Is Vista a Trap? 559
logube writes "BBC has up an article about the trap of installing Vista in your existing desktop. Written by Tim Weber, a self-confessed 'sucker for technology,' this article is a good introduction to the pain and extra money required to get going with the newest version of Windows. See how you can spend an extra 130 british pounds, and still have no working webcam! Says Weber, 'It took me one day to get online. The detail is tedious and highly technical: reinstalling drivers and router firmware didn't work, but after many trial and error tweaks to Vista's TCP/IP settings, I had internet access. Once online, Creative's website told me that my sound card was a write-off. No Vista support would be forthcoming.'"
this was expected (Score:3, Insightful)
also, by that logic, linux is a trap
No. (Score:1, Insightful)
No mention of DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
I know I am a minority, but for me Fair Use is a big issue. Sadly, Vista has completely opened the doors to DRM on the desktop. Well, not on mine.
Re:My Vista Install (Score:3, Insightful)
Router fimware??? WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:2, Insightful)
No it's bad news and should be avoided; only I know the tech junkies out there are going to fall for it.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't completely blameless here. If Microsoft had adopted the same strategy for drivers as the OpenBSD project has (accepting either fully open drivers or no drivers), then somebody (even Microsoft) could make the drivers work on Vista.
This is yet another why open drivers built from publicly-available hardware documentation are better than binary-blob drivers.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, Vista is purported to be somewhat of an upgrade/improvement over XP. That means that people expect it to do what XP does, and more. It's still MS windows, just a newer, shinier, bulkier ones.
So if your winmodem worked in 2.4.x and not in 2.6.x, you might have a legitimate gripe at linux. Generally such things come out in the next-version bugfixes, but issues do happen where a particular newer version does not like certain hardware, or the source-code for modules doesn't compile and no newer-version source is available. If there never was support for your winmodem in the first place (note, WINmodem is a good giveway that it's not non-windows friendly), then the blame rests somewhat on the manufacturer for not providing a driver, or at least specs for such. In the case of winmodems, the software pretty much is most of the product, so the manufacturers guard it fairly closely.
Re:My Vista Install (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple truth is that right now most people will get zero benefit from Vista. And for some people they will actually loose functionality that they currently have.
Re:throwing up my hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, certain things in Vista still work better than under (say) Ubuntu, or a lot of other Linux distributions.
Like, say, 802.11 configuration.
Or perhaps, volume controls. I've given up on getting a proper working fucking volume control on my SB Live-equipped Ubuntu desktop machine.
Or Bluetooth. Such pain and trauma to configure a Bluetooth mouse with Linux, but it was straight-forward with Vista.
Or video drivers. Neither Vista nor XP has ever trashed my video drivers with an automatic update. Meanwhile, every time Ubuntu switches to a new nvidia-legacy driver, my desktop machine needs to be tickled again before X will work. (I know - I should just stick with the free nv driver, since there's no fucking games for Linux to make 3D worth caring about, anyway. But I like xscreensaver's GL hacks.)
Vista's not perfect, though. It killed support for DirectSound3D and EAX, making games less enjoyable to play (for me, anyway). However, EAX never worked at all in Linux, so I guess I don't feel "trapped" anymore than I do with Linux.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have used Vista, I do not like it, it's intrusive and annoying to me (yes I do want to run that exe), I personally don't care about eye candy, I am into performance which vista does not have unless you are running a state of the art proc, 4 gig's of RAM and a high end graphics card (which none have decent drivers as of yet)
I'm not going to get into the DRM portion of Vista.
You're a sucker to buy it and a fool to run it.
Because it didn't affect him? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically to me Vista's DRM doesn't add any value, but it doesn't interfere with my work in any way. Thus I really just don't care. I don't see any way it it hurts my fair use. Please remember that the HD formats are encrypted anyhow, it's not like Vista does anything with that, and the decryption tools that have been released run fine on Vista. Maybe I'll encounter a problem with it at some point (that's why I'm testing it, to see what the problems with supporting it will be) but not yet.
It seems to me that "DRM" has become a poorly defined scare word for many people. They throw it around without knowing what it really means, just that it is bad and that you should hate it. I agree that DRM is not a useful technology, but let's be straight about when it does and doesn't matter. Vista does not have DRM gremlins that try to eat your media. Your unDRM'd media does not stop working, the tools for creating it do not stop working. No, video output is not degraded, I get full resolution in everything I do (since all the media isn't DRM'd) despite lacking an HDCP monitor and video card.
If it doesn't affect you, not likely to make it in to a "thing that didn't work for me" article, is it?
For Non-Geeks (Score:3, Insightful)
- wait at least one year after a new release of operating system
- if you can't do it yourself, pay someone else to evaluate your existing pc to see if an upgrade is possible and if it is possible, to make sure you get exactly what you need
- make sure the person you pay for evaluation has no stake in selling you a new pc
- if an upgrade is not possible, secure your old system as much as humanly possible and ride it until using the old system is no longer possible, plausible or just plain insane (like one of my friends using Windows 95 until last week and my cousin switched her over to Ubuntu)
- when all else dies by a new pc
- find something useful to do with your old pc (donate it, etc.)
Re:And this is news how? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also the issue of trying to run a new OS. Certainly, no one that is faint of heart should install Vista today, or even in the next year. The PC makes should not even be shipping Vista mandatory for the next six months. It is new, and customers should not be forced to buy it.
This reminds me of trying to install any OS, especially in old hardware. I could never get a my build of Linux to install on my old Compaq, because I could never get the machine to recognize enough RAM. I had to do clean install of OS X on a pre-2000 machine because the installer crashed the machine. both of these were totally acceptable because I was installing a new OS on an old machine. The only news here is MS is not being honest with the product capabilities.
Conditioned Response (Score:5, Insightful)
"You are about to open the Control Panel -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to open the Program Files folder -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to modify user preferences -- allow or deny?
"You are about to open attachment pzxyTrojan.exe -- allow or deny?"
Allow.. allow.. allow.. allow.. allow..
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but there is just NO way Microsoft could ever enforce that policy. Stop blaming Microsoft for corporations wanting to keep their drivers secret so that their competitors don't use them to improve their OWN drivers.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DON'T INSTALL VISTA ON 2002 COMPUTER (Score:3, Insightful)
I've bought Mac hardware. I dual boot Linux and XP on PC hardware. Kindly, I'll not get over Microsoft's habit of writing terrible software for the benefit of ending a debate that you began. Vista is software designed to sell PC's. It was not designed with the consumer's needs in mind, and there's no reason it needed to be. It's because of this attitude that computers somehow lose the ability to function properly simply because you need it to do new things.
Computers are not old dogs. General purpose machines were designed in the hopes that they could learn new tricks. Your attitude perpetuates the belief that new functionality requires new hardware, which is exactly what will continue to drive down the quality of software in this world.
Why is it bad to demand more? We're the consumers.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pot. Kettle. Black. Microsoft isn't going to force vendors to open source their drivers when they so closely guard their own code. What's good for the gander is good for the goose and all that.
You're point is well taken however. I don't see why hardware vendors don't release their source code. They can patent the hardware if it truly contains innovations and with software patents they could patent all or part of the driver if it's anything special and release the code under whatever license they deem appropriate.
If I was evaluating two pieces of expensive hardware that performed equally well I'd take the piece with open source drivers over the piece that didn't have open source drivers even if it cost more just for insurance on the investment. You'd think that having open source drivers would be a point that high end hardware manufacturers, especially new ones, could compete on.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Memories. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples given tended to be along the lines of "I can't watch foreign released films, they were never released locally so I have no legal option, and I need this for my book report." and "You shouldn't have to pay for that song again, you already paid for it."
These are, quite frankly, not the most pressing examples I could think of.
Here's some examples you can show your mom and dad:
1) Broadcast news will be all be digitally signed by the big media companies.
The same technology used to cause your saved version of American Idol to self-destruct can be used after the fact to erase news right off your home electronics. It will also prevent it from being transferred to unprotected permanent media, or played back from any backup.
2) Medical software and data will all be digitally signed by the rights owners.
The same technology used to stop software piracy could be used after the fact to switch off hospitals and clinics that don't pay their bills. There is massive financial incentive to design this to happen automatically. Anyone who doubts the realism of this scenario need only look as far as the behavior of the existing drug companies.
3) Company files will all be digitally signed.
If you are being screwed over by your employer or any company you have business dealings with, they will be able to ensure that you don't make anyone else aware of it.
Anyone who thinks this technology is about protecting Britney Spears from Bluebeard the Pirate is missing the point. This is about totalitarianism.
Re:For Non-Geeks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
With Vista, MS gives us another reason to turn towards consoles as a smarter choice. It's currently an unnecessary upgrade that wraps your media in shackles with DRM and pesters you every 5 minutes to second guess whatever you want to do with it. Oh and it's expensive and won't look pretty unless you spend some $$$ on your computer.
The days of Wintendo are numbered and I think Vista is a good reason to bring the curtain down.
Re:The author is a fanboy and says what you do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone sitting comfortably?
The BBC author concludes the same thing, and that's what sucks. He says to wait and get Vista pre-installed. Doing that won't fix his webcam or his pocket PC.
No, but you missed the point. He says Vista isn't worth it for him right now, but will be if he upgrades. Revel in the small victory that may offer you, but don't misinterpret it. Regardless, support will come and soon, if he's willing to wait and he chose a good manufacturer.
Those and his old computer, which is twice as nice as anything I have, will become more toxic waste.
Because now that he's not using Vista his computer automatically melts down?
What has he gotten that he did not have? Nothing but a prettier interface and a false promise of better security. Upgrading non free software is like that, difficult, costly and unnecessary.
Seeing as you've never bothered to check, you wouldn't have a clue what Vista has that's new anyway, and I'm not here to educate you. Needless to say, tell the people upgrading Ubuntu on this thread that repeatedly lose time and effort to fixing the problems it causes on each update how 'difficult' and 'costly' upgrading is. Time is money, and no update to XP ever broke my video card.
Replacing everything only marginally decreases your difficulty because you then have to purchase, install and relearn the new interfaces for all the programs that actually do your work and play.
We had this conversation before and you failed to provide a good answer - have any of the window managers for Linux remained identical for the last 12 years? How about the last 10? The last 7? Didn't think so.
When you are through with that, you can begin the long and non transferable process of making your desktop comfortable and retrieving the old data that your masters allow you to keep.
Care to provide a source that says data automagically disappears when you upgrade if MS decides you can't use it? I'll finish that for you: you can't, because it doesn't. More bullshit (shock and disgust everyone).
The fanboy part of this equation is thinking you need non free software to begin with. The author's conclusion is basically, M$ at any cost.
No, it's not. The authors conclusion apparently sailed over your head as easily as all the other reasons to use Windows over Linux do. Nobody 'needs' non-free software in the same nobody 'needs' free software. Shockingly, it's a matter of preference.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a thought.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome, welcome to 1975! You must be a really proud owner of a modern, prior art ripping operating system.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse than XP (for now) (Score:5, Insightful)
And we say exactly the same thing we've always said: "Bloated, incompatible, too invasive, look at that WGA!" XP has the same privacy issues, 2000 had worse (if possible) compatibility issues.
But around SP1 or SP2, XP became livable, arguably better than 2000. And probably around SP1, 2000 became stable enough, and was obviously a HUGE upgrade compared to 98 -- so huge that if they hadn't done it when they did, Linux probably would've taken over.
So, we're going to have the same thing happen here. I predict that in roughly 2 years, around SP1 or SP2, Vista will actually be better than XP. But it isn't yet -- too much stuff isn't compatible, and the "beta" was a laugh; if you buy it now, you are their gamma testers.
Smart people stick with XP, and let the rest of the world test and debug Vista for us.
Me? I'll keep dual-booting XP and Linux (Ubuntu here, Gentoo at home).
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck that! Why would I want to replace my nice, general-purpose, hackable PC with DRM-infested proprietary crap?
(Note: I'm not going to be playing games on Vista, either.)
Re:Does PC Gaming have anything we need? (Score:2, Insightful)
> comfort of today's powerful consoles (both of them).
When I can mod my games and load new/free content as easily as I can on the PC, I'll buy a console again. (Anybody got an ETA on that?) Other than that, the ease of use, bang-for-the-buck, and robustness of consoles makes them the obvious choice.
Re:Stop the FUD! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are a hateful M$ shill. Unsupplied hardware drivers are the manufacturer's fault only if you are talking about Linux. Otherwise, it is M$'s fault. Unless, of course, you are talking about Apple. Then, the pre-approved hardware only aspect is a glorious thing brought down from the mountain by the apostle Jobs. All else are heathens who shall burn in hell.
You are trying to stop the spread of linux and apple. You are a bad person. You eat babies and beat the homeless.
Is that okay? Sorry, I am new at this. I wanted to say something about your parentage and driving habits too, but I have to go let the dog out.
Re:Frawless Victoly! (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way I am suffering day-to-day on a debian box in my office only because I don't have enough privileges to upgrade the kernel... I can feel your pain Vista users.
Re:Frawless Victoly! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not as if the old sound card "wouldn't work with Vista" or something... I mean, how far has sound card technology come in the last 20 years? Not very far, is how far.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone give that poster a gold star and quote him in a sig! Such wisdom will surely echo down the ages...
Re:this was expected (Score:3, Insightful)
It must be a conspiracy!
Will you people stop acting so surprised that they don't make drivers for excesively old hardware? There's NO MONEY in that, so there's consequently NO DRIVERS. Does the article poster want to pay Creative to develop new drivers?
Creative can't support everything, and they're always going to piss off someone. Just be happy they've delivered support for the Live! over SO MANY operating systems: Windows 95 / 98 / ME, NT / 2000 / XP. That's a good run, considering 2000 and XP weren't even out when the Live! was released.
Are any of you whining because your brand-new X-Fi doesn't work on Windows 95? I don't think so. If you don't expect new cards to have drivers for all old OSes, you shouldn't expect old cards to have drivers for all new OSes. IF you want that kind of support, you need to go with Linux - and put-up with the usual support inconsistencies it brings.
I'm actually impressed that the support for the Live! 24-bit and Audigy series is so forth-coming, as this card series is almost SIX YEARS old.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:4, Insightful)
Game companies arent stupid. They know people are trying other OS's.
Google, id software, Epic and others have moved accordingly.
I'm betting that other companies are considering it.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it sounds like when they are done reimplementing UNIX, they might just have a fine operating system.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Vista have anything we need? (Score:3, Insightful)