Some testing by the exo.performance.network research staff shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista.
Vista SP1 a Performance Dud
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
with at least 2gb of ram or more and then see are there noticable improvements. 1gb and vista is like XP with 128mb ram, ie: it’s not enough ram at all.
cheers
anyweb
I run Vista with 1.25GB and don’t have any problems.
what’s wrong with people modding down this? :/
Rather at odds with this type of survey:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5118924882.html
This had me laughing pretty hard.
1.) DesktopLinux – center of gravity for fanatical Linux fanboys
2.) Article by Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, enough said.
3.) KACE, a systems management appliance company. One need only spend 2 minutes looking at them to see their angle. One might also consider they are NOT a professional research and survey company.
4.) “The online survey with 961 respondents…” – Best part, I did not think it took a rocket scientist to see how flawed this survey is.
5.)”44 percent would consider deploying Macs or Linux-based systems to avoid Vista migration.” – well ignoring who the source is, the whole arguments here are just laughable, not to mention the manner in which they gathered this response.
6.) “Still, 44 percent are considering switching from Windows to an alternative..” – just wonder, did anyone ever bother to ask whether their responses were gathered using credible survey techniques?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2219153,00.asp
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/19/it.turning.to.macs.linux/
http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/11/it_pros_searching_for_an_alte…
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/en/14249349/New-Survey-Reve…
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applicatio…
http://mobilitysite.com/2007/11/leopard-outsells-windows-in-japan/
http://news.stepforth.com/blog/2007/11/on-surface-microsofts-future…
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39158720,00.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/01/12/government-t…
http://www.boundbygravity.com/archives/2007/01/avoid_vista_like_the…
http://www.bootstrike.com/WindowsVista/topavoidvista.html
http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/129
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9819963-16.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111607-vista-worries.html
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=10661
He who has the last laugh, laughs loudest.
lemur2 wrote:
“http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2219153,00.asp
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/19/it.turning.to.macs.linux/
http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/11/it_pros_searching_for_an_alte…..
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/en/14249349/New-Survey-Reve…..
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applicatio…..
http://mobilitysite.com/2007/11/leopard-outsells-windows-in-japan/
http://news.stepforth.com/blog/2007/11/on-surface-microsofts-future…..
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39158720,00.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/01/12/government-t…..
http://www.boundbygravity.com/archives/2007/01/avoid_vista_like_the…..
http://www.bootstrike.com/WindowsVista/topavoidvista.html
http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/129
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9819963-16.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111607-vista-worries.html
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=10661
He who has the last laugh, laughs loudest.”
——————————————————
lemur2, do you keep dozens of links at the ready to use as ammo in fanboy message board pissing contests?
Get some therapy.
Edited 2007-11-21 03:48
I could say the same about any MS Fanboy.
Aah, nostalgia. I remeber the days when MollyC and NotParker would tagteam any criticism of Microsoft by posting lists of links.
“Aah, nostalgia. I remeber the days when MollyC and NotParker would tagteam any criticism of Microsoft by posting lists of links.”
LOL; I forgot about that.
Yeah, I remember when I first came here, I tag-teamed with NotParker a couple of times posting links to various web statistic OS usage sites (but I never posted over a dozen links in one post like lemur2, nor did I post links without at least a one sentence summary about what the links had to say). But that was when I was a newbie here, and was young and naive about the mores this site.
But going thru my early posting history, I only tag-teamed with NotParker for a handful of posts on a couple of threads, and never to thwart “any criticism of Microsoft by posting lists of links”. I only posted 2 or 3 links to web stat OS usage sites when the topic at hand was the size of Linux’s user base. I’m impressed that you would remember anything about that (I had forgotten it), but your recollection of it is severely warped.
As for NotParker, at the time I didn’t realize that NotParker was not only disagreed with by most here (which is fine), but also completely disrespected (otherwise I wouldn’t have tag-teamed with him). I remember seeing posts of his that weren’t inflammatory at all, modded down to -5 (the lowest possible mod point at the time), and wonder why. If you look at the final few pages of his post history, you see nearly every one modded down into oblivion. I gradually gathered that he’d been posting flame bait for a long time and people had grown tired of it and so automatically modded down all his posts. lol But he left osnews a few months after I joined (I don’t know if he was banned or just moved on).
Edited 2007-11-21 20:01
lemur2, do you keep dozens of links at the ready to use as ammo in fanboy message board pissing contests?
The other theory is that he knows how to use google…
I think you are on to something there …
Actually, it isn’t normally an effective response, but I did find it useful to counter a suggestion that just one (by implication biased) journalist was saying something skewed by posting a number of links to recent articles from different journalists saying more-or-less the same thing.
Well it looks like I am having the last laugh at your expense. So you back up your argument by linking to either blogs (worthless), dead links, or the same article printed elsewhere. How dense does one have to be to see that this so called “survey” is worthless.
First, online polls: Nobody uses them for real research for a reason. Don’t be lazy, figure this one out for yourself.
Second, look who is doing the research. Again, figure this one out for yourself. Give you a hint, Kace is NOT a research company, their methods of conducting this survery would be laughed out at from any credible research firm.
Sorry, but this is just too f***king obvious that it does not even warrant a response. This pathetic article and the subsequent response are not only laughable, but really just shot any credibility you will ever have. You are a fanboy and zealot, and as such your opinion is worth as much as one grain of salt.
Again, why do you even care about Vista? Are you obsessed? Why don’t you just stick to Ubuntu where you can impress all you HS friends on how cool you are that you use an alternative OS. Then watch your HD movies on your DRM free OS, and you have nothing in the world to complain about. If your Ubuntu is just so perfect, why do you care? My god, I do not give a rat’s ass about OSX and Apple, so I certainly do not waste my time thinking about Apple.
It is not worthless if it is all over the net.
http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?src=rss&id=1895
It is worth it just for the exposure of the Vista problems, and the fact that there IS an alternative.
I don’t care about Vista, and I do stick to Ubuntu. I thought that was obvious.
However, this site is “OSNews”, and this thread topic is “Vista SP1 a Performance Dud”.
Therefore, I am 100% on-topic if I try to tell people that they do have a perfectly viable alternative, as reported widely in the trade press, and they don’t have to put up with the rubbish that is Vista.
I don’t care about Vista. I do care about people, I don’t like to see people get ripped off by an abusive megacorps, and I want to try to help those poeple find an alternative, and I won’t stand by and let shills put people off of trying alternatives through spreading FUD and lies.
Oh, and you might try arguing against the points raised, rather than trying to put down your opponent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Your post (to which this is a reply) actually hurts your credibility, not mine.
Edited 2007-11-21 23:14
I’ll let someone else reply to this. I am done, said my point, time to move on.
I want to try to help those poeple find an alternative
Don’t you think that people that come to sites such as OSNews already know well about alternatives, differences, etc?
Someone reading comments on OSNews doesn’t know enough about Linux, Open Office, Windows, etc?
The only people on OSNews spreading FUD are you, Linux fanboys: have you even noticed that when there’s a news about Linux, that Windows users hardly comment at all? On the other hand, any Microsoft related news is full of comments from lunatics like you. Don’t you think you’re annonying? We never can normally discuss anything Microsoft related because of idiots like you.
Edited 2007-11-22 01:11
All sorts of commentators on the Industry are saying, in effect: “Avoid Vista, consider Linux instead”.
Here is one that says in effect that if you are a CEO, and you just approve to buy Vista and don’t consider Linux, then the shareholders would have a great case to impeach you:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/06/13/nat-fried…
We are doing you a favour by trying to wean you of your Microsoft addiction.
If that is annoying you … well sorry, but that often happens when you are trying to withdraw.
The first step, gonzo, is for you to admit to the addiction in the first place.
This is as good a place as any to try to initiate that for you.
BTW, just as a counterpoint, here is a Linux news thread where a Windows addict tried to FUD us that there was nothing that Linux offered that wasn’t available from XP:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=18950
The Windows addicts are still trying in vain on that thread to deny the advantages for Linux that were raised in response.
We are doing you a favour by trying to wean you of your Microsoft addiction.
Did I ask for you help? Nope.
Edited 2007-11-22 05:43
We are doing you a favour by trying to wean you of your Microsoft addiction.
Listen to yourself. It’s comments like these that remind me that there’s no shortage of seriously f*d up nutcases on the Internet, whose seemingly sole preoccupation in life is self-associating with a freaking operating system (yeah, I’m incredulous, too) — and then trying to convince others to share their obsession. And you thought GATES and BALLMER are bad for trying to push Windows on people? Sheez….
I feel so misunderstood!
I guess you don’t have to listen, but really … there are a lot of people out there who can reap huge benefits by getting away from Microsoft products. And save themselves a whole mountain of money in the process.
They often just need assurance that it is possible to do.
Here is an example of a whole country doing it (in education, anyway):
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/macedonia-school-computers
They would not have been able to do that with expensive proprietary software.
There are other benefits as well:
Because the source is open, Macedonia can modify it and shape it for themselves. You just couldn’t do that, nor teach your students as much about computing, using closed-source software.
Then there is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olpc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1
It happens on a smaller scale in other countries as well:
http://www.sd73.bc.ca/district-operations.php/page/linux-in-educati…
Edited 2007-11-23 10:52
I feel so misunderstood!
Hardly. Your comments make it very clear that you’re nothing more than an evangelist/shill for Linux — and you have disdain for anyone that disagrees with your obnoxious opinions.
You would need to explain exactly how I could be a “shill for Linux”.
Tomcat, we have a clear case of your doing “psychological projection” here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Follow the money … there you will find the shills.
You would need to explain exactly how I could be a “shill for Linux”.
Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
“‘Shill’ can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit ‘shill’ for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity.”
Listen to yourself. It’s comments like these that remind me that there’s no shortage of seriously f*d up nutcases on the Internet, whose seemingly sole preoccupation in life is self-associating with a freaking operating system (yeah, I’m incredulous, too) — and then trying to convince others to share their obsession. And you thought GATES and BALLMER are bad for trying to push Windows on people? Sheez…[i]
I could not agree with you more on this! These people need to seriously re-examine their lives, seek counseling and find more productive avenues to fill the empty void in their lives. I seriously want to know what medication they need so I can invest in whichever pharmaceutical company produces it, I would make a killing as there are just so many of these nut jobs on the internet these days.
[i]Edited 2007-11-23 12:36
blah, blah, blah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmental_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29#Thought…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Naughty, naughty. Please stay within: http://www.osnews.com/rules.php
“No gratuitous use of profanity, biting sarcasm, or personal disparagement, especially directed at individuals.”
Edited 2007-11-23 14:11
Read rules 4, 5, and 6? Enough said, now move on. If you have NOTHING to say about the topic go find some other fitting avenue you can vent your rage at all the injustices Microsoft has done to you.
For those people wanting to escape the Vista nightmare, and wanting to give Linux a try, but are unaware of how to get a Linux system and who don’t feel themselves up to the task of installing it themselves, there is an increasing number of ways to get started becoming available:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/allReviews.do?product_id=7754614
(a low-powered widely-available everyday home PC that is a good starting point for the curious)
http://www.linux-laptop.net/
(get it on a standard laptop)
http://www.system76.com/
(get it from a Linux specialist)
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/desktop.html
(get it from any number of Linux specialists)
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/60397.html
“The Linux OS is also readily available from well-known computer makers such as HP (NYSE: HPQ) , Acer, Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) , Gateway (NYSE: GTW), Lenovo and dozens more.”
… or get it from companies whose main business is still Windows.
Edited 2007-11-22 01:22
Wrong. 1 GB of RAM is what you need run stuff under Vista. The system will boot with 512MB but swaps heavily if you actually run anything, so if anything 512 is closer to XP and 2K with 128.
I know someone that installed 3GB of RAM on the same Asus mobo that I have (I still only have 1GB) and he says that he notices no difference.
I gave up with Vista and went to Ubuntu, my macbook pro ran vista reasonably well but I had to kill that partition when I upgraded to Leopard.
I help a lot of people with both XP and Vista so I’ll probably at least install Vista for testing…. the funny thing is that it seems to run slightly better in the machine with 1GB on vmware in ubuntu, go figure.
I’m not trying to bash Vista but that’s partially my real world experience with the OS.
So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC.
To make sure you understand. There are no business accounting programs that can run any business in Linux. There are no real investment software program that run in Linux. There aren’t any good graphic software for professionals in Linux (no, the Gimp is not a professional software).
So in the end, your switch to Ubuntu shows that all you do is get on the Internet, email and chat and write little notes like you did above. You do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why?…Because you can’t!
Maya and Softimage XSI both run on Linux very well…and they are “professional” modeling/animation/rendering software.
Edited 2007-11-19 16:34
I’m down in Christchurch studying at Canterbury University – the universities claim to fame being the Hamilton Waterjet. Years ago people moved from ‘big expensive UNIX machines’ – I remember when I was at CIT they had a whole lab of SGI O2’s loaded with the latest and greatest IRIX. They moved to x86 machines running NT. Now it seems that we’ve got ‘back to UNIX” as I see lecturer’s and students either with Mac laptops or laptops loaded with Linux.
The migration is starting; it starts at the top niche areas and works their way down – people aren’t just fed up with Windows Vista, they’re sick and tired of the hollow promises, rising memory demands and very little provided in return for the steep system requirements. What sits at the top? just how out of touch Microsoft is with the end users requirements.
So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC.
Well said. Anyone switching operating systems just like that is not doing much important in first place.
yeah I’ve only been using Windows since the early 90’s… believe me I did not ‘just’ switch OS’s
Oh gimme a break. I used to do contracting work for the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (which was a division of the government), and while I was there, the techie transparently rolled over their previous file and print server to Linux overnight, as well as set up a Debian Stable/Postgres server, and migrated the data from SQL server the following day. Don’t give me any bull that you can’t switch just like that because believe me, you can.
We were talking about desktops, not servers.
as well as set up a Debian Stable/Postgres server, and migrated the data from SQL server the following day.
Stored procedures worked fine?
T-SQL and Postgres’ SQL dialect are 100% compatible?
Yeah right.
Edited 2007-11-19 18:26
“So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC.
Well said. Anyone switching operating systems just like that is not doing much important in first place.”
You’re insinuating that Linux is merely a toy to play around with and not a serious OS intended for mission critical tasks or operations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the commenter was able to “just switch” to Linux speaks volumes about how Linux has progressed through the years. I switched over to Linux completely about five years ago and am proud to say that I don’t use Microsoft products in my business. Everything I need to do to maintain my business I do with Linux and open source applications . Ironically, my business involves IT consulting so most of my bread and butter comes from people who are having lots of problems with Windows (especially Vista.) My own dalliance with Vista was only to ensure that I had no reason to try another go at Windows. Vista is a step backward, if anything. Anyone who thinks an operating system needs 1 GB of RAM (let alone 2 GB) to function smoothly is seriously misguided. The OS should stay the hell out of your way while you get to work with your applications. It shouldn’t be eating up the lion’s share of your resources.
He’s insinuating no such thing. What he is saying is that if you were able to switch from one OS to the other ‘just like that’, you’re doing simple ‘bread and butter’ tasks like browsing the web, checking email, listening to music, etc. But if you’re a power user with 30-40 apps installed that you absolutely depend on, you ain’t switching platforms overnight, no matter what OS it is. Assuming you can find capable equivalents to everything you’re using (which, when it comes to Linux, you might be able to depending on what you’re doing), or you decide to live with lesser/no equivalents, that’s going to take quite a bit of time.
Edited 2007-11-19 23:49
I assume you are not trolling, so do you really think that people can’t do anything constructive under GNU/Linux (in this case Ubuntu) ? It is impossible for me to believe that. Why ? Because I do lots of constructive things under my Slackware: PHP developing, Java programming, system administration, self company business accounting program (Java client), … and yes, I also browse Internet and chat sometimes, or post notes at OSNews.
If you mean that I cannot watch to all those stupid PowerPoints around Internet: you are wrong too, I can view them with OpenOffice, it is just that I don’t want to. Neither do I want to have a virus/spyware protection software making my OS to underperform.
If you mean that I cannot use a pirated copy of Photoshop:you’re right. I don’t like pirated software, I’d prefer to run it under VMware if I needed it. Anyway, for me The Gimp is “good” enough, feel free to disagree.
No, I think the point the troll was trying to make was this….
His/her friends and family look to him/her as a “computer guru”, if they have any problems they will give the guru a call.
So, said guru tries Linux, as he wants to be seen as Uber-guru, but freaks out because things in Linuxland are different.
Now, this guru, given time, can learn to live with the differences, and he will enjoy the mantle of uber-guru…..
EXCEPT
He cannot work out how to do some things, and feels stupid, so stupid that he is afraid the friends and family find out that he is not a guru at all, he only knows how to do certain things in one operating system.
So, he tells all and sundry that Linux sucks and there is nothing to see.
However, us people who have made the leap know differently.
Off-Topic Probably
==================
I read your comments, and they did not sit with me comfortably. It is true that so-called Windows power-users(sic) have a regression in there knowledge, and I have *always* asserted that power-users(sic) are the ones that have the problems moving between OS’s I think its an artificial barrier. If you examine what these experts do its quite basic; download codec packs; 20 tips on improving XXXX; how to steal stuff effectively; virus/spyware programs, and we see their solutions with comments “its the drivers” solution=”install new drivers”…and they can find new drivers; “it needs a fresh install” which is no solution at all I can’t help but smirk every time I hear the term slipstreaming. The bottom line is being a windows users is pretty much about *waiting* as far as I understand, and well SP1 is well the solution(sic).
I agree it’s amazing how some people have their heads stuck into the sand. I’ve seen and used all versions of Windows except the very first ones and a miserable brief encounter with Vista on a relative’s new notebook.
The fact that an accountant friend of mine runs his business on Slackware and my accounting software should silence this troll for good. It’s already better, faster and easier than many packages available for his “OS” and when I have the time I’m improving it too.
What free operating systems and frameworks give you is the possibility as a programmer to write solutions that you truly own and can improve instead of building something on a quicksand foundation such as Windows and .Net.
>>>> So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business applications (open office is not a business application) on your PC.<<<<
You’re right, I use OSX for anything business related. There is nothing on Windows I cant do in OSX. Linux however is fine for all my home needs. And fantastic for my geekery.
>>>>To make sure you understand. There are no business accounting programs that can run any business in Linux. There are no real investment software program that run in Linux. There aren’t any good graphic software for professionals in Linux (no, the Gimp is not a professional software).
So in the end, your switch to Ubuntu shows that all you do is get on the Internet, email and chat and write little notes like you did above. You do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why?…Because you can’t! <<<<
What about Maya then? is that not an industry standard ‘graphics software’? or does Pixar not count as a leading professional company? Linux and OSX are on the bleeding edge of 3D animation and distributed computing. Throw the other sciences into that and you’ll find that education & research is BUILT on the foundation of Unix.
You’ll find if you actually open your eyes that on one side you have the industry respected WORLD standards of Sun, IBM, Novell, Apple, Redhat etc etc etc and then on the other side you have Microsoft and err Microsoft.
Microsoft is a flash in the pan when it comes to the history of computing, a self-leveraged monopoly that will topple when they run out of customers to squeeze.
As you say, some people are trapped in Windows and admittedly they have no choice but to stay, BUT when vista breaks the compatibility of almost every application you previously relied on then what is the incentive to stay?
As a programmer I have access to multiple open SDKs that I cant get with Windows, as a server admin I have access to all the best virtulization and server related tools. If someones code breaks I can fix it and not worry about the stupid marketing or patent violations of some large conglomerate.
Then of course you’re going to bitch that not everyone is a programmer… well so fookin what? my mother manages just fine with her Ubuntu box and yes, all she does is what you mention above, that accounts for how many million people that use Windows? 80% of people use 20% of Office? I think your bullshitting when you say Open Office / Gimp isnt a business application… it does ALMOST all of what an average user needs. Need Exchange? virtual machine it!
DONT get on at me because YOUR platform is closed, incompatible and restrictive. DONT get on at me because your company was retarded enough to enter into using closed software that locked you into using documents that cant be opened with another application. DONT get on at me because YOUR country has made it so that you cant submit your tax forms in any other format that doesn’t run on Windows. THAT sir is your problem.. not mine.
FYI I can run Photoshop (up to CS2) in Linux, I can run Office (up to 2k3) in Linux and in all honesty its not that much harder or less compatible than running it natively.
I do kinda miss some elements of Office 2k7, and I miss my games… but for everything else there is either alternatives, better software or at the very worst virtulization.
If you dont think MS is a monopolist, look at the development cycle of Office 2k8 for the mac, but hell who cares when everyone can use Pages?
Microsoft is floundering. Jesus, even Balmer expects MS to make 25% of its profits from advertising within the next 5 years. What does that show?
I dont really care what OS you use, I just want there to be a choice. And that people are educated to those choices.
I’ve used windows since the days of 3.0. I’ve seen Microsoft do some interesting things, and I’ve also seen them embrace, extend and extinguish technologies that were far superior to their own. I dont really have a problem using most Microsoft software up till Vista, but Vista for me and many others was the last straw.
If MS had done what they said they would do with Longhorn (including a 64bit BeOS like file system called WinFS etc) then Vista could have matured into something fantastic. Sadly, however, their promises were once again empty and what they provided was another Windows Millennium. All you have now with their backtracking is a DRM encumbered XP with a pretty skirt.
You sir, take your MCSE – and GTFO!
You sir, take your MCSE – and GTFO!
hehehehe Classic !
I can see that becoming a major quote around here
“so you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC. ”
Can I have what you are smoking?
“You do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why?…Because you can’t!’
That’s the most ignorant, stupid statement I’ve ever heard. Lots of people are wonderfully productive on Linux, using opensource software. Just because YOU can’t don’t mean that nobody can’t. Every one has to pick the tools that suits them best, so stop browbeating other peoples choices.
Can I have what you are smoking?
Yes you can, it is called “real world” but you won’t find it in your mom’s basement or on Slashdot.
While I agree with the examples you’ve given (accounting, graphics), you simply cannot make a blanket statement such as “you do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why? Because you can’t”.
That’s absurd.
There’s a large portion of my office that could use Ubuntu (or any other distro that has access to OOo and Evolution w/ Exchange connector) successfully for their job function.
OOo is a valid business application for a large percentage of MS Office users, because many people don’t dive deep enough into Office for the differences to matter.
If you want to make it really easy on yourself, your company and your company’s IT budget, then get rid of Exchange and Sharepoint and use better and cheaper alternatives that are platform neutral.
http://www.zimbra.com/about/
http://www.open-xchange.com/header/home.html
This way you can use without hassle any platform you want for the desktop clients.
Especially with the advent of Office 2007 – OOo does a fantastic job in my experience of allowing one to open files that are unreadable, or unsavable in a compatible native format, with an older version of MS Office, once files have been made readable with the application of a ‘compatibility’ patch. Hats off just in the realm of empirical excellence alone here.
I don’t know about you, but 2gigs seems very excessive when it comes to simply getting an operating system up and running along with running some general purpose applications. Maybe I’m getting old and senile in my old age, but 2gigs is overly excessive just to run a computer.
I don’t want to turn this into a ‘Windows vs. the rest of the universe’ – but I’m here, running Leopard on a MacBook. GMA 950 graphics card, share graphics – I’ve tested this using 1gig and 2gigs. In the Windows world, this would be considered ‘low end specs’ and yet, under Leopard it works wonderfully.
Microsoft really do need to go back to the drawing board and admit that demanding an end user who just wants to write letters, to install 2gigs to get acceptable performance is completely unacceptable. This end user isn’t simulating nuclear explosions or doing climatic analysis, all they want to do is use their computer; when is Microsoft, in all their infinite wisdom going to allow the end user do that without needing a super-computer class machine?
I don’t know about you, but 2gigs seems very excessive when it comes to simply getting an operating system up and running along with running some general purpose applications. Maybe I’m getting old and senile in my old age, but 2gigs is overly excessive just to run a computer.
I am running Vista on AMD X2 2.2HGz with 2GB RAM. Visual Studio 2005 (2008 soon), SQL Server 2005, Firefox, IE, Outlook, Paint.NET and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I’ll open Word, Excel or some other app (WinAMP, etc). No problems.
Don’t believe everything you read.
Edited 2007-11-20 19:13
Really? I also run an IDE, a Postgres server, Firefox, Evolution, GIMP, and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I also open OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc or some other app (XMMS, etc). Except I do this on a laptop computer that is 4 years old, with a Pentum4-M CPU and only 512MB RAM. No problems.
Who knows what I could do if I had your computer.
Really? I also run an IDE, a Postgres server, Firefox, Evolution, GIMP, and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I also open OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc or some other app (XMMS, etc). Except I do this on a laptop computer that is 4 years old, with a Pentum4-M CPU and only 512MB RAM. No problems.
Who knows what I could do if I had your computer.
Perhaps, you’d be using Windows Vista.
Anyway, what made you upgrade to Pentuim4 and 512MB? Why aren’t you using Pentim 2 and 128MB?
That guy said that 2GB is enough to just run Vista and I responded to that. I really don’t care what you can do with Pentium 4 and 512MB. CPUs and RAM are priced so low these days that I had no problems in purchasing this configuration. As soon as prices go down even more, I’ll be getting Quad core CPU and possibly even more memory. You don’t have to.
Edited 2007-11-20 20:48
Certainly not the operating system I chose to use.
Certainly not the operating system I chose to use.
But you see, you did upgrade. So case closed.
I’m sorry, case closed how? People upgrade for all sorts of reasons; computers die, get written off, stolen or lost etc. I didn’t “upgrade” at all, technically. I needed a laptop so I bought one second hand.
See, because of Vista, you have a nice grunty machine to do the tasks of what I expect a 4 year old computer to do just as well.
See, because of Vista, you have a nice grunty machine to do the tasks of what I expect a 4 year old computer to do just as well.
No, not because of Vista.
If Vista was not even released, I’d be still running that same configuration. And even more, as I said, I’d soon upgrade to quad-core and even more memory, better video card, etc. Vista or not, hardware is cheap these days.
Edited 2007-11-20 22:03
I’m not disagreeing that hardware is cheap. I’m disagreeing that it seems necessary to upgrade just to run Vista, so that you can do what a 4 year old computer can do.
I’m not disagreeing that hardware is cheap. I’m disagreeing that it seems necessary to upgrade just to run Vista, so that you can do what a 4 year old computer can do.
Can your 4 year old computer compile files as fast as mine? Can your 4 year old computer render video as fast as mine, etc, etc?
Will you be able to run DX10 games? And you need Vista for those.
No, you can not. As I said, Vista or not, I’d be upgrading anyways.
Edited 2007-11-20 22:58
Probably not, but an identical hardware setup running an OS other than Vista undoubtedly would. File operations on Vista are hopeless. It is actually faster for me to transfer data over a network on two non-Vista machines than it is to copy the same amount of data from one hard drive to another on Vista. I deal with multiple operating systems all the time. I am a Service Engineer for Toshiba and my job is to repair laptops. I have compared XP and Vista installations on identical laptops before, and the result of the comparison is undoubtedly clear, that I don’t even need to declare the winner.
I knew you’d play the “games” card sooner or later. You’re assuming I want to play games, and the games that I want to play require DirectX 10. Besides, you’re deviating yet again from the real problem. Vista requires too much to do too little. There’s no reason why Microsoft couldn’t have developed DirectX 10 and then ported it to Vista. Instead, they have created yet another monopolistic lock-in to further reduce the customer’s options, forcing them into something because of the little things, instead of the big picture.
I knew you’d play the “games” card sooner or later. You’re assuming I want to play games, and the games that I want to play require DirectX 10. Besides, you’re deviating yet again from the real problem. Vista requires too much to do too little. There’s no reason why Microsoft couldn’t have developed DirectX 10 and then ported it to Vista. Instead, they have created yet another monopolistic lock-in to further reduce the customer’s options, forcing them into something because of the little things, instead of the big picture.
Are you telling me if DX10 was available on Windows XP or 2000, you’d be running DX10 titles on your 4 years old computer? No, you would not. You can’t.
We’re not talking about 4 year old computers now. I was simply showing that you don’t need Vista or a grunty computer to do what you were doing.
What I’m telling you now is that if DirectX 10 was released for Windows XP officially, there would be absolutely no reason for anybody to upgrade to Vista. Once Microsoft stop development support for DirectX 9, they will essentially force game developers to use DirectX 10, and subsequently every XP gamer will be forced to upgrade.
Like I’ve said, I’ve compared two identical computers running XP and Vista. The amount of overhead that Vista introduces is huge; and the resources would be better put to use by applications rather than the operating system. Again, Vista requires too much to do too little.
Off topic a bit: I can understand benchmarking game performance on hardware, but why on earth should there be a tool to measure how well an operating system runs? It is the applications and games that should be demanding the latest hardware, not the operating system. The operating system should just be able to take advantage of the latest hardware, not demand it.
We’re not talking about 4 year old computers now. I was simply showing that you don’t need Vista or a grunty computer to do what you were doing.
How is that I don’t need Vista to run DX10 titles?
Like I’ve said, I’ve compared two identical computers running XP and Vista. The amount of overhead that Vista introduces is huge; and the resources would be better put to use by applications rather than the operating system. Again, Vista requires too much to do too little.
What???
On my configuration (nothing special: AMD X2 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM), both CPUs are heavily underutilized, with all the apps and services that I have running. I hardly ever see high CPU load. Memory? Not a problem either, everything runs smooth.
If Vista was constantly keeping my CPUs at say 60% (or more) then I’d agree, but.. it is actually nowhere near that. It is only when I do stuff like archiving, gaming or compiling that CPU usage goes UP, but that is expected.
It is the applications and games that should be demanding the latest hardware, not the operating system.
Latest hardware??? Do you even realize what “latest hardware” mean? My configuration, that runs Vista just great, is certainly not the latest hardware – price confirms it. CPU that I use (X2 4200+) is around $80 — how on earth can that be called “latest hardware”?? 2GB RAM is around $60.. same thing.
Do you realize that Acer and others are now selling quad core systems (Q6600, 2.4GHz) with 3GB RAM in.. places like Staples!? And it is well under $1000. So it is sold to general consumers, hardly for someone looking for “latest hardware” and someone ready to pay higher prices.
Man, you need to check places like Tom’s Hardware to get a dose of reality.
Stop deviating from the topic. I don’t care what your definition of “latest hardware” is. I don’t care how much you spent on your computer.
Prove to me that the added overhead in Vista provides or allows more productivity than other operating systems available today, and that the demands of Vista’s increased productivity is rightly justified by the required hardware.
Just the other day, I was looking at the CPU metre, and it nearly maxed out when I was just moving a window around. I wasn’t archiving files, compiling projects or playing games. I was moving a window. I have to wait for Vista to load icons in the control panel. I have to wait a looong time just to copy some files. I plug in a USB device and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait. What is Vista doing?! Why is it so much slower to do all these tasks than every other operating system?
I don’t care what your definition of “latest hardware” is.
You started the topic.
And it certainly not *my* definition only.
Dual core systems such as mine, with 2GB RAM, that are sold all over Best Buy and Staples certainly are not the “latest hardware”. High end systems are $1500 and above.
You’re just plain ignorant if you think that something like AMD X2 2.2GHz and 2GB RAM is called “latest hardware”
System such as mine is priced less than $500.
I have to wait a looong time just to copy some files. I plug in a USB device and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait. What is Vista doing?! Why is it so much slower to do all these tasks than every other operating system?
If you’re running Vista on your 4 year old Pentium 4 with 512 MB of RAM, yes it is going to be slow. Nobody ever claimed that Vista is fast on system like that — that guy started the whole thing by saying that you need 2GB just to run Vista
And I don’t have problems like that, but that is maybe because I can afford to spend $30 for extra 1 GB RAM. If you can’t then, yeah, stay away from Vista. 512MB is enough to get it running, but it is going to be slow. I never argued that.
Don’t forget to mod this one down too
I run a laptop, core duo, with 1 GB and it is quite fine.
I turn off that compositing stuff and visual styles mind you. Much nicer and better than XP (they removed some annoyances).
I did that, too. Not much speedup.
Of course, my brand new laptop “only” has 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo. Application startup takes forever. Network transfers take forever. UAC prompts can make things unusable for over a minute, as the screen greys out, but the prompt itself never appears. Hell, local files unzip at around 5k/sec, for Christ’s sake!
And that says nothing about the occasional crashes, the broad application incompatibility and the inconsistent use of Microsoft’s own APIs by Microsoft themselves.
Don’t believe me?
Try locating your Outlook .pst files on a network store and then using Vista’s new Sync Center to make them persistent offline. Then watch Outlook explode.
Hell, even if you make no changes to the offline files, it still takes upwards of 5 minutes to sync… AND THE SERVER THEY’RE STORED ON IS 10 FEET AWAY ON A 100MBPS INTERNAL NETWORK!
Vista is a huge step backwards, in every sense, for operating systems. I thank the good lord that Friday was the last day I’d ever use it. Good riddance.
That pretty much sums up my experience with Vista 😐 I thought it could only get better after beta but retail is hardly different.
On My MBP I have Leopard and Vista Business (had to install Windows because of VC++ 2005 and school assignments, at least it was free).
Vista is running under Fusion with 1GB Ram and 1GB left goes to Leopard, of course no Aero under vmware.
Currently running Eclipse 3.3, VC++ 2005 Express, MSN Messenger, WMP and MS Powerpoint 2007 and Vista works perfectly fine. I don’t understand (but do not deny) how it could run any worse outside of VM using much more resources, maybe Aero is the culprit.
Also, since I installed and configured the apps I wanted, I get very few UAC prompts.
OFFTOPIC NOTE: Spaces is SWEET, one thing that I was really missing from Linux, now I run Vista Full Screen on one space and can just switch (ctrl-arrow) between OSs. I even prefer it to Unity view of Fusion.
Edited 2007-11-20 03:06
I’d agree that the problems I’ve had with Vista don’t make sense. In fact, were I not on the receiving end of that fustercluck, I’d have been very skeptical of anybody telling me that Vista was such a pathetic hog. But I not only had the joy of experiencing each of those pains myself; I also had to support a small office, with each Vista box blowing up in its own special, incomprehensible way.
There are lots of little things (i.e. different .NET execution policies between the various Vista Distros) that make migration and compatibility testing a nightmare. And when you throw in the blatant failings in other areas (network I/O, zip decompression, network storage, and more), it was enough to make any reasonable person question the value that Vista is supposed to deliver.
Oh, and P.S.: There’s no way Spaces is something that you were “really missing from Linux”. Virtual desktops have been around in the Linux world since forever. That statement makes me seriously doubt you’ve ever used Linux.
I think the guy was implying that when he used OSX, he missed virtual desktops out the box like he was used to in Linux — that’s my guess anyways.
Oh, and P.S.: There’s no way Spaces is something that you were “really missing from Linux”. Virtual desktops have been around in the Linux world since forever. That statement makes me seriously doubt you’ve ever used Linux.
As Nossie commented above, what I meant was that OSX didn’t have Virtual Desktops, and I was missing it when migrated from Linux to OSX.
Edited 2007-11-20 20:08
My bad. Sincerest apologies.
This looks like an interesting series of articles based on a testing suite that those xpnet people have developed. I think it’s important to pay attention to what they are doing in those tests. If they’re scripting UI actions and trying to blast through them as quickly as possible, I could see Vista being slower than XP. The reason for this is that things that require human interactions are made fast enough that they can keep up with a person. Inherently graphical operations are not necessarily optimized for happening quickly under a script.
If he’s measuring things that are deemed “fast enough” (i.e. that a user won’t really even notice slowness), then it makes sense that no work was done to speed those things up for SP1.
is it not down to the perception of speed rather than the reality anyway?
I cant remember anything on the MS platform but didn’t they reduce the dock bouncing in OSX apps so that it at least appeared the app opened quicker?
So maybe for that reason alone you cant just script things for benchmarking… although its probably difficult to get truly independent results using humans.
I have been installing Windows Service Packs from NT 4.0 Service Pack 1 and I have neither seen nor expected them to speed up the system at all.
I don’t think that’s the purpose of the Service Packs anyway, they’re supposed to fix things, add funcionality, and the so … in this case, besides, I bet Microsoft couldn’t improve system performance with a Service Pack even if they wanted to do so.
About the testing, Vista does include that new scoring thing that tells you your system score: if the Service Pack does not modify that score, I doubt that any improvement (if it existed) was noticeable at all.
By the way, a P4/2.4GHz (no hyperthreading) with 1.5GB RAM DDR/333MHz, two 320GB UDMA/100 hard disks and an ATI Radeon Pro 9600 256MB gives me a 3.5 (the range is from 1.0 up to 5.9 if I am not wrong) score (CPU=3.5, RAM = 4.4, hard disk = 4.6, graphics card = 3.6) … but the performance degrades once you install software, especially virus protection one.
Yeah, that’s why you should install a light-weight Anti-Virus engine like ClamWin, which doesn’t hog resources like Norton/McAfee.
At my mail servers I use clamav and sometimes f-prot, but under Windows I prefer Eset Nod32, I find it really light and effective and totally undisturbing.
While I fully agree with your sentiments about Norton/McAfee, Clamwin will be insufficient for a lot of people as long as this remains true: ClamWin Free Antivirus does not include an on-access real-time scanner – http://forums.clamwin.com/viewtopic.php?t=10
I use it myself, but lack of on access scanning (thus far) is a bit of a disadvantage. Moon Secure Antivirus is also clam based, and apparently has on access scanning (google it if you want). I have no personal experience with it though, and they seem to hide their use of clam pretty well.
ANYWAY I would have been pretty surprised to see SP1 bring noticeable improvements. It’s sort of like people who are told not to complain about a game in beta (not saying Vista is beta) as the final game will be “optimized”. It never happens. Just like we’d all need new hardware to play Crysis, some folks will need new hardware to get over performance issues in Vista. I hope the added features and security are worth it (I don’t know, again no personal experience yet).
Most of the issues with Vista performance were odd corner cases. I am not saying I haven’t experienced problems, but the performance issues I’ve experienced haven’t been in the realm of Office application performance (which is what the linked article benchmarks).
It doesn’t surprise me at all that an office application benchmark performs the same on RTM vs. SP1 – go figure – the release team did a good job in making sure RTM performed well in most common, easily testable scenarios.
Its funny you say that…
In my own experience Office 2007 was one of the only applications that seemed to perform faster under Vista.
I’m guessing this could be because that was what the application was designed for but people are awfully quick to turn that argument around when it comes down to other OS’s
“It doesnt matter what ‘x’ could do for you in the future, it only matters what ‘x’ can do for you today”
In all honesty I kinda half wish Microsoft ripped the whole backwards compatible crap out, emulated old apps and started fresh (like apple did with OSX) … but I get the impression that Microsoft didnt like the idea of releasing the marketshare back to the competition.
I do believe however they would be getting less criticism today and might have a better OS for it. Instead they are sandwiching people within an OS that can’t decide if its XP compatible or not.
In all honesty I kinda half wish Microsoft ripped the whole backwards compatible crap out, emulated old apps and started fresh (like apple did with OSX) … but I get the impression that Microsoft didnt like the idea of releasing the marketshare back to the competition.
Why would you need an operating system from Microsoft then?
I mean, if you want brand-new OS that is not Windows compatibile, can’t you just get MacOS or.. errr.. Linux?
Seriously.
“Why would you need an operating system from Microsoft then? ”
Thats exactly my point. I agree its a two edged sword for Microsoft. But I dont bash them because I’m an ‘MS hater’ I bash them because I love operating systems of all kinds and I adore checking out advancements in technology… What I do bash MS on is their manipulation of the market and business practices in general. In many ways (if not more) Apple is no better, things imho could have been far worse if Apple was the monopoly.
The point is, I dont think any company should be allowed such relief, people should be kept informed that ‘Windows’ does not mean computer. The internet is not just Internet Explorer and internet search is not just Google.
If people have those choices before them and choose Windows then all is fair, but within the last 10 years Microsoft has forced the market so that you can only play games on Windows, if Microsoft really cared for the customer then direct X would be a truly open development platform. Unlike OpenGL, DirectX is used once again to pervert games development and to manipulate peoples choices.
As an OS ‘freak’ I guess I could be considered as, I would like to see an OS be popular because of its technical merits… not because some marketing department threw $1 billion dollars at it.
But the world is not perfect, and I may be one of the few that misses BeOS, Commodore and the Amiga.
The Amiga 1200 was faster than the equivalent intel 486…. history is littered with dead companies that provided superior products. I just stick up for those that deserve it.
If people have those choices before them and choose Windows then all is fair, but within the last 10 years Microsoft has forced the market so that you can only play games on Windows,
Funny, I thought there are other platforms to play games on such as Nintendo, PS, etc.
Besides, Microsoft forced the market? I mean, Microsoft forced gaming companies not to develop games for, for example, Linux? How is that??
if Microsoft really cared for the customer then direct X would be a truly open development platform. Unlike OpenGL, DirectX is used once again to pervert games development and to manipulate peoples choices.
Can you play PS2 games on Wii?
Can you play PS3 games on XBox 360?
Etc.
Stop blaming MS for doing what any other company is doing – providing something specific for their platform so that they can sell it easier.
Of course you can’t because the hardware is different! That is not a fair comparison. People have a choice when it comes to what OS they install on a PC.
Microsoft provide a lock-in by forcing DirectX into the gaming market by either slandering other available development possibilities or by providing the big names in the industry with DirectX SDKs etc. They further lock consumers in by releasing DirectX only for a particular version of Windows and dropping development support for earlier versions, meaning people will be forced to upgrade their OS just to play the latest games that undoubtedly will run on XP anyway.
Edited 2007-11-19 22:13
Of course you can’t because the hardware is different! That is not a fair comparison.
So why the f*** is hardware different?
And why can hardware be different, but not the software??
People have a choice when it comes to what OS they install on a PC.
So people do have choice now, eh?
Edited 2007-11-19 23:51
Sony hold the exclusive rights to the PlayStation hardware and the operating system that runs on it, as well as the PlayStation’s hardware design, and they also hold exclusive copyright to the development kits which they provide to game companies.
Microsoft only own the operating system that you install on your computer. Nothing about your computer’s essential hardware belongs to Microsoft (i.e. not keyboards or mice). They don’t design and manufacture CPUs, graphics processors, motherboards etc etc.
What Microsoft are doing is limiting what customers can play on the customer’s own hardware by locking vendors into exclusively using Microsoft technologies to develop games. For a flawed analogy, imagine a company other than Sony limiting what games could be developed for the PS2.
Edited 2007-11-20 00:24
What Microsoft are doing is limiting what customers can play on the customer’s own hardware by locking vendors into exclusively using Microsoft technologies to develop games. For a flawed analogy, imagine a company other than Sony limiting what games could be developed for the PS2.
How is Microsoft forcing someone not to develop games for Linux or Mac? How is Microsoft stopping you from playing Linux games on that same PC?
I yet have to hear that explanation.
Edited 2007-11-20 04:27
As I heard it told, when Silicon Graphics virtually collapsed, Microsoft took the opportunity and bought some opengl patents and at the same time they bought all suppliers of opengl graphics drivers for Windows.
Microsoft then made it so that the only way to have an opengl application on Windows was to go via Microsoft’s opengl driver. In directx10, Microsoft nobbled opengl. Now all opengl calls on Windows are forced to go via a translation layer to directx.
The performance of opengl on Windows was ruined. Whereas before game developers could write their game to use opengl, and as a result have a game that was readily portable to other platforms, now the performance hit on opengl on Windows is just too high, and all games effectively must be written to use directx and not opengl.
Hence, all PC games are now Windows-only, whereas before they could have been written to be cross-platform, if the game developer so chose.
Microsoft did an “embrace and extinguish” for opengl software on Windows. They didn’t even bother with the “extend” phase for this one.
http://www.mcadonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id…
“The second way to currently utilize OpenGL on Vista is to use Microsoft’s own OpenGL implementation, which is layered on top of the DirectX driver. However, according to Metro, an administrator on OpenGL.org’s discussion forum, there are major implications with running OpenGL applications in this way. “In practice this means OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced – perhaps as much as 50%, OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4, and no extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations.”
Edited 2007-11-20 05:19
Am I naive or does selling/buying patents defeat the entire purpose? Shouldn’t the person who invented it be stuck with it and be forced to develop it? (This means e.g. Terry Welch should have been the sole recipient of LZW, not Compuserve nor Unisys nor anybody else.) If someone needs to team up with a company, fine. But it just feels ridiculous to have someone say “We’re protecting our IP” when they didn’t even invent (some, if any of) it.
Microsoft probably bought the patents to gain some “steering” control over opengl technology … at least as applied to a Windows platform.
They probably wanted that control simply in order to undermine opengl (and hence enhance directx lock-in) if their subsequent actions are anything to go by.
I dunno, perhaps it’s the same way they force major computer manufacturers to only ship their computers with Windows? Perhaps it’s the same way they tried to get Intel and AMD to manufacture specific CPUs so that only Windows would be able to operate on them? Perhaps it’s also similar to the way Microsoft force their own software on their own customers. Maybe it’s similar to the way Microsoft have always had this monopolistic lock-in style business practice.
It would not surprise me one bit to discover that this same tactic is used with major software development companies, including the gaming industry. Microsoft provide or subsidise the development tools and documentation and all they ask for in return is a itty bitty promise to make software operate on Windows only.
“Can you play PS2 games on Wii?
Can you play PS3 games on XBox 360?
Etc.
Stop blaming MS for doing what any other company is doing – providing something specific for their platform so that they can sell it easier.”
That would be all very well but its not a Windows PC. its a PC. so your logic is totally flawed. The same applies to the Sony PS2, the Nintendo Wii, the MICROSOFT 360.
Look at how Direct X is constructed, LOOK at how openGL in Vista only runs on TOP of direct X..
I realise that the reason games ‘is’ windows is because of Microsofts general monopoly but that does not give Microsoft ANY right to make games that would run perfectly well in XP Vista only if ONLY to make Vista seem like an upgrade.
I’m just glad things will change… whether its Cider, Wine or some other technology that wedges the lack of choice I’m happy.
The better analogy would be not allowing Capcom to develop games for the Wii while Konami is given full access to the SDK. Once Microsoft has their own hardware (in the case of MS branded PC’s in india) or the 360 THEN they can dictate what goes on that platform.
I tried to like it, but i simply had to go back to my previous version of windows(2003), i simply could not stand it any more.
Having used it since it came out, i really feel that vista is a step back in performance and usability.
I now feel lost in “windows-land”, hoping win2008 is the “solution”. Kind of sad.
{insert pro-Freenix trolling here}
The SP1 performance and compatibility updates have been released as they have been completed through windows update. AFAIK there have been 3 major patches so far.
I’ll stick with DOS thank you very much.
on a Dual Core 4000+ AMD, but this machine has 4GB of RAM and an nVidia 7600GT. Not top of the line, but not old either.
IMO OSes shouldn’t need 2GB to not feel sluggish. What happens when you actually start doing something with it, like video editing and the like?
With XP Pro on my 2Gz Core 2 Duo/2GB RAM system, I can render video in Vegas, surf the net, work in Office, all at the same time without a hiccup.
Will I have that same comfort with Vista?
Hardware should progress for better performance….not just so it can keep up with the latest wiz-bang OS with lots of eye candy.
Edited 2007-11-19 15:34
Thats the point….
With EVERY new version of Mac OS X I’ve noticed a speed increase in my ancient 450mhz G4 cube, Yes I’ve turned the core animation effects off with Leopard server.
With every new version of Windows all I’ve seen is speed decreases and if you turn Aero off it makes the system no faster.
Personally I dont blame Microsoft per say.. Microsoft has been cutting security for years and when they finally add it in properly things break – no surprise.
But I still blame this on all the unneeded DRM. Its built straight into the kernel and I think its ignorant to believe its not effecting performance in a bad way. Its like putting tank tracks on all cars for when you *might* need to go through some snow.
if you aren’t using HD, then the DRM is not active, so you’re blaming the wrong thing
Of course its there… otherwise how is it to poll that you’re watching legit porn?
Its that whole framework that’s flawed. If you dont have hdmi hardware and dont watch any DRM infected media… you should have the option to remove it from your system, otherwise its just more unnecessary bloat.
It even loads up with Vista business…. Why cant you just turn the services off if its not used unless you ‘need’ it?
“If you aren’t using HD, then the DRM is not active”
I cant remember the last time I listened to HD mp3’s can you?
Its part of the multimedia pipeline, not a service. It is an additional process that loads up when you launch an HD movie, it doesn’t constantly poll the system, searching for HD content. The xvid codec is requested when you try to play xvid content, this works in a similar fashion.
There was alot of FUD generated by the Gutmann article awhile back (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html). The official response to this paper by the guys who implemented the HD DRM stuff is here http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/w…, and does a good job explaining what actually goes on. Of course, Gutmann came back with a rebuttal. But now that Vista is more widely used, his claims have been debunked in a few places (like here http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284)
I have used WMP11 on both Vista and on XP on the same machine, and I can tell you that on Vista it is much quicker to load content, more responsive, and doesnt kill the system the way the same software on XP does. In fact, on XP I would much rather use VLC, even with its lack of on screen controls during fullscreen playback. The same software I like in Vista, I really can’t stand using in XP. If there is more resources being used, or quality degradation, it is unnoticeable.
I did actually listen to an interview with Ed Bott (sp?????) on rebutting the FUD surrounding the DRM in Vista and did find it quite insightful. But I can only come to two conclusions from the interview:
1. It might not be active, but the whole subsystem for audio and video is engineered around the protection of the movie studios… not the performance of the media. I’m sorry but having polls to check the graphics bus for violations and the recent audio /networking issue found in Vista where networking crawls when your playing music is proof that their system is flawed. I just believe that if all this CRAP was not there then half of the issues people are having would not exist in the first place.
2. Microsoft still should have spent more time on WinFS and all the nice features of Vista rather than bowing to the wishes of the media cartels.
If you want to see what those bastards do look at what has happened to Sony, Sony used to make some of the best hardware ever. Since the Media arm has taken over the company has went downhill FAST.
I realise that the DRM does not directly effect performance but in the overall scheme of the OS it just adds another lead weight to the system in general.
I can’t find the article at the moment, but the problem with network and system performance in vista is because of a badly implemented design decision. Basically, anything that identifies itself as a media user process gets a guaranteed slice of cpu time and (if it is downloading) network traffic. Everyone thought it was the DRM, but it actually wasnt. The problem is they were too aggressive in what they were dedicating to media. (the link was posted to OSNews, don’t remember what it was called though)
Agreed. WDS is a poor substitute, and even if I were willing to buy HD media, I would rather have WinFS then HD playback.
Sony is actually a publisher, MS isn’t. The same requirements that they implemented for Vista are requirements for any device that plays that kind of media. Since I boycott HD media on principal, I would have preferred that MS told hollywood to take a flying leap when they saw what was required, but I doubt we will see the same kind of focus that took out sony, until MS starts publishing movies and forms a record label that is.
The problem is that DRM is here to stay, until the market starts saying they have had enough of it. That hasn’t really happened yet in the mainstream, until it does, DRM schemes will just keep getting more and more draconian. Not only that, but since the people fighting it tend to be anti big corporations in general, there has been a serious lack of focus in communicating to people what will make a difference. I have a friend who actually cited ACSS DRM in Vista as a reason he switched to Apple, but has a HD-DVD player/tv/speakers in his living room, and a PS3. I tried explaining that he kinda missed the point, but he just quoted me some FSF style jargon that barely made sense.
If you are against DRM in all forms, you need to chuck your DVDs, commercial software with piracy protection, your TiVO, and any Macrovision VHS you happen to still have lying around. If you don’t have a problem with DRM in principal, but draw the line in how far is far enough, then you need to be consistant in where you draw the line.
Agreed. WDS is a poor substitute, and even if I were willing to buy HD media, I would rather have WinFS then HD playback.
Do you realize that Microsoft demonstrated beta 1 of WinFS? It is not like they could not have it done by the time SP1 or SP2 is done. There’s even a video on Channel9 with WinFS guys demonstrating WinFS beta 1.
Considering that:
1. NTFS got support for transactions.
2. There’s built-in instant search.
3. There’s volume shadow copy (Previous Versions) client in Vista.
What exactly do you miss from WinFS?
Instant?! It is faster than than the excuse for a search function in XP and 2000, but with the required specs to run Vista, it still runs hoggishly slow especially in comparison to Spotlight. I would say in my experience, even running Beagle on an old P3 with 512MB (running on ext2) was probably about the same speed as Vista’s Desktop Search on a Centrino Pro platform.
I did giggle at your post, and wonder why you so heavily defend DRM. Vista DRM is heavily intrusive and embedded within the OS. We are talking about turning off drivers; reduced functionality, hell it spys on you etc etc . This is very different from a hardware player, or simple encryption mechanism…This is a computer OS. Why can’t I have the choice to simply turn this off!
I also find it funny that you are so confident at why Vista performs so poorly, I’d love you to provide evidence that its not DRM, as its binary. Although I’m sure all those businesses will love the fact that their computers are cripples to play MP3’s
How is Vista DRM any different then a standalone HD home entertainment center DRM? Your home entertainment center will reduce hardware functionality, not use a device unless it has the ability to be degraded, etc, etc.
You are spreading FUD cyclops, and it doesnt even make much sense.
The fact that the overhead of DRM not just affects his media experience but degrades the whole operating system experience.
I think cyclops would rather be slowly tortured to death then use Vista, and I wouldn’t doubt it if you felt the same way kaiwai. What sort of experience with the OS are you basing those claims on?
Having run Vista Ultimate and Vista Business. Its a step backwards. I bought a MacBook with 2 gigs, it was pre-loaded with Tiger, I upgraded to Leopard, and I have noticed no slow downs, and in some scenarios, improved performance.
When I went from Windows XP to Windows Vista, on the same machine (Toshiba laptop), there was an instant downgrade in speed – on a machine loaded with 2 gigs of memory. When I upgrade, I don’t expect a downgrade, at worse I expect speed parity.
I don’t expect much, and the fact that Microsoft couldn’t even deliver speed parity with Windows XP on the same hardware speaks volumes about the stupidity of their design manifesto – ‘screw today’s hardware, focus on tomorrows!’. So customers of today are screwed, and those of the future won’t see any benefits of their new hardware because its all gobbled up by the operating system.
Interesting points
I realise that the network/audio issue is not directly related to DRM but I cant help but feel its related indirectly.
Since I realise the reality of DRM, I just boycott all DRM that can’t be broken.. which is err none of them. But thats also another good reason why MS should never have bowed to the idea in the first place.
From what I remember of the Edd Bott interview, he said that the DRM foundations were laid to let media player developers build HD DRM compatible devices rather than let each of them independently code compatible interfaces on thier own. The idea being that this would save those small developers time and money.
BUT, when developers such as WinDVD are being locked out because their key gets cracked and revoked and you have to rely on them releasing an update, then I fail to understand where Microsoft thought the benefit really lay.
Here’s the benefit to baking some DRM scheme into the OS: DRM software has historically broken rules of the OS and caused instability and insecurity. Media companies want DRM, so they’re willing to go to the extent of breaking Windows to get what they want. If we are involved in at least the Kernel side of things, we can insure that security and stability is not compromised by certain kinds of third-party code.
Having said that, I don’t think the DRM issue is as bad as people say it is. There are a few specific places where support for DRM is in the kernel, but AFAIK we don’t constantly poll for changes and we don’t do anything stupid in the kernel in order to support DRM. If you’re not running HD video, you pretty much don’t have to worry about it.
I’m the person who owns the testing for MMCSS (the service which was causing network slowdowns when playing audio). I can assure you completely that the problem has nothing to do with DRM.
Sony went down way before then – the moment they decided to out source their production and leave someone else to sort out the QA, is the moment their products down hill.
They also never took their products to a whole new level; MiniDisc that should have evolved far beyond the 1gig limit on their current mini Disc HD, and yet, nothing done to make it possible. Their UMD format for PSP – why didn’t they make it possible to use it as a form of write able storage which would be cheaper than flash (which is the only sort of storage available on PSP).
The moment they took their eye off product development in favour of cutting costs – the lost their way; their media division is merely a by-product of that lust for money – using draconian licencing and lawsuits in the naive assumption that it’ll protect their money. Long term they’re fighting a losing battle.
Sorry but I dont believe that entirely.
“They also never took their products to a whole new level; MiniDisc that should have evolved far beyond the 1gig limit on their current mini Disc HD, and yet, nothing done to make it possible. Their UMD format for PSP – why didn’t they make it possible to use it as a form of write able storage which would be cheaper than flash (which is the only sort of storage available on PSP).”
Look at MiniDisc, UMD they werent popular because Sony wanted to control the license, same with MemoryStick & blu-ray to some extent (without the PS3 blu-ray would be DOA)
This is not about technology, it’s about licensing. It’s about giving the consumer too may ‘rights’.
If that was not the case,
Blue-ray writers wouldn’t be £400+
Memorysticks would be in non sony products
UMD would be in non sony products and would be writable
Minidisc would be in non sony products and wouldnt need propitiatory software to write to.
Can you get a non-vaio laptop with blu-ray?
Sony products have been far superior in tech for years and yet their inferior lust to control media and markets is greater. Admittedly this has been going on before Sony media took over the board but its been festering at an even greater pace since.
if you aren’t using HD, then the DRM is not active, so you’re blaming the wrong thing
It’s just the HD DRM that’s not active. There is a lot of other DRM stuff in vista too. For example:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=68158
Apparently Vista can’t even play a DRM free mp3 without hogging the CPU with its DRM stuff.
Edited 2007-11-19 18:01
when was the last time apple re-wrote their I/O stack, multimedia subsystem, desktop compositing subsystem, network stack, and security subsystem? The closest you can get to comparing the XP-> Vista transition is the OS9->OSX transition, and even that is apples and oranges (to make a bad pun). The slowdown from windows 2000 to windows XP was a lot less excusable then the slowdown from XP to Vista. By the time SP1 hits, Vista will be at the equivilent of OSX 10.1, which is considered to be the first widely usable version.
sorry no.
OS9 and OSX were completely different OS’s on completely different codebases. backwards compatibility had to be re-enginered so that it was kinda compatible with OS9
THAT is like saying Win98 compatibility had to be re-engineered so that old games would work on XP. Microsoft changed codebases between 98 and 2000. Microsoft couldnt achieve this with XP in time so threw in the infamous ME as a cash cow.
By your analogy.
Microsoft changed codebases between XP and blackcomb. Microsoft couldn’t achieve this with blackcomb in time so threw in the infamous Vista/Longhorn aka ME II as a cash cow.
Sounds similar does it not?
EDIT:
just to add some independence to this, OSX 10.X Puma? was pretty much a dead dog compared to XP, I never had the opportunity to try OSX before Tiger, but I’m pretty glad for that.
But the reality of it is that OSX keeps getting faster with each new release on the same hardware and Windows seems to keep getting slower.
Edited 2007-11-19 18:02 UTC
This is why I said it is still like comparing apples and oranges. The whole codebase didnt change, but half the major subsystems were re-written, which is as close a comparison as you will get. Quartz was at 1.0 in 10.0, so is Aero in Vista. That is what I meant.
You do realize that Vista was built on the server 2k3 codebase, server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase, and that Vista sp1 will re-merge the Vista and server 2k8 kernels?
EDIT:
I just had to comment on this. 10.0 was a dead dog compared to XP, because XP was revision 5 of the same old NT, there was barely anything new (other then the compatibility layer), and 10.0 was new everything. Vista was a total overhaul of half the OS, so it isnt exactly the same (half instead of whole), but comparing Vista to leopard is almost as bad as comparing Puma to XP.
Edited 2007-11-19 18:12 UTC
For the most part I do agree with you but:
“You do realize that Vista was built on the server 2k3 codebase, server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase, and that Vista sp1 will re-merge the Vista and server 2k8 kernels?”
XP was built on the 2k server codebase. I ran 2k3 for a long while and enjoyed every minute using it minus its small incompatibilities with XP. Vista in theory should have solved and improved those compatibilities.
“server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase”
I think you’ll find that’s not entirely true. Server 2k8 will be based on what Vista was meant to be.
I’m sure that Vista was planned to be great. I’m sure that Vista was planned to have some fantastic new features. I’m also sure that Microsoft could not achieve those promises and cut the balls off the home system to get it out on time.
I think you’ll find that MS has a large pool of code that was meant to have been put into Vista and for whatever reason was not. Server 2k8 will bring some of that together in the business market and the NEXT version of Windows for home users will be what Vista was intended.
Its for that reason I feel strongly that Vista is just an ME II in the interm till they actually deliver what they cut out of Vista 2 years ago.
Mate, Microsoft has $50 billion in the bank and 79,000 employees – you’re telling me that they couldn’t provide an operating system evolution within a space of 5 years that didn’t go backwards in terms of performance? Sure, I may believe in God, I may believe in Jesus being a prophet, but good lord, believing that they couldn’t move the operating system forward without a major performance penalty is something I’m no going to make a leap of faith over.
Windows Vista isn’t a re-write, and it doesn’t matter how many times you say it, its not going to make it true. Microsoft cocked up Windows Vista, Service Pack 1 was going to be their last reprieve – many have bought Windows Vista assuming that SP1 will fix all those problems in SP1. Microsoft have failed to deliver – again.
Apple made the painful decisions 6 years ago, and now we the Apple customer are reaping the rewards; Microsoft could have made those same tough decisions, but decided not too; now here we are 6 years later, with all their assets they’ve been unable to deliver.
I NEVER said it was a rewrite. I said the desktop compositing, printing system, multimedia system, sound system, security system, and disk i/o are completely different, and with that amount of new stuff in an OS you cannot treat it the same as something that has been optimized for 5 years. IF YOU ARE going to compare it to OSX, the best comparison is to the OS9->)OSX transition. It is not a good comparison (remember, I wasn’t the one who started comparing), but it is as good as you’ll get. It is not anywhere near as big a shift as what happened to OSX, but Vista is also far better off then 10.0.
Microsoft has already delivered, most of the stuff in SP1 is already here. The performance and compatibility fixes have been coming through windows update over the last few months. People who couldn’t run it before, are no having no issues (one test I saw showed a 180% increase in file copy performance after a patch). This is why half the comments on this story are incredulity and disbelief.
I don’t understand what the difference is. MS just overhauled most of their APIs and broke with libraries they have been using for almost a decade. This is a far bigger deal then apple breaking backwards compatibility due to the size and shape of the MS install base. Sure, apple did it 6 years ago, and MS is doing it now, but both moves equate to the same thing, modernizing the OS.
Sooo… lets see
“This is a far bigger deal then apple breaking backwards compatibility due to the size and shape of the MS install base. Sure, apple did it 6 years ago, and MS is doing it now, but both moves equate to the same thing, modernizing the OS.”
Apple moves from Motorola to PowerPC for 9.0.x
Apple moves from Mac OS to NeXT (which is not MacOS at all)
Apple builds a MacOS compatibility layer into NeXT and calls it MacOS X
Apple moves from PPC to Intel in MacOS 10.4 keeping backwards compatibility with PPC.
Apple drops PPC *Classic MacOS 9* supoort with the release of MacOS X 10.5
And rumour is that PPC support will be dropped in MacOS X 10.6
And I wont start on the PPC and Intel 32/64 bit variants since atleast MS seems to be managing that – if badly.
Sooo, your telling me that Microsoft with 75,000 employees and a bazillion dollars in the bank cant rewrite a few subsystems and services while Apple has not only changed operating systems, sustains reasonable compatibility AND changed over multiple processor architectures multiple times?
For the love of all things noodly appendaged, no wonder Microsoft dropped Itanium support, errr and Alpha support… and errr SPARC….
I guess MS should just stick to what they are good at…. oh wait! nvm.
Actually, I’m quite sure MacOS 8.1 was the last release for the 68k. MacOS 8.5 was the first all PowerPC version, I think.
oops
hehe yeah I knew I’d missed the mark on that one but couldn’t be bothered sourcing … thanks for clearing that up 
Don’t worry, I gave you +1, so it’s OK
Ask your mommy if she wants one too.
Edited 2007-11-20 21:46
awww cheers!
Not sure about giving my mother +1 though, she never replied when I asked, necrophilia your scene I take it?
Edited 2007-11-20 21:53 UTC
And yet, they compromised with backwards compatibility – GDI now sits unaccelerated ontop of their new engine, thus adding unneeded weight to the operating system. Their new printing system backwards compatible with their old one – why? needless backwards compatibility included, adding weight to an operating system, which should be provided through VirtualPC + Windows XP.
I’ve installed Windows Vista, and all the additions (I had an HP laptop up to the 20 October, I installed all the latest updates – and yes, performance has increased, but it was never to the same level as Windows XP or Mac OS X Leopard.
I’m running Mac OS X Leopard, its sitting at 10.5.1 and it runs beautifully – fast, reliable and all my applications work nicely. I can handle a little incompatible with software, thats a fact of life, but what I am not going to tolerate is a step backwards, on the same hardware, of speed.
They could have broken compatibily, provided a bundled copy of Windows XP as a Virtual PC image along with a copy of Virtual PC – they chose not to do that. They chose to make improvement alot harder than it needed to be.
The Windows team doesn’t have 79,000 employees. And even the Windows team had more than just Vista to do.
As for Vista not being a “rewrite”, neither was OSX. OSX is NeXT (which already had Cocoa) + Carbon Manager (which is mondern version of the very primitive out-of-date old Mac Toolbox api) + Quartz + Aqua. And despite OSX being based on NeXT rather than a *new* OS, the first version was still near unusable; Apple needed 2 more years and 3 more releases (at $130 a pop) to get it right.
“Apple made the painful decisions 6 years ago, and now we the Apple customer are reaping the rewards; Microsoft could have made those same tough decisions, but decided not too; now here we are 6 years later, with all their assets they’ve been unable to deliver.”
Apple did what they did because they proved to be totally incompetent at delivering modern OS. So they bought NeXT. Microsoft already had a modern OS for years before. And what “benefits” are Mac users reaping? The inability to play HD discs? The lockin to Apple products? The nearly dead game market? OSX is a fine OS that I use everyday, but I don’t know what “benefits” you’re talking about, unless you’re just referring to no longer having to run Classic Mac
OS.
Edited 2007-11-21 04:06
Apple did what they did because they proved to be totally incompetent at delivering modern OS. So they bought NeXT. Microsoft already had a modern OS for years before. And what “benefits” are Mac users reaping? The inability to play HD discs? The lockin to Apple products? The nearly dead game market? OSX is a fine OS that I use everyday, but I don’t know what “benefits” you’re talking about, unless you’re just referring to no longer having to run Classic Mac
OS.
Maybe he is referring to it being a fast, modern, mature, fairly secure, high performance operating system with very little legacy ***p and much less bloat. It you think it’s no better than XP, well that’s fine; but I wouldn’t recommend trying to convince anybody else of it.
As far as the NeXT thing goes, NeXT was founded by Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs Is Apple ™. Also, last time I checked, aquisitions were a legitimate way for a company to gain new technology.
<<<< Also, last time I checked, aquisitions were a legitimate way for a company to gain new technology. >>>>
hehe yeah, just ask Microsoft
You hit on a point here. I really do not understand why certain people who do not like Windows, do not use Windows, always pop up in these threads to start flaming. They are always more than welcome to stick with Ubuntu and watch their HD movies on that….
Apple could also do a complete re-write of their OS because they have a small market share, and more importantly an even smaller share in the business world. They also have a loyal user base that tends to prefer using Apple simply because they are Apple. Enough said.
It…….works…….fine……for……………me
I notice when a standard user plays a .vob file, windows media says”wrong resolution or codec need” but admin users can view the file fine. Also divx movies will play audio whereas admin users will see audio and video.
I also found I can not open 2 excel documents at the same time, you know to display one on one monitor and another on the other,side by side comparison. In xp you go to folder options, file types .xls uncheck browse in same window. You do not have that option in vista.
ok, i have run vista AND ubuntu. and they are both nice os’s. in fact i ran ubuntu for two years. and i was convinced vista sucked till i tried it. Honestly vista is awesome. startup is only a little bit slower than ubuntu. but the system is stable responsive, and more beautiful than compiz running in ubuntu. compiz feels like a hack compared to vista’s aero. i haven’t run into any drm problems yet. suspend actually works in vista! where as in ubuntu suspend actually corrupted my hard drive. (i stopped using suspend after that happened in ubuntu) compiz is really still a beta, and it shows. my videocard is a slower onboard one, and while it’s really smooth and nice in vista, it’s slow and laggy and annoying on ubuntu. probably not all ubuntu’s fault though, closed source drivers probably don’t help them much.
search on the start menu was a very nice addon. it searches instantly and shows me programs and files that matches. ubuntu already has desktop search, but it’s a nice addition compared to xp. (and thankfully they got rid of the word start, that was annoying, and it looks better too now with just the icon)
and security seems much improved on vista. i haven’t had any problems sofar.
why’d i switch back to windows from ubuntu? ubuntu was just a tad bit buggy. there was one bug where my hard drive would click, and it sounded like the heads were getting smacked around. it scared me, that was the main reason. the other reason, there are lots of cool games coming out for windows lately, and i want to play some.
Edited 2007-11-19 23:25
A quote seen on the web (and brazenly plagiarised by me):
“Today’s top Vista items articles (from Google News)… the 5th is my favourite:
1) Vista Migration Scaring Off IT Pros
2) Vista SP1 no faster than stock OS, say testing experts
3) mcafee: Businesses ‘leery’ of Vista
4) 90% of IT Professionals Don’t Want Vista
5) Windows for Supercomputers needs less memory than Vista”
I think you must have somehow mis-spelled “awful”.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/19/vista-needs-…
Edited 2007-11-19 23:58
All that shows is that Ballmer is weird (as always). Who knows what the 72,000 MS employees have planned? I don’t wish them all to be unemployed, just hoping for improvements. If they can’t do it, oh well. Certainly, even in a MS-less world, there will still be tons of problems needing to be fixed.
Do we really have to keep using such cliches over and over again?
I don’t think MS could ever please some people no matter what they do. People maybe expect too much.
I do wish that new MS OSes weren’t less compatible because that’s certainly annoying. And I personally feel virtualization is kinda a copout for “we didn’t want to fix it”. But to be fair, compatibility is a dirty word to some people (which seems strange to me). There’s always some newer way of doing things that kicks the old to the curb (deserving or otherwise).
You don’t have to be rude back, that’s unnecessary. Besides, it’s not your house, you don’t have the authority to banish anyone.
You’re right, people should learn the fact that Microsoft have a reputation for overpromising and underdelivering.
Gonzo = member of the Microsoft Defense Brigade.
I wonder how much Microsoft pays him or maybe he is trying to get paid by Microsoft. His declaration of love and support of Microsoft should have been written down in the Bible. Maybe people would take him seriously if he pulled Bill Gates’s flaccid penis out of his mouth. Until then he is nothing more than a cheap troll.
So, someone you do not agree with is automatically a troll to which you must insult. Real mature, great way to build credibility. I would advise you to re-read your post, then please do go look up the definition of troll.
Vista requires too much to do too little
I see hardly any productivity gains using Vista. Security? XP SP2 is secure if you don’t click on ‘Bad Stuff.’ Superfetch helps productivity? Ya, like 5 seconds is going to kill you. Besides, Superfetch’s benefits are worthless since Explorer feels much slower. Well it gets slower with each new release, but it’s even slow on an X2 3600+ with 1 GB of DDR2 RAM. Remember, this is a dual-core machine.
Let that sink in- Vista is slow on a modern machine. In fact, it’s a tad slower than my XP box running on a P4 Willamette with 512 MB of DDR RAM.
The goal of an operating system is to improve your productivity. Vista does not improve productivity.
“They would not have been able to do that with expensive proprietary software.”
http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007/09/14/266177
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?back_url&m…
http://techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=196604800
http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS7080845451.html
http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS2079183879.html
http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS4254330887.html
http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS8752422509.html
http://www.schoolforge.net/education-case-studies/linux-based-deskt…
http://www.schoolforge.net/
http://www.ceap.wcu.edu/houghton/EDELCompEduc/Ch1/linux.html
Edited 2007-11-23 11:09
Personally, I think Microsoft needs a performance reset. As I’ve said in previous posts, I think software in general, and Microsoft software in particular, is getting slower at faster rate than hardware is getting faster. And this problem acutely affects Vista…. (Pingback)
http://dataland.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/performance-reset/