“Windows Vista didn’t make a smooth market entrance; in fact, nearly every aspect of the operating system has been attacked since its release on January 30, 2007. Multiple SKUs allegedly confused customers, anti-DRM groups disliked Vista’s Protected Video Path and its overall DRM friendliness, and Microsoft’s definition of ‘Vista Capable’ got the company sued. Toss in a plethora of bugs and the usual consumer backlash over GUI changes, and you’d think consumers would be avoiding Vista in droves. According to new information, however, they aren’t – Vista’s adoption rate over the past year actually exceeded XP’s in 2001, and consumers apparently choose Vista over XP by a 7:1 margin.”
I can’t make sense of it from the article: how is this measured? Do customers actually choose it, or do they simply end up with it pre-loaded? The latter would simply imply that more OEMs are adopting it.
You walk into PC world, you get what your given
The maufacturers made the choice on your behalf. Its only a minority who have the choice and ability to change what version of windows they run
The article clearly talks about this subject.
No wonder, they don’t know how to, most don’t know they even could.
No wonder, they don’t know how to, most don’t know they even could.
My ex, while we were still together, bought a new computer to replace her broken PC. The new one of course had Vista pre-installed, and she did try to use it for a while, but in the end she just told me that it is cr*p compared to XP. She even said the new PC was slower with Vista than the old one with XP. She disliked Vista so much that she wanted me to guide her through the phone how to install XP instead (I couldn’t travel to her place those days).
But she had also one positive thing to say about Vista: it was pretty.
Funny. That’s exactly the same thing that happened when my nephew asked me to replace Vista with – a pirated! – XP: Vista is pretty, but his digital camera didn’t work, he was having issues trying to load his pendrive(!) and although pretty he was lost when trying to use its UI – UAC can be blamed for most of that – and those are just the complaints that I can remember right now. There were lots of others.
To Vista’s credit, there was nothing wrong with the USB access to the camera per se, but that the software that shipped with the camera was a crap that only works well with Windows XP and nothing else. I tried to convince him to use Picasa or something like that instead but he and his wife refused to listen.
Regardless, he demanded me to remove Vista right away and install XP on top of it, so I went to the manufacturer website (this is a brazilian brand), downloaded the drivers for XP – as the restore CD that came with the machine was Vista only – and then went for it!
And I know that this will not be the last time that I do such thing and I also know that I am not alone doing this…
[quote]No wonder, they don’t know how to, most don’t know they even could.[/quote]
And if you ask the personnel of a shop, they will just tell you can’t, either to avoid more questions or because they really don’t know.
What worries me is that even in “technical” forums I read people saying that some PCs are “locked” with Vista. Someone also suggested to replace the hard disk to install XP (?)
The only Vista (as I know) you can’t downgrade is Home Basic. The problem is that most pc and laptop are sold with that ***t.
So most peoples can’t downgrade.
While that may be true, some manufacturers, like SONY, are releasing PC’s that they provide only Vista drivers for.
My company uses their laptops, and we have to start looking at other vendors because Sony refuses to create XP drivers for their new lines of PC’s.
I doubt you really need to get the drivers from the manufacterer. What they do (mostly) is assembling part from other companies, have you checked those other companies web sites?
99% of the times it will work.
The standard drivers (video, sound, storage, etc…) are obtainable, but the control drivers for things such as LCD switching, power management, WiFi controls, are specifically written by Sony for these laptops.
Yes, I could go to Intel to get the actual driver for the hardware, but Sony programmed much of what BIOS would handle via software add-ons that they produce. And they don’t want to produce those for XP on a system designed for Vista.
I’ve seen this with Dell systems as well. One of my users wanted to run 2000 Pro when XP came out, and upon looking for drivers for each part, found that Dell had no drivers for 2000, and tracking down each individual driver would take more time than what I had.
While that may be true, some manufacturers, like SONY, are releasing PC’s that they provide only Vista drivers for.
My company uses their laptops, and we have to start looking at other vendors because Sony refuses to create XP drivers for their new lines of PC’s.
Are you sure you have to ask the manufacturer for the drivers? What they (mostly) do is assembling part made by other companies. Check those other companies websites.
99% of the times it works.
Sorry for all those double posts, I think there is some bug in OSNews, I don’t see the pages correctly.
You can always do it the hard way, with a clean installation.
Of course it’s not an easy operation for the average user, but this will bring us to the same considerations as before: why do they “choose” Vista?
You can always do it the hard way, with a clean installation.
Of course it’s not an easy operation for the average user, but this will bring us to the same considerations as before: why do they “choose” Vista?
Locked? I agree. We bought a Compaq/HP laptop to my brother and it appeared to be locked to Vista by having only Vista drivers. No XP drivers at all. No where. Nothing downloadable. Nothing in recovery partition. And this is not only with this Compaq laptop. Many companies release only Vista drivers. Then the client is forced to use Vista. I tried many Linux distros, but only Fedora and OpenSuse succeeded to start. And both of them are not for my taste. Thus my brother uses Vista.
Edited 2008-01-08 10:50
How is it any different than it was when XP came out then?
Good point. I don’t buy desktop computers, I build them. Thus I am one of the few who have real choice.
However if I bought a laptop, I’d almost certainly end up with a Vista preloaded one(which I’d delete within a few hours).
Thus I’d be put in the stats of those who “bought” Vista.
…that PCs are more ubiquitous and (relative to requirements) cheaper than they were when XP was released, therefore more people are buying Vista-installed machines (i.e. most new PCs for non-techies who may make the non-default choice of XP for OS) than people were buying XP-installed machines after XP was launched.
Could it also be that these statistics do not account for the (surely numerous) people who remove Vista once they discover how horrible it is.
It surely doesn’t count as any part of “the market” people like myself who buy (or even salvage, depending on who the system is for): motherboards; CPUs; memory sticks; video cards and blank hard drives and then download Linux liveCDs, and in that way assemble a cheaper and far better Windows-free system.
Apparently, I am not a part of the computing market at all … even if I do that hundreds of times over.
I am sure there are many thousand like me who do this sort of thing … either as a small business venture or purely as a hobby.
Think of us as “the IT underground”. It is common for mass media articles to utterly ignore us, and to pretend that there is no way to buy a PC other than with Windows on it, but the reality is slowly changing from that assumption.
Then of course there is the beginning of the visible-to-the-public appearance of Linux on mass-market consumer equipment:
http://www.system76.com/
http://www.everex.com/
http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&…
http://eeepc.asus.com/global/
http://laptop.org/laptop/
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6962839488.html
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/8455.html
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/16/intels-mid-umpcs-so-long-xp-vist…
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/05/h9-umpc-runs-linux/
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/sexy-umpc/linux+based-umpc-will-come-wit…
http://www.slashgear.com/ces-2008-e-lead-noahpad-umpc-319281.php
The market is apparently no longer Windows-only.
Edited 2008-01-07 12:47
Sorry but I didn’t know the article was about Linux. I thought it was about Windows, particularly XP vs. Vista usage/adoption.
I must be wrong though.
The article is ostensibly about consumer choice … at least those key words appear in the title anyway.
Consumers don’t effectively get a choice between Vista and XP. Their choice is between OSX and Vista … they also are just starting to be given a choice of Linux, but for the most part they don’t realise it yet.
If the discussion is about consumer choices in OS, as the title implies, then Vista versus XP (which was the exclusive focus of the article text) is not really reflective of reality.
The reality is there is a choice for consumers of Vista, OSX, and just recently Linux at the “low power machine” end of the market.
That was the point I was trying to convey. It seemed on topic to me.
Consumer choice between Vista and XP. Meaning, those people who chose to get a computer with Windows or chose to purchase Vista or XP separately.
Wow man, it’s not that hard. The title explicitely says Vista AND XP in it.
So no, you were not on topic.
Edited 2008-01-08 18:28
Haha, keep kidding yourself buddy. Screw Linux.
remove Vista once they discover how horrible it is.
I have no idea where you get the idea that Vista is horrible. The file copy issue was a big problem for some but that was fixed ages ago.
Right I find it to be the best consumer OS out there although admittedly I have not used Leopard but I did use Tiger for over a year. I recently overwrote Ubuntu 7.10 with Vista because I couldn’t handle how flakey Ubuntu is anymore. Playing a mp3 file would cause the fan to go crazy and on occassion it would even restart the computer. Now I know most people don’t have this issue but from years and years of experience I have using just about every distribution under the sun with different hardware there is always some issue and when something does get fixed there tends to be a regression in later versions.
Same thing here. I am a long term linux user (since 2000)and owned a Tiger powerbook for years have made the switch. Opensuse 10.2 is the last version of a major distro that was about ok on my computer. Ubuntu and Mandriva failed as miserably as opensuse 10.3.
So when I bought a laptop, I got a Vista model and although it’s a disappointment in terms of innovation(MS is so lacking in vision compared to Apple, it’s painful to watch) it does everything I expect, on very nice hardware indeed and looks fine as far as I am concerned. I would never have bought it in its boxed version but pre-installed, it’s alright. Yeah, not great, just alright.
Other than Linux’s failings (in my case anyway) the main reason for me to go Vista is that it runs all the apps I want it to run, just like I use firefox because it runs all the extensions I need whereas Opera or Explorer don’t. I just miss DigiKam but Picasa is fine for now.
I think I’ll be back on Linux when kde 4.0 is mature enough and available on something like the Asus eee.
Edited 2008-01-07 15:03
Your experience is almost identical to mine. I am looking forward to KDE 4 as it matures. I think that linux/KDE can definitely succeed with products like the Asus Eee PC.
I also see Linux as an opportunity for hardware vendors to have more input/control over the product. They can make sure that all the bugs are ironed out and that the UI works well with their product especially with KDE because it is so configurable.
The ASUS EeePC is one of a few new machines coming out actually designed to run Linux.
You should therefore have a stable and trouble-free experience if you run Linux on such a machine, rather than what has gone before where the only machines that ordinary consumers had access to were designed to run OSX or Windows.
Playing an MP3 file made the fan go crazy ?
That is the worse astroturfing I have seen in years.
Go away and come up with something REAL.
Made the fan go crazy and sometimes caused it to reset, I think he said. Sounds a bit like overheating.
Strange, rare problems that never seem to happen to anybody else aren’t exactly uncommon with linux. Maybe he has really poor cooling and a bug caused the mp3 decoder to peg the CPU and catch the RAM on fire or something.
I wouldn’t write him off, but his credibility is probably on the same level as a linux user who complains about the vista file copy problem.
Edited 2008-01-08 07:26
Yes its definitely an overheating issue. The room the computer is in does have poor ventilation – my parents basement
– and we are in the middle of summer here.
In 1998 I started with Linux and have used it a lot. I am no Linux expert but am capable enough to build and install KDE / XFCE / E17 from sources and setup xessions, fix xorg.conf files setup apache to enable for virtual hosts, etc, etc.
Now rhythmbox has never given me this kind of issue before. I think that the problem is likely that gstreamer is not particularly efficient at decoding mp3’s. The sustained high CPU usage caused the CPU to generate too much heat for the cooling to be effective and it the temperature spiralled up causing the restart.
iTunes on Vista appears for more efficient because I don’t have the same problem.
I don’t think that’s likely at all. I’ve never seen high cpu usage when using gstreamer to play MP3’s, be with rhythmbox or quod libet.
You are probably right. I did a google and found this page for Ubuntu http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-446102.html.
From the link, At one point it got so hot it turned off by itself saying it reached the critical temperature (82 degree celcius).
One more thing which I don’t think would be the cause but I installed the universe version of the gstreamer-ugly codecs (I think ugly contains mp3 encode) because the official version had a bug in it which did not allow you to rip your CD’s to mp3.
More PCs sold than in 2001. Vista is preloaded. Simple deduction. Hooray for Roger of Occam!
>Hooray for Roger of Occam!
While I agree with your point, it’s “William of Ockham” not Roger.
Someone evaluated the figures:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/67663,majority-of-new-pcs-ship-withou…
As expected Vista launch is much worse than XP launch, which is not surprising considering that before XP, people used Windows98 which wasn’t very good, but XP is decent so there is no incentive to upgrade.
This only real advantage of Vista is that it has a pretty GUI, and apparently people are not so dumb to mistake a pretty GUI with a real improvement..
What I witnessed over the past few months is that many new computers, especially laptops, come preloaded with Vista but brought a XP recovery CD, too. Many just replace Vista with that. Supposedly Vista Business licenses are good to run XP, so this should not incur any guilt.
Whatever.
“In time, Microsoft will release another OS (Windows 7), and the entire cycle will repeat. Vista will go from the heartily-disliked upstart to the “real” OS that end users vow to clutch unto death.”
I keep seeing this in many articles about Vista, but really I can’t remember many people sticking with 98 or ME when XP rolled around. If there was a huge amount of people who did, please, someone, give me a link to a few articles about it, but I really don’t think that happened.
Personally I remember XP being leagues ahead of 98 when it came out, with the only real hiccups being having to download patches to get a couple of games to run.
“I keep seeing this in many articles about Vista, but really I can’t remember many people sticking with 98 or ME when XP rolled around”
Man after working for an ISP for a few years, that’ll really give you a feel for what people use and like for OSs. I have no hard data, but A LOT of people choose to stay with 98 then upgrade. Downgrade a new computer, not likely, but not upgrade from 98 to XP, sure, they stayed, and in droves. Just like this time.
I suppose that is true in one sense. Removing Vista and installing anything else at all (even XP) is clearly not a downgrade.
I would point out, however that the default image for new office machines at my workplace is XP SP2. For every single office desktop machine that the company buys these days, whatever OS is on the machine at purchase (and I presume that is Vista) is wiped, and XP SP2 is installed.
The only machines that this does not happen to are the blank machines that the company installs Linux on to put into the systems they build and deliver.
Vista? What is that?
Although there are a lot of “sales” here that are listed on the books as Vista sales, none of the machines in question end up running Vista.
I’d imagine a similar situation is happening right now at a lot of companies.
The only muggins are the poor beleaguered “Joe public” computer buyers who are not aware there is any choice, who are offered only Vista, and who have no practical means to run anything else.
“I would point out, however that the default image for new office machines at my workplace is XP SP2. For every single office desktop machine that the company buys these days, whatever OS is on the machine at purchase (and I presume that is Vista) is wiped, and XP SP2 is installed. ”
At my workplace it’s Windows 2000. (Completely unpatched, too, because that’s safer. I wouldn’t know, I’ve been a Linux guy for 15 years now.) Only the software developers are allowed to have XP, and there’s one Vista machine to make screenshots with so our manual looks modern.
I sure hope that “safer” is sarcastic.
The security team where I work broke into a fully patched Win 2000 system in about 6 minutes, using off-the-net tools like Metasploit. It depends on what services the system is running.
I don’t remember exactly, but I think it has to do with enabling file sharing support compatible with Win98 and older systems.
For every single office desktop machine that the company buys these days, whatever OS is on the machine at purchase (and I presume that is Vista) is wiped, and XP SP2 is installed.
Then that company is stupid, since you can get machines with no OS’es and not pay Microsoft twice.
I wonder how many companies employ the method mentioned by lemur2?
Although has been a while since the last time that I’ve seen it, it is not nearly as unusual as you make it out to be (or think it is). The reason that some companies might acquire computers with OSes already even if they don’t intend to use them is because enteprises usually purchase workstations in bulk and, as everybody knows, that means that you get Windows with them as relatively few vendors sell desktop-class machines without an MS OS on it (servers is another story altogether).
Even if you opt for not getting it, you will probably pay the MS tax in the hardware anyway so it would be pointless to refuse to get it as you get the license to use it later if needed… If you want to buy a machine without any OS loaded on it, you would need to build your own or buy whiteboxes from smaller vendors, which most companies won’t do due to warranty and support contracts, mostly.
I worked in several mid-sized to large companies (including some Forune 500 ones) and have seen them doing it all the time. The IT department usually has two or more hard drive images with all the patches, settings and add-ons that the company uses that they use to replace whatever comes with the system when it is deployed.
Well then whoever is leading the IT department in these companies needs to be fired. This is very incorrect to say that “most vendors” sell the desktop with the OS, ESPECIALLY in bulk. In fact I can not think of a single vendor that does NOT offer OS-free desktops. If they do in fact have a vendor that does this, again that IT person should be canned as they simply do not know and where to look for vendors.
When we have desktop orders, for any given model there are usually 2-3 SKUs for each HP or Lenovo. Now this can not be said for consumer/home PCs. But every business class or workstation has availability of XP, Vista, no OS, or depending upon model and MFR FreeDOS, Linux, and even Windows 2000.
So far today in reviewing a client’s PO, I saw that the 2 models of desktops had multiple SKUs, each coming with a different or no OS. This has been this way since as long as I can remember. I also know that the leading vendors such as CDW and Insight do this, because they are purchasing from the same distrib as we are.
I know when the NZ public service acquire their computers, their software is under the select licensing, which allows for deployment not only of software within the organisation but employee’s (as long as they remain employees of the said company) can install it on their home computers.
Many companies I know of will more than happily install all your software on the computer and configure it for you. I know in the case of, like I said, the New Zealand public service, the company who wins the supply contract installs all the software from the software provided by the customer, the vendor installs it, configures it, and its a matter of a drop in replacement.
The problem is that those who go on about “lack of choice” are those who are claiming that their “4 person office” is a representation of the type of leverage big companies have when purchasing software. When you’re a big company, you get what ever you want from the OEM vendor; when you say jump (as the enterprise customer) their only response is “how high”.
Even as a small company you have leverage – the fact is, big companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo are competing against local white box companies. You (those anti-Microsoft people) may scream the perils of Windows Vista and Microsoft, but for the vast majority of small businesses I see around New Zealand, they purchase from local assemblers. They first of all like the idea of helping another small business, and secondly, they like the idea of purchasing their hardware off a vendor whose personal reside in their own country, who can send out “person power” when required (and who are actually answerable to the company rather than an outsourced vendor who answers to no one) and install all the software for them (which the customer supply’s).
Edited 2008-01-07 23:40
My company does the same thing we wipe every new system and install XP.
“I would point out, however that the default image for new office machines at my workplace is XP SP2. For every single office desktop machine that the company buys these days, whatever OS is on the machine at purchase (and I presume that is Vista) is wiped, and XP SP2 is installed.
…
The only muggins are the poor beleaguered “Joe public” computer buyers who are not aware there is any choice, who are offered only Vista, and who have no practical means to run anything else.”
I don’t see how your companies practice says anything about the quality of Vista nor how “Joe Public” is ripped off. At my company, our standard image is Windows 2000 SP4. In no way would anyone make an argument that it is better than Windows XP nor Vista however any new system is wiped out and is replaced instead with Windows 2000. The reason for this is that all the applications have been certified to work with Windows 2000. We are now in the process of standardizing onto Windows Vista. I’m guessing your company is doing the same.
but really I can’t remember many people sticking with 98 or ME when XP rolled around. If there was a huge amount of people who did, please, someone, give me a link to a few articles about it, but I really don’t think that happened.
And rightly so. There was Windows 2000 around, one of the best Redmond os’s still in use. Sticking with Win98 was the bad choice,you are right.
What you’re missing / forgetting / not including is that many gamers did try to run 2k whether they should have or not.. and found it quite incompatible with their games.
I think this gave MS enough feedback to patch the NTFS codebase for XP. To Microsofts credit you’re right in stating that XP had pretty good compatibility with software, or atleast enough to cope with over 98 (by which time even Linux looked better)
Compared to 2k however Windows XP pro was pretty much a 2k workstation with a ‘pretty’ theme and enough 2kSPs hacked in to make it usable as a games machine.
Remember ME was the pass over for home users between 98 and XP and most people (but less than Vista) went back to 98se because apart from the nice 2k icons and a buggy system restore their performance/compatibility sucked.
I’m thinking that the best option MS could have done with Vista was waited a year for 2008 server and then backported the client once they worked out security incompatibilities with games etc (like they did with 2k/XP) … Sadly however economics dont work like that, shareholders and customers were getting tired of an ageing OS and must have pretty much demanded MS did something about the lengthening delay and problems with the original longhorn builds. So they gutted Longhorn (like they gutted 2k) and brought out Vista (like they brought out ME)
I do however believe Microsoft should NEVER have released the ultimate edition of Vista without a solid plan for extra features and benefits.. I believe it was in the plan from the beginning and the shareholders eyes went $^$ when they thought of the price gouging even though MS technicians had already pulled most of the advanced features out of the longhorn builds.
I mention games here a lot because I feel this is where Vista fails the hardest, the performance loss is too high for their FPS fetishes. I also think that these people are the ones on the internet moaning the loudest. As a previous poster pointed out the Business (stripped down edition) of Vista is not so painful to use.
I dont have any insider information on any of this… I’m pretty much anti-MS for many reasons (mostly business) but give them the benefit of the doubt and that’s about the only possible explanation I can give 😐
I am however pretty sure that Windows 7 will fix Vista in the same way XP fixed ME/2k. It’s just a shame that so many people had to have their wallets torn open to get there.. and I think its only their shareholders you can really blame for that, especially taking the $1billion spent on marketing a ‘WoW’ that never happened.
My own person stab on this story is that I’m just glad people are starting to pay attention to alternatives. Competition is always good.
person? personal… gah! 7th paragraph down was meant to be gamers not games… Ah hell you get my point
call this post v6.0 ‘ultimate edit’, multi-lingual support coming shortly
submit bugs/typos to customer support and we’ll release 2008 ‘fixed edition’ for an extra fee
/hides
Edited 2008-01-07 14:07 UTC
I keep hearing over and over again about how poor 2k was for playing games. Well I for one never once experienced this problem, even from the first final release of Win2000.
Perhaps I was just lucky with my selection of games, but my personal experience seems to differ from some of the comments left here
“I keep seeing this in many articles about Vista, but really I can’t remember many people sticking with 98 or ME when XP rolled around.”
Two years ago I was doing some consulting work at the country HQ of a multinational in Taipei, Taiwan. Every machine was running Windows 98. Every single one.
A lot of people did stick with Win9x, for one of the same reasons people aren’t upgrading to Vista: drivers. In the early days of XP, it was “incompatible” with a lot of hardware (as well as software), and people cried that XP sucked and broke everything and they’d never upgrade. After a year or two, those issues were corrected as more drivers were released and software was either patched or the OS was patched (there are today still some apps that run great in 98 but not at all in XP, but they’re few and far between). That will happen with Vista too, eventually. Maybe starting around now, I wouldn’t know (I own a copy of XP solely for testing applications, and I run it in VirtualBox OSE VM on my Linux desktop).
My gf bought a new Toshiba laptop last week, and the first thing I did was (using Toshiba provided drivers) erase it and install XP. How many more are doing this?
If you look at web statistics not a significant number because Vista continues to gain significant usage share at XP’s expense.
“My gf bought a new Toshiba laptop last week, and the first thing I did was (using Toshiba provided drivers) erase it and install XP. How many more are doing this?”
Why don’t you just let your g/f decide instead of forcing your views onto her??
I have Vista buisness, I love it and I would recommend it to everyone.
Yeah, there was a file copy problem initially, but that was fixed a while ago.
It seems to me that people shout about removing Vista and installing XP just to fall into the cool crowd.
40 new laptops on our company, all shipped with Vista. First thing that the MS guys did was to remove Vista and install XP.
Maybe there are things like performance issues and software compatibility? Or maybe they (MS guys) are just trying be cool 
Bought a Toshiba laptop for my wife this past Christmas.
It came with Vista and works fine, if a little slower than I’d like. Not crashy though, and all of the hardware works. I wouldn’t bother downgrading. I don’t even have an XP license.
I find some of the design choices a little goofy, but that might just be me, since the last Windows I used was Windows 2000 and my Windows habits kind of left off there.
If anything, what I don’t get about Vista (besides its continuing “treat users like they’re morons” out-of-the-box defaults) is what justifies it as a new OS. Aside from some cosmetics, it doesn’t seem to add anything significant to XP.
It’s boring. But, as I said, it seems to work okay on the Toshiba laptop.
To me it’s still a matter of assessing it in two ways: vs. other Windows versions, and vs. other operating systems. For the former, aside from it dragging a bit, it seems about the same, and for the latter, well, I wouldn’t use it, but I wouldn’t use Windows, period.
But that’s just me, personally.
I think in time most Windows users will wind up running Vista as they replace their machines. But until some crucial piece of software only works on Vista and not XP, I can see no point in paying to upgrade.
This headline is something sketchy. Stats are what you make of them, and when I read those stats, I don’t make what these writers are making.
I recommend reading the original ZDNet article and thinking for yourself, rather than reading the third-hand or second-hand versions presented here!
Maybe that’s why the headline is between quote marks.
I’m actually a little smarter than you think
. Just a little, though.
Vista is definitely better than XP, but it take a bit of getting used to the new interface – its really quite suprising how much people will cling on to an older interface.
The only thing better on XP is DirectX9, thats only because DirectX9 is emulated on Vista.
Vista is definitely better than XP, but it take a bit of getting used to the new interface – its really quite suprising how much people will cling on to an older interface.
The people I know who ended up getting Vista on new systems they bought said they didn’t like because they felt that they were no longer in control of their system. Not that they didn’t like the new interface.
Did you ask what control they miss? I can’t think of anything besides maybe DRM things but then again those DRM things would not even be available on another OS.
You make that sound as if DRM is a wanted feature.
DRM is not available on most other OS’s, by their choice.
Vista has some technical advantages over XP but it’s flawed in many other ways. So it’s not that simple to say that one is better than the other.
DirectX9 is not emulated on Vista. Vista comes with DirectX10 and DirectX9 layers, and you can also install the latest DirectX9 runtime
Vista in concept is better than XP.. but in implementation it SUCKS. MS really pushed a beta OS out to the general public without getting a lot of very basic issues resolved. Vista is a resource HOG with several known memory leaks. It also has way more stupid bugs than XP EVER did. My wife begged me to go back to XP on her new laptop that came preloaded with Vista. The biggest things that irritated her was not the interface, but the issues with sleep are wake. It made it almost unusable.. This is unacceptable from MS.
That MICROS~1 counts sold XP licenses as a Vista license. Anyone knows more about that rumour?
Then Vista business licenses also work as XP business licenses so in that regard it wouldn’t be far fetched to guess that MS is selling the Vista key when an XP license is requested. That would be one way for them to keep marketing happy by inflating the Vista figures for statistical comparison.
That depends on if the Vista license is also valid for XP isntalls of course. Now there are so many other ways that MS can inflate the figures that any statistics released for marketing (ie. anything released) will be bunk anyhow.
I don’t see the response that the above comments would suggest. I personally used the release of Vista as the final straw to finally push me to Linux full time, but I don’t think that is typical. People buy a new computer, they get Vista, they get used to it.
I doubt that SP1 is going to fix all of Vista’s headaches, but SP2 will probably fix most of them.
People use what they get. If people knew how to install XP, most of them wouldn’t even need a new computer….a lot of times the hardware is fine on their old computer, a fresh install would solve their problem(s). So to say that typical users are downgrading is silly (at best).
A lot of the anecdotal evidence presented is business related, of course businesses are holding off, no one expected otherwise–this is a major upgrade.
Microsoft may have fumbled with Vista–if so–there was no one there to recover the ball and Microsoft recovered.
not sure about that… I think ms has lost a lot of enthusiast marketshare to linux and osx platforms…
I realise that’s a very small percentage compared to the ‘users’ but those users are becoming increasingly diligent asking a geek/enthusiast about their next purchase.
The reasons for turning them onto windows simply because of simplicity is becoming less and less.. and PERCIEVED security is that much lower.*
I hate to say this, but if you watch the linux evangelists on digg… you’ll see the geeks of the ‘future’… usually it was just windows and mac fanboys but the linux count imho has been skyrocketing over the last two years. (digg is a bad example… I’m ashamed to visit there)
It used to be I’d have to visit ./, osnews or whatever before I could find someone using linux… now I hear them popping up on your mom and pop forums… another small recent change – but a change at that.
* Regarding security… I think most vista users feel they are losing ‘control’ due to constantly being asked to cancel or allow….. Not because it’s that much different from linux bsd or OSX but simply because the majority of them only know and have ever used Windows so logging in and out of a supervisor account feels like borrowing your dads car keys again.
Edited 2008-01-07 17:43 UTC
Enthusiasts are a VERY small percentage of the overall user population. Given that Linux has been around for well more than a decade, I’d argue that the impact of enthusiasts on desktop choice is practically zero.
Or, perhaps, geeks of the ‘past’. Windows and OS X aren’t exactly standing still.
Then turn UAC off. It’s really simple to do.
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/19/turn-off-or-disable-user-a…
“Enthusiasts are a VERY small percentage of the overall user population. Given that Linux has been around for well more than a decade, I’d argue that the impact of enthusiasts on desktop choice is practically zero.”
They might be the smallest but since THEY are the ones keeping this hardware train on the tracks THEY are the ones that better get attention or people will refuse to fix f–ktarded computers! You sound like the RIAA right before they started suing their customers. Without the enthusiasts you’d be lucky to be on machines faster than a PII 233 and there would be NO AMD. NO Apache, NO mysql no reason to push telcos for faster uploads…
How many friends and family routinely ask you for your opinion on new hardware and purchase decisions? Or do all your family buy machines from pcworld/costco for £299 and actually expect them to work like a computer?
Just this week I told a friend to be careful buying a laptop till end of this year, he’s a big HD buff and I said look hd hasnt been finalised. USB 3.0 is coming out soon fast as feck firewire wont be long to follow and running behind is SSD…
so he buys one anyway and seems quite happy till he realises it has no HDMI port even though it has HDDVD…. he’s taking it back tomorrow – wish him luck. (and no dont go there with the blu-ray/hddvd rant) I already have!
“Or, perhaps, geeks of the ‘past’. Windows and OS X aren’t exactly standing still. ”
You do realise that the average age on Digg is about 12 right? Go there and look up the linux comments, for the most part I’d hope you’ll start crying. Jesus even the ubuntu forums are putting up warnings that if you give malicious snippets of code you’ll get booted… Why? because shock horror clueless users are actually now giving linux a go!
I’m not saying at all that linux is suddenly gonna eat up everyone over night… but by all accounts I think this is the best position that Linux has ever been in its entire history..
Oh I just HAD to comment on this one… It’s a cracker
“Then turn UAC off. It’s really simple to do.”
Is that what you tell Linux users too… ahhh just login as root, you’ll be fiiiiiine!
*rolls his eyes*
They might be the smallest but since THEY are the ones keeping this hardware train on the tracks THEY are the ones that better get attention or people will refuse to fix f–ktarded computers!
I’m not saying that enthusiasts aren’t useful or productive individuals. They are. But their impact on the market is negligible. They’re skipping rocks in a hurricane.
You do realise that the average age on Digg is about 12 right?
I’m old enough to remember when Apple’s primary strategy was to target the “education market” (K-12). Virtually every school was using Macs, and it didn’t make any difference in Apple’s market share. The irony was that kids used Macs in school but switched over to using PCs because that’s what they used at work. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
I’m not saying at all that linux is suddenly gonna eat up everyone over night… but by all accounts I think this is the best position that Linux has ever been in its entire history..
If I had a nickel for every time that somebody proclaimed “The Year of the Linux Desktop”, I could retire. I’m sure that new people are adopting Linux, but the market for OS X and Windows is ALSO expanding. So, really, where’s the momentum?
Is that what you tell Linux users too… ahhh just login as root, you’ll be fiiiiiine! *rolls his eyes*
Whoa, back up. I’m NOT RECOMMENDING that anybody turn off UAC. I’m simply saying that it’s possible to revert to the old usability model of XP.
This is the second comment in this topic I’ve seen improperly modded down. It does not include personal attacks or offensive language. It is neither spam nor off topic.
So, guys, how does it feel to be childish and petty?
question…. I agree that you should have never been modded down.. but..
errrr did you just mod yourself back up?
“Vista’s adoption rate over the past year actually exceeded XP’s in 2001”
This gives xp 2 months and 6 days of sales in 2001.
So a 7:1 ratio seems about right, 12 months sales vs. 2, when you throw in the fact that more people have computers now than in 2001.
As far as that idea that people only like XP now that Vista is out and that they liked windows 98 when xp was released (let’s all forget about windows ME, I know MS would like to), that is pure fantasy. The only MS OS I remember that people tried to avoid like Vista is ME. If MS releases an OS bad enough to make people think that Vista is good, that will be quite an achievement.
I’m not a Windows user, but the fact that people are starting to buy and use Vista over Windows XP is inevitable. If anyone remembers people weren’t that happy about XP when it was released.
I’d love to see a figure on how sales of Macs has changed since Vista was released. I would not be surprised if Vista proves to be the best marketing tool that Apple ever had.
I bought a laptop at a consumer store and didn’t feel like paying an extra $250 to switch it from Vista to XP. When buying for the company we still buy strictly XP. I would be counted as those that “chose” to switch to Vista when in reality I had no choice in the matter. If I had the choice I’d have picked XP. Yes, I like Aero a lot, but the rest of it especially the new networking interface and file/printer sharing I can’t stand.
Edited 2008-01-07 15:38
Vista is pretty much the only choice for new purchases.
I screwed together a new PC and installed Vista64 a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been pleasantly surprised. Vista 64 so far is fast, reliable and adaptable. Looks darn nice too. It runs all the stuff I need. However, I only got to this point after turning off a lot of stuff and installing third-party security tools (Comodo and AVG). If this is beyond the average user, then Vista may not be quite so easy for them to handle, imho.
Overall, my impression is of a nice OS with a lot of security blather grafted on in a bit of a panic (as was two or three years ago). This gives the impression of security, but how secure it really is – well, that’s another matter. The UI is far too dumbed down and patronizing for my taste, but that’s only me.
Yes, MS did get a few things wrong with Vista. As operating systems mature generally so there is less and less need for anyone to upgrade. MS overhyped and overestimated the original demand. The attempt at market segmentation with the different versions of Vista comes over as clumsy and greedy. XP is good enough for most folks, and currently a much better choice for gamers too. MS is a “one size fits all” operation, just like McDonalds. What you get is always going to be rather bland, rather overpriced and it will never fit you as well as a custom job.
OTOH, Vista gets a lot right that Linux still hasn’t managed, imho. The comparsion of Vista64 with Suse64 or Debian64 (on which I’m typing this) doesn’t do desktop Linux many favours. All those third-party plugins like java and acroread or realplayer that don’t have 64-bit Linux editions, for example, or even whole programs in the case of Opera. 64/32 compatibility is seemless in Vista whereas it’s a DIY pain in the ass on Linux. Considering desktop Linux had a two-year window in which to clean up on amd64, it’s hard not to conclude the penguin has blown it a little. Add in all the excellent open source stuff now available on Windows and I’m wondering whether Vista as well as Mac will begin putting pressure on desktop Linux’s market share.
Not sure how valid it is to compare Vista64 when none of the computers in stores are available with the 64 bit version. My AMD64 notebook came with Vista home basic 32 bit version. If MS and Acer both think we’re not ready for win64 then we’re not ready. Furthermore, you must be running 32 bit browser since the 64bit java plugin still isn’t there for Vista64 either. But really none of the examples you cite are linux’s fault. No 64 bit flash player, shame on Adobe for that. No acroread, why no would you want acroread when the comparable linux products seem to work much better and do have 64 bit versions. Shame on Sun for no 64bit java plugin for any OS. That will be fixed soon we hope now that java is open sourced. And real player? why?
You’re falling into the blame game trap. It doesn’t matter whether it’s somebody’s fault or no one’s fault. What matters is that stuff works, and if it doesn’t then it gets a thumbs down from the general public. I’m sure I’ll be able to struggle by bravely without a few browser plugins on 64-bit Linux (Debian64 lenny is brilliant, imho, and flies too), but the public perception of the platform will be that’s it’s got problems compared to the competition and it’s the perception that counts. Microsoft has made 32 on 64 seamless so that you really don’t notice. You just go ahead and install the stuff, then it works. On Linux, 32 on 64 is still a DIY tangle and even then it may not work. Microsoft may not get everything right but they got this bit right, imho.
I actually run 64-bit Linux. There is no tangle that I perceive. Everything is available out of the repositories and it installs seamlessly and works just fine on my 64-bit system.
Furthermore, Microsoft doesn’t write a lot of the drivers for Windows. For any product that is now out of production (ie. a later model is available, or the supplier has gone bust or left that market) and for which the OEM did not compile a 64-bit driver, the chances are significant that that hardware will never work on Windows 64.
There are very very few 3rd-party Windows applications that were ever released as 64-bit binaries. If you have an older copy of some 3rd party programs that you wish to move to your new 64-bit Windows, then the programs you run will only be 32-bit anyway. You will have to buy a new copy of your software to take any advantage of your 64-bit OS and system.
With my Linux system, all of the programs I run are 64-bit versions, without any cost to me when I upgraded my system from 32-bit.
Edited 2008-01-07 23:58
You’re not seeing a tangle because a) you are conveniently leaving out of your consideration any apps you don’t want to run, and b) you are not comparing it with a similar experience on Vista. This is now how the broader market looks at things. I mean, take a look at the excellent but copious how-to files on the Ubuntu forums and wiki. There are several there on amd64, too. Now ask yourself why, in fact, all these help files are there at all. They are there because Linux still isn’t remotely install and run in many regards. Imagine Joe Average ploughing through this lot after buying into some of the Ubuntu-Linux hype or, on the other hand, installing Vista or more likely continuing with it as it was pre-installed anyway. No-brainer, as they say.
Looking at things only in terms of “works for me” and blaming others for any shortcomings (third parties failing to cough up drivers, etc.) is one of the things that’s keeping Linux at less than three per cent of the desktop market. The key, as I said in my first post, is that the stuff just works – all of it, not just the parts that work for you or me. But of course, that’s just my 2 cents. I run Debian but when I need something it doesn’t do, I don’t claim it’s all hunky-dory mon ‘cos I don’t really need whatever it is anyway. I reboot into Vista.
Not a valid comparison.
What you are doing in effect is wanting to run one specific solution (Adobe Acrobat PDF reader) on Vista64 (because that is all there is), and then moan that that particular solution Adobe Acrobat is not available for Linux64 (when providing that is clearly entirely up to Adobe and has nothing to do with Linux), yet you also want to ignore the fact that there are multiple solutions to read PDF files for Linux64 other than Adobe Acrobat which work just as well.
So you are desperately trying to claim laziness on the part of Adobe is somehow a failing of Linux despite the fact that you are better off for Linux64 because you have a choice of PDF readers.
Furthermore, because it doesn’t suit your position … you are also completely ignoring that your existing collection of closed-source binary-only applications for Windows will virtually all be 32-bit programs only, and hence you will be unable to take advantage of your 64-bit Vista OS extended capabilities anyway unless you re-purchase all of your older software (a situation that doesn’t apply at all to open source applications for Linux as they can simply be re-compiled) and despite all that you STILL are trying to claim Vista64 has the advantage?
What, are you trying to claim it is a better “experience” on Vista to have to re-purchase all your software? Do you also like banging your head against a wall and shooting yourself in your foot?
I’m speechless. I sit here utterly stunned by the chutzpah.
What I’m saying is that Vista64 manages install and run and Linux64 does not manage it so well. That’s because all of it works on Vista64: you install the app whether it’s 64 or 32, and it works. So, in Vista 32 on 64 is transparent to the user. There might be a small speed hit involved, but modern processors are so powerful chances are the user won’t notice. The same is not true on Linux. Want Flash? Go through the hoops after Googling (which Joe Sixpack won’t ever do – he’d ring support and complain). Want win32codec stuff for multimedia compatibility? Sod out of luck. Googleearth? Nope. Opera? Nope. I could go on, but the point is made. They don’t work.
This has nothing to do with Adobe and others. As I’ve said before, blaming third-parties because Linux64 isn’t fully install and go is BS, because it’s easier to point fingers than look at how Linux handles 32/64 emulation and sets it up with a view to catering for, shock-horror, a desktop user who isn’t a technophile and open-source purist.
As is the “Linux works for me” school of overlooking stuff that won’t, in fact, work were you or I to install it. If it doesn’t work for everyone and install the lot seamlessly, the market takes a dim view. So, yes, Vista64 is ahead of Linux here. I wouldn’t call saying this chutzpah; I’d call it seeing reality. As we know, though, a lot of people on this board have trouble with that, in between their milk and rusks.
I am so very, very glad I get to reply to this one first.
Install the 32-bit libraries, dude. It takes about sixty seconds. This screenshot – assuming the image hosting works – shows opera, google earth, mplayer32 (with win32 codec) and flash running on 64-bit linux. Particularly relevant parts are circled in a nasty shade of red for the hard of thinking.
http://s228.photobucket.com/albums/ee97/6c1452/?action=view¤t…
I also run the 32-bit version of tremulous (upgrading was easier that way), the 32-bit boinc client and its’ associated 32-bit crunching programs. None of this was hard to get working (with the 32-bit libraries installed) – in fact, the only one that I had to do anything special for was opera, which required –force-architecture.
I don’t know what you’ve been tripping on to see the reality you do, but I think I can say with practically unprecedented amounts of accuracy that you’re wrong.
EDIT: In fact, the hosting wasn’t working. Fixed.
Edited 2008-01-08 15:19
Install the 32-bit libraries, dude
You say like it should be an obvious thing. IMHO Ubuntu should have them installed by default. There simply is no excuse for not having them. Especially if they are aiming for user-friendliness….
You just don’t get it, do you? I’m not talking about me, my installation, my choice of program. I’m talking about what a non-technophile user is going to find and what drives the general perception of how suitable and sucessful a particular platform is. I’ve set out what a non-techie is going to find on a typcal Linux64 install, what they are likely to do, and what they’re highly likely to think. The non-techie is going to find that some quite popular stuff does not work on Linux64 whereas it does on Vista64. That’s a point in Vista’s favour over Linux64 that it’s very hard to argue away. And it’s due, imho, to Microsoft sussing out 32 on 64 very well which is also a point in Vista’s favour over XP, with which this whole thread began incidentally.
Forget Linux64 workarounds well hidden in (to Mr Average) a thicket of many hours of Googling, or saying “Well if you knew how to make it work, it would be working”. That’s going to get you nowhere with a lot of non-techies and a lot of journos. They all want the default to be install and run, not workaround probably on a third-party site somewhere.
This is the blame game again, except this time it’s the user and not Adobe and co which gets the finger. Talk about obtuse. You guys always come crashing down on the same point and you can never see it.
Tell you what — if you want to try to weasel your way out on a technicality, we can ignore your wild, sweeping claims, no matter how painfully obvious it is that you meant them generally, by pretending that you were trying to present the issue from the POV of my grandmother.
At that point, I’m stuck with your less dramatic but still mind-numbing assertions that 32 on 64, “is a DIY pain in the ass”, as stated in your first post, without making any reference at all to sub-average users, and that 32-bit browser plugins don’t work, as implied in your second post, when explicitly referring to your own installation, by saying you can struggle by without them. Both of these are in dramatic factual error, taking a whole six clicks in a friendly GUI to get working.
(Which would be trivial for support, in whatever form it takes, to walk Joe Sixpack through. Hmm.)
IMHO this is already very much off-topic, but I’d imagine I’m allowed one off-topic reply every now and then..
So, I have not tried Ubuntu 64 nor any other binary distro but I do have had Gentoo 64-bit installed. Once the 32-bit compatibility libraries were installed I could just download any 32-bit binary, like f.ex. Opera, and run it just as any other app. If Ubuntu doesn’t provide all the necessary 32-bit compatibility libraries _by default_ all I can say is that they’ve really screwed it up and should get it sorted out. And well, there is one plugin wrapper (nspluginwrapper) for 64-bit browsers which allows one to run 32-bit plugins inside it. IMHO that one should also be installed by default in Ubuntu 64 (or any other 64-bit distro for that matter). There just is no excuse for not having it installed.
and blaming others for any shortcomings (third parties failing to cough up drivers, etc.) is one of the things that’s keeping Linux at less than three per cent of the desktop market.
When it comes to drivers there really isn’t much one actually can do but blame the company responsible for not porting their drivers to Linux too. As long as there are drivers only for Windows and OSX and not Linux it will not Just Work everywhere.
I run 64 bit Kubuntu 7.10 Linux on my home system. It has no problem with java … in fact I have a choice between Sun Java and Iced Tea. I use kpdf and/or evince to view PDF files, and mplayer to play RealMedia files. Where is there any problem?
If Opera are too lazy to compile a 64bit version for Linux, that is Opera’s loss, not Linux’s. There is no shoratge of 64-bit browsers that work just fine for Kubuntu64. I switch between Konqueror and Firefox with no trouble at all.
Where is this DIY pain in the behind of which you speak? All of the options I mention I installed with zero trouble straight from the repositories using Synaptic. In fact, I have more choice than I would have if I were running Vista64.
What a way to spin a story. Ed Bott was peddling this line of horseshit over at ZDnet last week. Thing is, who gives a CRAP about how Vista compares with an OS released seven years ago?
Compared to Apple’s Leopard adoption rate, by all counts, Vista’s suck.
Not to mention, comparing sales of XP in 2001 to Vista in 2007 makes no sense as XP was only released late (September, IIRC) of that year.
So how many of these people knew they had a choice between Vista and XP. Did the salesperson tell them?
Question 2. Was there follow up to ask if these people would go back to XP if they had a choice?
My guess is a lot more people are not happy with Vista (What do you mean Vista doesn’t have a print driver for my printer. I have to buy a new printer? I only bought it last year!)
I also believe when they went to buy a computer they didn’t realize they could choose XP instead of Vista.
I use Vista since 30 January 2007 and I never had a problem. Windows Vista is the best choice. XP is just obsolete.
Windows Vista is the best choice. XP is just obsolete.
XP ain’t even nearly obsolete yet. XP isn’t obsolete until there is no one left who’d rather use it than something else and that’s clearly not the case yet. And Vista is the best choice? For what exactly?
Solitaire is better!
And Vista is the best choice? For what exactly?
Off the top of my head: –
– security
– stability
– Apps don’t hang because the network is not responding anymore
– DX10
– multimedia (generally)
– per application sound levels
– display drivers in userland
– part resolution independence (it works quite well just stupid websites that set font sizes in terms of pixels that suck.
and of course the biggest draw has got to be: –
– The WOW factor
P.S. In case anyone is unsure my reference to the WOW factor is an attempt at sarcasm
security = yep I’ll give you that one — if people dont turn UAC off
stability …. not my experience but we’ll leave that.. I’ve had reasonable stability when I used it on my macbook pro
Apps dont hang because the network is not responding… no thats true, files hang because the system cant decide how big a 12k file is while transferring. network cant see my samba shares (without policy edits) because microsoft pretty much admitted they screwed with samba
DX10 … DX10 is the rotten carrot, otherwise Vista ‘only’ games would never have been hacked to run on XP
Multimedia… pretty thumbnails, some nice information.. not nearly the quality of longhorn preview and the added DRM does my head in.
per application sound levels.. yep I’ll give you that one
display drivers in userland… that’s a good plan, now my games just CTD/hangs/loses windo decorations rather than BSODs with an NV error.. Oh wait I just get BSODS now from my creative audigy 2ZS Plat pro thats supposedly now obsolete (I get FAR better support in linux)
part resolution independence…. I cant say its something I’ve checked out much… so I’ll pass on that
2 passes
3 wins
3 fails
taking the better nvidia drivers and worse creative drivers into account…
I realise you weren’t being too serious in your post (neither was I tbh) but I thought I’d tally my points up just to see. If I used windows anymore (fighting with Vista was the last straw) I’d find it very hard to justify sticking with Vista. This machine isnt new… but its not that old either..
I dont think most people will buy another computer (since the recent boom 2 – 5 years ago) within 8 years or so from now and once theirs starts to slow down I’m sure they will find a friend who will happily suggest an alternative better supported OS to keep them up to date — I just feel that MS has alienated far more systems than Apple ever could.
who do what they’re told. They get Vista because they believe it puts them ahead of a curve.
Here is a typical example of a consumer I know. A woman quite illiterate as far as computers go, but she thinks she is Computer Guru. She spends most of the time browsing web and playing Solitaire. Yet she got Vista (the most expensive edition) together with the behemoth of a computer to run Vista on, so know she proudly says: I have the latest Vista from Microsoft!
We live in a free society, and people buy stuff based on status it supposedly gives them all the damn time. A woman wanting a beast of a computer with Vista Ultimate on it even though she doesn’t need it is not at all different from me wanting a DB9, an 8C Competizione, an F430 Scuderia, and a Quattroporte all at the same time. It’s useless, I don’t need it at all, but I still want it.
Who are you to judge the wants and perceived needs of others. If this woman wants to run Vista on a supercomputer without actually needing it, for god’s sake, let her. It’s not your job to tell her what she needs or doesn’t need.
I see that arrogant “we geeks know what’s best for you” attitude all the time, and it annoys the crap out of me.
“I see that arrogant “we geeks know what’s best for you” attitude all the time, and it annoys the crap out of me.”
As an A+ Certified Technician, when someone comes to me, asking about upgrading or buying a new computer, my first question is: “What do you plan to do with it?”
I will not suggest they get the fastest latest computer, if they don’t need one. It’s expense just for the sake of bragging. And it’s meaningless! It always annoys me when people say, “Oh, my friend told me that I needed to get the latest model!” Whatever multi-GHz monster that might be… and go figure, they do nothing but play Solitaire or Mines with it. WASTE!!! Electrically and financially!
If all you plan to ever do with your computer for is to go online (web browsing), a Pentium III 650MHz, with 512Mb-1Gb RAM, running XP Pro and a nVidia GeForce 3 video card is all you need. Shoot, you could probably get by with Windows 98SE easily, as long as the Web Browsers for that OS are still actively supported.
Unless you’re going to be doing heavy, HEAVY gaming, and hyper math-intensive calculations and rendering or… Folding… you do NOT need a Dual or Quad core 2-4GHz monster PC with 4GB of RAM and a GeForce 8800XT or whatever, running Vista Ultimate.
It’s… just… not… necessary!
I used to work in a computer store and used to give the same advice. What I learned over time was that that advice was good for people who were using computers for five or ten years and knew what their habits were.
People who were newer to computers, it was much more difficult, because while they had an idea of what they wanted to do, they often wound up doing far more. One of my customers had never owned a PC before. He was into R/C airplanes and wanted to buy a system to run an R/C plane simulator which had low minimum requirements.
I talked him into buying something more powerful, which he resisted at first, but my thinking was that the kind of guy who is into building R/C planes (he was serious about it) is the kind of guy who has a better than average chance of becoming a computer geek.
I was right. In a year’s time I was going to him for recommendations because he became a hardware geek, studying new hardware performance charts in excruciating detail.
(My boss was annoyed at the way it turned out because we made a lot of money on service and upgrades and within a few months he was asking to buy parts to build himself his own PC).
If someone came to me now and asked me what to get in terms of operating systems, I’d recommend Vista because I really do believe that, kicking and screaming perhaps, most Windows users will wind up running it.
I don’t know whatever happened to that guy, but I hope he’s given Linux or one of the BSDs a try by now 😉
“If all you plan to ever do with your computer for is to go online (web browsing), a Pentium III 650MHz, with 512Mb-1Gb RAM, running XP Pro and a nVidia GeForce 3 video card is all you need.”
I am a certified HP Technician and I can tell you that if your customer said he is going to use the computer for the internet then ask him what are you planning to browse? Because some web sites use a very graphics demanding Flash animation that would eat all GPU processing and some of CPU as well; and some web sites stresses the system too if it would use gaming; while if you use your browser to open a NASA or High resolution medical images then your RAM is bye bye.
You have to be alittle bet more detailed in questioning the guy who askes you for an advice; plus you have to give him a little more than he demands to keep him in the safe side.
Thanks for reading
Did I say anything like “I told her she needed Vista as fish needed an umbrella”? The posting is here and comments on people who compensate the lack of knowledge by getting the ‘latest and greatest’, even if that ‘latest and greatest’ may be quite inferior to what it’s supposed to replace. What does it have to do with you wanting a Quattroporte?
I believe you need to work on improving your reading comprehension. Seriously.
Except that those are, you know, actually good products
Well, the question is what the options are. Does the sales person say “What OS do you want with that?” or “It comes with Vista”. How, and if, questions are asked is important when “guiding” people’s behavior.
“Well, the question is what the options are. Does the sales person say “What OS do you want with that?” or “It comes with Vista”. How, and if, questions are asked is important when “guiding” people’s behavior.”
Asking which OS to pre-install would probably leave 99% of people dumbfounded with a blank stare, probably leading the salesman to quickly suggest getting a Windows machine.
Saying “it comes with Windows Vista” would probably spark an “oh, okay,” and soon enough the customer will be cracking open his/her wallet/purse.
Gotta love marketing and an industry monopoly!
Free society? What’s your point? Nobody is proposing legislation to prevent you from having your toys.
One is free to be stupid, and I am just as free to ridicule you for it.
Why should consumers have to know *anything* about their choice of operating system? People regularly purchase automobiles without understanding anything about the engines that drive them — and, yet, somehow the fact that they don’t know anything about their operating system is supposed to make them “clueless sheeps”. This is just pure ideological demagoguery and, quite frankly, you’re in no position to assess whether or how consumers’ choices impact their needs. Quite obviously, all of these “clueless sheeps” (as you call them) are able to use the products they buy to browse Web, read email, edit and post photographs, do their taxes, play games, pay bills, buy stocks, and countless other activities quite nicely without your assistance — and without caring a wit about what OS is serving them. So, really, grow up a little.
Because there IS a choice, that’s why they need to know. It’s not like they need to be experts or anything, just informed consumers. Of course, this will never happen across the board.
You generally dont have a choice of easily exchanged engines for your car.
The Trabant could transport people between point A and point B. It did what it was supposed to do yet I dont think anyone would argue that it’s a good and safe car for people to buy and use.
Edited 2008-01-08 05:29
Because there IS a choice, that’s why they need to know.
Consumers typically get their choices on display at Best Buy and Circuit City. If it ain’t there, it doesn’t exist, as far as they’re concerned.
You generally dont have a choice of easily exchanged engines for your car.
That’s not true. Many manufacturers offer a number of different engines and, generally speaking, consumers don’t understand their choices. It’s technical mumbo jumbo, signifying nothing. In their brains, more expensive = better.
The Trabant could transport people between point A and point B. It did what it was supposed to do yet I dont think anyone would argue that it’s a good and safe car for people to buy and use.
You’re using the wrong criteria. The average person doesn’t understand what “good” and “safe” mean, when it comes to a personal computer. For them, “good” means “does it allow me to do whatever I want to do”. As for “safe”, they can’t even understand what sorts of risks are present, so that concept doesn’t even register.
I SO wish I could argue against you here but the very sad truth is that it’s true. For all too many people more expensive == better. Makes for a good business model for certain companies though.
That’s the very heart of the problem. Right there. They don’t know.
So the conclusion we come to here is that Vista is popular not because it’s good or safe but because it is expensive and people don’t know what they’re getting.
“That’s not true. Many manufacturers offer a number of different engines and, generally speaking, consumers don’t understand their choices.”
People don’t choose between a Vista and an Ubuntu engine, they choose between, say a 100CV 1600CC and a 150CV 2000CC. They might also decide to go for diesel. And while they might not know what CV and CC do mean, technically, they know how all that will affect their driving and the money they will spend filling the tank.
Edited 2008-01-08 09:51
Ive tried running a lot of games on vista, and about half of them fail miserably (this is older games mind you).
This reminds me of the Win98 -> Win2k/XP times, when i also had to wait a few years before stuff worked properly.
Personally i cant stand vista, its a chore to use.
Sadly though, at some point you have to upgrade or you wont be able to run the newest stuff, as allways with microsoft products i guess
Ive tried running a lot of games on vista, and about half of them fail miserably (this is older games mind you).
Have you tried running running the games in “compatibility mode”? Microsoft has created compatibility “shims” to make it possible for Vista to emulate downlevel versions of Windows. I use it frequently and, in a majority of cases, it enables older software to run. But the average user doesn’t know to use this stuff at all. Here’s a link:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/using-windows-vista-co…
People are of course using Vista as it comes on new machines. I recently just purchased a new laptop. There was no option to downgrade but honestly I have found little reason to install XP.
When it comes down to it Vista brought nothing new to the table. On the same note, it has taken nothing away. So while there isn’t any reason to upgrade to Vista. There isn’t any reason to avoid it either.
I think that a lot of people were bashing on Vista , who knew Vista only from screenshots and articles.
I must admit that I also made that mistake to say “Vista is bad” without trying it out by myself.
A made the observation that love to bash on windows, but when a windows-user complains to him about a malfunction of linux, he answers: “Well, this is linux, you must know what you do”.
This was the answer that I got, when some years ago I had problems to install a nvidea driver on Debian (and the x-server broke).
when did you last upgrade nvidia in windows did you check to make sure your windows version was supported first.
P.S. Debian is for Linux geeks there are and have been more friendly distros
Choice! That would actually mean there is no Operating System installed until the consumer decides which OS he or she would prefer. My, that would be a novel experience. In the real world, only a few companies, like Dell will offer, if asked if there is an alternative to Vista that can be loaded on their new systems. I have been a Computer Tech since CP/M and OSBORNES and have see GEM, GEOS, WIndows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. and now VISTA. In all of that time I have never uninstalled any OS at the rate that I have Vista from so many unhappy people and their systems. I am being forced to cope with Vista problems on a day to day basis, as a tech, would I install Vista on any of my own machines? The answer is no, all of my systems run either XP SP3 or some flavor of Linux. There are also two Mac OSX machines in the house, what can I say, I am a GEEK after all. I’m down to 6 systems now and I am really trying to quit, really I am. Can’t wait for Windows 7 or whatever it will be called to roll out, no wait yes I can.
I was just reading through all 79 posts on this thread relating to the story and I ask myself, are people merely responding with foaming mouths regarding Windows Vista, simply because that’s what all the ‘cool kids’ are doing? The irony of the whole thing, many would claim to be atheist, and they’ve acclaim ‘hatred of Microsoft’ as apparently their new ‘religion of choice’ and osnews.com as their official pulpit to rant their dogma from.
I love the the reply put by gedmurphy in regards to “Why don’t you just let your g/f decide instead of forcing your views onto her?? ” – I’ve put that in a little quotation generator of mine. You’ve succinctly put it in words I could never have done. I want to know why there seems to be a self appointed illuminati who claim that they have the ‘keys to knowledge’ and all those clueless snivelling bastards (aka, ordinary users) should yield to their infallible wisdom and do as they’re told.
I’ve used Windows Vista – and sure, I run Mac OS X (I’ve since moved from Windows to Mac OS X) but to some how come out of the wood works with the ‘teh sucks, teh sucks because of [some random blogger on the internet] said so!” is a show of how pathetic some people here are when it comes to grasping at reasons as to what is wrong with Windows Vista. Like I said, I don’t run it, but when I did, I sure as heck didn’t experience half the problems these so-called ‘users’ claimed they had.
To me, it seems to be more Windows Vista bashing, because that is what is expected rather than anything based on reality. Perish the thought of actually coming out with a balanced critique. Sure, I don’t expect a gushing review of Windows Vista, but at the same time, the stupid reviews so far by anti-Microsoft zealots with a cactus up their ass doesn’t help the situation either. A review needs to be a tell all; the good, the bad and the ugly. To focus excessively on anyone area gives me the impression that you don’t have the slightest idea on what you’re doing.
If it’s any consolation, the ‘hatred of Linux’ is a pretty popular religion too and it seems to be gaining on the Church of Hating Windows. I guess it all evens out, in an annoying, flamewar kind of way.
True. They’re just as bad. There is, however, a fine line between “it doesn’t work for me” and “it plain well sucks”. For Linux, it doesn’t work for me, but that’s not saying it won’t work for someone else. My brother has linux on his desktop. As a university student (like me), he loves running it.
The again, zealots of any flavour can be annoying and tiring. Even as “Maclot” (to coin a term from Arstechnica battlefront), I’m interested in what Microsoft does – Channel9 has some great videos worth watching. Same with opensource projects that help me directly as an end user, such as libpurple which form the foundation of Pidgin and Adium.
Sometimes it’s like, your CHARACTER is judged by what OS you run.
There is no operating system presently in existence that I would recommend over others for all users in all situations. I am suspicious of anyone who has that kind of attitude. I am definitely a Linux advocate but I can’t imagine recommending it to a complete newcomer to computers, and especially to those who are immersed in Windows environments, want to run Windows games, and so forth.
It’s just a bunch of ones and zeroes. I can be productive on any machine, but I have my preferences. I can understand having a strong preference; for my own use, I certainly do. What I don’t get is why it gets so incredibly EMOTIONAL.
(When forced to support an OS I don’t like, or make interoperable web pages, well, okay, I do get emotional, but only in those instances.)
There is no operating system presently in existence that I would recommend over others for all users in all situations. I am suspicious of anyone who has that kind of attitude. I am definitely a Linux advocate but I can’t imagine recommending it to a complete newcomer to computers, and especially to those who are immersed in Windows environments, want to run Windows games, and so forth.
I agree from my posts you could probably tell that I think Vista is better as a consumer OS than any GNU/Linux distro. BUT recently I helped a friend. She has four children and two computers at home. The one is a new computer than came with an 3 year ISP contract. She also has an older cheap computer that is about 4 years old now. I set them up with OpenSuse 10.3 on the old computer. They would use it for all their mp3 files. The machine they do homework on etc is the Windows machine. It is also nice to expose children to the fact that their is more to the computing world than Windows.
I really wish Haiku would move along because that kind be an awesome home OS.
Lastly I would say that Linux is quite fine with someone who is new to computers. As long as they don’t tinker or try every little piece of software they will be fine. For example if their uses are:-
– email
– internet
– VoIP
– music
– youtube / gmail / facebook
– Basic word processor
then they are more tha fine on Linux. As long as they don’t mess with things and they don’t want specific stuf like iTunes, Microsoft Money / Quicken, etc.
Are you kidding? Sure, there are a lot of zealots (on all sides) that will bash Vista because it’s a Microsoft product and for no other reason. Unfortunately, that excuse alone simply doesn’t explain the vast backlash against Vista from many corners of the tech world. Put simply, it isn’t Microsoft’s best work. In fact, it doesn’t come close. When you couple this with years of shady licensing schemes and monopolistic behavior in the marketplace the reasons for the backlash becomes clearer. If you push and shove your way to the top; trampling the competition in the process, you better damn well deliver what you promise. Microsoft has failed to deliver. That’s all there is too it. I’ve used Vista and I’ve experienced many of the problems others have. Just because you haven’t doesn’t mean the problems don’t exist or that Vista is somehow being sullied by rabid zealots who don’t know what they’re talking about.
… or at least that is what Microsoft would want you to think.
“It is all just loons bashing Microsoft” seems to be the current “soundbite” being pushed by Redmond.
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/07/conspiracy-theories-linux-proxy…
“It’s a vague piece calling us to not worry about Microsoft and suggesting that there are merely ‘conspiracy theories’ out there.
“The piece is essentially encouraging people not to look at Microsoft’s business practices. Those who watch Microsoft at play are being (mis)labeled using stereotypes like “conspiracy theorist”, which is almost synonymous with “loon”.”
That is easily as reasonable a position to take on this topic as “Sure, there are a lot of zealots”.
Put it this way … my own motivation is simply that I believe I can help people by encouraging them to avoid Vista. It will save them considerable angst, money and time, and they would avoid expensive “lock-in”. I get no “kickback” if someone does not use Vista. The reverse is not nearly as clear cut. Who wins if people are assured that Vista is fine and that all naysayers are loons?
You’ve actually _used_ Vista — as in, say, for the past seven months, at least five days out of seven? No? Then, of course, you “sure as heck didn’t experience half the problems” some of us had run into.
Let me enlighten you, my ignorant friend: Vista, when being used _regularly_, is a convoluted mess. Ever tried to set up a different WEP key for your wireless card — tell me, how many screens does it take vs. how easy that used to be in XP? Or, how about trying to make _all_ your folders behave exactly the same, even if all you want is contents being sorted by file type, _consistently_, everywhere, regardless of the folder’s contents? And what about splitting the good old Display Properties dialog into 10 different pieces — why was that necessary? What about the consistent, across-the-board hiding of advanced features from us, power users?
Open your eyes, pal: this is not some oh, so convenient for you and your ilk “Vista bashing” — no, for the most part, this is valid criticism of the operating system in question. Vista is a mess. Abandon your over-rated Mac and try to use Vista daily instead — for about 6 months, just like the rest of us forced to adapt to that piece of donkey crap. Let’s see what you have to say then.
1) Regarding wireless, I clicked on the network, clicked on connect, it requested the key, in my case it was a WPA key – I don’t risk my network with shoddy encryption, and voila, I was all on and connected. It was as easy as with OpenSolaris with Network Magic enabled.
2) You chose to purchase a Windows machine. Bill Gates didn’t swing through the window one day and forced you to purchase it. You could have easily bought a Mac or even a laptop, removed Windows then loaded on a *NIX or *BSD of your choice – but you didn’t.
You chose to go off, purchase a PC loaded with Windows Vista, and now you’re here whinging, whining and complaining knowing full well that you are the maker of your own personal hell.
3) Like I said, I purchased a PC laptop with Windows Vista, wasn’t happy with it, so I changed to a Mac. No fan fare required. No zealot post on my blog, no spamming of osnews.com, no screaming and whinging. I just did it.
4) I never said that it had no problems – you’re in desperate need a comprehension class, along with half the users here. I said that I never had half the problems people claimed. So yes, amazing enough, when you half something, you still have stuff left! imagine that!
Edited 2008-01-08 06:12
As to your point number 2.) Um, there really isn’t a choice when you have to uninstall the stock operating system and then install (and completely configure) your OS of choice and all of its associated applications yourself. How many lay people can really do this themselves? The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has indeed forced its operating system onto all PC’s (unless they’re produced by obscure white box manufacturers, ala the Wal-Mart gOS PC or otherwise sans OS.) They’ve managed this from early and ongoing licensing deals in which they promise OEM’s dirt cheap OS pricing in exchange for exclusivity. On top of this, they practically give away their OS to schools and businesses because they know if people train on their OS they will likely end up use their OS at home (at a higher consumer price) because its all they know. When I can walk into an electronics store and purchase a PC with any OS I choose (i.e., Linux, UNIX, Solaris, etc.) then I will truly have a choice. Furthermore, when a Mac is the same price as the comparably equipped PC, then maybe your fuzzy logic about simply choosing Mac will make sense. Otherwise, you’re trying to compare Apples to oranges (or in the case of Vista, to lemons.)
Edited 2008-01-08 16:02
Well this is a good point, too. I wish it really was a level playing field. But it isn’t, and I see no way of fixing the problem. I do think that most average computer users, sitting down in front of a Linux (blue cheese), Mac (fruit punch), and Windows (McDonalds hamburger) machine for ten minutes, would probably pick the Mac.
You are not given a choice. I’d like to see a data set that shows, of the people who know the difference, what they would rather have.
I say this because of the people I know how have used both, nobody likes Vista over XP. Especially when you can get the beloved Vista look in XP by modifying your desktop.
This article is obviously written by Microsoft to make people think everybody loves Vista.
What a load of obvious CRAP!!!!
Claiming Vista is great because of the number of installations out there reminds me of a poster I saw in the 1970’s: "Eat Sh*t! 480 Billion flies can’t be wrong!"
There are several reasons for this.
1. A great deal more PCs are selling today, than back in 2001 or so, when XP was launched. Since Microsoft has a monopoly on the OEM market, this will result in more ‘licences’.
2. Microsoft has been very aggressive, at least initially, with making sure that OEMs ONLY offered Vista. When XP was released, Microsoft was not as harsh on OEMs, and many chose to still sell Windows 2000.
3. People are stupid enough to believe the hype.
4. A lot of new technology will not be supported by Microsoft in Windows XP etc – this is referred to as old age redundancy 😉
5. Microsoft’s market has grown – Microsoft is now aggressive in many non-traditional countries/continents, with Microsoft quite often selling the operating system for such a low price as to guarantee the sale.
Whilst I love GNU/Linux, I will be choosing Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit edition with my new system (Intel Quad Q6600 CPU with 8gb Geil 800mhz DDR2 ram, low latency 4-4-4-2). I use Photoshop a lot, and additional cores, with large amounts of RAM, and 64 bit capabilities are important to me. Linux is simply too dodgy with Photoshop/C1 Pro for me to stay totally reliant on it. XP only supports up to around 2.5gb RAM, so it’s not effective. XP 64 bit is flakey due to lack of drivers, or quality drivers. Vista 32bit leaves me in the same boat as XP 32 bit.
I just wish Microsoft wasn’t so pedantic with their OEM licenses. The prices that you pay for the OEM versions are too high imho, whilst the retail prices are plain rip-offs.
Dave
edit: My new system will triple boot Vista 64 bit, XP 32bit and Debian GNU/Linux btw. XP for those things that don’t work in Vista, Linux for cool stuff 😉
Edited 2008-01-08 10:37
I just submitted a story from slashdot, apparently Paul McDougall did some math and came out with some different numbers… Here’s the submission in case Thom decides he’d rather spin Vista into a positive light despite the facts:
Bill Gates’ Admits: Majority of new PCs ship without Vista
Paul McDougall follows the numbers in this revealing article comparing Bill Gate’s stated numbers for Vista with the release numbers for XP. Doing the math reveals an interesting factoid–Based on Gates’ statement, Windows Vista was aboard just 39% of the PC’s that shipped in 2007. Does this mean alternative OSes are beginning to steal Redmond’s lunch? It would be interesting to know what the other 61% of new PCs were shipped with…
That last bit is the key though, we don’t really know what percentage of that 61% were shipped with Linux or with MacOS, so the numbers while significant don’t tell us much. The numbers are significant, because they tell us Redmond is losing their grip on the market (unable to shoehorn Vista down an unwilling populace’s throat) but they don’t tell us much because we don’t know which OS is carving out a percentage for itself at the expense of Vista.
Normally I’d just say it’s XP because Microsoft has been finding itself increasingly in competition with itself and its own products lately, but given things like the popularity of the ASUS EEE PC and the Walmart gOS machines I’m not so sure anymore all those sales were XP…
–bornagainpenguin
Thom is doing this for some time now. I don’t know if he is aware of this. But he should know that some OSnews readers may get the impression that he lacks, well, a certain amount of objectivity when it comes to Vista.
Also over at /. I read the opposite of what this article claims and I also give the source a bit more credibility.
Edited 2008-01-08 18:30