Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 20th Mar 2007 10:26 UTC
Windows Windows Vista has had something of a troubled birth. Hyped features were pulled, and the project as a whole took far longer to complete than expected, partly due to standing still while MS dropped everything to work on WinXP Service Pack 2, but in part also due to a decision to "reset" and scrap much of the new development. This has led some commentators to dub the project a "train wreck."
Order by: Score:
So, about this .NET ....
by Rayz on Tue 20th Mar 2007 10:48 UTC
Rayz
Member since:
2006-06-24

I'd assumed that it was just some kind of managed layer than ran over the standard Win32 API; is that not the case?

Reply Score: 3

RE: So, about this .NET ....
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "So, about this .NET ...."
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

I'd assumed that it was just some kind of managed layer than ran over the standard Win32 API; is that not the case?

Essentially yes it does run over the standard Win32 api in that some of the .net functionality that is available thunks down to win32 calls.

No idea why you were modded down for this post so I modded you back up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So, about this .NET ....
by fretinator on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "So, about this .NET ...."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

You could say the same about the java JVM. Obviously, at some point the code has to call into actual Win32 API's on Window. That is what a virtual machine does. It abstracts away the low-level details. This is also why it was possible to port the .NET runtime to OSX/Linux/BSD, etc. On Unix, obviously the runtime is instead making calls into POSIX API's instead.

So, I am not sure what you mean by a managed layer that ran over the standard Win32 API. I don't believe that is the correct way to look at it. That is what MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) was. It was a sometime thin wrapper to the Win32 API. .NET is an entirely different model of programming presenting an entirely different API. This is what caused so much difficulty for some VB6 and Visual C++ developers who were forced to "upgrade" to an entirely different paradigm.

EDIT: My usual bad spelling

Edited 2007-03-20 16:06

Reply Score: 3

That's because it is way overhyped
by robilad on Tue 20th Mar 2007 10:49 UTC
robilad
Member since:
2006-01-02

Vista is ugly, slow, lacking drivers, lacking applications, lacking games, and it's less user-friendly than XP. It is for most purposes where Linux was 10 years ago: it may be one day useful on the desktop, but that is still a few years away.

Reply Score: 2

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Anybody can make sweeping (read stupid) statements like that but until you actually prove it, it's nothing more than proof of idiocy.

Reply Score: 3

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Anybody can make sweeping (read stupid) statements like that but until you actually prove it, it's nothing more than proof of idiocy.

Want proof?
Just copy a few files from one folder to another.
Vista: "Please wait for Windows to calculate ..."
You: Scratching your mouse and wondering what the hell is going on.

An OS that was in development for over 5 years, cost more than a trip to the moon, and is touted as the best Windows yet, should not need 5 second to calculate how long it'll take to copy a few kilobytes.

Reply Score: 2

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh please.

No OS can ever figure out how long it takes to calculate any amount of files. This is not proof.

What you missed in there is that you can actually see the actual transfer rate, which is a very welcome change.

Reply Score: 2

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Funny, but I remember programs like Telemate coming up with fairly accurate time guestimates for batch ZModem file transfers back in the early 1990's.

Have coders gotten stupider? :-) Winfred (Tsung) Hu was a very good DOS programmer, but it isn't that hard to determine a rough file transfer rate and extrapolate an end time from that information. This should happen far faster than one can see.

Reply Score: 3

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm no programmer, but I do know that I've never seen an accurate reading on file transfers.

I would think that a file that is too small would be harder to calculate as it doesn't have enough time to get an accurate transfer speed reading.

Reply Score: 1

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

All one needs is enough time to get a sense for the long-term transfer rate. You're quite right, though, that smaller files or batches will tend to make it harder to approximate the total transfer time.

Regardless, a visible pause is unacceptable. If a DOS program could do it on a 486 without pausing, surely a Windows program could do it on a multi-GHz PC...

Reply Score: 2

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Oh please.

No OS can ever figure out how long it takes to calculate any amount of files. This is not proof.

What you missed in there is that you can actually see the actual transfer rate, which is a very welcome change.


True, but no other OS is actually so slow it has to take time to anounce that it needs to calculate something.

Yeah, it's easy to miss the tranfer rate with my eyes rolled back pointing into the inside of my skull after being told to wait for calculating with every copy operation.
Besides, KDE has had the transfer rate reporting for many years and Midnight Commander has had it for as long as I can remember so to me it's not a change.

Reply Score: 2

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

So because the feature is elsewhere it's not an improvement?

Why do you care how much time it will take to transfer a few KB?

Reply Score: 1

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

So because the feature is elsewhere it's not an improvement?

Why do you care how much time it will take to transfer a few KB?


That's right, since I've already had it for years, then it's not an improvement for me.

I care about time because my life span is very finate.
If I have to wait 5seconds every time I'm copying something and I do that easily a dozen times a day.
Then that adds up to one minute a day lost of my life time.
And that's about 6 hours a year lost because of bad design and incompetent developers that should be slinging burgers in McDonalds and not write software for the largest software maker in the world.

Reply Score: 1

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

So then, if something has already been implemented elsewhere, why bother implementing it in your own software, just a waste of time?

Seriously, you need to check yourself. No other OS or application can ever figure out the transfer time, especially on small files, NOT ONE.

Stop being a cry baby saying that Vista is a POS because of something that no other vendor is capable of doing.

Reply Score: 1

Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

It's a shame that the Linux community has become so paranoid and desperate, that they feel the need to jump onto any Vista thread with this kind of unsubstantiated bilge.

At least show some manners; the Windows bods round here seem happy enough to stay out of Linux-only threads; I guess they don't feel the need to push their choice of OS at every given opportunity.

Reply Score: 2

janedoe Member since:
2005-07-12

Please don't lump this guy in with the Linux community, he's just a troll plain and simple.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Exactly, a troll is a troll, no matter what platform they use, and the users of the respective OS donít want trolls as much as any other. A trollís whole purpose is to smear an OS, why do you think have such a wide variety of labels for them? Mac hater/Apple fag, Microsoftie/Windows Basher, Linux Zealot/Linux Troll

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"the Windows bods round here seem happy enough to stay out of Linux-only threads"

You must be reading a different OSNews. The one I read is full of trolling from all sides.

Reply Score: 5

Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

You must be reading a different OSNews. The one I read is full of trolling from all sides.

Sure, there are people who qualify as true trolls, but I think most users are just really passionate, and the word "troll" is overused.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It's a shame that the Linux community has become so paranoid and desperate, that they feel the need to jump onto any Vista thread with this kind of unsubstantiated bilge.

It's a shame the Windows community has become so paranoid, dishonest and desperate, that they feel the need to jump on any Linux comment with this kind of unsubstantiated bilge.

At least show some manners;

Is there any reason why you feel qualified to criticize the Linux community's manners, when you can't be well-mannered yourself?

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I think all our communities have our trolls, and frankly, I am getting pretty tired of hearing from them, whatever the topic

Reply Score: 4

buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I think all our communities have our trolls, and frankly, I am getting pretty tired of hearing from them, whatever the topic

I know what you mean it is pretty annoying to see people go off topic just trying to create conflict. Being a research psychologist, it makes me interested to speculate why they do it. The behavior is actually kind of interesting to watch a person log on and start a verbal fight and then disappear. One could hypothesize that the trolling behavior is probably compensation for being unable to express emotions in real life. If you were to actually sit down and talk to a chronic troller you would probably find they are very insecure and angry people. Some people actually get rewards (emotional) from drawing out conflicts. The negative attention compensates for feelings of insecurity thus rewarding and perpetuating the antisocial behavior.

Edited 2007-03-20 15:01

Reply Score: 5

xsun Member since:
2006-12-11

You can't generalize comments like that an related them with entire Linux Community.

My personal believe leaves me to never use Windows Vista because its a fully 'DRMized' O.S. This also is a concern for people who figth for users freedom and against ideas like 'Trusted' Computing. I think that is the main reason for many comments and complains about Windows Vista design are comming from people who use and support free-software ideas (GPL and compatible).

What is wrong with Vista? Its because you need a brand new computer to operate it or because they had stolen ideas from others and don't give the credit for them? Nothing to do with this IMO, its only because his treacherous design.

Fight for truth, www.badvista.org

Reply Score: 0

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Fight for truth, www.badvista.org

Sorry. I won't fight for your beliefs nor your fearmongering religion.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

<I<the Windows bods round here seem happy enough to stay out of Linux-only threads[/i]

Um, excuse me? Are we talking about the same OSNews? Because the truth is that pro-MS posters troll Linux-only threads *all the time*, and it's been pretty much the case since I started coming to this web site three or four years ago.

Let's just agree that *all* trolling is bad, and that it affects *all* sides of the never-ending OS debate.

Reply Score: 1

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

// It is for most purposes where Linux was 10 years ago: it may be one day useful on the desktop, but that is still a few years away. //

Uh yeah.. that seems accurate, objective and lacking absolutely no bias.

Stupid comment.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

// It is for most purposes where Linux was 10 years ago: it may be one day useful on the desktop, but that is still a few years away. //

Uh yeah.. that seems accurate, objective and lacking absolutely no bias.


Actually, if we take the comment "no drivers, no games, no serious applications" as representative, I think that's pretty indicative of both the problems with Vista and the problems people used to complain about with Linux ten years ago, so accurate? Yes. Unbiased and objective? Maybe not, but then few (printed) analyses of any platform are that.

Reply Score: 2

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

But it's not accurate.
Most apps still work on Vista, especially the "serious" ones. There are more drivers for Vista than for XP, now tweaked out well performing drivers is another case. Games that worked on XP still work on Vista, nothing changed there, only problem is, of course, how your video and audio drivers perform.

Reply Score: 1

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

// Actually, if we take the comment "no drivers, no games, no serious applications" as representative, I think that's pretty indicative of both the problems with Vista and the problems people used to complain about with Linux ten years ago, so accurate? Yes. //

Hmm..

No drivers..? Wrong.
No games..? Wrong.
No serious applications..? Wrong.

So, accurate? No.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


No drivers..? Wrong.
No games..? Wrong.
No serious applications..? Wrong.

So, accurate? No.


Instead of just denying my claims, why don't you:

Provide evidence of Vista-compatible drivers?

Provide evidence of games written FOR Vista?

Provide evidence of serious applications written FOR Vista?

Reply Score: 2

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I really don't see any reason to list applications, games or drivers specifically for Vista. The list of compatible software (including games) is vast and easily available online at Microsoft's website. As for drivers, I'll direct you to the Vista DVD. It's loaded with them.

I'm sure you can easily list some hardware that doesn't have a driver, but this is also true on Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Linux and MacOS. It's not unique to Vista.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm sure you can easily list some hardware that doesn't have a driver, but this is also true on Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Linux and MacOS. It's not unique to Vista.

It's not unique to Vista, but it is almost totally unprecedented for a Microsoft product.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

It's not quite that bad. I don't think Vista is ugly, it's no uglier than Linux, but I do personally think OS X is much sexier. That's a personal preference.

Lacking drivers? Well, yes, it is, but - this is the fault of the hardware manufacturers, not Microsoft. The company that I do helpdesk support for still hasn't released final version Vista compatible software/drivers, and doesn't expect a final release until the end of March. That's disgraceful! Sure, we have a beta, but many people will not touch a beta. Vista has been out for 2 months now, and was RTM at the beginning of December 2006, why has it taken hardware manufacturers so long?

Lacking games - well, to some extent yes. Again, this isn't necessarily Microsoft's fault. A lot of software out there on the market is very badly coded from what I understand, and relies on taking advantage of poor security etc in earlier versions of Microsoft Windows. Now that security has been beefed up, their applications/games don't work, and they have to re-write huge chunks of the code I suspect. This is timely, and costly, some software vendors will decide that it's not worth it.

Now - on the user friendly comment, I will agree with you. UAC is just going to be a right pain in the ass. Sorry guys, but it is. I just love the Mac TV advert for this ;) It makes me chuckle every single time.

Now, I love GNU/Linux as much as the next Linux geek, but your 10 years comment is a bit over the top. Were you even using GNU/Linux ten years ago? I was (Redhat 5.2) and it was a lot less friendlier than what current Linux distributions are (or Windows/OS X).

If you're going to troll, at least be a little bit accurate in your statements :-)

Dave

Reply Score: 5

robilad Member since:
2006-01-02

Of course I've used Linux 10 years ago (SuSE 4.2), or I wouldn't be able to make a comparison. Rather half-baked in comparison with then current competition, but shows some promise: that's what Linux was then, and that's what Vista's now.

Yes, I've used Vista since the release, ported software to it, etc. It's a regression in usability for most end users compared to XP SP2 today, you've elaborated on some of the reasons I gave.

According to Microsoft & Apple, Vista can corrupt[1] iPods. It doesn't get much worse than trashing users' hardware for an end-user oriented OS.

It's the overselling that's leading customers to disappointment with Vista when their applications, iPods and games don't work. Just like overselling Linux on the desktop didn't do it much good, overselling Vista, when XP SP2 provides a better user experience, leads to disappointed users trashing[2] it, no matter how promising the improvements under the hood are.

[1] http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933824/
[2] compare charts for http://technorati.com/chart/%22vista+sucks%22 and http://technorati.com/chart/%22vista+rocks%22 .

Reply Score: 1

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

No, this isn't wholly Microsoft's fault. Where are the governing bodies that are investigating Microsoft's and OEM hardware vendors decisions to ONLY ship Microsoft Windows Vista now, instead of giving the consumer a choice to order and buy earlier versions of Microsoft Windows (ie. XP home/pro)? We all know that Microsoft needs to look good from the income side of things, this is why they're forcing people to buy Vista (which is more expensive than XP) - bigger profit, keeps shareholders happy and it makes their company still look reputable, even though their software offerings leave a lot to be desired in the most case. That, and wholly that, is the crux of the issue.

Oh, and if we add the fact that the US government still refuses to step in and stop Microsoft's anti competitive and monopolistic behaviour with OEMs contractual agreements, which make it unviable for them to consider shipping any other operating system other than Microsoft Windows.

When the US DOJ actually gets off its lazy, corrupt behind, and does what it's paid to do by the US constituents, then things will get better in the operating system world.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

luzr Member since:
2005-11-20


Lacking drivers? Well, yes, it is, but - this is the fault of the hardware manufacturers, not Microsoft.


It IS fault of Microsoft. They have done the most stupid thing possible - completely changed the driver model (mostly because of DRM). All windows driver have to be rewritten from scratch - and from what I have read, Vista drivers are much more complex (20 milions lines for NVidia driver, that is insane).

Microsoft just seems to forget what is OS useful for - it is an layer between programs and hardware. Breaking compatibility is something they will pay price for.

Reply Score: 4

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Changing the driver model most definately was not stupid.

Biggest thing is graphics and audio drivers are no longer in kernel space (which obviously requires a new model)... this is a good thing.

On top of that they are much more powerful, allowing the driver writers to do a lot more.

If you think that changing this stuff wasn't a good thing then I have something for you to do. Listen to music, play a game, whatever, in XP, then do it in Vista. The audio quality even with just a basic driver is infinately better in Vista.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Rubbish. Hardware vendors have no right to dictate to the operating system vendor on what they can, and can't do, or how they should do it. Look at how many people are miffed with Nvidia cos they won't release OSS proprietary drivers for Linux for their video cards. If hardware vendors are that upset about Microsoft and how they've re-written the driver stack, then put up and shut up and don't support Vista. Make a statement, back it up with refusing to support it and stick to their guns. Until these hardware vendors get a backbone and stick up to Microsoft, they have no right to bitch.

Here endeth the rant.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

That was a completely moronic statement. Vista Ultimate runs just fine on my PC that I bought in October 2002.

Reply Score: 3

bsdnewbieee Member since:
2007-01-24

Vista is so overhyped that it is actually no better than XP. It is absolute not Desktop Ready!

Reply Score: 2

Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

Perhaps you should not try to install it on a Commodore VIC-20. Vista is Desktop ready, more so that Linux.

Reply Score: 3

Look at it now...
by x5115x on Tue 20th Mar 2007 11:13 UTC
x5115x
Member since:
2007-03-20

I know quite a lot of the proposed features of Vista didnt make it, but why would you buy it if you knew it didnt have something you want? I like it because as a version of Windows, evaluated as it is now, is the best one I've used. I think robilad just wants to cause trouble.

Reply Score: 3

Windows is just a pretty face.
by Anon on Tue 20th Mar 2007 11:53 UTC
Anon
Member since:
2006-01-02

It's the equivalent to that really hot looking, but stupid skanky hoe you see at the pub at a saturday night out.

You want to touch, but would rather not. There's better elsewhere.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows is just a pretty face.
by raver31 on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "Windows is just a pretty face."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Silly boy, you should do the hoe.... then go out and do the rest !

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows is just a pretty face.
by lopisaur on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:15 UTC in reply to "Windows is just a pretty face."
lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

And don't forget you can quite easily get infected with something by using either one of them...

Reply Score: 2

Sure it's a pretty face
by remenic on Tue 20th Mar 2007 12:03 UTC
remenic
Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista looks very good, yes. On screenshots. But once you see it 'in motion' you start to notice it's just XP with a different skin. Animations can get jumpy/clunky, hell even window resize is ugly as hell (contents and border aren't synchronized but appear to be drawn in separate threads).

Imo, OS X is still way ahead of Vista in terms of graphics, and Beryl has shown that it can go even further than that.

All this is based on personal experience, and reflects my opinion. Please don't shoot me down ;-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sure it's a pretty face
by TheDiver on Tue 20th Mar 2007 12:50 UTC in reply to "Sure it's a pretty face"
TheDiver Member since:
2006-12-12

With OSX you can't even maximize a window to full screen.

You can't resize a window using anything except the lower right corner.

So is it ahead ? Nope not really, it does thing a completly different (and strange way).

OSX is not ahead, it is just different in a way some people like.

Edited 2007-03-20 12:52

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face
by ValiSystem on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Sure it's a pretty face"
ValiSystem Member since:
2006-02-28

i'm tired of people that self estimate as a GUI experts just because they are users. The only general comment i accept about Mac OS X GUI* is than some things are arguable, because, allmost each time i see "that sucks in OS X", there is a strong point that writer didn't see.

For the resizing thing, i'd say : "why do you need to resize your windows often enough to want alternatives ways to achieve resizing?". Actually, i resize a lot my windows under gnome/metacity, but not under OS X. When you have lost your bad habit of systematically resize your windows in your lower-quality-GUI-that-make-you-resize-your-windows, everything seems fine.

Actually, it's only about habits. People don't like a specific GUI because it's a good one, but only because they know it. They don't want to change, they want it react just as the one they know, and then good is "just as" and bad is "different".

(* of course they are some exception, but not on things you cannot avoid. Also poorly coded/ported apps are not acceptable as a critic basis)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

For the resizing thing, i'd say : "why do you need to resize your windows often enough to want alternatives ways to achieve resizing?".

It never ceases to amaze me how someone can bring up something that they don't like about OS X and someone always fires back with "WHY would you want to do that?"

Gee I don't know maybe the way that OS X does it feels unnatural to the person? Thats one possiblity.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by SterlingNorth on Tue 20th Mar 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
SterlingNorth Member since:
2006-02-21

"why do you need to resize your windows often enough to want alternatives ways to achieve resizing?"

Well, gee what if a too small window opens up at the bottom of the screen? Now it is a two-step process of moving a window up and then accessing the single resize handle to make the window bigger.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Kroc on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Sure it's a pretty face"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"With OSX you can't even maximize a window to full screen."

Because OS X teaches you to not maximise everything and undo the point of having so much screen real estate. Normally in Windows, you maximise everything and switch between the programs with the taskbar, in OS X there is little need to do this as you can manage your windows easier with Expose. Now I run Firefox in a 1024x768 window and have room to see Adium, iTunes and other windows. Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Now I run Firefox in a 1024x768 window and have room to see Adium, iTunes and other windows. Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.

Well, not when you're visually handicapped. I need shit as big as I can make it ;) lol

Besides, I'm typing this out in Opera right now, and I have no need to see any of the windows that are behind it. And why the hell would I want to look at iTunes all the time anyway? Usually, when I run an app to play music, it stays minimized in the system tray, where it belongs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Normally in Windows, you maximise everything and switch between the programs with the taskbar, in OS X there is little need to do this as you can manage your windows easier with Expose.

Normally? Windows has both options so you can go either way. YOU might NORMALLY maximize everything but that dosen't mean the rest of the world does.

Now I run Firefox in a 1024x768 window and have room to see Adium, iTunes and other windows. Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.

lol so because its not available on your OS of choice is a *bad habit*. Right gotcha.

I run all of my applications windowed and can see my other programs also. I also have the OPTION of using something fullscreen which I primarily use when running visual studio. I run that fullscreen because I want to focus on my work and not be distracted by my other applications or my IM buddy list.

Edited 2007-03-20 13:48

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face
by remenic on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

lol so because its not available on your OS of choice is a *bad habit*. Right gotcha.

I run all of my applications windowed and can see my other programs also. I also have the OPTION of using something fullscreen which I primarily use when running visual studio. I run that fullscreen because I want to focus on my work and not be distracted by my other applications or my IM buddy list.


Uhm, dude. Reality check. OS X can run apps maximized. Like people said, you can use the resize handle to make it bigger than it needs to be.

Also, and this might come as a shocking surprise to you, OS X remembers the size of a window! So believe it or not, if you like the old "one visible app at a time" method, you only need to maximize the window once, and the OS will remember! Culture shock!! Oh wait, other OS's do the same... So wtf are we talking about here...?

Truth is, many people here haven't used a Mac. I agree, the first day or so, it drove me up the wall too. But so did Linux the first time I used it, and Windows still does today (but I get by...). It all comes down to what you're used to. I love my Mac, and I love Linux too. And I love Windows too, because it helps me remember why Mac and Linux are so great.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Uhm, dude. Reality check. OS X can run apps maximized. Like people said, you can use the resize handle to make it bigger than it needs to be.

Awesome.

Also, and this might come as a shocking surprise to you, OS X remembers the size of a window! So believe it or not, if you like the old "one visible app at a time" method, you only need to maximize the window once, and the OS will remember! Culture shock!! Oh wait, other OS's do the same... So wtf are we talking about here...?

Thats actually something I wish Windows did OS wide instead of leaving it up to individual applications, which is the case now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by devurandom on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06

I run Linux, I have expose-like functionality thanks to Beryl, yet I use most applications maximized on my 19'' LCD screen. The browser, mail client, p2p apps and a shell are always maximized.

Why should I have to waste my screen space with segments of the desktop or of other windows? Non-maximized windows makes sense only when you have the absolute need of seeing more than one window at a time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face
by remenic on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

Doesn't it bother you then, that OSNews.com doesn't use all the space it can get? Here it's limited to 800 pixels in width. What a shame, isn't it? I'd complain about that, if I were you. What a total waste of your screen space. Horrible.

Personally, I almost never maximize anything, unless I *need* the extra space. You see, if OSNews.com were to take up the full width of my screen, hitting the 'zoom' button in OS X would make it 'fullscreen'. But since OSNews.com isn't using all that space, there's no point in making the window use all the space. I mean, sure, the solid grey is pretty and all, but this isn't DOS anymore. I'm using a windowing based OS now. Welcome to 2007.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by TheDiver on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
TheDiver Member since:
2006-12-12

'Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.'

That is a typical excuse from a mac user because they cant.

It is not a bad habbit, i hate having 117 windows on the screen at the same time, i want as much room as possible for the program i am using at anytime.

On windows you can run everything maximized if you want, or you can run a program in another window size if you want. That option does not exist on OSX, so instead of being a 'super duper GUI' it actually gives you less options than Windowss (that sure is a progress (not))

Maybe Apple thinks they know everything better than everyone else (they don't), but they are not even smart enough to let people decide for them self whether the user whats to maximize or not.

Or change the window size by dragging the windows sides.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face
by buff on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

'Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.'

I also disagree with your belief. If you have a 19 inch screen and you are running several applications and trying to see all of them running you are wasting screen realestate. It is better to run the window maximized and then switch between windows. Linux users that run Compiz or Beryl tend to use workspaces and then switch between the workspaces. It makes more sense to use all available screen space. This is even easier to do now on Linux thanks to Compiz's plugins. I love being able to press Alt+Ctrl+Down Arrow and seeing all my workspaces in minature. Much nicer than digging through layers of windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Kroc on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"That is a typical excuse from a mac user because they cant."
Wrong, you can maximise windows on Mac.

"On windows you can run everything maximized, ... or you can run a program in another window size if you want. That option does not exist on OSX"
Wrong.

"...it actually gives you less options than Windows"
Wrong.

"[apple] are not even smart enough to let people decide for them self whether the user whats to maximize or not."
Wrong.

---

How about you actually try using a Mac before telling a Mac user how their own system works. You might look like less of a muppet then.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sure it's a pretty face
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

People here also seem to forget that macos has had this maximize behavior since like the first system release. the reason they have this behavior is fro a lack of a task manager like windows, gnome. etc. This is not a bad thing. Its purpose is to maximize the window enough to get rid of one of the scroll bars. This allows you to click on the desktop and and other applications without having to minimize you application. One could argue that windows doesn't allow you to roll up your windows by default, but in reality it doesn't need it. Thats what the task manager is for. Macosx ddoesn't need to maximize its windows it would actually be counter productive as macosx doesn't have a real task bar, though the docker is great.

I still must say that in my older years I have come to appreciate the workmanship and genius that apple brought us with their classic systemos. The LOS (Lisa Office System) is a testament to a company that has brought us such great ideas and have made the gui what it is today, even if the other os guys might not want to admit it. Sure Xerox invented the wimp interface, but apple made it good.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by shapeshifter on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Because OS X teaches you to not maximise everything and undo the point of having so much screen real estate. Normally in Windows, you maximise everything and switch between the programs with the taskbar, in OS X there is little need to do this as you can manage your windows easier with Expose. Now I run Firefox in a 1024x768 window and have room to see Adium, iTunes and other windows. Maximising windows is just a bad habbit.

Yeah right.
And you seriously think that someone here will buy your lame argument?
Although I use a number of different OS's and I like a lot of features in OSX, window management is not one of them.
Any windows manager that doesn't allow me to resize a window from all four sides and all four corners is simply an obsolete piece of garbage.
There is a lot of good stuff in OSX but it's far from perfect and outright stupid in many features and it's mainly because of Apple bein arrogant and self serving rather than user serving.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Gryzor on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

There is a lot of good stuff in OSX but it's far from perfect and outright stupid in many features and it's mainly because of Apple bein arrogant and self serving rather than user serving.
...or maybe it's Apple making things more simple so the rest of its userbase (not counting you, the power user who wants to complain about a windows not being able to be resized from the four sides/corners), doesn't have to think about anything.

You'll never realize that Apple cannot make everyone happy. They choose a small default set of things to do. It's a balance. No you can't do that, it complicates things further. Period. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

When "these geeks" understand that OS X (or any other commercial OS) was not designed for them, but for the rest of the normal users, this conversations aren't going to be needed anymore.

Imagine Ford making a car that reqiures tools to make it work. Sure, you can customize it and use it the way you like it, but most of the people won't like the idea a lot.

This is the same. Operating Systems are just the interfase for the users to interact with that "thing" called computer.

Now some of us, do some work too. If you want more options, build your own OS, just like tuners do with their cars.

OS X is not perfect, but this argument is silly.

P.S: I don't like OSX Window Management sometimes, but I can easily understand why it was created like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sure it's a pretty face
by shapeshifter on Tue 20th Mar 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sure it's a pretty face"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

...or maybe it's Apple making things more simple so the rest of its userbase (not counting you, the power user who wants to complain about a windows not being able to be resized from the four sides/corners), doesn't have to think about anything.

You'll never realize that Apple cannot make everyone happy. They choose a small default set of things to do. It's a balance. No you can't do that, it complicates things further. Period. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

When "these geeks" understand that OS X (or any other commercial OS) was not designed for them, but for the rest of the normal users, this conversations aren't going to be needed anymore.

Imagine Ford making a car that reqiures tools to make it work. Sure, you can customize it and use it the way you like it, but most of the people won't like the idea a lot.

This is the same. Operating Systems are just the interfase for the users to interact with that "thing" called computer.

Now some of us, do some work too. If you want more options, build your own OS, just like tuners do with their cars.

OS X is not perfect, but this argument is silly.

P.S: I don't like OSX Window Management sometimes, but I can easily understand why it was created like that.


Wow, you'd make Apple PR proud.
I can see you've mastered the skill of disguising an apology by attempting to provide a convincing explanation.
That might work when you're dealing with the properly neutered and brainwashed Apple crowd but us Linux users like to "think different" and think for ourselves.

So you call being able to resize a window from only one single corner as opposed to 4 sides and 4 corners a balance?
Well, coincidently, I was helping someone who just bought a brand new 13" Macbook last weekend. I can tell you that maximizing windows was the first thing the user tried to do on that small screen.
The second was trying to resize a number of windows from various applications to what the user felt was comfortable to him.
And you know what I said when asked about it? I apologized for Apple! (mumbled some nonsense and quickly moved attention to something else).

So in your skillful apology the only argument that holds any ground is the "Ford making cars that require tools to make them work". As an owner of a Ford built car I can back up that part of your statement myself.
After all people don't say that Ford stands for Fix Or Repair Daily for no reason.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sure it's a pretty face
by mono on Wed 21st Mar 2007 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sure it's a pretty face"
mono Member since:
2005-10-19

Ford stands for Fix Or Repair Daily

First On Rubbish Dump ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Gryzor on Fri 23rd Mar 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sure it's a pretty face"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

You misunderstood me, or skillfully understood what you wanted.
If the users was trying to maximize windows, he was working against the OS and the way it was designed to work. You should' ve taught him, not mumbled some nonsense as if you had to "protect" Apple.

It's like if one of your "linux users that like to think different and for yourselves" try to double click a game exe. Now that'd be balanced.

So for the " neutered and brainwashed apple crowd" I have nothing to say. Keep using linux, think for yourself and go blame Linus Torvald if there's something you don't like. I, as a Mac user myself (as well as Debian Linux Administrator) and Windows .NET Programmer, don't want for you to use a Mac. You're a virus in the community. Seriously.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sure it's a pretty face
by grat on Tue 20th Mar 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "Sure it's a pretty face"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

All this is based on personal experience, and reflects my opinion. Please don't shoot me down ;-)

It would be more fair to compare Vista with Windows 2003 than XP, but even then, I notice major improvements, and things behaving differently enough to convince me it's a new operating system.

I've noticed a wide range of experiences with Vista-- Mine has been reasonably smooth, much more so than most "point zero" OS releases.

I did a clean install, rather than an upgrade, and haven't experienced most of the complaints you list.

Did you do an upgrade, or a clean install?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Sure it's a pretty face
by casuto on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:13 UTC in reply to "Sure it's a pretty face"
v RE[2]: Sure it's a pretty face
by optimusg4 on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Sure it's a pretty face"
RE[3]: Sure it's a pretty face
by Jules on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Sure it's a pretty face"
Jules Member since:
2007-01-30

A good interface is an unobtrusive and often a toned down interface.
A way to do this is by using neutral gray.
Why? Because your OS won't distract you from the actual content, the things you are actually working on, that is.
This is a feature.

Reply Score: 1

more ?
by mmu_man on Tue 20th Mar 2007 12:10 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

yes, it also needs bigger hw and has DRM everywhere. That face doesn't look so pretty to me.
(eye-candy sux anyway but that's just IMO)
Oh wait, yes it does have a shutdown button (hmm ok 10 of them), in the "start" menu ;) ))

Edited 2007-03-20 12:12

Reply Score: 5

RE: more ?
by CPUGuy on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:04 UTC in reply to "more ?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

What start menu?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: more ?
by CPUGuy on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE: more ?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would you mod that down?

There is no start menu in Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE: more ?
by x5115x on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:15 UTC in reply to "more ?"
x5115x Member since:
2007-03-20

Bigger HW? I dont have a PC to run an OS, hence the spec of the machine and the OS dont really clash (unless you want to run a new os on really old hw). I have a PC for what I can do on top of the OS - software and games. I have a PC built for Crysis, not for Vista.
Game specs are pretty much always above those of the OS. You can have a 1ghz 256mb machine to run some low req linux distro if you want, but a lot of the Vista users are gamers and low spec doesnt cut it for that.
DRM... it seems thats a common fairly mindless criticism of Vista. Care to elaborate instead of quoting three letters whose meaning generally incite annoyance? I play unprotected mp3s, does vista moan or change them? No. Do I have the option of playing protected media? Yes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: more ?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: more ?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, no you don't; your hardware has to support HDCP which requires HDCP compatible hardware; basically making any hardware bought recently ruled out and you'll end up having to run it in a reduce quality mode.

With that being said, I use my computer for just that, work, if I want to watch a DVD, I've got a DVD player hooked up to my tv.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: more ?
by n4cer on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more ?"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

That only applies in certain cases. He mentioned protected media in general, and HDCP is not required in all cases.

Reply Score: 3

Why so long?
by acobar on Tue 20th Mar 2007 12:17 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

The article is not bad, actually it is good, but it for sure could be condensed.

It describes the well known problems with Windows platform and the Microsoft attempts to solve them. Also, how other companies tried to address similar issues. I think, when talking about GDI, it could have talked about postscript like efforts (like Display Postscript and Sun NeWS) besides just Apple solution, as to bring to attention that it is a very old, known problem, on computing systems. But it could rendered the article even bigger and, worse, distracting.

I hope MS will succeed and all the changes will pay off on future but for now, in my own experience, two things remains: Vista 'feels' slow even on decent hardware (P4 2.6 / 1 Gb ram / Nvidia with 128 Mb) and it is hard to see it as a big improvement to XP from the user perspective. It can be from the developer point of view, but judging from how long take companies to adapt/upgrade their software to the new "blings", it is going to be a slow "perception" changing.

PS.: *BSD/Linux proud user, that happens to work also with support/administration on Windows platform.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why so long?
by casuto on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:14 UTC in reply to "Why so long?"
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

On my office, I use Windows Vista with an Athlon XP 1.5GHz and 512MB and Vista is very fast, faster than XP.
Are you using a final version of Vista? Did you perform a clean installation?

Edited 2007-03-20 14:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why so long?
by acobar on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Why so long?"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

I have no data to back my arguments but tried a fair comparision between XP and Vista as some of my customers/friends ask if they would or not upgrade. Since the reports until now are not conclusive, I did tests on a P4 / 1 Gb / Nvidia 128 Mb with the entire disk just for them (no other parttitions).

I first did a clean install of Windows XP, with SP2 and all fixes slistremed to the install CD, on my test machine. Installed some softwares and did small tasks. Windows XP, by my experience, suffer a performance hit after upgrades/patches and would not be fair to compare it to a clean and updated Vista.

After playing for a day, I did a clean install of Vista. Played also for a day.

So far, my "feelings" were that Vista was a bit slower on my test machine, even though I did no benchmarks, just regular "open/edit/browse/watch" activities.

I can not confirm if Vista is rock solid or not as I just tested if for a day but had no problems so far.

For the "Uau!" factor, well, my customers and friends are almost all architects or engineers and this is not a worry for them.

Edited 2007-03-20 15:40

Reply Score: 1

roverallover
Member since:
2007-03-20

If MS are asking developers to move to a managed environment to take advantage of WPF wont tools like this:- http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/ put a lot of these people off ?

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You can do decompiling using for stuff coded in C and C++; its old school stuff, to avoid it, you simply run your byte code through and obfuscatory tool.

With that being said, however, its not an exact conversion, and with that being said, the service behind the tool will become more important the tool itself.

Reply Score: 2

morglum666
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been using vista for a couple of months now. I'm a somewhat typical user - I VPN, remote desktop, play some older games, use office, download .. media ..from the internet. Convert media files, etc, etc.

Vista bashing is somewhat epidemic but I'm trying to find a single case where I have felt any pain from its "problems".

DRM? Haven't had any issues.

Usability? Frankly outside of being prettier, it has a lot of nice little features I like. Being able to see whats going on in another window (like an install, etc) in the rendered toolbar is *very* handy. Want to check progress of something in 1 sec? mouse over your toolbar.

Performance? Networking is faster. Programs seem to install slightly faster. Shutdown and startup is faster.

Installation? All my hardware worked out of the box.

Application compatibility: A few applications did require updates for vista compatibility. Painful? not at all. last time I checked, just about everything you install these days at least prompts for updates, if it doesn't force them.

Requires high specs? I don't think so. I'm on a AMD 2800 (64 bit) with 1 gb of ram and it runs fine. Your average new machine is dual core..

At any rate, I think the standard advice going out right now is fair: If you are into new OS's, go ahead and upgrade. Otherwise buy it on your next PC.

Cheers

Morglum

Reply Score: 5

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Definitely agree. Had been using Vista for 2 weeks now and it really feels better than XP, ages better, expecially about networking.

I've been shy to upgrade because I wasn't sure my software could work fine but now they released Visual Studio SP1 for Vista most things are fine so decided to upgrade.

I found a few big improvements and lots of small ones which make your life much easier than with XP. My 1GB laptop runs Aero and Vista simply fine (though I will probably buy more RAM, but that was planned for XP too) and after 2 weeks I'm so addicted to such little improvements I would never turn back to XP. Hell, they managed to have even classic Explorer redesigned to be very productive.

Most people talk about Vista without trying it. This doesn't mean you should open ur wallet and buy Vista now but if you're planning to buy a new PC, definitely order it with Vista, not XP.

Maybe only gamers should try before they buy.

Reply Score: 4

Vista is a typical MS Windows release
by buff on Tue 20th Mar 2007 13:54 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I am mostly a linux user but I wouldn't say Vista is a train wreck. It is following pretty much a path that previous MS Windows releases have. I swore I wouldn't use XP when I saw it come out full of bugs and missing drivers. Two service packs later it is actually very useable. I tend not to use XP though since I have a Fedora 6 boot that I like more and find it to be more secure with SELinux running. Vista reminds me of the first release of XP. It needs about two service packs until the missing drivers and oddities get smoothed out. It is not brilliant but it just a typical MS release. There is also the reality that most new PC buyers will be using it to run Office and other MS applications. I have come to accept this as a Linux user. I am convinced that the only way Linux will take off as a desktop alternative is if I can purchase a Windows application like TurboTax and double click its setup.exe file from Linux and it will load without any special configuration. When that day comes desktop linux will have arrived.

Edited 2007-03-20 14:00

Reply Score: 4

casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Are you using a pirated copy of Vista based on old Vista beta?
I still have to find a bug in my original copy of Windows Vista. Everything works fine and it's faster than XP.
Missing drivers???
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/17/u...
"For Windows Vista we are excited to have over 19,500 device drivers on the Windows Vista DVD (in contrast to just 10,000 for Windows XP when it shipped). But, what is even more significant is that at the RTM for Windows Vista, we already had an additional 11,700 device drivers on Windows Update compared to just 2,000 for Windows XP when it RTMíd in 2001. And while we will have significantly more drivers online by official availability, we will continue to add more drivers even after the launch. Because of the improvements in Automatic Updates for Windows Vista, users that choose the recommended setting for Automatic Updates will have the latest drivers installed and available when they add a new device."

Edited 2007-03-20 14:05

Reply Score: 2

buff Member since:
2005-11-12

My experience with Vista was a little different. My HP scanner stopped working and I had to manually install a Vista driver from HP's site. Also I tried to play quake 3 on Vista and it wouldn't work. I learned now that there are problems running 3D games. But I found that odd that a new OS would have problems like these. I would have expected that the most common uses for Vista would run flawless. I like running Office on Vista but I wouldn't say I noticed any speed differences over XP.

Reply Score: 2

kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

Great, they beat Linux. Real tough.

The garbage nVidia and ATI Vista drivers (you know, what drive the display!) are the source for a lot of this 'no-driver' meme. Maybe it should be the 'half-assed driver' meme.

After pulling up Task Manager on a few Vista machines last month and watching their dual cores spike and hold steady at 30% usage (across BOTH) from just shaking the window back and forth I walked away laughing. From each machine, each time. Tell me more about how cool you think that tech is in 2007!

Reply Score: 2

Help me out
by MacMike on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:05 UTC
MacMike
Member since:
2006-11-15

I'm a Mac guy at heart but manage Windows Servers (not desktops) at work. From what tiny bit I know about Vista it would seem that reasons people might choose to upgrade are:

1) Better security
2) Cool graphics

Are these accurate? Are there other reasons at this point in time? People often ask me about upgrading to Vista and I'd like to be able to give them accurate info.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Help me out
by casuto on Tue 20th Mar 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "Help me out"
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Windows Vista is a major windows version 6.0, Windows XP is version 5.1
There're a lot of improvements in Vista so is difficult to give a list, you should CAREFULLY read these articles:

Windows Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista

Features new to Windows Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Wi...

Technical features new to Windows Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vist...

and more and more

Edited 2007-03-20 14:31

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Help me out
by MacMike on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Help me out"
MacMike Member since:
2006-11-15

Thanks for the info. I guess you're saying there is no easy answer.

I guess I could print out those 68+ pages and hand it to those who ask me if they should upgrade. I'm sure they'll read every word. ;)

Sometimes too much information is no information at all.

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

I don't know if Vista is a "train wreck" but I don't see any reason what-so-ever to upgrade.

I know some idiot is going post some "why don't you just use a horse and carrage" message. But, really, specifically, why on earth should I spend all that money, and go through all that trouble, for nothing?

W2K runs all of hw and sw. It's fast, and stable, it's not obtrusive, I know how to use it, and I don't need a new PC to run it. Not only do I not need that "eye candy" I hate it, I want my gui to look serious, not like a toy.

So what does Vista do for me? How will Vista make me more productive? How will Vista save me money? Seems like paying money for an additional annoyance. I am not saying msft sucks, I am not saying vista sucks. But, this seems to be the worst "upgrade" imaginable.

Reply Score: 2

I'm depressed by the whole thing.
by cyclops on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:05 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Before I say anything completely off-topic I have to say this is the second topic I have read at arstechnica.com, and I have to say they are good reads.

I'm bored of Vista...nobody is buying it; Steve blames those pirates. The more I read the articles the less I care. I cannot think of a *compelling* reason why I should care. Every time I see a Microsoft corrected Wikipedia entry I get depressed. I wanted Vista to be good. I wanted Microsoft to WOW me. I wanted them to "raise the bar" of how an operating system should be.

I just see less control, for more freeware. The article itself depresses me as, I can only think that Vista home will not benefit, because Microsoft has to Cripple the only interesting bit of Vista to raise prices as a monopoly.

I can only see other OS's stagnate further with the lackluster Vista appearance. I need a revolution on the desktop. I see nothing.

Reply Score: 2

buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I can only see other OS's stagnate further with the lackluster Vista appearance. I need a revolution on the desktop.

It sounds like you need to branch out and get away from the MS thing for awhile. I have been excited about the X Window compositing manager's like Beryl lately. They offer some of the usability enhancements you get from Aero like live thumbnails with much less hardware requirements. Keeping up to date with the evolution of desktop linux is very interesting for me. I just loaded Gnome 2.18 and started using the integrated desktop search more. I was playing around with adesklets widgets on XFCE4 and was very impressed. I find it all very exciting. Download yourself a copy of Ubuntu or Fedora 6 and try them out. The only thing I am disappointed with is missing out on the latest Windows 3D games.

Reply Score: 3

Nice, but no thanks
by moleskine on Tue 20th Mar 2007 15:32 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

In a way, I don't really care how good Vista is or has the potential to be. Technically, Vista is clearly a generation on from WinXP and does bring good new things to the table, as it should. I find it very hard to see how folks could describe Vista as a "bad" OS on its merits.

What sticks with me is that Vista comes across as the last great operating system of the 1990s: a huge monolith from a huge, sprawling monolith of a corporation, and all predicated on cheap energy and a throw-away culture.

Buy a new machine, run Vista and when done with throw it all away. Buy a new machine, find it starts to break down after a couple of years because it is so cheaply made, throw it all away. Buy a new machine, lack the skills to unclog it of malware after a couple of years, throw it away. Your existing machine can't handle DRM and/or new technology? Throw it all away and buy a new one.

And all the while, you are burning up oodles of energy because your machine needs a lot of juice to run Vista, which translates to a lot of aircon in an office. All the while, too, you are bunging extra money to some of the richest folks in all of history because your OS is strictly rental and unlikely to get you through more than a few years before you are obliged to buy again, either off the licence or because your existing machine has gone tits up after only a short while.

I don't think you have to be a Linux fanboy, a Mac addict or a Solaris fancier to say enough! There must be a better way of doing things. But there won't be, of course, so long as we all continue to contribute to the cult of the billionaires with their wasteful ways and wads of cash to smooth over the "legislators". It's not a coincidence that one of the most vocal of all Microsoft staffers these days isn't anyone who might be called an engineer. It's one Brad Smith, a lawyer and their chief counsel.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice, but no thanks
by kad77 on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "Nice, but no thanks"
kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

moleskine: Yep, that is a lot of our culture. Windows 2000 is still prevalent enough in businesses that run software designed for Windows because it provides everything most places need. The old model needs to change.

By the way, what a crappy and wholly uninformative article we are commenting on. I would say that 95% of people that read a site like this don't need a rehash of years old crap and apologies for mediocracy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice, but no thanks
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "Nice, but no thanks"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"And all the while, you are burning up oodles of energy because your machine needs a lot of juice to run Vista, which translates to a lot of aircon in an office"

Considering that most of the extra processing is done by your video card, and that most machines would only need ram and/or Video card upgrades to run Vista, I don't see how it could possibly mean that much more energy is used, especially if you have a new machine, which is much more energy efficient than older P4s and Athlon XPs

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks
by archiesteel on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice, but no thanks"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Considering that most of the extra processing is done by your video card, and that most machines would only need ram and/or Video card upgrades to run Vista, I don't see how it could possibly mean that much more energy is used

The GPU in the video card uses energy as well, you know. As much as I like bling (I'm a Beryl user myself), I can't deny the fact that it *does* drain more juice. You don't get anything for nothing, and fancy graphics do need more electriciy than plain ones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice, but no thanks
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Mar 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I dunno, I would think that that the differences would be minor, considering you are trading less processor usage for more video card usage, I would think they may almost cancel out

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice, but no thanks
by archiesteel on Wed 21st Mar 2007 04:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice, but no thanks"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

They don't cancel each other out. Both draw power. If you only used the CPU, it might still draw the same overall power (being maxed out) but that doesn't matter. The issue is not if CPU + GPU draw more power than CPU alone, but rather if flashy 3D Window Managers draw more power than simple 2D ones. To me, it's clear that the answer to that question is "yes" (more effects == more calculations == more power required).

Haven't you noticed that Next-Gen consoles are hotter than current gen or older? You can be they draw more power, too!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice, but no thanks
by BluenoseJake on Wed 21st Mar 2007 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice, but no thanks"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The GPU is not maxed out in this situation, it's probably almost idling, unless you've got a real crappy one. I think the power draw on this sort of operation, compared to say, a game would be minimal. Most of the time, you don't have all these effects just going, they only happen at certain times, and usually not a bunch at once. Just sitting there, or working in an app, other than the increase in ram requirements to store each window, that under most conditions the video card would be maxed out, or even close

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Nice, but no thanks
by archiesteel on Wed 21st Mar 2007 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice, but no thanks"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm not arguing that the power increase would be *much* higher, but it would nevertheless be higher than without any effects.

In any case, I already see a difference in my laptop's battery life whether I'm using Beryl or not. I get about 15% less battery life when using beryl (about 3h45m instead of 4h30m).

I'm not saying that one shouldn't use Beryl (or other accelerated desktops) because of this, however the fact remains that it does drain more power overall.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks
by heh heh on Wed 21st Mar 2007 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice, but no thanks"
heh heh Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah sure, and a 460 watt power supply will use less
power than a 200 watt job.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice, but no thanks
by Zoidberg on Wed 21st Mar 2007 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks"
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

Not sure what you mean by that, but a 460 watt power supply will use exactly the same amount as a 200 watt in the same system. The rating is what the power supply can provide, not what it uses.

Reply Score: 1

what a joke
by rianquinn on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:10 UTC
rianquinn
Member since:
2007-01-25

This review makes it sound like Vista came up with these things. Its obvious this guy has never used Ubuntu or OS X, or he's being paid by Microsoft to lie. I use Vista every day. If it were not for Linux not supporting FinePoint Tablets, I'd get rid of Vista. Its slow, and the 3D effect offer no additional Usability. Were as Beryl and OS X actually make things more Usable. Anyone who has used Vista knows its a face lift, and a lot of overhead.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what a joke
by Adam S on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:15 UTC in reply to "what a joke"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I think, for many people, they don't even know about Ubuntu or OS X. And even THOSE people are let down by Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE: what a joke
by Gryzor on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:20 UTC in reply to "what a joke"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

I have been testing Vista (being a Mac User myself and Linux/OpenBSD on the server side). I develop for Windows/.NET for a living.

I have had a bad impresion on Vista (which I still keep), but what mostly surprised me was the insane amount of things that are simple coming back from Win9X. Man, there are dozens of Dialogs and Windows that are just the SAME. (For example, the customize colors).

Now I don't think that these were written from scratch and copied "to make things easier to existing users". That'd be a silly argument. It's just XP with new technologies on top.

With new technologies come new ideas, new bugs, new things, and stuff like that.

Vista is XP on Steroids (lots of). No matter how many new tech you add to the mix, Vista is very much like XP in "too many" aspects.

You could argue that OS X is the same (same underlying tech, kernel, etc., new services and applications). True.
So is LInux. In the end, they just update the kernel and the userbase stuff with newer versions.

The difference is that Win32API is the ugliest API i've ever seen (Vs. Cocoa, Carbon, .NET and some POSIX stuff that I've worked with).

Seriously, MFC and Win32 are ugly. So if you're gonna add "new stuff" to "already ugly stuff", it's not good.

My 0.02c

Reply Score: 1

RE: what a joke
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:41 UTC in reply to "what a joke"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

This article doesn't say that Vista came up with these things, it says that Vista has those things. and comparing Vista to Beryl is just counter-productive, as Beryl is nowhere near as stable as Vista. As well, when OS X came out it was nowhere near as usable as Vista is today, 10.0 was crap. It took them 5 years to get here

Reply Score: 3

why I like vista
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:35 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I have alwas hated having to use windows. I find the filesystem clunky, and navigating it with explorer to be frustrating. I have alwas hated the laberythine start menu, and the way that windows has alwas had the most money behind it, but even OSS operating systems look nicer. I hate the fact that if you use 20+ windows, then the taskbar becomes vitually unusable.

That being said, vista is the first version of windows that I dont mind having bought. Why? Heres a few reasons:

1) They fixed explorer. Sure, Mac did it first, microsoft ripped it off. You know what? I couldnt care less. The end result is that now I have one click access to the directories I alwas use, and a ui for easily adding/removing said directories. I have clicked on the folders (oldschool filetree) tab *once* since installing vista, and that was just to check it out. I still find the filesystem to be dumb as hell, but thats ok because now I dont have to worry about it.

2) They fixed the start menu. Applications I use all the time I put on quicklaunch, I currently have 6. Applications I frequently use, I pin to the start menu, and have the recently used apps take up the rest of the list. The once-in-a-blue-moon applications I use, I type the name in and press enter. I have only clicked on all programs *once* since I installed vista.

3) It is beautiful. Sure its eye-candy, I don't care. I actually like working with something designed by someone with a sense of aesthetics. I wasn't impressed at all with smokey glass in vids, but when you actually use it, its very impressive. Also, I actually have modern hardware, and the ui feels significantly *more* responsive then xp. The visual effects (minimize/maximize/window create/window destroy) are all subtle and fast, and very attractive. The aero ui is a bit more over the top then I would personally like, but compared to mac, I find it quite a bit more toned down and tasteful. I like aesthetically pleasing design, but Im not a fan of the flashyness that pervades the other operating systems.

4) live preview in the taskbar and alt-tab greatly improve usability. before, as soon as your apps started collapsing into groups, you became lost, having to alt-tab through each app to find what you want. now, its obvious. expose is still lightyears ahead of the game, but again, this improves my daily usage of windows

5) Networking. It used to be that it was easier to connect and configure a windows network from a mac then from windows. not anymore.

6) Intelligent User folders. First of all, no more dumbass "My" prefix. Secondly, now there is 6 instead of 3 user folders.

7) Overall user experience. When apps crash, they dont look like the window above them puked all over them. Playing videos takes way less resources, and running a window over it doesnt shoot your cpu way up. Window moving/resizing is smooth, instead of the choppy mess you get with xp. Everything is vectored, and the icons are actually well done. It has a security model now, at least as good as that of linux (although everyone complains about it even more then new linux users). The folder icon thing is just plain cool, never seen that on another system. Ships with a working firewall and spyware protection.

Sure, this stuff isnt new. I have no problem for people critizing ms for stealing, cause they did, in great quantity. But to say its worthless is to say that every other version of windows is worthless, as this is a significant upgrade. The desktop experience gives apple a run for its money now.

The big difference is that its no longer a bargin-bin os. You have to have good hardware to run it, and its expensive. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the whiners out there are just want a mac desktop on out-dated hardware.

Last but not least, this is a total redesign of alot of core stuff. expect huge changes in performance and features over the next year or two. OSX was unusable for its first three versions, vista is already way ahead of the game when it comes to that.

Reply Score: 5

RE: why I like vista
by Supreme Dragon on Tue 20th Mar 2007 17:56 UTC in reply to "why I like vista"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"The big difference is that its no longer a bargin-bin os. You have to have good hardware to run it, and its expensive."

You think high pricing and absurd system requirements are good?

"I would be willing to bet that 90% of the whiners out there are just want a mac desktop on out-dated hardware."

People want a quality OS with reasonable system requirements/pricing, and not infected with DRM/activation/WGA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: why I like vista
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: why I like vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The prices are high, but not insane, and the hardware requirements are equivilent to osx, as is the functionality. I would rather have high hardware requirements and prices then a shoddy user experience, as I earn my living working on my computer, but thats just me.

So basically your saying that you want to be able to steal it, and that you want a mac-like user experience, on linux level hardware. The former is unethical, the latter is unreasonable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: why I like vista
by Supreme Dragon on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why I like vista"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"The prices are high, but not insane"

If the prices are not insane, then they are very close to it.

"hardware requirements are equivilent to osx, as is the functionality."

Mac OS X gets faster with every new version, while Windows gets slower.

"I would rather have high hardware requirements and prices then a shoddy user experience, as I earn my living working on my computer, but thats just me."

You are right, I guess you would need high hardware requirements to use a slow, bloated and DRM infected OS and not have a shoddy user experience.

"So basically your saying that you want to be able to steal it"

Where did I say that?

"you want a mac-like user experience, on linux level hardware"

That is right, and that is why I use Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: why I like vista
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why I like vista"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Not to mention that both things he stated are already tru for osx. OSX will run on a macmini with 256MB of ram, with all the effects on and very little lag. You can't even run winxp very well on a spec like that, regardless of the architecture difference. So you're telling me that OSX is just as bloated as Vista? I have Vista on an HP Dc5750 with 1GB of ram and the UI is sluggish and the frame rate is choppy at best and the memory usage is unnecessary. Macosx has effects that you would think would take up more resources such as dashboard, expose, among other effects and the macmini still outperforms the much faster dual core vista machine all the time. I have several windows open at the moment on both machines and expose doesn't even stutter in osx, in Vista using that fancy switcher the frame rate dips and chops all over the place. Whats the point of using the gpu to handle the UI if you are not going to use it efficiently.

I'm a Linux user, but I must give credit where its due. Macosx even outperforms beryl and compiz when it comes to the ui on much slower hardware and with (sometimes) fancier effects. it uses far less cpu time than Beryl, a great example is resizing windows in beryl takes up cpu time. Why? in-fact doing anything in compiz or beryl requires quite a bit of cpu power, not as much as Aero but it still requires a pretty decent machine to run them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: why I like vista
by stare on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why I like vista"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

OSX will run on a macmini with 256MB of ram, with all the effects on and very little lag

No it wont. OSX is painfully slow on 256Mb, it starts to be usable on 512Mb, in reality you need 1Gb to feel somewhat comfortable.

You can't even run winxp very well on a spec like that, regardless of the architecture difference.

XP on 256Mb is much more usable than OSX.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: why I like vista
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why I like vista"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes it will. i have it running right now. Unless you are looking over my shoulder or something. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Specs:

Maco Os X version 10.4.9

1.25 Ghz

256 MB DDR SDRAM

3 safari windows open, enterouge open, 4 finder windows open. 4 dashboard widgets running. Not one stutter in the UI, the apps don't load quick but thats not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the responsiveness and smooth framerate of the gui which is still smooth with no noticeable choppiness, unlike Vista on a much faster more capable machine. You can call me a liar all you want but I got the machine to prove and I can send pics if that doesn't satisfy you. I can even get out my video camera and make a video and send it to you. i have no need to lie. The fact is that the gui was written PROPERLY it runs on the gpu efficiently and well. I can't definitely say the same for Vista or compiz/beryl

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: why I like vista
by stare on Tue 20th Mar 2007 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: why I like vista"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, GUI responsiveness is a different issue, it's indeed smooth in OSX. The same on Vista, there is no lags on my celeron 1.4ghz/geforce 6200 laptop. I've ever used Flip3D with 3D game in windowed mode -- works like a charm. I'm not calling you're a liar, probably your bad experience with Vista's GUI is due to old video drivers?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: why I like vista
by ma_d on Wed 21st Mar 2007 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why I like vista"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

No kidding, XP runs fine on 256MB of RAM. It's usable on 192MB of RAM as well, although you start the feel it.

OS X runs acceptably on 512MB of RAM. For most of the people on this forum it's probably too slow, but for a large subset of Mac users it runs well enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: why I like vista
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Mar 2007 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why I like vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If the prices are not insane, then they are very close to it.

I agree that it is over priced

Mac OS X gets faster with every new version, while Windows gets slower.

Your telling me that from the apple equivilent transition (os9 to osX), osX was faster? You obviously werent using macs at that time.

You are right, I guess you would need high hardware requirements to use a slow, bloated and DRM infected OS and not have a shoddy user experience.
Where is it bloated? Its big, but again, comparable to osx in terms of how much space it takes up. It does a hell of alot more then previous versions of windows though, so I don't understand how it should take up less space. As for DRM infected, you seem to be confused. DRM is only a virus in the Free Software radical philosophical sense of the word. To be able to run DRM enabled files does not slow down performance.

Where did I say that? (in relation to stealing)

you said it was "infected" with WGA, Activation, and DRM. WGA and Activation both are there to make life difficult on pirates. WGA does nothing to legal users, and Activation is only a pain for legal users at install time or when you change hardware (neither of which are an issue for me, as my laptop wont get much more then a ram upgrade, and it came pre-activated). So if you are complaining about that stuff, that basically means you are complaining about how it is more difficult to steal, which is unethical (the DRM capabilities are kinda confusing, but I outlined that earlier)

That is right, and that is why I use Linux.

If you use linux, why are you complaining about windows? It doesnt effect you at all. I like to play in linux, but when it comes to getting serious work done, I need something that gives me the tools I need. Currently, theres nothing on linux that approaches vb.net and asp.net in terms of speed of development and scalability. Not only that, but linux doesnt provide the same kind of desktop user experience that mac, and now windows, offers. If you are happy with linux, good for you, I wish you well on your endevors. However, its not for everyone, no matter how much you want it to be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: why I like vista
by Supreme Dragon on Tue 20th Mar 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why I like vista"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"Your telling me that from the apple equivilent transition (os9 to osX), osX was faster? You obviously werent using macs at that time."

You are right OS9 was faster than OSX, but Apple did not spend 5 years and 6 billion dollars on OSX. Vista should be much better than it is.

"Its big, but again, comparable to osx in terms of how much space it takes up."

Maybe, but Linux beats both of them.

"To be able to run DRM enabled files does not slow down performance."

Wrong, the DRM in Vista is always using CPU time to monitor you, even if you are not using DRM infected media.

"WGA and Activation both are there to make life difficult on pirates."

WGA and activation do nothing to stop pirates, all it does is annoy people that bought the OS.

"If you use linux, why are you complaining about windows? It doesnt effect you at all."

A monopolist scares OEM's, making them install Vista on almost all computers. When I can go to the Dell or HP website and order a Linux or no OS computer that costs less than a Vista infected computer, then it will not affect me.

"If you are happy with linux, good for you, I wish you well on your endevors. However, its not for everyone, no matter how much you want it to be."

I never said it was for everyone, I want people to have a choice. If someone uses Vista it should be because they choose to use it, not forced to use it because a monopolist makes OEM's insall it on almost all computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: why I like vista
by MollyC on Wed 21st Mar 2007 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why I like vista"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"You are right OS9 was faster than OSX, but Apple did not spend 5 years and 6 billion dollars on OSX. Vista should be much better than it is. "

The impetus for the OS9 vs OSX comparison was a previous assertion that Mac OSes always increase performance with each release. The OS9 vs OSX comparison was brought up to disprove that assertion. The length of time that Vista was in development is irrelevant to that.

But since you brought it up, according to the article, Microsoft didn't spend 5 years developing Vista either. Much of its develpment was halted for XP SP2 development, and then development was "reset", starting over with Windows Server 2003 as the starting point rather than XP (the starting point of the failed pre-reset Longhorn effort). Vista was in development only 2-3 years after the reset.

And you're right, Apple didn't spend 5 years developing OSX. They spent a few years on Copeland, failed, and bought NeXT, an OS that *had* been in use/development for more than 5 years. And OSX 10.0, based on the mature NeXT was *still* dog slow compared to OS 9. That was probably the biggest performance drop in OS transition history.


"A monopolist scares OEM's, making them install Vista on almost all computers."

And yet you praise Apple, whose computers come with OSX, not on "almost all" computers, but *all" computers. You go on to say that you want people to have "choice", but praise Apple in the very same post, a company that is the epitome of lock-in.


Now, regarding your lamentations about not being able to get a Linux PC from Dell or HP (which you *can* btw): I hear this all the time from Linux users, which would imply that there's a huge business opportunity for PC makers to sell Linux PCs. Yet VA Linux, a company founded on the business model of selling Linux PCs, went down the tubes (VA Software exists, but the original vision failed badly). Their stock history chart is one of the most comical in history: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/LNUX.png

Linux users had the chance to patroninze a company that specialized in providing Linux PCs, but they shunned them, preferring to beg Dell and HP for Linux PCs instead. Or is it that there just isn't enough demand to support a Linux PC company?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: why I like vista
by Supreme Dragon on Wed 21st Mar 2007 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: why I like vista"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"The impetus for the OS9 vs OSX comparison was a previous assertion that Mac OSes always increase performance with each release. The OS9 vs OSX comparison was brought up to disprove that assertion. The length of time that Vista was in development is irrelevant to that."

My previous assertion was that during the time that Vista was in development, Apple released several versions of OSX, each better than the previous one.

"And yet you praise Apple, whose computers come with OSX, not on "almost all" computers, but *all" computers. You go on to say that you want people to have "choice", but praise Apple in the very same post, a company that is the epitome of lock-in."

I am not praising Apple, I am just saying their OS is better than Vista, but not as good as Linux. Apple should allow their OS to run on any computer, not just Macs.

"Yet VA Linux, a company founded on the business model of selling Linux PCs, went down the tubes (VA Software exists, but the original vision failed badly). Their stock history chart is one of the most comical in history"

Linux became truly desktop ready in the last 2 or 3 years, so it is not surprising VA Linux failed, because Linux was not ready for the desktop in 2000.

"Or is it that there just isn't enough demand to support a Linux PC company?"

With the release of Vista, I think a Linux company has a great chance of succeeding now. MS made a huge mistake releasing the bloated, slow, DRM infected mess that is Vista. I see Linux getting steady market share gains, at Windows expense.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: why I like vista
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 21st Mar 2007 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: why I like vista"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Microsoft didn't spend 5 years developing Vista either. ... development was "reset", starting over with Windows Server 2003 as the starting point rather than XP (the starting point of the failed pre-reset Longhorn effort). Vista was in development only 2-3 years after the reset.

Time spent working on Vista before the reset was still, wait for it, time spent working on Vista. Just because they threw away the results of that time doesn't mean that time never happened. They worked on Vista for a while, didn't like where it was going and started over, and worked on Vista some more. 5 years is a lot more accurate than 2-3.

You'd be right to say Microsoft spent 2-3 years on Vista's current codebase though. But the jettisoned original codebase has to be taken into account when talking about how long it took them to bring out Vista.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: why I like vista
by google_ninja on Wed 21st Mar 2007 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why I like vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You are right OS9 was faster than OSX, but Apple did not spend 5 years and 6 billion dollars on OSX. Vista should be much better than it is.

that was answered at length by mollyc in another post

Maybe, but Linux beats both of them.

First of all, Linux doesnt have the desktop features of either. Secondly, if you install a full desktop linux (full gnome or kde, and everything something like beryl needs to run, plus maintanence/server apps), you may not hit the same size as windows or mac, but youll come close.

Wrong, the DRM in Vista is always using CPU time to monitor you, even if you are not using DRM infected media.

Could you provide a link? I believe you are confused, DRM provides a capability to play media which is owned by someone else.

As for the infected bit, your zealotness is showing. DRM isnt nessicarily evil, as linus argues here
http://lwn.net/Articles/30048/

WGA and activation do nothing to stop pirates, all it does is annoy people that bought the OS.

WGA and activation stops people who don't know enough to be considered serious pirates, but would be willing to illegally copy the software for a friend, which makes up at least 80% of windows users.

A monopolist scares OEM's, making them install Vista on almost all computers. When I can go to the Dell or HP website and order a Linux or no OS computer that costs less than a Vista infected computer, then it will not affect me.

That still doesn't explain why you are complaining about performance, activation, size, and DRM capabilities.

I never said it was for everyone, I want people to have a choice. If someone uses Vista it should be because they choose to use it, not forced to use it because a monopolist makes OEM's insall it on almost all computers.

I agree with that. However, currently for the average joe who doesnt have a linux savvy friend at his disposal, the only choices available are mac or windows. If he wants a mac, he buys a mac. If he wants windows, he gets it at a reduced price built into the cost of his machine. If he is one of the small percentage of people who run linux and only linux, he will bitch a bit, then give away his liscence key to a friend or family member.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: why I like vista
by Supreme Dragon on Wed 21st Mar 2007 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: why I like vista"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"First of all, Linux doesnt have the desktop features of either."

What desktop features does Linux not have?

"Secondly, if you install a full desktop linux (full gnome or kde, and everything something like beryl needs to run, plus maintanence/server apps), you may not hit the same size as windows or mac, but youll come close."

Maintenance/server apps will also increase the size of Vista, it will be several gigabytes larger than a Linux installation.

"Could you provide a link? I believe you are confused, DRM provides a capability to play media which is owned by someone else."

Here is your link:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

"As for the infected bit, your zealotness is showing. DRM isnt nessicarily evil"

Here is another link:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html

"WGA and activation stops people who don't know enough to be considered serious pirates, but would be willing to illegally copy the software for a friend, which makes up at least 80% of windows users."

WGA is good?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142

"That still doesn't explain why you are complaining about performance, activation, size, and DRM capabilities."

If they try to force me to buy it, I will complain.

"However, currently for the average joe who doesnt have a linux savvy friend at his disposal, the only choices available are mac or windows."

Distros like Freespire and PCLinuxOS are as easy to use as Windows and Mac.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: why I like vista
by mith on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why I like vista"
mith Member since:
2007-03-15

The hardware requirements *are not* equivalent... I have Mac OS X 10.4.9 running on a iMac G3 500Mhz with 512 mb Ram without trouble and on a PowerBook G4 1,5GHz with 512 Mb Ram for Realbasic and Perl Development and again without trouble.
I can use Quartz Extreme with a 32 MB graphics card and even can use Quartz 2D Extreme (although if i enable it, my powerbook will soon or later crash because its not yet a released technology).

I haven't yet tried Windows Vista, but for wath i've heard for some costumers it will use more than 600mb ram at boot... if thats true its really a huge waste of memory.

About the maximazing thing, thats an annoying thing when you start to use this OS, but then you will get confortable with it, and with things like exposť and the way the OS remembers windows positions and size its easy to get used with that.

Windows Vista still has some strong points and i thinks it will be a good OS (lets hope SP1 comes fast) but the hardware requirements are not one of them...

Reply Score: 1

RE: why I like vista
by Nex6 on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:24 UTC in reply to "why I like vista"
Nex6 Member since:
2005-07-06

google_ninja:

well said....

Edited 2007-03-20 18:27

Reply Score: 1

More than a pretty face....
by eantoranz on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:42 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

...lots of useless crap. :-) Vista in itself makes a computer a very expensive (and heavy) paperweight. :-) No productivity suite, no antivirus (worth naming, I mean), no nothing... well, not exactly: lots of DRM... that's why you need a pseudo-cluster to run it. ;-)

Edited 2007-03-20 18:44

Reply Score: 1

DRM killed Vista for me.
by ccchips on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:54 UTC
ccchips
Member since:
2006-05-24

I will not buy a product that is so tuned-in to that notion. Plain and simple.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM killed Vista for me.
by Zoidberg on Tue 20th Mar 2007 22:24 UTC in reply to "DRM killed Vista for me."
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

I get so tired of these lame "DRM is the evil" arguments. Hey guess what, if Vista did not support DRM, you WOULD NOT be able to watch any content that required it, which these days is a huge amount. Vista does not add DRM to your files, delete your mp3s or any of the other ridiculous FUD that people spread around. Whether you like it or not the movie and music industry are going to use DRM in their products, that's not Vista's fault. It at least allows you to watch this content, which if you paid for it should not be an issue anyway.

Reply Score: 2

What about Linux
by abraxas on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:08 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

A lot of the "exciting" technologies that the article mentions are offered by other desktops. The author mentions OSX but says nothing about Linux.

3D Accelerated Desktop
XGL/AIGLX/Compiz/Beryl

Managed Code
Mono
Java


XAML
Glade XML

Vector Graphics
Cairo

Reply Score: 3

Re: What about Linux
by knightrider on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:26 UTC
knightrider
Member since:
2006-12-11

Vector Graphics

Inkscape

Reply Score: 1

No Vista for the time being
by leplatdujour on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:28 UTC
leplatdujour
Member since:
2005-08-16

Y' know, I just can't be bothered trying to get Vista. Right now, my main home machine is running XP -- rock stable, I might add -- at work I'm running Opensuse 10.2/KDE with which I'm very happy (apart from the problems getting my Palm to sync), and I've just bought a nice Macbook and my experiences with OSX so far are very inspiring.

I just don't see the need to switch.

Oh, and over at Brainshare (www.bertplat.nl/brainshare2007) I've just received a free code for SLED10, so I'll give that one a try.

Reply Score: 1

OSX hardware
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Mar 2007 21:40 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Many people have said you can run osx on 256 megs of ram. It's been my experience that if you actually use the OS, everything is choppy as hell until you hit about 2gigs. 2 gigs of ram and you get better multitasking and a smoother experience then windows, but before that you get alot of stuttering due to paging (My music teacher was recording a few weeks ago and they were using a G4 with pro tools and a gig of ram, and running into all sorts of latency issues. Note that I'm talking about professional use, not email/web)

As for mac getting faster every release and windows getting slower, you are honestly going to tell me that the difference between 9 and X isnt the same as XP to Vista? if anything, it was worse.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OSX hardware
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Mar 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "OSX hardware"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes the transition wasn't smooth at all. However, OSX was a whole different animal. The fact of the matter is no matter how MS wants to put it there is a lot of legacy stuff still in Vista, so why the huge spike in resources. OSX had no legacy code from previous versions of macos, they were still in the transition period of getting there libraries and they were porting over things from NextStep. What did MS port over? The kernel was changed and thing smoved around, great this could be a good thing for users, but what about vista is different than XP. The macosx release can't be compared to the Vista release. Macosx has nothing but the name to tie it to macos classic. In that case appel knew that there would be issues and bundled os9 with macos even up to version 10.3. The macosx release was a release perse it was a transitional package to get users weened off of macos9. While MS is basically telling people drop XP we got the game on over here in the Vita room. I'm not an apple shill, in-fact i'm a linux user (Ubuntu), but apple has to be given more credit than that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OSX hardware
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Mar 2007 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE: OSX hardware"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

OSX was a whole different animal, but vista is nowhere near as bad as osx 1.0 was. It is comparable because alot of the performance issues were related to the brand new (in every sense of the word, including methodology) graphical subsystem in osx. The new graphical subsystem in Vista goes a bit beyond what apple has even now (according to the article), and is the first release. But performance in Vista is supposed to be superior to xp? That is absolutely redicules.

Im not a winzealot either, look at my posting history and youll see i come closer to being a mac zealot then anything else. But the vista bashing has been insane. Ive been using windows every day for work since 98, and have bitched and complained about alot of things just as long. Vista fixes a significant amount of these things, and is a much needed upgrade to windows.

Reply Score: 2

Horrible discussion
by edwardyawn on Thu 22nd Mar 2007 04:25 UTC
edwardyawn
Member since:
2006-11-08

The Vista Defense Brigade has been out in full force throughout this discussion. Microfart fellators still love wasting their money on inferior crapware from Microfart. Definition of "troll": anyone who says or does something you do not like or agree with. All internet discussions end with someone being called a troll or a nazi. Internet users are pathetic.

Reply Score: 1