Consumer Group Demands XP for Vista Victims 592
thefickler writes "Dissatisfaction with Windows Vista seems to be swelling, with the Dutch Consumers' Union (Consumentenbond) asking Microsoft to supply unhappy Vista users with a free copy of Windows XP. Not surprisingly, Microsoft refused. This prompted Consumentenbond to advise consumers to ask for XP, rather than Vista, when buying a new computer."
Ok, start the flames (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends upon the system. (Score:5, Informative)
WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.
WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).
Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.
Which is why Microsoft extended WinXP for OEM's.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the eye-candy which eats processor cycles, RAM and network bandwidth. It's the DRM.
Vista was made for record companies and movie studios, not computer users.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I'll admit I've no evidence. Merely an established pattern of behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our research lab has some high-demand 3D graphics applications. With XP they run at a decent frame rate. With Vista, if the eye-candy is turned on, they run like molasses. That's with all the standard optimisations (display lists, triangle strips, texture atlases etc...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the VistaBlog interview with Dave Marsh, Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video;
Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.
You can keep the second face. You seem to be getting plenty of use from it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heavy DRM? How so? I've been ripping CDs and DVDs the same as ever. I know they included some stuff to let me play new DRM-laden formats, but I can choose to use them or not. you'd have prefered they leave the functionality out entirely?
Resource hungry, slower? This is true. You need lots of RAM and it does run slower. Agreed. This will become less important over time, as was the case with XP, 2000, NT etc.
Ulti
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And I just thought I'd point out... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's worse is when you've been the anti-MS zealot, wizened up, and returned from the brink. You try your damnedest to like Microsoft, even recommending it to your clients... and subsequently hate the decision, hate Microsoft (again), and wonder why you ever offered MS a second chance. But now, you're stuck maintaining Windows-centric software, waiting for the resources to port operations to a UNIX/POSIX platform.
I try, I really do. Microsoft doesn't even make that easy enough. So, I bought a Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not exacly true. You can upgrade from 9 to xp pro. Actually you can upgrade a freshly formatted drive to xp pro. WTF dude?
I put xp on a few machines here but kept 98 on this machine.
Oddly, 10 years after the fact I'm still seeing errors I haven't seen before.
But, it does everything I need it too and it a helluva lot more stable that it was in 98. In fact I rarely have to reboot these days. Meanwhil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at my Ubuntu system, the #1 process for using up cpu is compiz (1h40m of CPU time during 7d uptime), in spite of off-loading the actual rendering to my nVidia card. I don't really notice as I have a Quad-core CPU, but it would hurt quite a bit more with only 1 or even with 2 cores.
Re:It depends upon the system. (Score:5, Insightful)
CPU time is not the problem. Raw CPU speed * core count has been increasing as fast as ever lately, but GUI responsiveness has remained almost stagnant. That's because caching and buffering aren't perfect, and ultimately some things are dependent on disk seek time, which has hardly improved at all in the past few years.
Now throw a bunch of eye candy on top of the situation, which is very data intensive and therefore just going to put that much more pressure onto buffer usage, disk drive seeking and bottlenecked I/O buses. That's a recipie for sluggishness.
PCs are already like 60s muscle cars: a huge engine bolted into a crappy budget family sedan with bias-ply tires and drum brakes. A GPU is like bolting in another engine. It's not going to solve fundamental problems with the system that inhibit good all-around performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I want my computer chewing up battery when rendering shiny stuff? Not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the poster said "processor time" and not "CPU time", and since the GPU is also a processor, it's safe to ignore you as a nit-picker who has no clue about what he's talking about. If I tie up the GPU with eye candy and need the GPU for something else at the same time, my system will run slower.
Mod him down, but he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to agree with a so-called "troll" here but he really does have a point -- I lived in his "hell" for a month on this HP/Compaq notebook that came with Vista. When it spontaneously uninstalled its own hard drive controller driver last week, rendering itself unbootable (ironically, the bootloader could bootstrap the kernel, but mysteriously then the kernel instantly forgot how to talk to the disks -- the only repair option available? Blow it all away and reload the factory image), I removed Vista entirely and stuck Ubuntu 7.10 [ubuntu.com] on this thing. I've been happy every since :)
Things run faster, are more stable, and I have more useful tools and software here. OpenGL (3D stuff) works great, I can still run all the apps I use (since they're cross-platform anyway :)), and I get my work done much faster. Strangely, I'm even getting *much* better battery life out of the internal battery on the laptop *and* on the external battery I use to extend the internal battery's life. Bluetooth *never* worked right in Vista, yet I'm tethered to a Windows Mobile 6-based phone wirelessly (via Bluetooth) for its Internet Connection Sharing right now to post this.
I think I'll take this idea offered by the original article here and go bug HP for a refund for Vista (or, if they won't do that, mebbe an "upgrade" to XP ... not that I'd use it :)).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
very much like they are coming straight from Redmond's
PR people. They sound way too much like the official
press releases and media events.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Vista is teh noob killer (Score:2, Funny)
He was ready to axemurder his new computer, and still is cheesed about his first big computer purchase leaving him with such a ba
Read the Vista Failure Log. (Score:3, Informative)
Mock surprise! Really, do you live under a rock? People don't complain because they don't know they have easy alternatives that work. They just use what they are given until someone shows them something better. Vista's pains have been documented at length here and you can see them for real if you watch what your Vista usin
Re:Ok, start the flames (Score:5, Informative)
The reason isn't simple. Anyone giving you one single reason so many people reject Vista would be silly. Here are few:
- yes it's new, means back compat issues with software hardware
- eats lots of resources and delivers little for it (comparable Linus/OSX interfaces run on lesser GFX chips and deliver faster responce... why this is, no clue, let's hope Vista SP2 fixes it)
- no direction, GUI chaos, feature chaos
The latter is a bigger problem than one can imagine, since it's not one that solves itself with bugfixes and time.
Vista clearly lacks focus and lacks central philosophy behind its GUI. We see that a huge team worked on this OS, but no one gave them a single set of rules to work behind. Everyone just had its own idea how to change the Windows experience and simply went for it without regard to the rest of the OS.
Last time we talked someone said "but typing to find apps is so much faster than menus! I hate the whiners that don't like vista's start menu".
Right. So if typing is so much better, how come they converted the Explorer address bar from *hinted typing* to *menus* in vista (you need to right-click, then deselect, and then you can finally double-click a segment to retype).
Or maybe the Start menu exists in a universe of its own from Explorer.
The Control Panel is entirely unpredictable. It starts like a web page, but half of the features pop-up the old XP control panel applets, with the other tabs disabled (or not disabled.. again, all this is random).
Unhiding hidden files, which is what many people do, causes two "desktop.ini" files on the Desktop (they had the sense not to show those in XP and before!).
So, basically stuff like that. It's not crucial, you can do your work, but it's a *lesser* experience, it's a pain, and goes against you, for no good reason than "I'm new, buy me". And why go for the lesser experience, when you can go for the better experience, which is XP?
So there. Now Microsoft will have to weight both sides: can they admit failure and fix Vista, or keep demanding it's just fine, but we need to get used to it?
I really wish they fix Vista, but they don't give a sign of doing this so far though. SP1 will build on performance and stability features, which is great, but they only fix couple of UI issues.
Maybe SP2 is where they will do it. We'll see.
Re:Ok, start the flames (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife got vista for her new laptop half a year back. She didn't know any better. (neither did I, I'd have opted for Ubuntu, but I honestly wasn't aware that Vista is so horribly much more annoying than XP as it is.) (as if XP ain't annoying enough: Wanna reboot now, or should I nag you again in 3 minutes ?)
The biggest problem though ? There is not a -single- actually relevant improvement from a user-perspective. Not one. Lots of drawbacks, no advantages. Oh, I'm sure they're there allrigth. But how splendid are they really, if the user doesn't even -notice- them in the first half-year of use ?
At this point my wife would swap Vista for XP in a heartbeat. Hell, she'd swap it for Windows-98 if given the chance.
Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Boycott Microsoft for... er... Microsoft. That'll show them!
Re: (Score:2)
next up Universal will have a free subscription service that only works with universal branded mp3 players, that can only decode universal's mp3 drm.
oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, customers get what they think they want, and Microsoft (why must people abbreviate it? It's not that long of a word) gets to keep it's market share relatively even while also having it's older OS (XP) look much better to many people (upgrade to linux? Nah, I'll just go back to XP. It was perfect as I remember).
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got it wrong there... it's like boycotting Bullshit to slightly better smelling manure. People need time to get used to the multiple new flavours, of
Vista and XP (Score:2)
My friend just bought a copy of XP Pro because he has so much problems with Vista.
No surprise here, M$ has found a way to make the manufactures pay and fatten up the profits. Bet Microsoft does not want to publish downgrade and after market sales replacing Vista. But making lots of money in the process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Flamewar anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be that when buying a PC it only comes bundled with XP Home, but the consumer needs XP Pro, in which case it's necessary to purchase the OS TWICE. Or if the consumer wants Linux it's not possible to get rid of the M$ Tax...
Re:Flamewar anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But even if I wouldn't have a computer, I would really pay Windows tax, literally. I pay taxes and the goverment buys Windows licenses with that money.
Re: (Score:2)
Vista to XP?! (Score:2)
should have happened long ago (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:should have happened long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say though, Windows XP offered little to people already using Windows 2000 (and still doesn't offer much extra now, besides the extra support time).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>So what did XP bring to the plate that 2000 didn't? Just about everything, including the rapid growth of McAfee, Norton, and other similar software giants.
So lacks in System Security spawning companies that specialize in making massive kernel-space addons, and slowing down the rest of the OS to a crawl instead of fixing the security model is a Good Thing[TM]?
MS might just have made it a big mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
The consumentenbond is very powerfull, IF a company has its product rated as best it WILL use that in all its ads, it is marketing gold. Being labelled as bad is the exact opposite, MS just got itself a whole shitload of bad advertising and not by some computer mag or newspaper but by an organisation most dutch people believe.
To give you an idea off how powerfull consumer organisations are in holland, this is the only country in the world were Sony will freely and without question exchange PSP's with ANY defective sub-pixel. The ONLY country in the world. Not after you threaten a lawsuit, not after hours on the phone, turn it into a store, if they make trouble refer them to a letter Sony send to kassa and get your new PSP (did it twice until it went past even dutch warranty). Some stores (not sony itself) still try to make trouble, go ahead ask for the manager and tell them to call Sony, Sony will chew them out for you, Sony doesn't want more trouble.
In fact if you are in the netherlands you don't have to accept dead subpixels on anything. I exchanged my iPod video after 6 months, an mp3 player is a device that should last longer, and Apple just had to replace mine or face a court case it was going to loose by default.
This is the country MS refused to simply give XP (costs them NOTHING) to legit buyers of Vista?
Seriously, MS really needs to hire a better public relations officer. They might be lucky that this is the weekend and as such the free working week newspapers won't carry the story but this is just asking for a whole lot of bad press.
On a side not, might Vista's uptake lack because it is harder to pirate? The only people I know who use Vista are those who got it with their new computer for "free". I build my own (and run linux anyway for desktop) so for me Vista would cost a shitload of money. Piracy seems out, wich makes me not use it and therefore I get no experience with it, except for when my friends ask me for advice and I can't give it because I don't know Vista. This actually matters to some as I have helped two people reformat and install XP to get rid of Vista.
I wish just once there was a story from MS that doesn't make it sound like it got some kind of horrible fascination with shooting itself in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Vista issues? HA! (Score:4, Interesting)
I installed Vista, used the HP Driver Disc that came with Vista to upgrade all my drivers, and waited. After everything was done, I checked the system, and two or three devices weren't working. I went to HP's website, and there were no new drivers for them. To make a long story short, we reformatted her computer, and I wiped the drive on mine and we both went back to XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and mod me a troll (Score:2, Informative)
They aren't kidding (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As an anecdote; recently, the person with the least technical skill and knowledge I know (and that says quite a lot), told me she bought a new computer with XP on it because she heard Vista "has to many flaws". I'm pretty sure that if even she knows, everyone in the country knows. I'm pretty sure we didn't have this when XP came out.
Windows 2000 is the WORLDS MOST SECURE OS... (Score:2, Funny)
I thought this was news for nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm personally not an MS hater per se, and am very happy with working in C# and Visual Studio over using Java and Eclipse. However, when I tried Windows Vista, it lasted all of one month on my computer before I went back to XP. I did really like some of the interface improvements. The Aero interface does look nice, and I liked the screen preview feature of the taskbar. But that was about all I liked.
Why did I switch back to XP?
1. Half of my games wouldn't run in Vista.
2. I quickly got sick of having to click "OK" on 3 different security validation popups every time I'd want to run a program.
3. I got sick of having to acknowledge that I'd turned off security every time I booted up (see number 2).
4. I got tired of having to install half of everyting I bought twice, because it would fail the first time due to the Vista "protect the user from himself" theology. Even though my logon acct was Administrator, it wouldn't install apps as administrator mode until it failed the first time. What the?
5. Of the half of the games that did run, graphics performance was about 15% worse than on Vista. Even when I upgraded to a dual-core and was running two ATI cards in Crossfire mode.
I'm not able to give you a lot of technical "this process was x because they did y in Vista" but the above were my experiences with what was bad about Vista versus XP. Personally, I consider Vista to be on par (as far as MS OS's go) with Windows 98 First Edition. I liked 2000 because it stopped me from getting he "buffer underrun" error every time I'd burn a CD. I liked XP because it gave me a lot more "home" and gaming functionality. Vista is a downgrade from both.
Logical question: (Score:2)
Re:Logical question: (Score:4, Interesting)
People are portable and they expect their devices to be as well and though Windows can work on portable devices, as usual, they are late to the game and this time I doubt Apple will make the same mistake they made the first time by letting Microsoft step all over them. But then again, they also need Microsoft otherwise they will becoem just as evil (*cough* iPhone *cough*).
I thought they already did this? (Score:2)
Or am I thinking of something else?
Stop stalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Will you Windows people stop whining? In the next few years you're going to use Vista, because that's Microsoft's new thing. People whined about XP, and look where we are now. So get on with it. Stop whining and take the plunge. We all know how it's going to turn out, and the rest of us are tired of your bitching.
Alternatively, try switching to a different operating system. For years the most common reasons for not switching to Linux or Mac have been that those operating systems don't support necessary hardware or software and are significantly different than people are used to. Now that Microsoft's own "new thing" is significantly different and doesn't support much hardware or software, it's the perfect time to put your money where your mouth is. Switch to something else, or shut up and take it.
Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the complaints I get regarding Windows Vista are of the "I cannot find this feature" or "my 5+ year old piece of software will not work". In nearly all cases like this the problem can be fixed by a little advise on the help system and showing the customer how to use compatibility mode. Hardware is the biggest complaint but again it is almost always for 5+ year old equipment (many of which are no longer supported by the manufacturer) and these are incidentally the same type of customers who complain their sub $500 computer does not have a parallel port.
The majority of the customers that come to me and say "Vista sucks!" are the ones who bought a sub $500 desktop or laptop running Windows Vista Basic meeting the absolute lowest requirements. When you add shared video memory overhead to an already low installed RAM it is no wonder the system bogs down when attempting to do more than one task at a time. Microsoft's biggest mistake was to make this version as in my experience the person who wants to pay the least for a product is the one who tends to be the most vocal about any perceived problems.
One more thing that comes to mind is "who pays"? Microsoft can not be required to pay companies to develop and support their operating system or provide OEM copies of additional value-added software such as DVD decoding or advanced burning capability. The manufacturers of the hardware and especially the large system builders are just as guilty of making the transition as painful as it is.
Vista is not perfect, in fact it reminds me a great deal of Windows XP pre-SP1 and there are a lot of problems that are being ironed out over time. The fact of the matter is unless the hardware manufacturers are willing to incur the additional expense of continuing to develop and support Windows XP drivers, a move to "force" Microsoft to provide "downgrade" disks would be useless to the average customer.
Microsoft did the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
To all those who "don't understand" the problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the reasons people are offering for hating Vista are both valid and inconsequential. I say this because it's not the reason that matters so much as the fact that there's discussion about it at all... what's more, there's actually pockets of consumer action growing out there.
Let's take a short walk through recent history shall we?
Windows 3.1:
It was the first "usable" version of Windows. It did things that were arguably miraculous. They created a unified printing, display and user interface such that all software written for it was simply easier and better. No more hoping there is hardware support for your applications. Does anyone remember hunting for drivers to support a printer under AutoCAD or Word Perfect? Not too many people here are old enough to remember that stuff, but I'm here to tell you that it was a big deal and I was singing Microsoft's praises as a savior for the PC and its users.
Windows 3.11... Windows NT:
Progress and improvements! Things just kept getting better. People were happy and excited to upgrade. Things couldn't be better!
Windows95:
WOW! What an amazing difference! A bar at the bottom of the window with a menu system? Sure it was Mac-like, but it was still a wonderful improvement in terms of style. For those already accustomed to Win 3.1 and all that, we knew it was essentially the same OS but with more 32-bit-ness which, even though we didn't fully appreciate what that meant at the time, we knew it was good somehow. Windows95 wasn't "worse" than any of its predecessors and we were still happy to get it because it just looked cooler.
Windows98:
More 32-bit-ness. Cooler still. More old DOS stuff being hidden from the user... some didn't care for it, others appreciated it. We were all generally accepting of it though.
Windows 2000:
Awesome. We didn't have to understand that there were some serious underlying differences to be experienced there... we could just "feel" the differences somehow. It was still Windows NT and as such required more computing power than Win95/98, but for those who craved the improvements that Win2000 offered, it was worth giving in and upgrading the hardware to get it somehow... and yet many remained with Windows98... some serious departure from the "Happy Microsoft Upgraders" mentality is really starting to show now.
Windows ME:
Do I really need to mention it? I guess there were some 'good ideas' in there, but frankly, I never used it. If I wanted to "upgrade" from Win98, I went to Win2000. Like most people, I just stepped right by WinME.
Windows XP:
It's all about the eye-candy. Windows XP didn't offer anything that Windows 2000 didn't already offer. What's more, there was no "Windows XP server." What was that all about? My first attempt at putting WinXP on a machine revealed a slow machine that was once pretty nice under Win98 or Win2000. And given that XP didn't actually offer anything exclusively better in terms of functionality, I ignored it for a long long time... eventually as old machines died and were replaced with newer, better machines, I didn't mind going to XP so much... so eventually XP won its way in by exhibiting patience. No one clamored for XP... they just accepted it. But neither was there mass rebellion against XP.
Windows Vista:
It was a long time in coming. For some it was a dark cloud. For others it held the promise of fixing a lot of things and delivering a LOT of new, interesting and exciting new toys and technologies. Delivery and development delays kept coming and coming. Eventually features were dropped one by one... the hopefuls began to lose faith... the "dark cloud" folks were actually a little relieved since it meant the possibility of less chaos when it
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm not talking about some exotic "spend $$$$$ because you're a massive business with a budget to match" - many were available to the average end user. For instance, in the UK Acorn had 32-bit processors (well, 24 bits in some parts of the CPU and 32 bits in others) in 1987, complete with a printer driver system similar to what's in Windows, a bar showing programs and disk drives along the bott
Vista on digg and slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Should be "Microsoft Gets Its Wish" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
what's that clue that you're talking about. The claim is valid. My scanner worked before and now it does not. That's why I need to stick with XP. Vista reduces the functionality of my hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars lose the value the moment they're driven out of the showroom.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's just about nothing MS can do you with your old copies. They can't be sold to consumers. I don't think MS even exchanges physically defective CDs directly.
I'll agree a car analogy is generally not the best way to go, but in this case car's lose 20% being driven off the lot; Windows CDs lose 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe they should let you downgrade for the cost of the discs plus postage?
Re: (Score:2)
MS doesn't "lose nothing". There's a definite loss of value. At the very least having to produce "extra discs" and shipping or supplying the bandwidth for the downloads. (which isn't what the article said anyway. The union wants a downgrade optionOn the other side you have loss of sales of Vista while having to supply copies of XP which, business-wise, are DISTINCT PRODUCTS with DIFFERENT levels of accountable value at different points of depreciation.
Sure, it's an intangible a
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have that much change in my pockets right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprisingly, the_skywise's head explodes, but his lack of brain does not reduce his ability to contrive inane car analogies.
Re:Vista isn't that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
XP was sure as hell a MUCH bigger difference from Windows 98/ME of back then (assuming a lot of people didn't jump by NT and 2k), and people did complain, but not quite as much. Now that computers are much more mainstream (I don't know numbers, but I doubt even 50% of Windows users of today even KNOW of anything before the MacOSX and Windows XP era), XP is all they know, so you change that, and they're screwed. People who remember previous upgrades probably remember how they were a lot, lot worse. (Windows XP before SP1 was completly non-viable for me, I stayed with 2k until 2 months before SP2 if I remember well).
What amuse me though is people complaining about the price, when its no different at all than XP's, if you take out the Ultimate Edition (which is the equivalent of Media Center of XP, which was not available retail, only OEM). Home Premium has a lot more features than XP Home had, Business more features than XP pro, and its all the same price XP was 5 years ago (and thus, adjusting to inflation, is a lot cheaper).
Re: (Score:2)
That's an awful lot you're lumping in with "some such".
Re: (Score:2)
Thats really the totality of the complains I heard. Oh, also "MacOSX is prettier!", once. Which is more a fact than anything, can't argue there.
Re:Vista isn't that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
does not sit well with
Yes, it's new and breaks things
WHAT? Operating systems ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BREAK THINGS no matter how "new" they are. Microsoft has had DECADES of experience writing operating systems, Microsoft has INTIMATE knowledge of computer components and how they work, directly from chip makers and motherboard manufacturers, in fact at times Microsoft even has the clout to DICTATE which direction technology will progress. And yet they still manage to "break things"?
Give me a break (yes, it's redundant). For all you stick your tongue up Microsoft's corporate backside, you are not getting a free laptop. So please stop being a "gullible consumer" and stop accepting the "fact" that operating systems are supposed to break things when new. That's simply untrue, and Microsoft doesn't deserve to be "cut some slack".
Vista is part of the failure model... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) It provides little or no functionality that consumers actually want over XP.
3) It's more complex than XP, due to the "secure-path" code in the kernel.
4) It's less reliable than XP, due to the additional copy protection and secure-path code in the kernel.
5) It has higher kernel overhead than XP, due to the secure-path code in the kernel.
The reason that people go on about the "horrible DRM" is not because the DRM itself is the problem. It's because the changes that were made to support that DRM are most of the real kernel level differences between XP and Vista.
In addition, the new user-visible security features (UAC and the sandbox for IE) are bandaids. They have not made any attempt to address the real problems in the network services, Win32 APIs, and user-level applications that provide such a large surface area to attackers.
Microsoft's real problem is that they did too good a job, for the desktop at least, with Windows 2000. The only shortcomings to Windows 2000 are features that should have been shipped in feature packs... most of them were originally developed on 2000... and everything they've done since then have been attempts to artificially create the appearance of "newness". There were no fundamental changes in XP, and the only fundamental changes in Vista are things that provide no real benefit to the consumer (and actually hurt them).
They got a pass with XP because they presented it as the upgrade path from Windows 9x. They could have done that with Windows 2000... my "Wintendo" (my Windows gaming box) runs Windows 2000, and the first program I found that wouldn't run on 2000... that actually required XP... was a couple of months ago. Something like 8 years after release and 5 years after XP came out. I don't know why they bothered with Windows Me and didn't just push EVERYONE to Windows 2000 as the upgrade path, but I guess they wanted the income from another upgrade cycle. Anyway, XP gave people something new. Vista can't do that.
With Windows 2000 Microsoft has put themselves out of the "operating system company" job. They've reacted by trying to force people to upgrade, and people don't like that. Unbundling Windows and selling the bundled components as separate packages would get them out of this trap, but after fighting so hard to keep that from happening against their will I don't figure they'll do it.
In the meantime everyone who depends on a stable Windows ecosystem is the loser.
Re: (Score:2)
On a new machine--for consumer and business--I'd go with vista. The DRM seems to be a non-issue
"breaks things" is unacceptable. (Score:2)
Go back and read about the network bullshit -- about how playing any sound at all will throttle your network activity to one tenth of what it's supposed to be.
And about how Microsoft still hasn't admitted it's a problem.
Or has that finally been fixed? If so, it's hardly the only problem -- I could point you to one of Microsoft's own products that we kind of depend on which hasn't been ported to Vista, and is the reason I must run XP at work.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we focus on Apple and Google too
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be the theme on slashdot so much that you would think it was true, except that out in the real world, I've seen and heard very little about Vista one way or the other. All in all, it seems to be a fairly ho-hum release that people don't care too much about.
I work for myself, so many days I just go to a random cafe with free wireless and do my work there. I've had a fairly large number of encounters where someone would hear me on the phone with a client and say "Hey, you sound like you know something about computers - I can't figure out how to get the Internet working on this thing. Worked fine on my last laptop" - sure enough, it's Vista. Usually the issue is something simple (for geeks) like IE7 staying in "offline" mode even though there's a perfectly a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel/Allow?
Vista thinks you smell bad and have a tiny brain to boot.
Cancel/Allow?
Vista vistas you so hard that your vista hurts when you walk.
Cancel/Allow?
Vista makes you spend all your money, then claims that you gave it a virus and stops responding to you.
Cancel/Allow?
*bows head in shame* Look, you can't say that there aren't Vista victims, because I am one. Yes, Vista victimized me. The worst part is that it claims it's my fault, because I
Re: (Score:2)
More insightful than ya'd think (Score:3, Insightful)