Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Windows As someone who uses Windows Vista practically daily, I've always wondered where all the negativity in the media comes from. Sure, Vista isn't perfect (as if any operating system is), but I just don't see where all the complaints are coming from. It runs just fine on my old (6 years) machine, all my software and hardware is compatible, and it's stable as a rock. Microsoft has been wondering the same thing, and after a little test, they may have found out why people seem to dislike Vista so much.
Thread beginning with comment 324631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie
by kaiwai on Fri 25th Jul 2008 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Indeed, a little lie"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Eh no use man, they will bash windows because they can. Most of em piping in even admitting to never "upgrading" to Vista, and relying on heresay. I think it bothers them so deeply that some people do like it so badly that they have to bury and hide comments to the contrary of they're opinion.


Many of them have used it though - when you have a demonstration done by a person who knows the system inside and out - they'll know how to make using it appear easy/effortless. How many people have gone to see a product being demonstrated, it appears to be easy, only to find that once you eventually get it home, its alot harder than it looks.

Apple is growing at record pace right now (43% unit growth) - if it were a fear of the unknown or the different interface then Apple wouldn't be growing. If people are happy to leave Windows and learn a totally new system, you really have to ask yourself whether there is merit in the 'loathing' of Windows Vista.

I use linux, and vista, and love them both. They both do what I want them to do. I researched and purchased my hardware to coincide with my software use. Most people dont, and want to be angry when it blows up on them. Then others think your being unrealistic when you say that requirements are they way they are.

The world exists outside your computer people, there are many factors that add to memory usage.

Your base install may use 100MB of ram less than another users based on drivers alone. Just because you say "meh my computer has less than 1gb of ram and its fine" equals nothing in the Real world. Most general computer users will find a much higher usage than you and me just because they do not trim things down, and install dozens of programs they don't use but wanted to "try" out.


True; most importantly, people who are here don't represent mainstreet. People here maybe represent the top 5-10% of society in terms of computer knowledge and understanding. To claim that someone can do all the tweaking and get it working correctly ignores that the 90% of people out there don't have a clue.

They use what is installed on their computer - that is why Symantec want their software to be loaded, it banks on the ignorance of the end user to get scared into purchasing by the tactics of Symantec's warnings when one tries to avoid purchasing or choosing to uninstall it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie
by melkor on Sat 26th Jul 2008 01:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

The major issue with Vista is several fold:

1. Some stability issues upon initial release
2. New UI (not all of the new UI is smartly done either I do admit)
3. Very bad press - and this is the big one. Nearly all of the computer press unreasonably bagged Vista, without adequate proof or reasoning. Sadly, most people are blind idiots, and they 100% believe what the press says instead of trying themselves.
4. Exceptionally bad efforts from 3rd party software vendors on updating their existing software to use the new Vista based security model. They wanted to save money, stick to existing insecure methods of coding their crappy software, rather than do the changes as was needed.
5. Same as point 4, but with driver vendors. Even worse, many driver vendors just simply said tough shit to its loyal users and refused to produce Vista drivers at all (Creative anyone?).

You simply cannot blame Microsoft for this. I mean, let's look at it from a Linux angle. Driver vendors don't provide drivers, it's their fault. Substitute Linux with Microsoft, and suddenly it's Microsoft's fault. What idiotic lack of logical reasoning allows this type of thought process? Expecting hardware manufacturers to open up their code is absolutely unreasonable. It is THEIR product. Period.

As to the gentleman who advised me to give it up, yes, you're right - most people here will just blindly mod you down, not because the post is inaccurate, but simply because they disagree with you, or are pro Linux and like to bash anyone who writes anything good about a Microsoft product. Hey guys, Server 2008 is looking REALLY good - I'm sure that'll add to Linux' falling server numbers (yes, Server 2003 did a lot of damage to the Linux numbers in the server field, and rightly so, it's a good product). Microsoft isn't perfect, but then neither is Linux. Both have their uses, and both are good operating systems. Both have weaknesses. Ignoring one operating systems weaknesses and bagging the other one is really not right. It's not a balanced argument.

As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours. Windows Vista? Done in under 2 hours, and that included 3rd party drivers, 3rd party software etc. Vista has so far proved to be far easier to maintain, and visually looks far nicer than Linux I might add (even with composite turned on etc).

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by 6c1452 on Sat 26th Jul 2008 02:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours.


0_o

Net install over 56K? Or make with the story telling!

Edited 2008-07-26 02:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by alexandru_lz on Sat 26th Jul 2008 10:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

Just two points:

1. Bad press was coupled with extremely bad and unrealistic advertising. On one hand, some of the announced features didn't make 'till the end. Some of them, like WinFS, were not really useful, but it doesn't make for a good image. Second (and with this one, it certainly didn't win back any users), it had a very idiotic way of presenting every new feature as something revolutionary, even though other operating system had had it for months or even years, or could easily be added to Windows XP through a couple of third party programs. Not moving from XP to Vista is not only due to bad image, deserved or not, it's also due to Microsoft not giving absolutely any damn serious reason to move to Vista. Well, apart from the usual vendor lockdown issues which will appear shortly. Is there any groundbreaking feature that Vista has and you can't get from XP? No? Then why spend the extra $$$, and quite possibly upgrade the computer?

2. I'm not sure what took you so long when installing Debian. It took me less than two hours to do it on my laptop, and that includes a shiFtload of packages.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jul 2008 12:20 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft's claimed "gains" in the server space are due only to Microsoft taking credit for hosting dead domains. It is purely a marketing sleight-of-hand, similar to counting downgrades to XP as Vista licenses.

10+ hours for a debian install? It takes two hours tops ... 30 minutes if you use something like Siddux or Ubuntu.

Either your install is borked and it is not going to work anyway ... or you are fibbing about it.

Now there is a jaw-dropping concept ... "Lying for Microsoft". What on earth next?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by obi_oni on Sat 26th Jul 2008 14:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
obi_oni Member since:
2006-02-15


As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours. Windows Vista? Done in under 2 hours, and that included 3rd party drivers, 3rd party software etc.


Okay, I'll bite. I just had to do this a week ago, so it's still very clear to me: I installed Debian in little from a recent netinst CD on a very recent AMD64 in hardly any time. Trying to install Windows I had to jump through hoops, scavenge drivers from backward places, find/extract/adjust .inf files for certain devices (like a bluetooth dongle f.e.), and keep on rebooting for updates, drivers, etc. The whole Windows installation experience seems like a collection of Voodoo rituals to me.

Maybe I just know my way around Debian better these days, but imo the Debian installation is way faster and smoother than the Windows one.

Reply Parent Score: 2