Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software

HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista 662

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.
boyko.at.netqos writes "Hardocp.com has published "30 days with Vista" — with the same author from "30 days with Linux" doing the evaluation. And he doesn't like it. From the article: 'Based on my personal experiences with Vista over a 30 day period, I found it to be a dangerously unstable operating system, which has caused me to lose data [...] Any consideration of the fine details comes in second to that one inescapable conclusion. This is an unstable operating system.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah whatever (Score:1, Insightful)

    by benzapp (464105) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:55PM (#18608625)
    I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once. This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?

    Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world.

    This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:55PM (#18608631)
    jesus CHRIST that is one annoying site! Flashes to the right, flashes to the left, animations everywhere. How in the hell can any one concentrate with all those God Damned advertisers, NONE of whom I actually looked at, as I was trying hard but unsucessfully to read the fucking article.

    I got one paragraph into it before I left the site in disgust. If this is what the internet is coming to, I don't fucking like it.

    Can anyone link to a plagairized copy without all the fucking assholishly intrusive advertising? Thanks in advance!
  • It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xzvf (924443) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:57PM (#18608667)
    Even if Vista is the gold standard of operating systems, I use Linux and FOSS because once it's on my computer I own it. The data is mine, what I do with it (on my personal system) is mine. I don't have to ask permission from Apple or Microsoft to boot. It's my computer, my software, my content.
  • Instability? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KermodeBear (738243) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:59PM (#18608699) Homepage
    I have had Vista running on a machine for about a month and I haven't run into a single issue yet. I hear horror stories (mostly on Slashdot), and I can't claim that they're false, but it does make me wonder what other people are doing that I am not (or what I am doing that OTHERS are not). Maybe the user is unstable, or perhaps there are driver issues.
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:02PM (#18608753) Homepage Journal
    The "so what" is that this is a quantified test. The methodology and happenings are described in detail. This is not a case of "some random guy doesn't like Vista". this is a case of "some guy who has been known to do this kind of test in the past has found that vista is unreliable, slow, and ineffective on mainstream hardware which is known good." Your misinterpretation of the situation suggests that you are, in fact, simply flamebaiting since that level of misdirection can only be deliberate.
  • by 8127972 (73495) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:02PM (#18608767)
    .... But to say that it is "dangerously unstable" seems a bit much. Perhaps this guy had hardware issues that were responsible for the OS being unstable?
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moo083 (716213) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:02PM (#18608773)
    I have noticed that Windows fans' excuse for crashing on other people's systems is something along the lines of "Jeez, they must be stupid if they couldn't figure out what was causing their problem". I don't understand how that response is helpful or accurate. If you need to be that smart to use the OS, something is wrong. You said it is probably the sound card driver. Sure, not the end of the world, but how would Joe Shmoe know that? I sure didn't. And here is is, 5 or 6 years after XP is out, and I tried to plug a second monitor into my brand new Dimension E520 at work and the OS crashed when I told it I wanted the second monitor extending my first. Not even a BSOD. Just restarted with no warning. Is that what XP is supposed to do or do I just not know how to use it? I think you need to rethink your response and figure out that something about what you said is incorrect. Or am I just stupid too?
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:03PM (#18608789) Journal
    You know what, in your support for MS Vista you have inadvertently supported my thoughts on Linux. Yes, it's stable too and several distributions can be installed by general users. No complete neophyte will be able to fully install any OS, that is why computers come with the OS pre-installed.

    There are a few driver issues with all OS software!

    Now, since they are more or less equal, why use the one that cost you big money? Why use the OS that wants to report what you do and prevent you from playing your content?

    Yes, I'm saying that if Dell and others shipped computers with some version of Linux pre-installed, it would be a very short time before everyone (nearly) was asking themselves why they should spend big dollars on MS software... assuming we get around/over the MS Tax. That is a problem that probably needs some investigation, perhaps legislative action.
  • by svendsen (1029716) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:03PM (#18608795)
    Any software or hardware in its 1st release will have issues. Can you name me something that in its 1st release was perfect? As for the data I agree if you are going to try a 1st rev of something back up your data. THis logic applies to any OS. I've had friends go from OSX 10.2 to 10.3 and hose their system and lose their data. Ask them where the backups are and you get the blank stare.... Nothing perfect...plan for the worst
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:05PM (#18608825) Homepage Journal

    Does it require moderately high end hardware? Yes. Windows 95 was considered resource intensive for a 386 with 4 megs of ram when it came out in 1995. Who cares?

    The reason this is a nonsensical argument is that windows vista does not provide any features substantially in advance of windows xp. Windows 95 does DRAMATICALLY more than Windows 3.1.

    In fact, Microsoft claimed that Windows Vista would be the fastest windows yet. But in spite of its limited improvements in functionality - which are almost all supposedly speed-related - it is dramatically slower.

    If you install Windows XP on a system that formerly had Windows 2000, the only setback in terms of performance is the stupid fisher-price GUI (which can be turned off) and the fact that it consumes more memory. Programs in fact often DO run faster on XP than on 2k. This is not true of Vista, which also substantially breaks backwards compatibility in the bargain. Everything is slower on Vista.

  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VividU (175339) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:06PM (#18608849)
    Go back and you'll see the exact same comments when Windows 2000 came out, when Windows XP was released, when the first Xbox was released and when the Xbox 360 was released.
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:12PM (#18608973) Homepage Journal
    "I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once."

    "I'm not having problems; therefore, nobody else could be having any, either."

    " This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?"

    He was using it as a common user with OEM hardware. You're telling me that Joe Six-pack can troubleshoot a driver problem in any timeframe? Remember, MS is marketing this as a retail, for-the-masses OS. The review chose to review the machine as a typical end-user.

    "Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world."

    So now you admit sound card drivers are a common problem? You're right, it's not the end of the world, but the reviewer did claim it was the end for a lot of his data -- which goes against the whole reason to use a computer in the first place -- to store your data.

    "This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty."

    Except for the fact of this relatively common sound card driver bug causing crashes. You have openly admitted as much yourself. Sounds like 1994 all over again.
  • by jojoba_oil (1071932) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:17PM (#18609079)

    The Aero interface is very fast on well supported hardware.
    Isn't that true of just about anything?
  • by Torvaun (1040898) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:20PM (#18609125)
    Searches. Windows Vista beats the pants off my Windows XP with Google Desktop. IPv6 is fully integrated. They killed off a bunch of backwards compatibility, which has hosed some older programs. The interface is nice, but not necessary. Stack protection.

    Don't forget that we're comparing the recently released Vista to XP, which has been out for years. Of course XP is going to be winning popularity contests right now. Same thing would have happened when XP was released if it wasn't following up ME. I've worked with people who want to keep their Windows 98 machines, for crying out loud. But very few people move backward from a mature OS. There may still be people who like Windows 98, but there aren't people who use Windows XP, and say "Gee, I wish I was using 98 instead." So shall it be with Vista when it matures.
  • by Wylfing (144940) <brian AT wylfing DOT net> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:22PM (#18609155) Homepage Journal

    I haven't used Vista at all yet, but for the sake of argument I will assume that this review is a good indication of Vista's quality: a bit less good than XP. Now I have used XP, extensively, and I have used Linux extensively, and in my judgment the quality of a distribution like Fedora or Ubuntu is about on par with the quality of XP. You get roughly the same number of annoyances, the same amount of flaky behavior, and the same number of breakages, some of which you can fix and some of which you can't.

    With Vista, apparently I need to knock it down 10% or so from XP in terms of its quality. Plus (and this is a big one) it actively works against the user with intentional breakages. DVD burning tools that produce discs only readable on Vista? Come again? IE7 objects to downloads from Sourceforge? Nice. So I'll take off another 10% for these shenanigans. That means Vista is about 80% as good as Ubuntu.

    Where did the billions of dollars and years of development go? Why can't Redmond put out an OS that is at least as good as the freebie alternative? They should be selling an OS that is dramatically better than anything else available. Why aren't they?

  • by ncc74656 (45571) * <scott@alfter.us> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:22PM (#18609171) Homepage Journal

    I'm about to switch my Vista install over to "Windows Classic" but I kinda like the eye candy (20" LCD with a Win2K looking desktop just doesn't justify the $700 I paid a couple years back for the monitor).

    The first thing I do with a fresh WinXP install is shut off that gawdawful Luna (?) desktop and revert to something that looks more like Win2K. Less space used by UI widgets means more space for program data, and it doesn't look so cartoonish.

  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:24PM (#18609201)

    If you need to be that smart to use the OS, something is wrong.

    More to the point, if you need to be that smart to use the OS, wouldn't you rather use an OS that puts those smarts to use through powerful tools like shell scripting, built-in command-line accessible compilers, and more? I thought the whole point of using Windows was that anyone can use it. Tell somebody's grandma that she should debug her drivers, you know?

  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Com2Kid (142006) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:28PM (#18609287) Homepage Journal

    I have noticed that Windows fans' excuse for crashing on other people's systems is something along the lines of "Jeez, they must be stupid if they couldn't figure out what was causing their problem".


    Apparently Microsoft not only tried to copy the Unix security model and make an advanced Unix like shell, they also copied the Linux user mentality as well!
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thebdj (768618) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:30PM (#18609325) Journal
    I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once. This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?
    Of course, everyone's mileage may vary. Also, I do not think a driver or hardware issue is unreasonable to extend into a month or more, especially if you consider end-users who have next to no technical skills. I refused to upgrade with my free upgrade from Dell after I read they refused to guarantee my hardware or software would work in the new OS. Why would I want to upgrade if the programs I paid for (including AV) don't work! Same for my hardware. I do not want to spend hours debugging some damn driver issue.

    Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world.
    I find your statement here a bit funny for two reasons. 1) You say this is a moderately common problem, yet you think he is crazy for taking a month to fix it and 2) it shoots your next point right in the foot.

    This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty.
    This comment is wrong for a few reasons. First, see the previous point. Two, NT wasn't usable for home use until Windows 2000, which was released in, guess what, 2000. Even then 2K was still not great for home users, especially those wanting games. Finally, the statement is blatantly wrong because the worst OS released by MS to date, Windows ME, came out after 1994. Of course, problems like this might have Vista challenging ME for "Worst MS OS ever".
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:30PM (#18609337) Homepage
    I don't know how we can get out of the vicious circle of declining expectations.

    I know nobody believes it, but there was a time when beta versions were called betas, and Version 1.0 meant a product that was finally finished, SQA-ed, and working.

    Users have a right to a version 1.0 that works. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "hey, what do you expect, it's version 1.0" wouldn't be tolerable in any other product.

  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dedazo (737510) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:32PM (#18609379) Journal

    "I'm not having problems; therefore, nobody else could be having any, either."

    Amusingly enough that's an often-used retort to people who claim Linux is not working for them for whatever reasons. But I guess here it's perfectly valid, right?

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:36PM (#18609457) Homepage Journal

    It's obvious that he has some hardware issues on his machine that he needs to look into

    Are you a shill, or are you telling lies for free?

    The hardware was stable under heavier stress testing under both Windows XP and Linux.

    Normally, I'm all for bashing Microsoft, being a Linux/Mac OS X user normally, but even I can't agree with this article.

    Why, you didn't read it?

    While we're on the subject, why shouldn't Quicktime work? It's just yet another Windows application.

  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:38PM (#18609489) Homepage

    I have noticed that Windows fans' excuse for crashing on other people's systems is something along the lines of "Jeez, they must be stupid if they couldn't figure out what was causing their problem". I don't understand how that response is helpful or accurate. If you need to be that smart to use the OS, something is wrong. You said it is probably the sound card driver.

    Besides any talk about how you figure out it's the sound card driver, I think there's something wrong with the attitude that, "Windows is completely stable. If it's crashing, it's probably just the [software/driver]!"

    To clarify, I acknowledge that, very often, people having serious problems with Windows stability have usually installed some kind of 3rd party software (or driver) that has messed things up. My problem is that this acknowledgment isn't a solution. Blaming the sound card doesn't make the system run any better. For example, Vista has been having lots of problems with sound drivers. Vista is lacking drivers altogether for many Creative cards, and from what I can tell, even when you have one of the Creative cards with drivers for Vista, the drivers are unstable. In fact, I would say that, in my experience, Creative's drivers have always been unstable, even when Microsoft has certified the drivers.

    Now, you might be inclined to say, "That's not Microsoft's fault!" I guess it might not be, but this is cold comfort to the people who have problems because of faulty drivers. After years of Microsoft dominating the market and having nearly unlimited resources to deal with these problems, the situation doesn't seem to have improved substantially since Windows 2000. If you ask the people who have been displeased by Windows, almost none of their complaints have been addressed in the past 7 years, and Vista does pretty much nothing to improve the situation. Even if it isn't Microsoft's fault, they've shown an inability to formulate a solution. It would have been better if Microsoft had used their position to bully Creative into producing better drivers, but instead they used their position to bully their own customers.

  • by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:49PM (#18609701)
    Any software or hardware in its 1st release will have issues

    Vista is not a first-release product, though. It is Windows NT Version 6.0.

    After 15+ years of development, I would hope that the issues that surface with each new release would be relatively few and mild, even for major revisions like Vista.
  • by Skuld-Chan (302449) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:51PM (#18609739)
    I don't think this is true actually - in a lot of ways Vista is quicker. For instance when I turned on my Vista machine today it was ready to go in literally seconds.

    Low priority I/O makes it so a lot of tasks like backup, indexing and optimizing the disk can be done in the background with little to no impact to foreground apps.

    As far as application performance, you can dumb down vista's ui, but even with Aero on I really honestly don't notice any performance difference between Vista and XP.
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:10PM (#18610005)

    You should see what the linux fans say when people can't get things to work.
    Yeah, but Linux isn't backed by massive advertising campaigns that try to drill it into people's heads that Linux Vista makes everything easier and more fun.

    Nobody who isn't a drooling zealot expects Linux to be easy to use. (I say this as someone who's spent the last three days up to my elbows in configuration files persuading Ubuntu to work with a proper keyboard; I can fix Linux when it goes wrong, and I know damn well that Joe Average could not.)

    That's why it's surprising when Windows fans slag people off for having difficulty using it. Today both Linux and OS X are faster, more stable, much prettier even than Vista (seriously, a tastefully-configured Beryl on Linux beats even OS X hands down for eye candy). Windows has just two killer advantages: more of the standard software works on it, and it's easier to use. Those are the only two valid reasons left to choose Windows. So when a new version of Windows is less compatible and harder to use, that's kind of weird - and not something that any Windows fan should be defending, given that it's a trend that could kill the Windows platform completely if it continues!
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:12PM (#18610021) Homepage Journal
    "Your trite response misses the point - I'm providing anecdotal evidence to refute the anecdotal story presented by the author of the article that is the subject of this slashdot discussion. Don't you think you should be directing these comments towards the article, and not me?"

    No. I should be directing these comments to you, because you are making logic errors in your argument.

    The fact that you haven't had a crash doesn't 'refute' the author's experience. He had crashes, you didn't. These anecdotal pieces of evidence don't wipe each other out. Was the author lying to us, or making up his crash stories, simply because you never had a crash? No, that's silly. He had a bad experience with Vista, you didn't. Your story doesn't make him wrong, any more than his would make yours wrong. Only if he were lying or misrepresenting would that make his story wrong.

    "Why don't you name me a single OS that won't become unstable with faulty drivers. "

    Irrelevant. What we are talking about is how stable Vista is for the general public, on common hardware in typical scenarios. You claim never to have had a crash with any OS aside from DOS 6 -- so what? Does that mean no OS has ever crashed, except DOS 6? No, that's an over-generalization. Because you never had a problem, that doesn't mean that Windows ME wasn't a shitty, buggy, lock-up-and-crash-prone OS that should never have seen a retail shelf.

    You have said yourself that there is a *common* problem with sound card drivers. We both agree that faulty drivers cause problems. But should it be a *common* problem, especially for MS' flagship product, released to the public? Shouldn't MS make better drivers, or only allow well-tested, signed drivers? If faulty drivers are a *common* problem, doesn't that show some problem in MS' development or distribution methods?
  • by Score Whore (32328) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:16PM (#18610107)

    The reason this is a nonsensical argument is that windows vista does not provide any features substantially in advance of windows xp.


    I think you are confusing the fact that old apps don't support new features with no new features. This is the expected behavior. I mean, it's not like starcraft should automagically switch from isometric sprits to directx 10 3D because Microsoft released a new OS.

    As far as new features in the OS. One that pops right out that isn't just eye-candy is the audio support. The OS tuning my speaker setup automatically is pretty sweet. Having seperate volume controls for each audio application is also really handy.

    Natively you also have a ton of more visibility into what is going on due to the included monitoring tools.

    The mini/live windows are pretty nice too. Works on tabs in sea monkey as well.
  • by Xymor (943922) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:24PM (#18610223)
    You're all expecting too much from Vista, mostly because you're not familiar with Microsoft's naming standards.
    Here's a little Microsoft -> Programmer list of terms I compiled:

    alpha = non-existant
    beta = alpha
    Full Retail edition = beta
    SP1 = Full Retail edition

  • by jank1887 (815982) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:38PM (#18610449)
    um... no.

    an OS for the masses would make it completely transparent to the user what is being done with memory. The user 'from the masses' doesn't care what's being used for what. As long as things run responsively and quickly, it's a win. There is Zero need for a up front and obvious to the average PC user exactly where each byte of ram is going. All they need is a "hey, you're trying to do a bit too much all at once" message when they get close to running out of overhead. Maybe show a pie chart with app.name (NOT the process name/number) and percent of mem used, and give them the chance to close down something BEFORE the system grinds to an unresponsive halt.

  • Re:Searches (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:48PM (#18610603) Homepage
    I'm quoting it b/c joel rightly points out that having the contents of a drive be quickly searchable is not something incredibly revolutionary requiring 2GB of RAM and an expensive 3D video accelerator card. It comes naturally from good index design.

    Since search was posited as a big thing that Vista does right, I'm expressing my non-impressedness. Nothing to do with WinFS.
  • by MogNuts (97512) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @04:00PM (#18610763)
    I was just reading some of the posts here. Infuriating. You know what I realized? Most of the people on Slashdot (who post anyway) may seem knowledgeable about computers and smart, but are not. Most are computer newbies. When a bunch of people bitch that Vista shows its using all their RAM... Wow... (hint: caching). Don't listen to most of the stuff on this post because the people think they know what they are talking about, but they really don't. And guaranteed I'll be modded down...

    I just bough a brand new computer. I'm impressed. Vista works pretty flawlessly. Here is to denounce the FUD:

    1) All my old programs work without a hitch
    2) I *rarely* get a UAC prompt. If I do, it's pretty much for admin-only things anyway (which is the correct way to handle elevating privelages) like installing software or using the control panel. Lest you forget you also must be root to install packages with Yum or Apt. There is no prompt for using the calender or other BS like getting UAC prompts willy-nilly
    3) It's not slow
    4) Games work fine. I have an ATI x1300 and it plays the games fine

    The only thing which is a pain is Vista's file manager. Even though there is an option to set all folders to use the same settings and view as the current directory, it doesn't do what it's told. Therefore, you will always be in one directory--say, with the details view, and the next directory is the tile view. A real big pain and more annoying than you think if you frequently manage files.

    Btw, don't give me any BS about how "sure it works fine because you bought Vista pre-installed." Every computer from now on will be pre-installed so your issue is moot AND my computer is using the same damn drivers one would find by downloading them off their respective vendor's sites (and thereby installed by the oh-so-difficult clicking of next > next > finish).
  • by rainer_d (115765) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @04:14PM (#18610999) Homepage
    > At the very least, MS should've waited until
    > NVidia & ATI had their drivers polished

    Rest assured that that (i.e. user-experience after the user has bought it) was very low on the list.
    With enough cynism, your posting could be marked as "funny".

    Licensing 6.0 was all what was driving the release-date.
    A lot of businesses signed the Licensing 6.0 agreement back in ... oh wait, 2002/2003, under the assumption that the "next windows" was just around the corner and they would somehow be left behind if they couldn't have it cheaply (I've seen it first-hand).
    Those contracts ran... 3 years, which brings us to X-mas 2006, when Vista was released to OEMs and large-accounts, so that all the CIOs who signed those contracts didn't look like complete fools to their beancounters, who are still using the same desktop and the same MS-Office they have used for three years.

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @04:16PM (#18611017)
    Those articles from five years ago were correct. Unless you are a gamer (maybe), it really is not worth upgrading from win2k to XP.

    I dual boot Debian and Win2K. Win2k is fast and stable, works with all my hardware, and runs all of my windows apps. The default interface is less cartoonish, and IMO more logical and functional. Win2K does not have that annoying authentication crappola. With Win2K, I don't have to learn a new interface.

    I have no idea why people want to bother with XP, much less Vista. I assume everybody has just learned to jump when msft snaps their fingers. I have been using the same PC for over 5 years, I just have no reason to upgrade.
  • by cmat (152027) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @04:19PM (#18611079)
    "..., I use Linux and FOSS because once it's on my computer I own it."

    -snip-

    Excuse me? You most certainly do NOT own any FOSS you have on your computer unless you actually wrote it. This would be the point of copyright. You have a license to use and distribute said FOSS under the terms of the individual licenses. Ownership != right to use/distribute.
  • by SoSueMe (263478) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @05:38PM (#18612355)
    Man, I'm flashing back to my tech support days of a decade ago, "Where did I save my files?".
    Does user education have any place in today's 'Search and ye shall find' mentality?
  • by UncleTogie (1004853) * on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @05:49PM (#18612501) Homepage Journal

    Why do you think Gmail works?

    My first guess would be "good design and coding", but it appears I was wrong; you appear to be telling us it works because of a nebulous philosophy of "search instead of arrange logically."

    It is based on the philosophy that it is easier to search a large group than to organize it along the way. (Of course, it IS being organized along the way, just not by the user.)

    The day that a computer can organize my documents and email better than I can is the day I quit the IT field. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust a PC to do that, but I'm fairly well convinced that at current, a human can do it better.

    While I might like my desk organized, if someone ELSE organizes it FOR me they're not going to put things where I do.
  • by e4g4 (533831) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @07:27PM (#18613729)
    I couldn't agree more. One of the fundamental precepts in designing an operating system is that the speed of interactive tasks directly effects the perceived speed of a system. To paraphrase an old professor of mine, if you perform a task that you intuitively believe should happen instantaneously and it doesn't complete within half a second or so(like, for example, opening a menu), you will perceive the system to be slower; the impact from a task that you intuitively believe should take a minute (like encoding an audio file, or loading a large application *cough*Office*cough*), a difference of several seconds is less noticable.

    I'm far from an MS fanboy, but I'd argue that optimizing the response time of an interactive processes over that of more resource-intensive processes is a good design choice on the part of Microsoft.
  • by scottnews (237707) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @08:35PM (#18614417)
    As much as I dislike Vista, I have to say you are wrong. Vista is precaching your most frequently used apps to RAM. When you open an app that requires 50% of your physical RAM Vista gives it the 50% it needs. If Vista needs to take it from the cached programs it does.

    Having an OS with 2 gigs of RAM and 1.6 gigs free is a waste. Its good to have the OS cache apps and make use of ALL the RAM. Just as long as it gives it up to running apps, which Vista does.
  • by mewsenews (251487) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @08:39PM (#18614469) Homepage
    It has locked up a few times.

    unacceptable
  • Re:Yeah whatever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @10:00PM (#18615217) Journal

    Well stop whining, Linux isn't ready for the the mainstream desktop. It needs to standardise.

    Windows isn't, either. How many different versions of Vista are there? And that's just Vista.

    Look, if you have a real complaint about "Linux", either direct it at the kernel (and know what you're talking about) or direct it at a specific distro.

    Otherwise, stop whining that you have *gasp* too much choice! If you really feel that way, get a Mac -- that way, you won't even be burdened with choice in hardware.

    And if you think it's not about you, then stop whining, period. Get an actual, typical desktop user who has gone back to Windows to complain about why Linux sucks, or bring us real complaints that affect you.

Good salesmen and good repairmen will never go hungry. -- R.E. Schenk

Working...