hal2k1 on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 02:07 UTC in reply to "APCMag is actually very pro MS"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//APCMag is actually very pro MS
By unclefester (1.50) on 2007-01-22 01:52:16 UTC
This is not an article from an anti-linux zealot. APCMag is the leading consumer computer magazine in Australia. Generally it would be considered very strongly MS. It has had a huge amount of Vista coverage for the last 2 years.

The market for PCs in Australia tends to be for low end notebooks and low to mid range desktop PCs which are hardly adequate for XP.

My general impression is that Australian consumers have little interest in spending big for something they see no need for. //

Too right, mate.

Spot on.

Blood oath.

Reply Score: 3

Well...here's my 2.2c worth (inc. GST)
by melkor on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 03:05 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

It's surprising to see so many Windows advocates. I know Ashton, he's been in the publshing/writing/computer game for a long while now, and in all honesty, his points are RIGHT on the money. I'll deal with them 1 by 1 for you Windows luddites:

1. Think of this logically, Windows XP seems to work OK for a lot of people, otherwise we'd be seeing mass migrations to other alternative operating systems such as OS X (far superior imho) or Linux or BSD. This logic seems to indicate that for most people, there will be little advantage to update to Vista. If XP does it now, why update? If you think that the average person is really going to have a better computing life by upgrading to Vista, you're pulling something. Sure, for a very small percentage of computer users, Vista does offer new features and benefits, but this is in reality, a tiny percentage of the current userspace.

2 & 3. Cost. Outrageous is the word. Let me see here, Vista Ultimate sells in the US for $399, which translates to around AU $503 or so. Why is Microsoft Australia selling it for AU $751 rrp? That's a gross profit of $248 on top of the US price, allowing for conversion. Why isn't the ACCC investigating Microsoft for price fixing? $751 for Vista? No thanks, not when other alternatives are far better value for money. Hell, I'm waiting for Leopard to be released in a few months, for AU $299. Far better value, far more secure system, far more reliable. Better looks, better usability imho. Need I say anymore? Well, I will...

4. Very true. So, some of you Windows luddites are saying that I *must* upgrade my hardware just to run Microsoft's latest and greatest™? Bugger that.

5 & 6. Amen. Vista is...currently a half baked project imho. Microsoft has released Vista before the rest of the software market was ready, with the attitude of 'tough shit'. This sort of disregard for your users will lose you many customers Microsoft.

7. This is probably a bit of FUD, but hey, Microsoft has been fudding Linux for many years now, I don't hear of all of you Windows luddites chastising Microsoft for FUD. One word: hypocrisy.

8. By all accounts, UAC is going to be one of those 'click and forget' buttons. People won't read the warnings, they'll just click it to get rid of it. This counters the reason for the development of UAC - educating the user to pay attention to what they're doing, and why, and how it might affect their system.

9. Need we say anymore? DRM in any way, shape or form is BAD. Operating systems that support DRM should be boycotted. Products that use DRM should be avoided. If enough people had the courage to do it, it would send a VERY clear message to the RIAA and MPAA that we are NOT prepared to play/pay their game. I'm not endorsing piracy, don't get me wrong, but DRM is a sheer violation of our rights as users. End of story. If you think DRM is great, you need placing out in the back paddock and gentle aural persuasion with a small lead ball (from my ****king gun).

10. Amen. This is why I endorse the GPL, it ensures that you, the user doesn't lose rights, but gains them as a user. True, the Vista license isn't much more draconian than other Microsoft offerings.

Now onto Dan's supposéd rebuttal...

Quote: "Can I change the volume on a per-application basis in Windows XP? Do I have integrated system-wide search in Windows XP? Can I set the language on a per-user basis in Windows XP? Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts? Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)? Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look? Does Windows XP have all those under-the-hood improvements like address space layout randomisation, a new networking stack, and so on?"

Umm, who cares? How many people seriously need to do those things with their operating system? In all my years of using a computer, and watching others use computers, I've *never* once seen someone need these types of features. One word: Overkill.

Quote: "I could go on for hours."

You could, but please spare me.

Quote: "Yes, no doubt about it. However, as said above, most people will get Vista via OEM"

And for those that don't? Or don't those customers count? You obviously went to the Microsoft school of marketing and customer service.

I can't comment on hardware graphics acceleration features etc, like Beryl, cos I haven't used them. I don't need them to do the job at hand. Are operating systems going to be like mobile phones, where they have every feature under the sun but very poor UI?

Quote: "Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics and audio."

Yes, this is why I called Vista a half baked project. It should have *never* been released until these issues had been satisfactorily resolved by 3rd parties. For Microsoft to release now is sending a message to its userbase that it doesn't care.

Quote: "Yet, other than Nero, I have not yet encountered a single application that refused to work on Windows Vista. Obviously there are some that will break, but again, when you massively restructure your platform, this is to be expected."

You can't have used Vista too much then...I'll direct you to this website:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compat...

feast and enjoy...

Quote: "I have never come into contact with DRM (in a way that it hindered me, in any case), because I use a - how old-fashioned - CD player and a record player to play my music (I actually buy albums in a real store, and I have a huge collection of vinyl albums as well) and I play my DVDs on my stand-alone DVD player."

You ain't the average person...the vast majority of people play their music and DVDs from digital media, on their PCs. Separate hi fi systems sales have gone down badly over the past few years...I know, cos I have around 30k of audio gear, and I'm an audio ethusiast ;-)

Avoid Vista like the plague. It will only be a big seller because it's going to be rammed down OEM throats whether they want it or not...

Dave

Reply Score: 5

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"DRM in any way, shape or form is BAD"

the millions of users who chose itunes (last time I checked, it wasn't a Microsoft monopoly) will disagree. They'd rather pay for drm'ed music than have no music or some eclectic group. Millions want games on all consoles and those aren't open at all.

And I have no problem as long as it's just entertainment and off the web. But users should be encouraged to use open source codecs for their personal use. And the web should be open to everyone.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. The average user is too ignorant, and too stupid to know what DRM is, let alone what it does, and why it's bad. There's a very bad virus affecting the human species and it's called idiocy. There's another bad disease called apathy, which generally strikes humans at the same time due to HLOBS (Human Lack of Brains Syndrome). It's running rampant from what I can see.

Dave

Reply Score: 4

Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

I generally agree with some of what you have said here (as far as Vista not being worth upgrading to at this stage), but for a couple of points:

Q. "...but DRM is a sheer violation of our rights as users." perhaps you have a sound moral case here, but unfortunately, under Australian Law, we have absolutely no fair use provisions, and legally, DRM is not considered a violation of user's rights. Not something I personally agree with, but those are the laws you get when most voters are idiots.

Q. "...the vast majority of people play their music and DVDs from digital media, on their PCs..."

I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion - unless you have some sound statistics to support your assertion, I will remain highly confident that the reverse is in fact the case.

Speaking from personal experience, I don't know anyone who prefers watching movies on their PC over relaxing in their lounge room in front of the TV (they might use their PC to copy DVDs which they then watch in the comfort of the loungeroom), and when it comes to listening to music, most people do the bulk of their music listening in either the car or the loungeroom, not on their PC. I strongly suspect that most people don't actually like spending that much time in front of the computer at all (80% of the people I know hate computers and only use them because they have to), and certainly not to the extent of it being their sole source of electronic entertainment.


Again, if you have some statistics to back up your claim, please provide a link, but until you do so, I can only regard your claim vis a vis people's preferred viewing location as preposterous.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Well, in this household, the TV is rarely watched, and the Audio gear is rarely used. We pretty much do it all on the PCs. From what I see of friends/family/acquaintences, they are doing so more and more themselves. Why do you think Microsoft released Windows Media Centre edition?

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE: author's blog
by Donny_S on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 03:31 UTC
Donny_S
Member since:
2006-12-22

"Good point. However, 95% of the world will get Vista not by retail, but via OEM. And when it comes via OEM, people don’t experience it as “paying for” (even though they obviously do)."

They might also experience new levels of vendor lock-in to MS or close partners. OSS users might find themselves increasingly locked out. Intel IGP's may have open drivers, but how many Win-V boxes use i945G/i965G chipsets?

IMO it's crazy to keep subsidizing the American OEM's and hardware component supplier firms that in turn help maintain the MS monopoly. These firms have all come-up with GNU/Linux/OSS lip service PR initiatives and maybe some token support here and there.

DRM is a fact of life and the music and TV/MP industry will insist on this as a condition of content distribution. Well, it's their content. The problem is that OEM's refuse to support non-patented file formats (Vorbis) which put independent content creators in a position of legal liability for fees or royalty payments not to mention encoder cost/access restrictions. Patent holders and OEM's are enabled to act as agents of control in the distribution of independent content. I suspect that Win-V will have have the overall effect of keeping the American corporate middlemen in control of media content creation and distribution.

"The draconian license"

Can Win-V run as a portable multisession DVD? Why should users let Win-V drag then out onto the net when it's technically possible to take the entire software setup with them and run it anywhere? Win-V likely won't even come close to fully utilizing the capabilities of today's USD-40 DVD burner.

Reply Score: 2

no Drm
by happycamper on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 04:23 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

/*10 reasons not to get Vista*/


I only have one reason it's number 9 of the list.

Reply Score: 2

The rebutalls are funny
by renox on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 10:15 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

They're so poor that they're amusing: original article "Vista brings no major feature" rebuttal: "Vista brings per application volume change", wouhahou, what a major feature!!

No problem, for this kind of feature, I'm going to switch immediately, it doesn't matter that there will be probably application compatibility problems, driver problems, high cost, etc.

That said, whether we like it or not, we will all end up using Vista of course, because Microsoft will force PC makers to ship new PC with Vista instead of XP.

Now upgrading from a PC installed with XP to Vista?
Currently it is a waste of time and money, the only problem with XP is that Microsoft will probably end the support for security patches for 'normal' users..

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

The visual quality of DX10 games is not that different from DX9 games. Why should we spend lots of money just to see a few prettier images which usually go unnoticeable in fast pacing games?

Reply Score: 1