Linked by David Adams on Tue 16th Sep 2008 17:11 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
Windows Builder Au looked closely at Windows Server 2008 and then listed the 10 things about the OS that left an impression on them. They looked at 64-bit compatibility, NT domain migration, and the licensing terms, just to name a few.
Order by: Score:
Hmmm... ashtrays...
by burningpantsman on Tue 16th Sep 2008 17:26 UTC
burningpantsman
Member since:
2008-09-16

#7: The ashtrays are now optional

In prior versions of Windows Server, a lot of applications came installed by default. No one ever uninstalled them because they did not cause any harm, even if you didn't use them or installed an alternative. Now, even the "throwaway" applications, like Windows Backup, are not installed by default. After installation, you need to add "features" to get the full Windows Server suite of applications. This can be frustrating if you are in a hurry, but the reduced clutter and resource overhead are worth it


Part of the frustration with earlier versions of server were that there were way too many things installed by default... but now the complaint is that Server 2008 is missing too many features during the installation? I like the stripped down version much better.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Hmmm... ashtrays...
by casuto on Tue 16th Sep 2008 18:08 UTC in reply to "Hmmm... ashtrays..."
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

people will always complain: if you give X, they want Y and if you give Y they want X.

Edited 2008-09-16 18:11 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Hmmm... ashtrays...
by protoz on Tue 16th Sep 2008 19:58 UTC in reply to "Hmmm... ashtrays..."
protoz Member since:
2008-04-28

I would much rather build up than peel off unneeded programs that could break others. This is very welcome in my book.

Reply Score: 8

well
by poundsmack on Tue 16th Sep 2008 18:52 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I will take a minimal instalation that i can add in the features after the fact, over a bloated standard install any day of the week. 2008 was a great release, i hope MS keeps that aproach.

Reply Score: 4

dx10
by evert on Tue 16th Sep 2008 19:08 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm considering to use "Windows Workstation 2008". It supports directx 10, so you can play te latest games, without the vista bloat.

Reply Score: 2

RE: dx10
by major86 on Tue 16th Sep 2008 19:45 UTC in reply to "dx10"
major86 Member since:
2008-04-21

It's not that problem free as many think and one need to adjust OS a little bit. Still at the end it's worth the efforts ;)

/Happy user of Windows Workstation 2008

Reply Score: 1

Why is it that in Microsoft land...
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 16th Sep 2008 20:08 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

...you have to pay a super-premium and go out of your way to get a "server" version of a Windows operating system, just to have less bloat and annoyances, with better performance? As if their prices for their crappy "desktop" versions I've had to put up with for years aren't bad enough.

I always heard good things about the various Windows Server releases, yet I never did (and never will) use it if it requires searching Amazon for a piece of software that costs over a thousand dollars... just to run my machine which, chances are, already includes a *paid* license for Windows.

Pirating? No thanks, I'd rather not support this ripoff company *at all*. No "+1" from me to add to their ridiculously high "number of users" count, whether it's paid for or illegally obtained.

Reply Score: 8

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I agree 110% on this point. Hopefully MS gets the point and strips the bloat out of their desktop versions as well... but then again I'm probably dreaming if I think that will ever happen after Vista. Honestly, win2k was the only desktop version of Windows that was pretty free of bloat and I actually enjoyed using. It wasn't intended as a mainstream desktop OS by MS though, it was targeted at corporate workstations (not that it really matters, but that's why most home PCs didn't get 2k unless you went out and got it yourself like I did). They stuck most home users with Windows ME which was the worst of the windows 9x series by far. My ideal windows would be an updated version of 2k--lean and mean and supporting all the latest apps. But I'm not going to pay over a grand for that, thanks, seeing as how OS X does everything I need it to. It's got a bit of bloat, but compare OS X to Vista in the bloat department and there's no contest. And I have OpenBSD for a good server os.
edit: Corrected my statement about win2k a bit.

Edited 2008-09-16 20:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

major86 Member since:
2008-04-21

You can legally use Server 2008 for 240days as trial...
And I tend to reinstall my main OS every 5-6months anyway, so it's a good deal imho ;)
P.S. Doing so is much better than pirating...

Reply Score: 1

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Why in the world do you reinstall that often? ;) I'm sitting here on a 7-8 year old windows 2k install. I just reinstalled my home PC with XP Pro (VLK, weee) but that was because I just completely rebuilt it from the motherboard up.

Reply Score: 4

major86 Member since:
2008-04-21

I think it's just a habit of mine from the win95/98 days ;)

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

..you have to pay a super-premium and go out of your way to get a "server" version of a Windows operating system, just to have less bloat and annoyances, with better performance? As if their prices for their crappy "desktop" versions I've had to put up with for years aren't bad enough.


Because microsoft listens to its customers. You are in the extreme minority of home users, most people want to spend less time configuring things, not more. Server operating systems are something different, there is no need for alot of that stuff to be there, especially when it can lead to a larger attack surface.

IMO they need to add a "power user" sku that is basically 2k8 without all the stuff that actually makes 2k8 expensive.

Reply Score: 6

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

IMO they need to add a "power user" sku that is basically 2k8 without all the stuff that actually makes 2k8 expensive.

What? You mean, like, what Vista should have been?

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

No.

To repeat myself....

most people want to spend less time configuring things, not more. Server operating systems are something different, there is no need for alot of that stuff to be there, especially when it can lead to a larger attack surface.


Very, very few people actually want to start with next to nothing, and add sound, wifi, visual effects, built-in apps as they need it. There is a small segment that enjoy playing with those sorts of things. MS should have done a hobbyist sku for them, instead of ignoring them. There probably wasn't enough of a business case for them to do it though.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No.

Hmmmm, yes.

most people want to spend less time configuring things, not more. Server operating systems are something different, there is no need for alot of that stuff to be there, especially when it can lead to a larger attack surface.

Yer, and therefore what Vista should have been was the power user's version of Windows 2008 with all the needed stuff pre-installed and ready to use. You seem to be slightly confused in that it's actually Windows 2008 that is the tinkerer's OS.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Vista and 2k8 are the same os, the only difference is that one comes super stripped down, and the other doesn't. 2k8 with everything installed and ready to use IS what vista is.

Reply Score: 2

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

How about being able to deselect stuff during the OS install process?
Don't feel like tinkering? Just pick "typical install" in the menu and get the whole package.

But then again I guess that would render null the point of selling so many different versions.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Vista and Win2k8 are virtually the same thing, the only thing missing is media center and sharing from WMP, upnp (it's there, but disabled), and windows search.

These are all features that customers want. If Windows wasn't able to stream media to the xbox or htpc's, customers wouldn't be too happy. Windows search is pretty handy, especially with a terabyte to search.

Remember, one persons bloat is another persons features.

Reply Score: 5

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Remember, one persons bloat is another persons features.

That line is seriously getting old.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Well, it's true. Vista may not be the best OS that MS ever put out, but it isn't the major disaster that everybody goes on about. I remember when XP came out, it was the exact same people, saying the exact same things.

What is really getting old is the amount of hyperbole surrounding Vista. It's not my main OS, but I have it running as a media center, and it works pretty good. 2G of ram, half decent video card(an ATI 9200 will do) and it works well. There is things I like about it, and things I don't.

It takes much less work to get Vista functioning than the equivalent Debian system. Ubuntu is getting close, but people are starting to complain about how bloated Ubuntu is, how it's slow, even the color scheme. Sound familiar?

It's the same with anything, I really like Debian, but I wouldn't give my mother a system with it installed. But the woman thinks Vista kicks ass.

What we need to remember is that Vista is not really aimed at us, but normal people, with lives.

Reply Score: 6

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Sorry for the long post, but i don't agree with much of what you said for the following reasons:

Well, it's true. Vista may not be the best OS that MS ever put out, but it isn't the major disaster that everybody goes on about. I remember when XP came out, it was the exact same people, saying the exact same things.


Because at the time XP ws too bloated for the hardware around. However 7 years later and now it feels lean on our modern hardware.
It's the same with Vista, people are complaining that you shouldn't need top end machines for running just the OS. However in 7 years time Vista might well feel more lean.
It's all about the best software for our current hardware and at the moment most peoples hardware isn't good enough for Vista - hense the complaining.


There is things I like about it, and things I don't. It takes much less work to get Vista functioning than the equivalent Debian system.

As you said yourself, it depends what you want your system for. I built an ArchLinux system (which requires a great deal more manual work than Ubuntu) with KDE4, Opera and OpenOffice in less time than it took to reinstall vista + MS office on the girlfriends laptop.

Granted most computers are shipped with Windows pre-installed or have recovery images, but then Linux would be just as quick (and fully hardware supported) too if Linux pre-install systems were common place.

I really like Debian, but I wouldn't give my mother a system with it installed.

If you read some of the comments on here, then some people have given Ubuntu to their parents.
My girlfriend uses my laptop (with ArchLinux) all the time and manages just fine.


But the woman thinks Vista kicks ass.

Only when it works


What we need to remember is that Vista is not really aimed at us, but normal people, with lives.


Vista is aimed at Microsofts share-holders. If Vista was aimed squarely at normal Joe Public then it wouldn't have such a high recommended spec.

Edited 2008-09-17 09:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

[p] Because at the time XP ws too bloated for the hardware around. However 7 years later and now it feels lean on our modern hardware.
It's the same with Vista, people are complaining that you shouldn't need top end machines for running just the OS. However in 7 years time Vista might well feel more lean.
It's all about the best software for our current hardware and at the moment most peoples hardware isn't good enough for Vista - hense the complaining.
[/q]

oh, come on, it's a year and a half since Vista's launch. Most computers these days can run Vista, and if you can't run it on your 600 with 512M of Ram, then you're right, Vista is not for you. Most any computer from 2004 on can run Vista just fine. Ram is so cheap that if you have to double it, you're out what? 40 bucks? Big deal. Same with the video card, any $50 video card can run Aero just fine, so you're cost to bring a circa 2004 system up to spec to run Vista? 90 bucks or so. I'm running it on an XP 2800+ with 1G of ram, it runs just fine. I bought that MB and chip in 2003. It is not a beefy modern system.

Granted most computers are shipped with Windows pre-installed or have recovery images, but then Linux would be just as quick (and fully hardware supported) too if Linux pre-install systems were common place.


And that is where MS makes most of it's money, on sales of Vista on new computers, computers that are fully capable of running Vista. Not upgrades. And as we know, hardware prices are so low, that any hardware upgrades any person with a reasonable system can afford.


But the woman thinks Vista kicks ass.

Only when it works


It works, most of the driver issues are resolved, and SP1 makes a big difference. Really, instead of just complaining about it, try it. I mean really try it. Most people just dismiss it with out even trying it, because "they" say it sucks.


What we need to remember is that Vista is not really aimed at us, but normal people, with lives.


Vista is aimed at Microsofts share-holders. If Vista was aimed squarely at normal Joe Public then it wouldn't have such a high recommended spec. [/q]"

800Mghz with 512G ram is a high recommended spec? That's most machines from 1998 on! Even a more reasonable 1.6Ghz is pretty much baseline these days, you don't see that many 800Mhz boxes kicking around these days. Those are not unreasonable specs. A couple of Gigs of ram? Pretty much free.

I'm not even a fan, but my gods, this constant noise about Vista without any real experience with it is just getting on my nerves.

Reply Score: 0

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Rubbish - absolute, unfounded rubbish. I'll explain:

oh, come on, it's a year and a half since Vista's launch. Most computers these days can run Vista,

You sure about that? I've not looked at the latest statistics, but even as early as 6 months ago Vista's market share just ~10% compared to ~80% for XP.
I really to think you're being more than optermistic to say that Vista has clawed 40% market share from happy XP users in only 6 months.


Ram is so cheap that if you have to double it, you're out what? 40 bucks? Big deal. Same with the video card, any $50 video card can run Aero just fine, so you're cost to bring a circa 2004 system up to spec to run Vista? 90 bucks or so.


You see, now you're just agreeing with me (in a round about way). If users are forced to upgrade working hardware just to run an OS then it's painfully obvious that Vista's spec is placed too high.

hardware prices are so low, that any hardware upgrades any person with a reasonable system can afford.

As above.
Some people don't want to pay for upgrades to a working system. Some people can't justify the cost when all they do is read e-mails and type up word documents. Those people just want a working system - should they be forced to upgrade just because Microsoft need to gain a few share-points? Personally I think not.

It works, most of the driver issues are resolved, and SP1 makes a big difference. Really, instead of just complaining about it, try it. I mean really try it. Most people just dismiss it with out even trying it, because "they" say it sucks.

I have. I don't post arguments like these unless I really know the subject - and I mean REALLY understand the complexities of what I'm talking about. So I'd appretiate it if you don't make arguments based entirely on guesses.

I've used Vista on a number of machines with varying hardware (including new systems that had Vista pre-installed) - so i DO know what I'm talking about and I'd appretiate it if you didn't dismiss my opinions as "uneducated" just ebcause they differ from your own.



800Mghz with 512G ram is a high recommended spec? That's most machines from 1998 on!

I can tell you now that Vista will not run smoothly on a system of that spec. Saying otherwise is complete BS.
Sorry mate, but that's the most absurd embelishment of fact i've read all month.


I'm not even a fan, but my gods, this constant noise about Vista without any real experience with it is just getting on my nerves.

How about an educated opinion from someone who's used it on a number of systems (included those that had Vista pre-installed)?
2nd guessing my experience helps no-one as I could argue the same about your experience that you base your opinion on. It's a totally non-productive argument. If you have any doubt then ask my for the experience i base my arguments on rather than just dismissing the lazy way.

Edited 2008-09-17 13:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You sure about that? I've not looked at the latest statistics, but even as early as 6 months ago Vista's market share just ~10% compared to ~80% for XP.
I really to think you're being more than optermistic to say that Vista has clawed 40% market share from happy XP users in only 6 months.


Market share has nothing to do with a particular computers ability to run an OS. I said most computers made in the last 4 years CAN run Vista, not that they ARE running it. Big difference.

You see, now you're just agreeing with me (in a round about way). If users are forced to upgrade working hardware just to run an OS then it's painfully obvious that Vista's spec is placed too high.


No. I am not agreeing with you. A 90 dollar upgrade is not the same as saying your computer can't run Vista. in most cases it's just a bit more ram, which is a lot less than 90 bucks. It is not painfully obvious at all. Adding ram is not a major upgrade. Neither is adding a cheap video card. Like I said, there is too much hyperbole about Vista.

At what point does MS get to say, to move forward, we are going to have raise the requirements?

I can tell you now that Vista will not run smoothly on a system of that spec. Saying otherwise is complete BS. Sorry mate, but that's the most absurd embelishment of fact i've read all month.


No kidding, but it will run on that, but if you read what I said, it would run just fine on most systems dating back to 2003-04.

If you want to use a computer that is over 9 years old (P3 800), that's your right, but don't complain when it won't run the newest software acceptably.

A four year old computer is not an unreasonable spec, even if you have to add ram. I also said a reasonable spec was a 1.6G, which is dead common.

How about an educated opinion from someone who's used it on a number of systems (included those that had Vista pre-installed)?"


Sure:

It's my educated opinion that vista is not as bad as it's press would indicate, and that taking into account that it's almost 2 years after launch, and most of the hardware manufacturers have gotten their act together and updated their drivers, that Vista is now working well in most situations.

I use Vista at home, it may not be my main OS, but I use it enough to know that it's stable and works well (it's my media center PC) on my old XP 2800+. Most of my family has moved over to it, and my spouse uses it on her laptop. We have a large number of Vista laptops at work that I am responsible for, and I now recommend it over XP to my clients that use Windows.
I have dealt with both DIY and OEM machines, in both upgrades and OEM installs.

I actually like Vista much more than I liked XP at this point in XP's lifecycle.

I don't want to stayed mired in 2001 for ever.

Edited 2008-09-17 14:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

...you have to pay a super-premium and go out of your way to get a "server" version of a Windows


Because Windows Server is nothing but a Single User Desktop Operating system with some semi-server based stuff bolted on.

Reply Score: 2

Agreed
by REM2000 on Tue 16th Sep 2008 20:30 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Windows 2008 carries on the tradition of a solid Windows server. Ive been setting it up for testing on some pretty low spec'd pc's (P4 2.4GHZ) and it's been really good. There is noticeable improvements to the way Win2008 handles it's resources such as Memory, HDD's and Network.

I will agree on the point RE:64bit. This really is annoying, i know that recoding apps and servers is not something to be done lightly, but we need to embrace 64bit. We now stream and watch larger movies (HD) we view larger photo's and usually we do this all at the same time. We are gonna want more and more from our computers, PC's are being spec'd with 2GB and 4GB RAM. Microsoft should have started the push to 64bit earlier.

Sorry to turn this into a 64bit rant, but i find it incredible that Windows client in 64bit format is more of an afterthought with Microsoft, they should be beating the drum, they should be making sure all their apps are 64bit, showing the rest of the Windows eco-system the way forward. It's amazing to think that after all this time Adobe are finally getting around to releasing a 64bit version of Photoshop!! Why is this so late, image's are massive the hardware is there but the software is restricted.

The server team understand the importance of 64bit and we are finally starting to see a push into it with SQL Server and Exchange, however i can't believe that ISA is not 64bit or at least 64bit compatible.

I just hope the shine of Windows 2008 Server somehow rubs off on the Client team and they release a slim, fast solid client aswell as server.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Agreed
by google_ninja on Tue 16th Sep 2008 20:36 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What blows my mind is that Studio is still a 32 bit app.

I don't know that it would make a huge difference though. They really pushed IPv6, and it didn't really help much (or hasn't yet, at any rate), and the whole TCP Window auto-tuning RFC implementation ended up just being a headache as most home routers dont support it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Agreed
by helf on Tue 16th Sep 2008 23:30 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

heh, low spec'ed = p4 2.4 and up... ;)

/me waves his dual P3-600 cane at you

Reply Score: 3

RE: Agreed
by sakeniwefu on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:41 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

It's not just Microsoft, the entire Windows ecosystem, including the hardware vendors and the free software vendors(wine,reactos and general foss with windows builds) has been ignoring 64-bits for years.
It will be fun when Microsoft and a few selected partners make the move all at once and start supporting only 64-bit versions. The customers will be all already running x64-capable systems so the suggested solution for compatibility problems will be to upgrade to 64 bits.
This day is actually very close, just two hardware generations away at most. As soon as 4GB of RAM is lower end.

Reply Score: 2

surprise ?
by troc on Tue 16th Sep 2008 21:41 UTC
troc
Member since:
2006-05-01

A server OS still limited to two terminals, that is a surprise. Perhaps not coming from microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE: surprise ?
by dwave on Tue 16th Sep 2008 22:58 UTC in reply to "surprise ?"
dwave Member since:
2006-09-19

And no ssh out of the box.
ALso I am not that sure about performance gains. It is certainly more snappy without all those bells and jingles that Vista ships with. I run Vista (with everything switched off) side by side in a virtual machine on Linux and for some of my programmes (mostly IDEs like Delphi and a C# environment) inside the Windows guest it really doesn't make that much of a difference. But if I had to choose I would pick w2k8 - it's more much more pleasant to work on.

Reply Score: 1

Point 10 in article...
by melkor on Wed 17th Sep 2008 06:02 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

I read this and went "huh?". Vista has *not* been that bad, most of the IT media should be bloody well shot for fear mongering and slander of product. Sure, if Vista had been crap, go for it, bash it, but it's far from it. Sure, it has some issues, but hey, do any of you guys remember XP pre SP1 and what a dog it was? In fact, it was far WORSE than Vista pre SP1 imho.

The majority of issues with Vista are driver, and that is NOT, and NEVER was, Microsoft's fault. Those issues belong to damn well lazy a$$ hardware manufacturers.

His argument on 64 bit is weak - that's again, not Microsoft's fault (unless it's their software of course), but 3rd party software vendors.

I've heard very good things about Server 2008, if you're running 2003 it's probably not worth updating, but server 2000 I'd say go for it. Of course, the old adage "if it ain't broke..." does apply I guess.

I find his comments about NT4 odd - since it's long since been OUT of support etc. Anyone using NT 4 in a production system should be bloody well shot at Martin place at dawn!!!

Dave

Reply Score: 3

RE: Point 10 in article...
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 17th Sep 2008 08:51 UTC in reply to "Point 10 in article..."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

To be fair, Microsoft has been a lot more aggressive in pushing 64-bit clean software on particular servers than on the client. I was quite surprised that any server-side software currently released by Microsoft does not run on 64-bit WS08. Those teams in Microsoft should fix their code or be "bloody well shot," to borrow your phrase.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Point 10 in article...
by tweakedenigma on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:22 UTC in reply to "Point 10 in article..."
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

Although I'm not s big Vista fan, I do agree with you and a number of the people on here that its not as bad as its painted. For the record I don't like it and don't use it but I can say the same about XP, Its really more I'm not productive or comfortable in the Windows Environment.

That being said, I think the strong Vista hate is more a product of there being better options then there where in 2001. At the time Linux was still not near desktop ready and OSX was still in its infancy. we had just come off the mess known as Windows ME, and people needed something else and their was nothing but Windows XP that could do the job.

Today on the other hand, OSX is a fully functioning and rather impressive operating system, and Linux Distro's have come a long way in the desktop experience (I dare say its on par with Windows). My point is that now when people say they don't like Vista, they look around and see options and get excited, and this amplifies their Vista hatred I think.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Point 10 in article...
by melkor on Wed 17th Sep 2008 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Point 10 in article..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

mmm...well...

OS X is done by a nasty monopolistic company that is really not very nice. I tend to avoid it based on principle alone. Hardware support is poor, although that's not necessarily Apple's fault, but 3rd party hardware vendors. 10.5 has had a massive amount of bugs, most of which haven't been addressed. In fact, there are many bugs from earlier releases that have not been addressed by Apple. Apples hardware is still very expensive (compare a macbook pro to a PC based equivalent laptop - it's several hundred dollars more expensive).

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/notebooks_be...

Look at the XPS M1530 - AU $2199, 300-400 cheaper than Apple's best effort. Better support, just as well made. Apple is ONLY doing well because of the iPod effect, and God knows why so many people are buying iPods. I call it the iPod lemmings - because someone else buys it, others do. They don't buy it for price/quality/features/performance, but simply buy it like little lemmings...brainless lemmings.

Linux is better than it was in 2001, but is still not desktop ready imho. Linux has potential, but unless a great many things are changed, it will never become mainstream. Dare I say, many of those using Linux are using it to avoid having to pay money to Microsoft, or to Apple for its hardware tax. I guarantee that the vast majority of those now using Ubuntu instead of Windows were previously pirating Windows. Well, that's my experience at least. We're seeing a dumbing down effect with Linux to cater for all these dumb ass ex Windows users, and it isn't pretty. Linux has a long, long, long way to go.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Point 10 in article...
by tweakedenigma on Wed 17th Sep 2008 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Point 10 in article..."
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

I'm gonna have to call BS on this.

First I agree Apple could do a better job on the security front (at least from a patch perspective, so calm down fanboys/girls), But they do make products that bundle rather well together. The people at least from what I have seen, that by Apple products are looking for the experience. What I mean by that is many I know have an Apple desktop, Laptop, Ipod, AppleTV and such and they enjoy the seamless integration they get with all the products combined. Granted there is an extra hardware tax, but that doesn't make their products bad.

As for the Linux front I would dare say you are just out and out wrong. I have helped a great number of people move to Ubuntu or other Distro's and not one of them did it due to cost, and not one of them had been pirating MS software. Most of the people that I know, or have helped move were looking for a better user experience, and for most they got it. Did some of the people move back to Windows sure, did some end up getting a Mac yeah, but I would say 80% were quite happy with their Linux experience.


Also do you avoid MS for being a Monopolistic company or is that just a convenient argument for fanboyism?

Edited 2008-09-17 20:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Point 10 in article...
by melkor on Thu 18th Sep 2008 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Point 10 in article..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I'm not saying Microsoft isn't a monopolistic anti competitive company - it is. If you know my history, you will know that I have been damning of Microsoft in the past, and still are. For me, they make a better product. I like the open architecture of a PC. I like building my own PC. Screwing with a Mac is well...not fun (for the most part).

As to Linux - let's just say my experience is different. I work in IT support for a local ISP, and in 9 months, guess how many Linux users I've had - 2. Out of thousands and thousands of customers (I average 50-60 calls per day, do the maths). Everyone of them has had issues - one with an older serial modem that was not being detected by Linux at all, and the other with a serial modem that was detected, but would not create a PPP connection. Admittedly, he was using Fecora core 2 (he's on dialup and cannot download a 4gb file!). That reminds me that I promised to burn a copy of Fedora core 8 and send it his way, so thanks.

Linux is still over complex. Even Ubuntu. It is too easy to break, and too difficult to maintain over a long period of time. Whilst not Linux' fault directly, it's not the easiest of multimedia systems to set up. True, some setups have made it far easier (Ubuntu especially), but I would argue that their linking to sites to download packages for playing mp3s and DVDs is actually illegal. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually agree with the crap that Linux has to put up with regards to decss etc, but that's life, it isn't going to change and we have to deal with it.

Dave

Reply Score: 3