Hasta La Vista, Vista

So can we assume the cycle of an OS?

Junk -till- not Junk

 

I think it more relies on Billy's mood at the time...

 

You can see the guys that probably make a living defending MS.

The music and movie industries didnt have to buy off you and I, they didnt have to buy off Creative and Nvidia. They only had to buy off the company that controls the monopoly.
Given the choice of a new laptop that comes with a stable proven OS that wont work with my games but is well established to work well with the OS that will play my games.
Or a new lap top that comes with an OS that will end up as a coaster because it assumes I am a thief and that I want to pay for the processing cycles to constantly monitor myself. An OS that could only be released by a monopoly because it would never be marketed or sold on its own merits.

If I have to switch, I will switch to OSX thank you Mr Balmer.
You can have the 120 bucks in pure profit that your company has earned for its excellent release and evolution of the XP operating system. You will not get the 200 bucks that you have not earned nor will earn with Vista.
(you keep getting my Xbox 360 bucks as long as you keep replacing them for free as they get the red circle of death....)

 

You'd better tell all the students at...uh...most universities this, then, because they're the ones that are going to be running the show in a decade or so, and they're all running Macs.

Unless you don't think it's telling that the country's up and coming best and brightest are all using Macs.

This shows a blatant disregard for the consumer and beyond that, shows how screwed up things are right now, where Microsoft dictates to us how we use our computer when it's supposed to be the other way around. Aren't we the ones that are supposed to be lining Microsoft's coffers? They have the power to make sweeping changes and reject this kind of crap, and they didn't. I'm not saying Apple is Jesus - far from it, they're corporate too - but they at least had the brass to tell the RIAA what to go do with themselves, and they aren't even half the size of Microsoft.

No, not everyone wants 4GB of RAM. YET. This is a ticking time bomb, unless you really think that we're all just going to be using 2GB until Vienna.

And DirectX 10 IS important. It's practically the main selling point for Vista as a gaming platform! Given that Vista is being deliberately marketed to gamers, I don't think this is a niche thing. Unless you want to tell the millions of users out there that are gaming on their PCs that they're "just a niche."

If they didn't give a crap about gamers, why go through the hassle of DirectX 10 and all its allegedly sweeping changes?

ME maybe. But XP's backlash was nowhere near this bad.

I'm sorry, I wrote the article on my massive 19" Alienware (SLI in a notebook, yes please!) while sitting in my lifted F150 in the parking lot of a monster truck rally. I accidentally got some secret sauce from my Big Mac on the screen, and the haze of AXE body spray is choking me. I can't believe I wasted my time writing an article for the internet when I could've been out banging hookers and playing FOOTBALL!

If everything had worked properly, I could spend my time writing articles about how to solve OTHER problems.

Why should I act unbiased? The fact of the matter is that the crap I've had to deal with using this operating system pissed me off! Just like it pissed off a lot of people! It's an op-ed piece, labeled as such on the front page for crying out loud. You don't think users have a right to be angry when something that's being forced on them doesn't even work right? I took an unbiased stand on my last review of Vista, now I'm telling it like it is and trying to offer solutions.

Why? Just like I have to make the jump to Blu-ray or HD-DVD immediately? Things don't HAVE to change. They WILL change. But there wasn't anything inherently wrong with XP that merited the release of Vista.

But people can still talk to each other, and my circle of computer geeks and net admins were all pretty happy with XP.

Then I'm sure there's an excellent reason why industry standard Adobe After Effects 7.0 shuts down Aero Glass, why random programs just plain don't work. Why should I have to consult a list to see what programs run on my WINDOWS machine?!?

Because Microsoft arbitrarily broke things, everyone else has to clean up the mess?

No, instead they just Frankensteined XP's code after throwing out their old code base.

Of course, it all makes sense! The only reason a person would use a Mac is TO RUN WINDOWS! I'm sure glad I dropped that two grand on a MacBook Pro just so I can run Windows Vista on it!

Boot Camp is a feature that makes transitioning from Windows to Mac OS X easier. Apple is banking on that if people were able to use both operating systems side by side, they'd choose Mac OS X. Alternatively, they now also have the only computers on the market that can run virtually every OS on the market.

Uh...because Apple Macs now use x86 hardware, and can use OpenGL, so the effort in porting games between Mac OS X and Windows is substantially reduced.

Why should we have to beta test Microsoft's operating system? An operating system five years in development?

You know what'll be great for gaming in the future? OpenGL.

 

Wait a minute. As I recall, in one of Pulp's earlier reviews of Vista, he mentioned that he had a specific Vista networking problem that cost him a project he was working on. Since then, his Vista commentaries have been universally scathing.

If I'm mistaking him for someone else, then my apologies, but I think I'm not. I can totally empathize -- I've had more than my share of Vista networking problems, too, and there but by the grace of god and such. But a lot of what he writes here smacks of a grudge, especially the program compatibility issues, which many people haven't even experienced. He's not really looking to see if the good in Vista outnumbers the bad. It sounds more like "it's not perfect -- therefore it sucks".

Who are those "Vista is awesome" people? Anyone who actually has Vista experiences some degree of frustration -- even the Microsofties. Vista smacktalk has dominated the mainstream press and the blogsphere. Ten-year-old children in Tibet could probably rattle off two or three major Vista shortcomings. I would wager that few of the people who are clamoring for an XP system right now have actually have that much firsthand experience with Vista -- they've just heard enough of the bad press, and don't want any part of it. And the retail industry will bow to their wishes if it helps them sell more machines.

And who can blame those people for being afraid? Vista is just not ready. It was a beta release. But after using it for six months, I find it really frustrating whenever I have to go back and use XP again. It's like having an arm tied behind my back. I really appreciate what's been improved in Vista; I can also see where the developers’ goals fell short and can grudgingly forgive them as long as they can get those features to work better in the near future.

In short, I don't mind working with a beta OS right now because I can get it to work for me. Of course YMMV. But let's not be so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- there's potential here.

(And we better get used to dealing with it, because Vienna is starting to sound like an incremental upgrade, a la Leopard.)

 

You have it for the most part correct. I'd installed Windows Vista on my old laptop, an ASUS A8Jm (shows how fast I go through hardware, huh?). Vista stone locked up my machine and pretty much outright prevented me from using it to look up information for an exam. Open laptop exam, can you believe it? I love technology classes.

So of course I'd be a little bitter. But being unable to find a program to burn an ISO (and I tried like five different ones) in Vista x64 was frustrating, too. And these are just small anecdotal things.

My roommates - my sister and her boyfriend - have both had as much trouble with Vista. While her boyfriend has at least some computer experience, my sister is a dyed-in-the-wool neophyte. My personal circle is, in my opinion, a pretty accurate cross-section. As a rule, I think of people like my sister and my dad whenever I write because I want them to be able to understand what I'm communicating, but also because I want to be able to understand where they're coming from.

What no one seems to want to pay attention to is that I've offered solutions to all of the very real problems I mentioned in the article, because it bugs me when people just gripe about things and don't have any suggestion on how to resolve them.

 

Uh yeah, I've known many people who had issues with Vista.

I really haven't. I've had some driver issues, but I'd just gotten done with a several month stint exploring Linux, so driver issues in Vista, compared to Linux, were simply gravy.

There are still some bugs and hiccups, but many of these result from the increased security of Vista.

I've only seen BSODs on Video card drivers.

As a result, I think this article is largely reactionary and without perspective of, I dunno, as others have pointed out, the historic missteps and incongruities that are found any time one transitions between OSes.

I realize that not everyone has the time or familiarity with Computers to deal with any issues that might crop up.. But it seems the largest complaint of Windows Vista isn't that it breaks-- it that it breaks in different ways than XP.

XP is a several year old OS that's become stable due to all the filtering that's taken place, all the many, many bug fixes. Having at one time spent around 8 hours trying to install Windows XP SP2, and having spent a great deal of hours trying to deal with XP's own idiosyncrasies, I am perhaps more numb to the issues inherent in Vista...

I suppose if I were to provide an executive summary for what I'm trying to express, it would be... The article *was* overacting, and that every single issue that is named can be easily refuted or turned around and applied to any other OS one happens to be trying to deal with. Really the largest complaint, the summary of all Vista complaints is not that it doesn't work.. It's that it doesn't work in the exact same way XP works.

So, take a step back, breathe, and try Vista again. If you're patient, you'll come to find that the benefits it provides can be substantial, and that many of the annoyances and hindrances can be solved with a little trip over to Google... Something I had to learn to do when playin with Linux...

If, on the other hand, you're mildly technophobic and your first course of action is to call Tech Support when something doesn't work the way you'd hoped (not derisive, pardon if it sounds so) then stick with what you're comfortable with.

Just understand that some of us are comfortable, even eager for change...

 

I can do this.

I can also mount an ext3 partition in Windows Vista x64, as well as run a Windows 2000 server in VMware.

I figured out how to do all these by googling it...

But my mother would have had absolutely no hope. Which is, of course, your point...

 

The Microsoft apologists amaze me on here. Why anyone appears to have any loyalty to a corporate empire is beyond me.

Microsoft do put out some decent products from time to time. SQL Server, Windows 2003 and Sharepoint are decent if expensive products.

Vista is a dog plain and simple. I've recently gone through a full analysis and test cycle with Vista and it really is poor. The corporate world is staying away from this product for good reason.

As consumers we've every right to complain when the effective monopoly for the desktop OS market puts out a product that is clearly still short of RTM along with a near doubling of price. Hence the numerous different versions of Vista in an attempt to mask the significant hike in price. Do you honestly think the average person walking into a retailer will understand all the different versions and be able to make a reasoned guess as to their current and future requirements? No, they will end up buying either Premium or Ultimate. In the UK the Ultimate version appeared for over $700 originally and still costs over $600. This at a time when the exchange rate runs at nearly two dollars for every pound.

As for Microsoft not giving a !!!! about their customers being acceptable. Well we should not forget the company that Bill Gates originally railed against. Back in early 90's IBM had lost focus and developed a truly arrogant, nasty attitude towards their customers. We saw what happened to them.

I use Windows 2003, several different Linux distro's and OS X on my new MacBook Pro. Vista drove me to buy a Macbook Pro and it's a million times more stable and better designed than Vista will ever be.

We can all hope that Microsoft will learn from Vista. There are clearly an awful lot of talented people with the organisation. The trouble is that's its developed into such a huge, inflexible, arrogant marketing led company that it might not be capable of listening anymore.

 

Good read.

To Pulp, your sister will be happy to know that it's easy to wipe the drive of the DV6500T and start over with a dual boot system. Here's my guide if you didn't see it yet.
Install XP on DV6500T
It's a great laptop and I'm surprised it's not moving up the hit count on this site.

 

I absolutely agree with OP's post (see my sig below.)

 

Um. Not everyone who thinks the article and those opinions put forth being incorrect are themselves in any way loyal to Microsoft of Microsoft apologists.

I actually prefer Ubuntu over Microsoft, however I am programming for ASP.Net at the moment and need to use, that's right, Windows. For the sake of organizational uniformity, I'm (ironically) using XP.

My personal computer (non-business) is Vista, however... Vista x64 at that. It's for gaming, which is why I don't have Ubuntu on it...

And as for my personal laptop.. If it was a more fully developed OS I'd use Backtrack-- and if I didn't need to develop for Windows/MSSQL, then, again, I'dbe using Ubuntu.

Sorry. Also, I've had no experience with OSX. The entire idea of Vista somehow being unstable, however, is ludicrous to me... Again, it has a great deal of idiosyncracies that require also a great deal of patience to deal with. My experience with Linux has allowed me to take on these issues head on.

I can provide an itemized list of my problems with Vista, if you wish! but most of those end up relating to Drivers.. As you are aware, drivers are _not_ handled by Microsoft. They are written by Third Parties using an exposed Windows API. Since many of these problems are a result of these first-generation vista drivers.. You should be blaming Microsoft for not releasing/encouraging the creation of these Third Party drivers earlier, and those third parties for not developing more stable drivers.

Place blame where blame is due-- don't blanket call Vista a bad OS... Especially not when things such as first Gen OSX and-- man did you ever use Ubuntu 4? Or Did you ever try upgrading from Dapper Drake to Edgy? Or did you ever use Windows ME or windows 98?

It takes time, be patient, and be willing to approach the OS with the understanding it's new, and will have its own difficulties to overcome.

By the way, Vista's over-sold search mechanism? Worst, Search mechanism, ever.

In summary Don't assume what my-- or other's-- motivations are, just because you disagree with us. I could just as easily point to you and say you're a Mac OS/X mole. But we both know that isn't true, and it wouldn't advance the dialog by me doing that.

 

Great job with your review and verdict.

I just cannot understand a train of though that I keep seeing in this forum and on other forums...which goes something like this: "when xp came out, it was more buggy than vista". Well, what is that supposed to mean? If xp was buggy at launch, does that mean Microsoft didn't learn from mistakes and made another buggy software for people to use?

Since it took vista so many years..it should have been polished by spit and have been spotless...instead, we get new glassy borders !!!

 

Good article but surely it all comes down to our choice of OS at the end of the day? Its gotten to the point where its now quite easy for yourself or someone you know to install a different OS on your machine or dual boot two even. Currently, I have Kubuntu and Vista running on my laptop and currently Vista runs quicker and smoother than Kubuntu. I've tried the same thing with Vista and XP and again I preferred Vista.

Its all down to choice, and that IS something we all have, regardless of how we must obtain the OS we want, and regardless of how the OP makes it seem.

 

Well I went back to xp after like 2 months of vista.

My biggest complaint about vista is really just that it is just like xp in interface.

There was no purpose for me to use it anymore. If I ever had employment using vista I feel I would have no learning curve necessary. It is not like say apple os or linux where the interface itself is different and takes learning.... this is just xp to me nothing significantly different at all.

I had bsods and slow gaming, and not all my software was compatible then but might be by now.

I didnt necessarily even hate vista, like I said its just xp to me. There was just no redeeming value, and because Im on a small 100 gb laptop hd I cant have 2 oses so I chose one.

When I get a 250 gb laptop hd I will dual boot.

 

I thought the article made some interesting points, and if data supports it, the market trend is less than flattering for MS. Of course, they still make profit because they are the standard..who can avoid it regardless of issues. I think it's easy to forget that while "WE", the computer savy know how to deal with pitfalls and growing pains in a new OS, average people just get frustrated and give up. XP works great..why would we need a new 32bit OS with a whole new set of issues? I felt the same way when I looked at the "flavors" of vista. $400 for a full 64bit version didn't seem right. And wait to see consumers feelings when they realize that to use 64bit apps, they need to spend another $400 on an OS they already own...sort of. Back when XP was nearing it's end there were all sorts of coupons for Vista also, but it was little known until later that this was for the stripped down 32bit version. Immediately forum concern for recieving the coupon began to evaporate. If I was computer illiterate..I'd be ticked off too. MS will get this fixed, and they're not going anywhere soon. But I sure do like OS X. It's not fair to compare it on one hand, yet on the other why is it so much more satisfying than windows?

 

Right now, I can pick up an academic version of Ultimate for $35...but I haven't done it. I got Office 2007, but based on my previous experience with Vista Home Premium I sincerely doubted the value of this OS at even $35. Of course, that is right now and only right now. If/when the major bugs I had were worked out, then I might get it. But I'll probably still have XP too, just in case.

 

There is a great alternative to both Vista and XP. And that's Server 2003. See, Server 2003 is actually NT 5.2 - where XP is NT 5.1 and Vista is NT 6.0.

99% of all XP drivers work just fine on 2003, in fact they work great (unless they are really poorly authored, in which case you tell them they're running on XP using application compatibility and they work fine again).

You also get an advanced disk cache with Server 2003 that's not available on XP (but only on Vista). That really goes a long way to boost your performance.

Finally the best part - install Server 2003 and you get full access to 4 GB RAM, on a 32 bit OS! Yes! Forget about XP 64 bit or worse still, Vista 64 bit...just install Server 2003 and enjoy your full 4 GB memory, along with faster disk access, and a slightly newer OS kernel, all in a 32 bit world.

There are lots of tutorials out there on how to convert a Server 2003 OS into a workstation - you can install DirectX, play games, enable themes, and literally do everything that you can on XP. Basically you get the amazing driver compatibility of the 32 bit platform, with improved performance and full support for 4 GB memory.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Give it a try...I think Microsoft should still have a trial of this server on their website. I would never use Vista - exactly for the reasons described above - but XP does seem kind of old these days. Server 2003 is the perfect middle-ground, until lets hope, Vienna.

 

I agree with the original post and the comments by others including link1313... file operations with Vista were dreadful for me. I went back to XP on my work D820 and may do the same on my home desktop. Luckily I installed Vista on a new hard drive in each location making the trip back to XP not as drastic. One other thing I noticed was that using Windows Media Player results in about a 10 second lag before a video/song starts playing - more DRM nastiness? I thought the comment about releasing Vista as a 64-bit only OS was very interesting and possibly do-able for MS had they not had to re-write Vista halfway through.

 

Fascinating...and definitely something I'm going to look into. What are some of the other benefits of Server 2003?

 

No, it means that new software-- and old software-- is inevitably Buggy. There is, on average, something like one bug for every 10 lines of code-- or around 1 for every 30 for very good, high quality code.

Vista is about 100 million lines of code.

Yeah.

And a lot of that is re-used code. If Windows went open source, maybe things would be better, but for some reason they believe that they gain a competitive advantage by remaining close source. This is foolish, but so it goes. The point is that Vista is new and has had only a fraction of the debuggers/Quality Control Testers (ie, users like you, me, my mom, and OP's sister) that XP has had, and certainly only a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of hours put in for such.

It's based on XP but is itself an entirely new application. There will of course be Difficulties. That shouldn't be surprising. That they are now enforcing an actually reasonable security model, requiring driver signing, and abstracting the OS layers-- the Kernel, the Application, the Drivers, the Untrusted Applications.. It's going to add even more complication... Especially since all those security abstractions are laid on top of an inherently insecure system (DOS/WIN32/Win2000 kernel).

I agree completely. I am deeply dissatisfied with how Vista/Longhorn so utterly undershot expectations and promises. It was supposed to be an entirely new Kernel, but all it is is an OS that is sorta pretty, in an attempt to keep up with Beryl and OS/X. Very disappointing-- but I feel XP is clunkier than Longhorn, graphically, and I find Longhorn far more pleasing on the eyes over long term usage. Your mileage may vary.

I agree. This is one of my largest complaints with Academia and the security field in general. They have absolutely no grasp of the user experience.

Personally though, I would say that the OP, and all the people who are posting in this thread do not fall in that category-- and should 'know better.' Nevertheless, we, just as the 'norms,' often fall prey to becoming.. complacent with the way things are done. Admittedly, I've become complacent with having to make an effort to make a particular OS/environment my own, to customize and tailor it, as well as to face the difficulties inherent in the challenge of a buggy/new application. Part of that might be because I'm a developer, and thus am more aware of the deep difficulties that can pop up when you least expect it-- and that's just when working with your own code. Then expand that to the context of an entire company, and even larger than that, the context of every third party driver that has to be installed in your OS to run properly..

Suffice to say, it all goes down hill.

I want to reiterate though, in regards to BSODs.. I've only had BSODs with video drivers-- and that's not the fault of Windows Vista, that's the fault of Nvidia and ATI. People here should understand the difference, and why that's the case.

 

very true
the general consensus is that XP > Vista.......for now.

 

"Dialog" assumes there is some say that people have on this issue. They only say they have is to not buy Vista only computers. That situation is by design of Microsoft.

The problems with the sound and video drivers are not happening because of some DirectX 10 enhancement that Nvidia and Creative cannot comprehend.
They are happening because Microsoft insists that the drivers for multi media components enforce DRM.
The drivers have to instruct the OS to disable "HD" capability if any non signed "HD" content is detected. So it must be scanned for and the hardware must be able to cripple itself under the conditions dicated by the Music and Movie industries.
Blaming that on the hardware vendors is just silly, they do not exist in a monopoly, they have to compete with each other on the merits of thier products and drivers, so spending programming effort to find out how to correctly cripple their 700 dollar video cards under certain silly situations isnt what they have staffed their driver teams to do.

So blame microsoft for the driver problems.

 

Good stuff.

I actually posted a thread an hour before that compliments this Thread well:
XP running Vista-only games... DX10 on XP soon... sweet.

Its pretty much helps the gaming aspect for your article.

 

"All running Macs"??? You're inflating the prevalence of Mac in universities. I'm a Ph.D. candidate in Religious Studies. Mac users are a small minority around here. I'm buying a new laptop this summer. Won't be a Mac, that's for sure.

 

Gee, my first XP install was great. My xp machines had great driver support and never gave me any grief. And I had it before SP1. I liked it a LOT better than NT.

 

If you are talking ME, then you're right. If you're talking 2k, then you're nuts. Win2k was def. not junk. It's not so much that Vista is replacing a stable XP, it's that Vista seems to be an upgrade on the order of WindowsME. I like how everyone defending Vista has touched on one's ability to make it look like xp or how it's relatively stable when compared to the original XP, but no one tries to defend the DRM scheme or constant HD access, which are what many are upset about.

 

This was an interesting article, but I don't agree with the conclusions.

Vista has quirks and a higher bar set for hardware requirements, no question about it. Is it a polished release? No, but we don't get much of those anymore from any vendor. Unless by polish you actually mean literal "shine" and not overall stability.

I've been running Vista Enterprise at work for several months. I would never go back to XP. I have some lingering driver issues, but in my opinion the hardware manufacturers are to blame for this -- Vista has been gold since last November, where are they?? Is Vista an OS for everyone? Of course not. But to say it's garbage and there's no hope for it is equally nonsense.

For any who suggest OS X as an alternative, get your iSight checked. It may be the best OS in the world, but it's also useless in the corporation.

 

You had a valid argument until you shot yourself in the foot with that last statement.

 

Right, that last statement was off: OS X is *not* the best OS in the world.

 

It's certainly not the best OS in the world... though the cultish followers are not convinced by logic I'm a mac hater to a fault, I admit it.

 

No. Let me have a moment to clarify.

Years ago, OS companies would design drivers for each piece of hardware that could interact with it. Windows, on the other hand, Exposed an external driver-design API.

The idea behind this was that it allowed the OS company to no longer have to spend manhours programming for Hardware that is unrelated to them. The idea of an open API that interacts with another application is a common, well thought out, and well-used idea in the industry. It's everywhere, and well it should be.. It's a Good Thing with a capital GT (like the videocard!)

I will assume you know how driver signing, and the theory behind it, works-- and that you understand how drivers are seperated from the rest of the OS.. but for background's sake, I'll explain briefly.


Applications
---------------
Trusted Applications
---------------
Drivers
---------------
Kernel




Essentially there is a layer between trusted applications and the kernel which is the driver layer. For some.. stupid (read: lazy) reason, Windows actually looks more like this

Applications
-----------------
Kernel/Drivers


Looking at that, you go "Okay so?"

Well in the first model, a driver would talk to the kernel and say, "I want this to happen" and then the kernel says "Yes/No" as appropriate. In this model,the windows model, the Kernel and Drivers are in the same protection level, and as a result, if the driver says "I want this to happen".. ... it happens. It sorta sucks!

So Windows/Microsoft has created sort of a virtual protection layer in which they end up reflecting the model I described at first... But the problem is that in order for drivers to talk to the Kernel, they have to follow certain protocols. This protocol implementation is new for windows, and thus, very very buggy! That's where many of the issues are coming in... The problem though, is that though this implementation is buggy it's not horrific... The real problem is that.. NVIDIA and ATI are used to not having these protection layers. As a result they're used to just being able to go "Hey kernel do this!" and the kernel goes "ok whatever! ::does it:: "

Suddenly, they actually have to follow protocols/rules-- or the new API. That they have to suddenly change their entire approach to writing drivers is a HUGE step backwards, and a huge obstacle for them to overcome..
But in the end, it's an obstacle for THEM to overcome, not Microsoft...

Now, Microsoft COULD just step back and say "Here, have complete access to our Kernel" -- not in the source sense, but in the programmatic sense.. The problem is that then I could write a driver that comes in and tells the Kernel to dump the memory to file every now and then and send that file off to some specified dummy IP/port, etc. ie, all those security problems that we had with XP? This is the primary cause of them. The lack of driver protection levels.


You are correct that DRM is a big part of this-- but DRM is only one piece. I am vehemently anti DRM, and I hate microsoft's current approach to security-- not driver protection, that's good. The bigger picture I could go into is off topic, but relates to MS attempting to create a sort of Authorized-Only Internet... Of which, this driver signing is a key part of...

In the end, all these difficulties will result, in theory, in a much more secure OS, to a degree that Linux actually isn't secure.


If Microsoft TRULY wanted to be secure, they'd stop putting drivers in the gosh darn Kernel altogether!!! But they don't, for some reason, and so that's why we're here. The situation is far more complex than 'Microsoft likes my money and thus want to make me unhappy!' which is itself a ludicrous position to take. Instead, it relates to a 25 year approach to designing operating systems that cross OS boundaries, and encompass not only Windows all the way back to DOS, but also covers Linux and OS/X who both, for some.. stupid reason.. shove their drivers right into the kernel.

 

I deleated vista cus i though it was bloat ware.....oops!

 

big words coming from somebody who probably has never used Mac OS X before... there's a reason why most switchers NEVER turn back to Windows after having their first Mac's.

 

Quick to assume, aren't we? It is after having used OS X that I've decided OS X was not good enough to be worth my money.

 

This was the biggest crap I have ever had the unfortunate disgust to read!
This article was flawed, blindfolded, and totally paranoid.
You guys definitely need more time in coding to understand the aspects of a new generation operating system. Oh when will that day come when all of you will start realizing the huge advantages of Vista over its preceding "brothers". The bad part is that even more so called "Next, next finish" users will form this totally twisted view about the Microsoft's new OS. Oh well you just trust some paranoid freaks that have been fixated in using xp for over 5 years and are afraid of making a leap forward.
You have my sincere apologies for my sarcastic opinion but this was just ridiculous!

 

WOW. I decided OSX is the ONLY mainstream OS worth my money (it's only ~$139), but the hardware is not. I 'accept' winXP on the laptops I buy, but I will NOT 'accept' Vista and certainly will NEVER pay for a retail copy of it. If this means I start using Macs, then so be it.

 

Will you accept "Vienna" when it comes out then? It's too early to tell.

I feel that XP SP3 should be Vista's technologies incorporated (probably that's why they delayed SP3). Improving an existing hardware platform is better than selling an incompatible OS that faces problems again and again.

 

I also don't want Vista. That's why I'm avoiding manufacturers that force Vista licenses down the throat of customers when they buy a new machine.

EDIT: Actually, I'm avoiding manufacturers that force any OS license down the throat of their customers, not just Vista.

 

All I have to say is that SOME good points were made. Many of them pointing to small groups of users who it doesn't actually affect all that much. Sure Vista has its bugs but to imply that Mac platform will be the next gaming OS is almost laughable. Also, the reason you see more macbooks is because Apple has mostly abandoned all that they prided themselves on. They have Intel processors and run Windows. ROFL Not that this is bad, but it makes Apple PCs no different than any other OEM.

 

Nothing like a new version of Microsoft Windows to make the last version look like Linux. (Well, except for Win ME vs. Win XP) But I can remember people complaining about XP as well.

Interesting read. I cannot disagree more. But hey... I hear M$ bashing is quite in fashion. What do I know?

 

There's no comparison, not even close.

 

Would customers of enterprise software (e.g. Siebel, Oracle, SAP) be happy each time the software corporation came out with a new version and the customer has to deal with a brand new set of issues because it is new generation software? I personally think the answer is no.

In the same light, there is no reason why consumer software should be brought to the market half-baked. Microsoft is one of the largest software companies in the world and they surely don't have programmer shortage.

If the last generation worked fine, the next generation should work better and even surpass it, and that seems to be the idea to calling something new generation

50 million of those lines of code probably are comprised of Windows Movie maker, Contacts, Calendar, Sidebar, etc, and not the actual operating system. Of course I am referring to textbook definition of an operating system. Tommorow Microsoft will throw in Streets and Trips and Money, and the like and start saying that the operating system is 150 million lines of code.

 

it's different because it lets you legally run Mac OS X. Besides, Mac's are much better designed than your average PC laptop and incorporates some of the best LCD screens in the market. With Apple controlling each component being placed inside each Mac they make, you will never have to deal with driver incompatibilities and the BSOD

 

This is why I made my (ambiguous, sarcastic, misunderstood) comment about OS X.

If the people who run Windows get their knickers in a twist because Vista requires 2GB of RAM and there's no driver available yet for xyz, the Mac OS frothing masses come out en force.

Stick with XP then if it makes you all happy, what's the loss? But on new hardware and with a little skin for a pre-SP1 release, Vista is currently the best OS there is.

Even if you completely disagree with that, for a supposed computer enthusiast site to say Vista is a completely hopeless endeavor isn't only short-sighted, but it just fans the apple groupies. Who needs to encourage that kind of behavior.

 

In your opinion. OTOH, my opinion is that Windows XP is the best Microsoft OS there is.

 

Jeez, at least your not bitter.

Vista basically is a yawn for me. After using it for a few months I realized that I just did not enjoy using it. It basically completed my move to Linux, BSD and Mac OS X.

 

You misread me, and the points I make aren't about the here and now, but the near future.

Also, I am not implying Apple as the next gaming platform, that IS absurd. I'm suggesting that increased attention to Apple by developers connotes a shift in attention away from DirectX 10, which connotes a shift in attention toward OpenGL. This is only a GOOD THING for EVERYONE, Windows users included. Gamers who want DX10 features won't be tied to Vista after all; OpenGL can expose those features in XP.

The points I make about gaming affect a very large user base. The points I make about RAM affect everyone. The points I make about HD access affect everyone. I'm not sure what niche everyone thinks I'm talking about, because these are things that affect users whether they like it or not. They're things the OEMs - the big companies that release these machines - have to consider, and they're in a frigging nasty spot right now.

I cannot conceivably be the only one who notices these things.

As a sidenote, I'm not a Mac whore. Apple is very nearly as guilty of vendor lock-in as Microsoft (iTunes and iPod anyone?) I don't like the price (not just financially) and don't feel like making the switch, but that said, users like me are in a really nasty spot right now, where we're tied to Windows, but the only step forward is really two steps back.

 

First, rep up to Dustin for well-stated arguments and offering suggestions for possible fixes. That is always great to see.

The entire discussion is really interesting and I've been enjoying everyone's viewpoint.

My two big reasons for not upgrading: DRM management of my computer (I may license the OS from MS, but I bought the hardware and own it - don't limit what I can do with the hardware); and the inconsistent upgrade experiences by users. Buying it pre-installed seems less problematic than upgrading.

Sadly (like fast food), Microsoft is what gets shoved down most people's throats. Your average (and many above-average) folks take what's given them without questioning too much. I'm surprised how many people don't know what DRM is, let alone how their OS could affect it.

I'm also mystified (not trying to cause problems), but it seems a lot of people keep saying that "Vista has so many improvements over XP" or something to that effect. But the only things that ever seeme to be mentioned are Aero, UAC, improved search/launch, and ReadyBoost. None of these (except possibly ReadyBoost on older comps) are strong enough reasons to consider Vista, IMHO.

There were compelling reasons to move to XP, such as networking, better color management, file/folder security, Plug 'n Play (yeah!), support for larger disks, etc.

And there were issues with upgrading to XP as others have pointed out: needed more RAM/processing power than earlier versions of Windows, needed more disk space, icon problems. It was recommended at the time to wait for SP1, which really did make XP worthwhile and solid.

And there were plenty of people (at the time) claiming that 98 was superior to XP (especially for gaming) or that XP was only needed for businesses (the internet forgets nothing).

Yes, Vista has its problems. One would have hoped that MS would have smoothed out the "new OS transition" after all this time, and I think that's why most people feel frustration/disappointment with it. Eventually, it probably will be a stable and worthwhile system.

 

The sad thing is that Microsoft themselves keep pitching the above as major new improvements. Especially Aero. It is touted as the major breakthough, but IIRC a company called Stardock was making XP enhancement software that used to support Transparent borders and much of the Vista lookie almost 5 years ago.