Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:26 UTC, submitted by rexstuff
Windows Windows Vista has been out and about for a while now, and it has already been updated with a service pack, with a second service pack on its way. Vista's successor, Windows 7, is also getting closer and closer to release, but despite all that, Windows XP is still going strong, and demand for the operating system remains high. Because of that, Microsoft has yet again extended Windows XP's lifetime for OEMs and resellers.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:39 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Don’t worry, I’m sure Microsoft can mess 7 up with too many versions, hair-brained licencing schemes, activation/drm hoops to jump through and a ridiculous price ;)

Whenever I think of marketing, I remember the Dilbert episode where he gets a job at a successful company that has no marketing department and, by mistake, introduces them to the concept of marketing. The company then falls apart and burns to the ground in a mass of chaos.

Edited 2008-12-22 22:42 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Kroc
by poundsmack on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

haha i love that episode. that one and the shrowd of wally are 2 of my favorites.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh, they certainly could mess up 7. I'm hoping they don't, and that the Vista experience made them actually take a look at their marketing department. By all accounts, 7 is shaping up to be a very nice release, but even the best releases can be destroyed through mismanagement and hype and that goes for any company, not just Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I just want one version for £90 with no activation.

Can you see why I’m a Mac user? ;)

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Hey, I here ya ;) . I'm a Mac user as well.
I'm not sure you'll get Windows as cheap as you want it, but they really could just make one freaking edition and that's it. The only reason Apple can offer OS X as cheap as they do is because they make money off of Mac sales. Microsoft doesn't make much money off of individual PC sales, so they compensate. Plus, people will buy it, and they know that. Vendor lock-in plays a part in this. To Apple, your additional OS X purchases are regarded as upgrades. Even though they can be installed cleanly, the idea is that you bought that disk to upgrade from a previous version of OS X. You've already got an OS X license, which you paid for at the same time as your Mac--a package deal, if you will. It's a different mentality. Also, they're trying to make their os more attractive to both individuals and enterprises at the moment.
And how long do you think it would be, if OS X were to ever run on standard PCs officially, before an activation scheme would be introduced? At the moment, Apple really doesn't have to worry about it, but they'd implement something in a heartbeat if piracy of OS X became as rampant as it is with Windows.
Don't get me wrong, I love OS X and the Mac platform. I'm glad OS X is so cheap compared to Windows, and I'm glad there's no activation. Just trying to point out why this is the case, and that it is like comparing Apples and oranges (yes, pun intended).

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The only reason Apple can offer OS X as cheap as they do is because they make money off of Mac sales.

This message brought to you (in living color) from the surreal parallel universe in which OS X is inexpensive.

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

OS X is, in and of itself, inexpensive at $129 USD as compared to Microsoft's pricing. I never said it was the cheapest os around, and I never said Macs were cheap. I was making a comparative point. No reason to get nasty.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by cyclops on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

You should look at pricing worldwide, Vista Ultimate costs more than 2 computers where I live...and Linux+openoffice is well cheaper. Thats why I now spend all my money on hardware on an OS that does not restrict me from doing so.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I was making a comparative point. No reason to get nasty.

No nasty here. It's just that hearing people compare Windows and OS X prices always sounds to me like a price comparison of different kinds of caviar.

I'm more interested in spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, zucchini, tomatoes, brussels sprouts, corn, bell peppers, mushrooms, and carrots. I sometimes discuss the price of asparagus, though.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Haha, point taken.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by graigsmith on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
graigsmith Member since:
2006-04-05

if you don't look at the price of entry. that's true. but look at the price they tack on to the hardware. and it's really for the most part just stock pc hardware, that's been designed by apple. < you just pay a ton more for the design.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by linumax on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

Speaking of cost, there's price, and then there's release cycle.

You pay for XP (2001) and for Vista (2007). ==> 2x

Meanwhile, you pay for Cheetah(/Puma) (2001), Jaguar (2002), Panther (2003), Tiger (2005) and Leopard (2007). ==> 5x

However, both OSs come installed, and most non-techie Mac/Windows users that I know (ie. rep. of majority of market), never bother upgrading their OS, until they buy their next machine.

The point above, to some extent, deals with the issue of customer confusion as well. Also, I believe only three editions of Vista are available off the shelf, not that hard to choose from, and still upgradeable at any time.

Of course a single version is preferred, but Microsoft is marketing it's product to a much larger base, so they can make a few more bucks by having different price ranges.

Edited 2008-12-23 00:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by cyclops on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Actually most people Didn't pay for Vista

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lteo on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lteo Member since:
2007-03-25

Also, I believe only three editions of Vista are available off the shelf, not that hard to choose from, and still upgradeable at any time.


There are actually six editions of Windows Vista (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions):

Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate

And all those editions except Starter have a 64-bit version. So in total there are actually 11 editions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There are actually six editions of Windows Vista (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions):

Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate

Which only goes to show that no matter how well you plan, you're still likely to miss something important. In this case "Windows Vista Nonstarter".

Edited 2008-12-23 01:55 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by centos_user on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

Quote...

Also, I believe only three editions of Vista are available off the shelf, not that hard to choose from, and still upgradeable at any time.


There are actually six editions of Windows Vista (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions):

Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate

And all those editions except Starter have a 64-bit version. So in total there are actually 11 editions.

end quote


This is one word, confusing I think the end consumer is being cheated I know it is a free market however; Microsoft has the market cornered every PC comes with Windows unless you get some undesirable unit hidden on a manufacturers website. Or you build your own machine and install whatever OS you want. To me it is really a travesty for the end user (consumer) that pays hard earned money and gets something that is plague with issues/viruses/malware/trojans it is beyond ridiculous.

I am not sure if anyone has seen the Mac commercial demonstrating UAC on Windows Vista it is entertaining but true.

The issue with MS Windows is the fact they tried to implement a security layer on top of an existing insecure operating system. I just do not understand the logic behind keeping an insecure design around, Corporations are not jumping on the Vista bandwagon they are avoiding it like the Malaysian flu. That is why MS keeps extending the XP, I think they should stop the non-sense of upgrading OS's every year or two.

There is no advantage moving to another Windows OS when the same problems follow it right along. I do see that Mac's are selling quite nicely since the boon-dogle of Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by judgen on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

I think you missed the version they have to release in France without the mediaplayer. Not widely sold though, ive only seen it once in a shelf.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Doc Pain on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Sorry fo entering this discussion, but the list of different "Vista" editions reminded me to a cartoon of "The Joy of Tech". This it is:

http://beconfused.com/images/2007/01/the-joy-of-tech-the-many-editi...

I hope you can forgive me mentioning it. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by S Barringer on Wed 24th Dec 2008 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
S Barringer Member since:
2008-12-24

Yup, me too, but I'm running Linux distros (flavors change frequently). A few bucks and I'm in business. Microsoft needs to change it's business model (commonly known as greed).
When I find a distro that perfectly fits my needs, I'm happy to pay the developer a reasonable price for his work. I resent being screwed (forced to pay through the nose) by some company (unnamed, but you know who I'm talking about) out of high dollars for a piece of crap! Then, I resent having to beg for an activation code every time I change a piece of hardware which is very frequently. This is a big irritation to me.
Thus, Linux.
But, I do hope that Windows 7 turns out to be a quality piece of work so that those who don't like steep learning curves (like Unix geeks) will finally get what they pay for.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by poundsmack on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

don't worry about 7. as long as they include direct x11 and dont stray frmo the path they are on now its going to be a nice solid release. like really solid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

don't worry about 7. as long as they include direct x11 and dont stray frmo the path they are on now its going to be a nice solid release. like really solid.


I doubt it very much. They will still include DRM, WGA and fundamental security vulnerabilities in Windows 7. Windows 7 will still have a core architecture derived from Vista, and hence retain Vista's driver incompatibility with and hardware that was out of production before Vista's launch ... which includes a large number of printers and NAS devices.

Windows 7 will still be written in the best interests of big business America, rather than the best interests of the end users who will nevertheless be expected to pay for it. There will still be all kinds of functions inextricably embedded in the core of the software which oppose or restrict what the end user of the system may do with his or her own system.

Hardware manufacturers (rather than OS suppliers) will still be expected to write the drivers, and there will still be zero incentive for hardware OEMs to do that for hardware they have already sold.

Windows 7 will hence very likely be almost as borked as Vista is. It will barely be better than a Vista service pack ... except that, unlike a service pack, you will have to pay for it.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows 7 will hence very likely be almost as borked as Vista is. It will barely be better than a Vista service pack ... except that, unlike a service pack, you will have to pay for it.


And I assume you all base these conclusions on usage of Windows 7? Or, as usual, are you pulling all this out of your GNU ass?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Windows 7 will hence very likely be almost as borked as Vista is. It will barely be better than a Vista service pack ... except that, unlike a service pack, you will have to pay for it.


And I assume you all base these conclusions on usage of Windows 7? Or, as usual, are you pulling all this out of your GNU ass?
"

Testy, testy Thom.

I base my conclusions on what Steve Sinofsky promises for Windows 7 ... or rather on what he doesn't promise for it.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9951638-56.html

Sinofsky actually promises very little:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/wh...
Windows 7 just isn’t all that exciting. It seems to be more about fixing the ills of Vista and improving the experience of using existing capabilities, than taking any giant leaps forward.


Unfortunately they talk about performance, but then utterly fail to mention what is really wrong with Vista, which is Vista's many anti-user features.

Nowhere, nowhere at all, is their ever any mention from Microsoft of really fixing what is wrong with Vista (from the point of view of the people who are expected to pay for Vista). Wake me up when Steven Sinofsky comes out and promises that Windows 7 will have no WGA, no DRM, no call-home spyware of any kind, and no other anti-user features. Wake me up when Sinofsky promises that Vista will come with Microsoft-written and tested Vista/Windows 7 compatible drivers for out-of-production (or legacy) peripheral hardware that people may own.

Then, finally, and only then, there might actually be substance in the vague promises of better performance and of "fixing Vista" via Windows 7. Then, and only then, would Windows 7 possibly become something worth paying for from the point of view of people who are actually expected to be paying for it.

PS: In all this, please don't misunderstand ... I do agree with Microsoft and with Sinofsky that Vista does have miserable performance (compared with any other OS on the same hardware), and that Windows 7 should be aimed at addressing that problem as well:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=java_vm_performa...

Edited 2008-12-23 09:35 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wake me up when Steven Sinofsky comes out and promises that Windows 7 will have no WGA, no DRM, no call-home spyware of any kind, and no other anti-user features.


What is this "DRM" that you speak of? I've been using Windows products for a while now, including Windows Vista and Windows 7, and even though people like you keep blabbering on about it, I've never actually encountered any problems, limitations, or whatever from it.

Personally, I've never experienced this whole "DRM" thing you get so excited about in Windows.

I also don't know about any "phone home spyware". WGA is Microsoft's perogative, and I've never been bitten by it, and at OSNews we've already reported about how much improvement there has been, with false positives effectively eliminated. In other words, in case you're a pirate, well, then it's your own damn fault. WGA exists for a reason, and it's a damn nuisance, but only once, after installation.

Unless you're being a pirate, in which case it's your own damn fault.

In any case, we've established that you didn't actually try out Windows 7, which means that your opinion is void. Not that that needed any verification, but it's nice to know.

Edited 2008-12-23 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by Adurbe on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

the drm is slightly annoying for systems without an active net connection as you have to call that damn phone system to get the key

Other than that, not TO much of a hassle

ANNOYING drm is like that on the game Spore. Unless you have a net connection it will not start (it needs to verify the key on launch?!!??) This means I cant play it on the train :-(

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by ssa2204 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

What is this "DRM" that you speak of? I've been using Windows products for a while now, including Windows Vista and Windows 7, and even though people like you keep blabbering on about it, I've never actually encountered any problems, limitations, or whatever from it.

Personally, I've never experienced this whole "DRM" thing you get so excited about in Windows.


DRM is the 1 pound gorilla that some wish to inflate to 800 pounds, without having a clue to what it actually is. A sad irony is that 99% of those bitching about DRM are in fact certain types that do not use Windows anyways. Even sadder still is that most simply continue to even be clueless to this day about what it really is.

Since Vista's release, I have yet to see one credible article not written by some Linux fanboy actually discussing how badly DRM is affecting their "freedom". Funny, they also do not seem to write too many articles on how HD content can be played on certain platforms (so, when is the last time anyone played a Blue-Ray in Ubuntu without hassle?) Maybe if some would actually care to educate themselves about why DRM is in Windows, they could finally just move on with their lives.

I also don't know about any "phone home spyware". WGA is Microsoft's perogative, and I've never been bitten by it, and at OSNews we've already reported about how much improvement there has been, with false positives effectively eliminated. In other words, in case you're a pirate, well, then it's your own damn fault. WGA exists for a reason, and it's a damn nuisance, but only once, after installation.

Unless you're being a pirate, in which case it's your own damn fault.


Since XP's release I have had one single encounter with activation failure. It seems more that people just want to bitch about WGA because they can no longer pirate Windows as easily as other software. Of course these complaints again come from people that never use any Microsoft product to begin with, and have a philosophy that ALL software should simply be free. Still waiting on the explanation of the economics of how all the developers out there are going to make a living.

In any case, we've established that you didn't actually try out Windows 7, which means that your opinion is void. Not that that needed any verification, but it's nice to know.


Well put. Frankly it would be nice to be able to just filter out fanboys who simply want to troll. If they love Linux so god damn much, why not spend the energy and time improving on that beast instead of worrying about a product they will never use.

As I have said a million times before, I don't drive Fords, I do not like Fords, but I sure in the *#@& do not spend my time EVER worrying or even thinking about Fords. In fact I have not a clue to what cars they are even making these days. I like Saabs, so I spend my time visiting Saab related sites, not Ford sites bashing them because they are not Saab or Porsche.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Wed 24th Dec 2008 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What is this "DRM" that you speak of? I've been using Windows products for a while now, including Windows Vista and Windows 7, and even though people like you keep blabbering on about it, I've never actually encountered any problems, limitations, or whatever from it.

Personally, I've never experienced this whole "DRM" thing you get so excited about in Windows.


I've never been bitten by Windows DRM either ... because I don't use Windows Vista, because Windows Vista is such a performance dog (probably BECAUSE of the DRM).

However, people do come to me for advice from time to time, when something is not working as they would like on their systems. My nephew was telling me just two days ago about how he was unable to burn mp3 files onto blank CDs which he could then play in his car. Vista wouldn't let him do this (I didn't ask him where he got the mp3 files from).

I personally like to "rip" my own CDs (that I have legitimately purchased) and compress them down to mp3 files, and burn them on to a CD, so that I can play that CD in my car. The single CD can now contain multiple albums worth of music, which saves fumbling around in the car trying to replace CDs. Much safer. AFAIK, Vista won't let you do even this ... the compressed music files that Vista lets you make are, AFAIK, encrypted so that they will only play back on that same Vista system that compressed them in the first place.

I also don't know about any "phone home spyware". WGA is Microsoft's prerogative, and I've never been bitten by it, and at OSNews we've already reported about how much improvement there has been, with false positives effectively eliminated.


You don't replace many motherboards or hard disks or video cards on older systems then Thom, I take it? You don't have to repair older systems that people bring to you that have been riddled with malware beyond redemption, and the owners can't provide you with the CDs that came with their computer originally (even though there were some)?

Edited 2008-12-24 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Adurbe on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, where did you get your Windows 7 from?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by cyclops on Wed 24th Dec 2008 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I like the new Thom ;) no more pretending to be unbiased.

Have you used the released version of Vista II....oh you haven't, that's because its not RTM, you can merely speculate.

Of course however you look at it its making a silk purse out of a sows ear. You can only argue that Microsoft have will pull this feat off.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by unclefester on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 23:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The Australian Pepsi bottling licensee never advertise and has no marketing department. They simply sell Pepsi at a lower price than Coke - mostly through supermarkets. It seems to work well.

Reply Score: 3

Vista; Vista II; DirectX 11!?
by cyclops on Mon 22nd Dec 2008 23:59 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Seriously in an article that highlights Vista as a poorly scalable OS and an unwanted one with users companies opting for a *8year old OS*. I'm a little bit frightened that every Vista User here is pining for an unreleased OS. I can't but help think I have been here before.

I predicted that Vista would be everywhere after a couple of years but its not. Its unwanted an unloved.

The strangest thing is Vista II's greatest success to date has been its marketing, and Vista's greatest failure was technical+DRM.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Vista; Vista II; DirectX 11!?
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:17 UTC in reply to "Vista; Vista II; DirectX 11!?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I predicted that Vista would be everywhere after a couple of years but its not. Its unwanted an unloved.

Yeah. I figured the same. It has been very interesting to watch what I thought was assured *not* happen... for a change. MS, it seems, can no longer force people to move to their latest "offering", even with all the leverage they control. Now its up to someone else to offer something that will truly attract those recalcitrants. ;-)

Edited 2008-12-23 00:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Vista; Vista II; DirectX 11!?
by poundsmack on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:32 UTC in reply to "Vista; Vista II; DirectX 11!?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

vista had a lot going for it; MS completely rewrote the networking stack, the sound stack, created a new hardware-based graphics API (WPF), locked down the kernel, added promotable admin rights, put IE in its own sandbox, redid the way memory is managed, added IO priorities, seriously improved wake-from-sleep time, etc.

unfortunatly it didnt polish it up at all. well with 7 the polish comes on and its good. realll good.

Reply Score: 3

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

vista had a lot going for it; MS completely rewrote the networking stack, the sound stack, created a new hardware-based graphics API (WPF), locked down the kernel, added promotable admin rights, put IE in its own sandbox, redid the way memory is managed, added IO priorities, seriously improved wake-from-sleep time, etc.

unfortunatly it didnt polish it up at all. well with 7 the polish comes on and its good. realll good.


Like they did with Vista...and its still DRM infected. Benchmarks are showing little to no improvements to performance....because it is Vista.

The reality is though because of the way Microsoft release you are due a whole host of new regressions.

Thats ignoring all the stuff users hate...change even if it is for the better.

Reply Score: 3

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

You're not actually quoting that Randall , are you? I thought we all agreed that guy, quite frankly, doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground, and has been relegated to "troll" status.

Reply Score: 2

Whatever the price...
by cmost on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:35 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

People can argue about the pricing differences between
Windows and Mac OSX ad nauseum. What it comes down to in my book is SKUs and fair use, as well as fair market value. I was once a loyal Windows user; I waited in line the night that Windows 95 launched. At the time, there was only one version of consumer Windows and that was 95. Professionals waited a year later for NT 4.0. I then proceeded to faithfully upgrade to each successive version: 98, 98SE (thankfully I skipped ME) and finally I moved over to Windows 2000. I did this at a hefty price no less. By the time XP came out with myriad of versions and draconian activation I'd decided I had enough and made the leap to Linux. (I haven't looked back since.) I think that someone upgrading from the immediately preceding version of Windows should pay less than someone who's upgrading from a version further down the line. For example, Vista users should pay substantially less to upgrade to Windows 7 than XP users or Windows 2000 users (who probably won't be elligible for upgrades anyway, knowing Microsoft.) Furthermore, Microsoft needs to go back to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! There should be no more than two versions of Windows 7: Personal and Professional and these should cost no more than $75.00 and $125.00 respectively (full retail.) The OS should be lean and mean and contain nothing more than the essentials. Any other superfluous features such as themes, Media Center, Movie editing, games, etc., should be available via separate PLUS! packs. Users should be allowed to install their copy on two machines: desktop and a notebook. A family license should be available for households that contain 3 to 5 computers. Is this too much to ask? So much in this world has been destroyed in the name of greed.

Reply Score: 12

centos_user
Member since:
2008-11-16

Let me get this right, ok (if) I was a Windows XP user I will not be able to purchase or buy it if I wanted to.

Next up, Vista lots of issues, Corporations are not converting over to it because it is not worth the hassle and the money to re-engineer/purchase new equipment when companies are slashing jobs in order to prevent bankruptcy.

Lastly, (if) I was a consumer/corporation I shell out MORE money for the magical Windows OS 7 because they say it is so great. Look at the graphics, look at the icons, meanwhile in reality, Viruses, Malware/Spyware run amuck in Windows land with no end in sight. I really think if you took all of the money spent on security/design flaws in the Windows lineage you could most likely bail out the auto-makers with it.

Not only the expense for the software license, the end user pays for a Anti-Virus, a REAL firewall, and other utilities to rid the machine of constant infections of trojans, ect...

This is reality, I see no ROI on investing more money in a failed Operating System Vista/Windows 7 or any other scheme they can cook up.

Red Hat will be supporting a release for 10 years, there is NO reason to upgrade from XP/Vista/Windows7 why should the end user change?

Will it help with productivity, what about viruses, trojans, they follow every Window release and money spent. I will be amazed how MS can pull this off with the current Economic climate, every week companies lay off more workers, will this make a company productive by spending thousands of dollars on MORE hardware/software to get a new set of screensavers, icons and pretty graphics?

I hardly think so, MS will find out no matter how large of a company you are and how much money that comes in it can fail. The bigger the company the more money it takes to keep it afloat. I am sure no one would have imagined how many Banking/auto makers would be failing and cutting jobs. I do not forsee companies chomping at the bit to spend money on re-writing applications and buying more software when they are barely clinging onto existence.

Edited 2008-12-23 01:33 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

I wish I could have modded you up to 100, but alas.
Never a truer word written in these forums.

Current Computers and operating systems can do everything a person/company needs today without buying new hardware or software. And if there is some niche that needs filling, third parties will create the pieces needed for free or for profit at a fraction of the cost of new everything.

When the world is in financial collapse, only a fool would buy new hardware and software that offers nothing new.

Reply Score: 2

Choices? So now having options is bad?
by ssa2204 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 02:35 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Let me get this straight here, you people are bitching that there are too many options available for Vista? Huh? In other words if there was only ONE version of Vista, let's not bullshit here, you would be complaining that there WASN'T any choices...you know kind of like how it was a few years back with XP! Back in 2000/01 people whined that there was only 2 options, home and professional.

Majority of people do not pay for retail Windows, they get their copies OEM with their PC. 95% of business either get theirs OEM via the MFR, or through a volume license purchase. So comparing Windows prices to Apple is really such a fruitless endeavor.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Let me get this straight here, you people are bitching that there are too many options available for Vista? Huh?


Well, I might be interested in a version with full support for open standards and without the DRM/WGA/other un-removeable closed software. If software is removeable, there is no incentive for the software vendor to put things in it that are against my best interests (as the purchaser and end user of the software) ... because if they did that then I would remove the software.

Since I cannot buy any version of Windows that does not contain un-removeable software that works against my own interest, then clearly there are not enough versions of Windows such that any version at all appeals to me.

Reply Score: 3

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Well, I might be interested in a version with full support for open standards and without the DRM/WGA/other un-removeable closed software.
...
Since I cannot buy any version of Windows that does not contain un-removeable software that works against my own interest, then clearly there are not enough versions of Windows such that any version at all appeals to me.


You want THAT from Windows? You might as well put "RMS's face as the boot-up logo" in your list too, because that's equally likely to happen.
Too bad, apparently Microsoft will have to skip out on the potential Mega$ that you'd have given to them because they have failed to please tha great lord.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Well, I might be interested in a version with full support for open standards and without the DRM/WGA/other un-removeable closed software.
...
Since I cannot buy any version of Windows that does not contain un-removeable software that works against my own interest, then clearly there are not enough versions of Windows such that any version at all appeals to me.


You want THAT from Windows?
"

Sure I do if I am expected to pay for it. Most definitely.

I am even more unreasonable than that: I'd expect that I should be able to choose which functions I run on my own equipment. I expect to be able to access and manipulate my own data with whatever software I choose. I expect to be able to choose the best deal from any of multiple possible software suppliers, in an classic free market supply-and-demand economy. I expect to be able to attain and run software of my own choosing, for my equipment and my IT needs, to process my own data in any manner that I please.

Fussy, aren't I? How unreasonable is that?

If I don't choose to run Windows because of some of the embedded functions it mandates, then I won't buy anything that forces me to accept such functions on my equipment.

Unfortunately, in today's market, these "unreasonable demands" often means that I buy my equipment piecemeal, and plug the bits together, and install the (non-Windows) operating system myself.

Fortunately, with modern liveCD install methods, and "upgrade kits" utilising "last years model" hard disk and CPUs, I am able to easily afford the couple of hours effort it takes to put the systems together and set them up from the savings I make with buying non-cutting-edge (read: not-Vista-capable) hardware. In the end the performance is better than shop-bought even though on paper the hardware looks as if it should be under-performing.

Reply Score: 4

-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

Hmmm... interesting. Could you please tell me what software Microsoft is stopping you from using on Windows?

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hmmm... interesting. Could you please tell me what software Microsoft is stopping you from using on Windows?


By refusing to sell it, Microsoft is stopping me from running any of its own applications on Linux. By refusing to offer those applications for Linux, Microsoft is severely inhibiting the uptake of Linux. Because there is not significant uptake of Linux, other software OEMs also do not offer their products for Linux.

In addition, Microsoft is actively promoting the use of a single-platform development environment, and trying its best to suppress the adoption of cross-platform development environments, in a bid to make it as difficult as possible for software vendors to write applications once that are easily ported to multiple platforms. Microsoft is also actively trying to put as many license and IP issues in place as it can to prevent data interoperability between platforms, so that not only are applications restricted to its platform but also so are the data that applications produce.

Microsoft refuses to support open standard data formats and web presentation where they exist, and promotes its own proprietary formats in their place, to further try to reduce the feasibility of use of any platform other than their own, in direct contravention of the whole concept of the web in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

If you stop for just one second and look at the bigger picture, you'll realise that business isn't philantropy.

Even it Microsoft wasn't evil, consider the following business scenario: you have a platform with a known history of support issues (Linux)*, with low uptake, and a huge project. Are you going to do "the best for that platform" for a minor economic advantage, or are you just going to make your product better on the platforms where the product is already running?

Let's face it, ALL the major companies are guilty of the sins you mention, Microsoft is just the most proeminent. For example Adobe of Apple - open data formats? Adobe is finally standardizing PDF (as in "standards body") because it is afraid of XPS.

* What would Office for Linux be? And .rpm? A .deb? A .bin? Obviously, it can't be Open Source, it's one of the crown jewels of Microsoft, and a lot of their technology is really ahead of the others (grammar checker anyone? ;) ).

Reply Score: 1

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Or a dancing Steve Ballmer or Steve Jobs faking a heart attack.

Grow up

Reply Score: 2

aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me get this straight here, you people are bitching that there are too many options available for Vista?


Well yes. In Windows 98 / 98 you could simply choose what components to install either when it is first being installed or later from a control panel tool.

If you wanted something more robust than Windows 95 / 98, Windows NT 4.0 was the way to go.

Now all versions of Vista have the same contents on the DVD, but you have to buy the correct key to "Unlock" the features required. This is not optimal. (You can test this by booting from your Vista DVD and opting not to enter the key you will be presented with a screen listing the editions available to install).

Now add bonuses such as:
1. Windows Product Activation (WPA) - Insult people who have bought a copy of Vista.

2. Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) - The perfect way irritate uses if the WGA servers have a fault.

Now for others to compare:

Ubuntu Linux - You install either Kubuntu or Ubuntu as a base system and can add or remove components after install. (I think other disto's like Open SUSE or Fedora let you customise at install more than *buntu) No WGA / WPA.

MACOSX - At time of install you can select the optional components. (I think you can add and remove components after install (Someone who uses MACOS more than I can confirm?)). No WGA / WPA.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Let me get this straight here, you people are bitching that there are too many options available for Vista? Huh? In other words if there was only ONE version of Vista, let's not bullshit here, you would be complaining that there WASN'T any choices...you know kind of like how it was a few years back with XP! Back in 2000/01 people whined that there was only 2 options, home and professional."

Absolutely correct. Were you not aware that only Linux is allowed to have hundreds of options, and if Windows has options it is too confusing?

NOTE: This is a joke. Please take it as such ;)

Reply Score: 3

Why?
by apoclypse on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 05:08 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

I just don't understand how this day in age MS can't seem to create a decent modern OS that is fast and lean and can run on a netbook. If Vista were't such a beast the netbook market would have boosted sales considerably. I just got my niece an Acer Aspire One for Christmas. While I was setting it up for her I was impressed by how snappy it was for its processing power and it was runnign XP. Meanwhile I had a dual-core Vista machine with 2 GBs running slow as hell for no apparent reason.

It boggles my mind that in this day in age MS would write an OS that bloated with that much resource requirements, knowing full well that one of tts competitors (Linux) is lean and mean and making headway in to the embedded and now netbook market. When Vista was in beta I was perplexed to see the MS was actually expecting the hardware to catch up to them, instead of making their OS as lean as possible. They were expecting a cozy relationship with hardware makers like Intel and Nvidia who are always trying to go faster instead of more efficient. However the market shifted, people (especially the enteprise) started to realize that they basically had a machine that used very little of its resources to begin with and here they have to upgrade to a machine that provides little benefit to what users are already doing. In-fact the market seems to be going the other direction, smaller, cheap, less powerful devices. These devices allow users to do what they need to do at lower cost and at greater portability.

The iPhone is a great example of where the market is heading, imo. Its a device that is low powered, and quite slow, but it still allows for users to email, web browse and even play games. Not aonly can it do these things but the OS used is actually a stripped down version of the same OS used in their much faster line of machines. Which begs the question why couldn't MS do the same, why can't they strip down the kernel to its bare essentials and develop a low resource version of their latest os to use in smartphones and netbooks?

Reply Score: 3

Serves the need
by poidaha on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 06:01 UTC
poidaha
Member since:
2008-05-15

Hello,

I was asked at one time, when i was a linux user
and talking up linux, "what can linux do that i
can't do in windows xp?" Windows xp was a good
improvement over win98 for most of us and the fact that it is still around makes it seem like a 57 chev, Somebody is going to keep it somewhere near by. I build my own or buy used computers. I also still have a win98SE computer. I have no reason to go to riska! I hope that when i just have to give XP, Linux will be ready.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ritesh_nair
by ritesh_nair on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 06:46 UTC
ritesh_nair
Member since:
2007-03-22

I still dont know why people whine about vista. I had 2 CDs with my dell laptop. One was vista sp1 business and the other was xp professional. I could not use vista on it as my company has not yet moved to it(recession and stuff i guess). Since i had the license I installed vista on his dell which he had purchased without an OS. Today his vostro A860 flies and he gets his work done and he feels a lot more secure than he did than when he was with XP. I have worked with Microsoft PSS for Exchange and trust me I have run so many operating systems right from AROS through reactos through linux running wine to windows vista/2008 sp2 beta. It is in my opinion quite a bit of an improvement over XP. It did have issues but sp1 fixed it. I hate the price of it though. Far too expensive. But i quite like the support that I get for it and hte ease of use.

Oh that was out of context.
But trust me Microsoft can screw up windows 7 (mostly with a price)

maybe they will quote!
How much are you stupid to outrageously over spend more today?

Edited 2008-12-23 06:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Was worried for a moment...
by Loki_999 on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 11:57 UTC
Loki_999
Member since:
2008-05-06

A whole page of comments without the word Linux being mentioned!! Fortunately first post on second page mentioned linux, so managed to relax.

Redundant useless post? Yes. This IS the internet isnt it?

Reply Score: 1