Vista: what's the point?

WOW@So much hate for Vista.

I been able to do everything on Vista RC2 that I been doing on Win XP, without any retrictions what so ever.

I just don't get the retrictions everybody is talking about.

The only thing that can be bothersome, is that once in a while I must Disable the UAC, Which is actually a good thing for safey I guess. It's easy to disable and enable VIA msconfig.

I agree that there is no real need to upgrade yet, but that doesn't mean Vista is some evil monster. Most of you will be singing a differ tune soon.

 

It's too bad Windows and Linux can't just live in harmony and learn from each other. Windows would be awesome if just came as a "kernel" with modular applications that can be downloaded off their site for whatever price. That way people could pay for what they need instead of paying extortionate prices for the whole d%#$ thing. If they don't do something soon, they'll tempt me to pirate the OS.

Linux could do some work on organizing their various distributions. It's just a mess right now. Knoppix, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Slackware, Symphony, Debian, Fedora Core 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc its retarded. I understand that there are over 300 such distribution. Just offer the kernel and let the users customize their OS. They already have synaptic package downloaders developed, they can use those for the same purpose. It's such a simple solution. And Linux would do well to develop a more user-intuitive GUI. Make the users interact with the GUI, not an MSDOS-style command line. Stupid. People get scared off by that. The only distribution that addresses this weakness might be Kubuntu, which I am currently running, and even now I have to enter commands (which you can't expect a former XP-user to know how to do) just to install 3rd party software.

 

Well I'm sure someone will make DX10 work on XP. Microsoft likes to tout their software as unhackable, but that's always proved otherwise.

 

^^Well said ...........

It seems like Windows & Linux almost have the opposite problems.

 

You can just get the kernel and roll your own Linux distro. www.linuxfromscratch.org is the place you want. As for the fragmentation of distros, I have to disagree with you, no one distribution will ever be perfect for everybody, and the advantage of having many is that you can choose the one that is best for you.

Umm... It's called GNOME, or KDE, or Xpde, or Xfce... Come on, for most users, you wont even have to touch the command line, with tools like Synaptic, you can have access to tens of thousands of software pieces from a GUI. Not even Vista can do that.

I run Ubuntu, and I don't have to touch the command line if I don't want to. (I still do, because it is so much easier and faster than a GUI). I can play Windows games, monitor my system, change settings, all from a GUI.

To be honest, I would have loved it if Vista had have introduced a more powerful command line system. it would make maintenance so much easier. Instead, MS go the way of "you don't have to change anything, the way we want you to do it is best".

 

Not hate, just indifference. Why would I spend hundreds of dollars on a piece of software that 1) does the same as the software I already have, and 2) comes bundled with additional bloatware?

As I said, I'll probably install the free version I get from MSDNAA, so it's not that I hate Vista. I hate Microsoft's philosophy behind Vista, and their ways to force people to upgrade, but the actual OS? Meh, I just don't really care about it.

Anyway, can anyone tell me how to get rid of Vista's bootloader and restore XP's one? I installed RC2 a while back, and of course it wiped my MBR. I'd quite like it back now...

And the disadvantage is that you have the developers scattered into 300 bickering, infighting groups working at cross purposes, implementing the same things over and over in different distros, and just using "their" distro to boost their ego more than anything else...

Well, can't have everything, I guess.

Heh, dream on, that's not gonna happen any time soon...
But yeah, I agree, it would be wonderful if they did that. I'd even be willing to pay the full price for the entire package rather than just the parts I need, just to get the *ability* to remove or replace the modules I didn't like.

 

You know I think I agree with you sylvain. Sure am glad microsoft is releasing vista. Choice is wonderful isn't it?


Hmmm on second thought, maybe everyone should revolve their lives around learning linux. YES, from now on i'll be teaching everyone i know how to use the userfriendly linux.

Here I come grandma...

 

For some reason I don't think you'll see any direct references to these restrictions some are always complaining about. Though it sure isn't going to stop them from spouting things like "being treated as a criminal".

Isn't irony beautiful?

 

LOL of course not! But I'm just saying, where's the support for Microsoft? A lot of the changes that they put hard work into is probably inside the os, like stability and better protection.

My posts are mis-interpreted all the time . Others think I work for Apple, and you think I get money from Microsoft! HAHA its so ironic .

*I don't work for either of them, by the way. I'm a student. Don't mis-interpret that too*

 

Some people use Windows, some people use Linux, some people use others. No one OS is good for everybody, you just can't please 100% of the people.

Though, if you post was meant to carry the same amount of cynicism that I interpreted it as, just go away. Intelligent comments only please. User friendly is a subjective term, what is user friendly for you might not be user friendly for me. I'm sure some people will love Vista, and I'm sure some people will hate it. Just like some people vote Labor, and some vote Liberal.

Vista should only be a choice, not a mandatory piece of technology. But with the way it is, I can't see it being a choice.

 

LMAO!!! ...............................................................

 

Sure thing bossman. Though you should crank that sensitivity nob back a few notches and realize that a sarcastic comment isn't a personal attack. Especially when I was only illustrating the irony of your post.

If you had read my post carefully, then you might have realized that the term "user friendly" was meant towards linux. Now I'm going to take a wild guess here and state that the average consumer, specifically those who don't have such patience as with grandmas, don't find linux user friendly.

Such is a consequence of progress.

 

I never interpreted it as a personal attack, just a stupid, unintelligent, and useless post.

Your guess is indeed wild. Example in point, all the computers in my house were occupied, and my mother needed to go on the internet. I unplugged my laptop (running Ubuntu) and put it in front of her, and went back into my room. She used the computer (including Word processor) fine for 3 hours.

My point was, user friendli-ness is subjective. What my mother (with limited technical skills) and your mother find user friendly, will be different. You can't say it's not user friendly just because it isn't friendly to you. Linux (like Windows) obviously is user friendly to many people, otherwise it wouldn't be used. Don't assume that whats best for you is best for everyone else.

Unfortunately, it seems that is so. Commercialisation gets in the way of innovation.

 

Heh, well, I don't care about those changes. XP is stable, so any change that makes Vista stable is, well, wasted effort.
Better protection? I've got XP with a firewall and antivirus. I haven't had any problems with security yet. True, if I were to disable those, Vista would score some points, but my point is that it's only offering what I already had. And where there actually was room for improvement, Vista fails completely to do so.
The registry ($#&%@"!) is still there.
The file system still has badly-supported and shaky and almost unused symlink support.
The fancy new WinFS is dead.
The fancy new command shell is going to be a separate release, and available for XP as well.
It still uses the ancient, long-obsolete BIOS instead of EFI.
Oh yeah, and performance in DX9 games is down by what, 10-20%?
And power consumption is up.

I don't "support" Microsoft. I support good products, and I don't think Vista is one of them. It's an attempt at bundling an entire software ecosystem into one single product. That's the same thing Dell does when they cram your notebook full of bloatware. It's the same thing Norton has done to make their antivirus completely unusable. And it's the same thing Microsoft did with XP (although on smaller scale, thankfully)

As long as that's the way they want to go, I'm not going to "support" them.

Aloof: Did you have a point? Or did you just feel like making fun of people who don't unconditionally love Microsoft?

It's a bit sad to see a self-proclaimed master of irony completely fail to understand Sylvains point. He did not say "I'm a pirate, and I'm angry at MS for treating me as such".

His point was that MS treats everyone, especially "legal" customers, as criminals. And if you're going to be treated as a criminal *anyway*, why not act like one too? It apparently doesn't make a difference for Microsoft, and you save money, so where's the problem? (That was irony, btw. But I'm sure you could spot that)

You got it backwards, I'm afraid. But I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate the irony of that.

If you want to talk about restrictions, look at all the DRM they crammed in.
Then look at the way it overwrites your boot loader without even asking or giving you the option of, oh, I don't know, *keeping* access to my previous OS'es.

Or the way I don't get a say in where to install my OS, where I want Program Files, where I want Docs & Settings.

Vista is built from the assumption that "letting the user fiddle with things only leads to trouble. We'd better make that as difficult as possible, because if people stick with the standard out of the box Vista, preferably with no third-party software installed, we know there won't be too many problems"
That restrictive approach is not one I like much in an OS.

Or a more general restriction, that MS refuses to make anything like DX10 on XP.

Huh? So it's fine that Microsoft is doing their best to limit the choice we have?
How is it "progress"?

Aha, studying, um.... ****, can't think of a good way to misinterpret it.

 

Exactly my point. This particular OS release seems to be a lot more bloatware than actual features. It's not being anti-Microsoft to criticize them for that. Windows XP did a lot of good things in the OS department, totally a worthy upgrade from 98SE (or ME, *shudder*). Sure, XP has its bloat too, but it had a whole lot of real benefits too; I personally use nLite to get my XP without any bloat, and it's great.
What all of the "but .. it was five years in development!" people don't seem to realize is that most of the real features worked on in the initial dev phase just got cut, and development started pretty much from scratch in 2004 (from the Server2003 codebase) because the original Longhorn code was such a train wreck.

 

No, but cynicism doesnt equal an unintelligent post. Nor does sarcasm necessarily mean cynic. It's only useless if you miss or ignore the point

Obviously, however I was using that term in a more general sense, and I certainly did not use it to pertain to the comparatively small numbers of consumers using linux as a primary OS. I highly doubt the average user will find the patience for Linux on top of Windows. Again, this only applies to those whose life doesn't revolve around computers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure, but where's the humor in that?
Now Where's the problem? Could it be the fact that it's against the law?

Here's a hint: Don't buy media with drm on it.
Or please list how Vista will affect your usage of media without drm.

I believe theres a fix using the vista cd somewhere on this forum. I know, not as flexible as you would like, but i doubt microsoft can cater to everyone's conveniences.

That's certainly one interpretation of microsoft's policies.

You know, i just don't see how that's a resctrition of vista. But it didn't stop you from cramming it in your argument on vista's restrictiveness.

That was only a response to his statement that you have no choice to upgrade to vista. If that's true, then do you no see the relationship between migrating to a new technology and the necessary (sometimes) consequence of limiting choice?
However I don't see microsoft holding a gun to his head and making him upgrade.

Hmmm my intuition say you don't want to upgrade Jalf? Hey that doesn't bother me one bit but lets ease off the drama queen act a bit here.
Obviously it isn't for everyone, nor should it be.

 

The point? Try illustrating it better next time, people might not get confused by the ambiguity.

You missed my point, my mother IS the average user. She panics when she goes to close Firefox with more than one tab open and it gives her a dialog box. And the MS-centric friends (having known no alternative) that I have passed my laptop along the row to, have no trouble picking up and using Linux.

Yes you can, it's called an alternate OS. Tastes good, you should try it sometime.

You talk so much about the average user, and then say this? How is the average user supposed to know what media has DRM and what does not? There are no 'DRM Inside' stickers to look for. The average user downloads a song from an online store, and goes to flick it onto his iPod. Oops! You can't do that!

They like to say they can. And it shouldn't have to be a hack/fix. It should be a standard feature. Like other OS's have had for 15 years.

The thing is, MS is quite capable of making DX10 available for XP users. It doesn't require some magical programming language that only Vista can understand. They just don't want to, and want you to upgrade.

How would you like it if your countries current government introduced a law banning all opposition to the government? That's essentially a parallel.

"If you want to game, upgrade or we'll kill your games."

That's the most intelligent thing you've posted. But at the same time, goes against what you've been saying about limiting choice. You say progress means a limiting of choice, what happens if Vista is the only choice and you can't afford it? You think some people shouldn't be able to use a PC.

 

Lol guys chilax .

Anyway im getting a free upgrade to vista, Once i get it ill install it and use it. If it sucks ill still use Win Xp mce. End of story, i dont loose cause i didnt pay for it

 

Ahhh yes, your mother and her ability to use Word. That sure does show her mastery of the OS and how it's user friendly to her

Not if you're not willing to pay for what you want from vista.

If they buy a 99 cent song and it doesn't work, guess what? They can stop giving out money. If they still do buy, then they deserve the drm restrictions. Yea I would think the average user would get the lesson.

Can in no way means should.
Games? Consoles can play games. Too expensive? Play older games. Or how about not playing at all if you aren't willing to incur the charges? Or do you have an addiction to games?

Smart, comparing an OS to an oppressive government. I'm sure no there's no Iraqis that would disagree.
However, maybe, just maybe there would be an inkling of truth if there was no way you could install other OSes with vista. If you're having problems on that, I'm sure you can search for a solution. I'm sure you'll find some instructions

My comment about limiting choice for progress would apply(only) on the contingent that your statemet about being forced to buy vista was true, to which I already disputed. Nor did I say it always applied. Maybe I should have highlighted "sometimes". And there are always choices in life. Such as living with not having the features that you don't want to pay for. Doesn't seem too hard considering the most restricting aspect of Vista in you argument pertains to games. Unless you do have that addiction...

 

Guys...relax a bit...

 

Wow! Is this a Harvard vs Yale debate?

 

Huh? Didn't I just say you could?

So you're saying the average user should get stuffed?

Consoles can't play PC games. And why, when my currrebt hardware is quite capable of playing the latest games, have to settle for second best when it comes to software?

Solution: Install GRUB.

Please, if you start talking about ease of use and the average user, please make sure your other arguments also back up your original arguments. It doesn't look good when you contradict yourself.

What are they?

 

I certainly won't be upgrading. Since I'm strongly considering a Mac as my next notebook, Vista is irrelevant to me.

However, should I end up with a non-Apple notebook in the end, I'll likely stick with XP until it becomes impossible to do so. I don't like the hardware demands that the OS places on the machine, and I don't like the security issues of a brand-new OS. Since I'm not a gamer, it boils down to a flashy user interface, and I can get that in a much better form via OS X.

After reading Microsoft's online information for Vista, the basic principle of the software (as I see it) is that Vista is supposed to become an entire user "experience" on your computer, rather than just an OS. I'm not buying an OS for the thrill it gives me every time I start the machine-I just want one that stays out of my way while I do what I need to do, while it runs efficiently and securely in the background. Since Vista doesn't do that for me, I won't be using it.

 

If the average user constantly buys media with drm especially after they find out the restrictions of (which should be the first few items) then yes, they deserve those restrictions. What part is so confusing to you?

Are there any games within the next year that is exclusive to dx10? If there are, there shouldn't be that many. By the time the majority of new games require only dx10 then your setup might not be up to par. Either way, and you seem to be missing this as I have numerously stated, if you aren't willing to buy then don't complain if you can't play.

I have never made any claim about vista's ease of us. All my comments on about user friendliness have been towards linux. I might be wrong but you can look for a quote if you please.

 

Agrees, and I think the license can be upload only 10 times. I should have made a screenshot of the message I got a while ago.

 

Halo 2 anyone? If I want to play that, I'm stuffed aren't I? Are you also not worried that GPU features are now controlled by MS? It's no longer creating software for the hardware, with DX10 it's creating hardware for the software. ATi and nVidia will now have to use the EXACT same features, there will be no innovation.

 

Sometimes, though, you have to argue against stupidity. People browse this forum for information, and when the wrong information is posted, it is the more knowledgeable members of this forum's responsibility to give the facts.

Sure, Vista might be almost as flashy and almost as fast as other OSs, but it is not the ultimate OS as some members here have been lording it as. If the average user wants to be happy with Vista, they have to be educated on topics such as DRM, not thrown in the deepend when they get ripped off.

If a company makes a bad decision and the public says nothing, what gets improved? Blind devotion does not make a good product, not matter what fanboys might say.

 

Guys please keep this about vista and not attacking each other. We encourage all of our users to state their opinions, but please be respectful of each other's opinion.

 

Once Vista becomes mainstream, I think I'll be upgrading to linux.

 

This is a good point...so long as one critiques the OS instead of other people's opinions. Personally, I like the ideas of the new Windows Mail/Calendar applications, which even support iCal and provide an Outlook alternative without the Outlook footprint (which is admittedly massive). I also like Vista's new "Start" menu, since XP's can get out of control when you have enough software installed.

I like the THOUGHT of Aero, but not sure if I like the amount of resources it might use. I'm a laptop guy, so efficiency is important...excess bloat and extra processes means lower battery life. Compatibility with older apps might be a problem.

So far I'm undecided...I used RC1 and was not impressed with the (lack of) speed and stability, though like I said, there WERE elements I liked. My next system I may try it out (while I still have my old laptop) to see if there's an improvement with the release version.

You know what the big killer will be for me? Esoteric stuff like compatibility with Kapersky Internet Security 6, and Bluetooth compatibility (I need to be able to send contacts and calendar entries to my phone, maybe photos too, I WANT to use it with my A2DP headphones, so I'll need an appropriate Bluetooth stack).

 

let's compare apples to apples.

the VAST majority of computer users simply buy their computer totally set up from a software perspective. They walk into Best Buy, talk to the nice young sales guy, and purchase the shiny box with the bright screen. Not once between the time they look at the floor model and get their computer home will they have any clue as to what goes into getting that computer into working order from a software point of view.

Windows users have no "mastery of the OS," because everything comes pre-installed. They continue to have no mastery as evidenced by services such as Geek Squad being profitable portions of their business. Granny or mom will often pay money to have someone come to their house (or even take their computer to a shop,) to have things as simple as software installed.

Now, let's say that at Best Buy you could also walk up and purchase an equivalent computer to the one granny just purchased, but with Linux pre-installed. Again there is ZERO software configuration needed on the end-user's part. Both Linux (well, GNOME/KDE/XFCE, but let's not get into more depth than necessary,) and Windows use the desktop/folder paradigm, both have icons, menus, and a trash/recycle bin. superficially, there is very little that is truly different between the two.

Let's say that this computer also costs the same amount as the windows computer, but because it's running a Linux distribution, it also comes pre-loaded with a full-featured office productivity suite, media organization programs, a cross-service IM program, etc. etc. etc. The Linux install is extremely feature-rich compared to a bare Windows XP install, plus, ALL components of the system are automatically upgraded for bugfixes and security patches thanks to the various package management systems that Linux distros use (compared to only Windows and Office patches with MSupdate). You can also keep in mind that our hypothetical user will still not be able to or will pay to have someone install new software, even though Synaptic or even Yum/Yumex are easy as pie to use.

On both computers, all granny has to know is "click the picture of the globe to go to my cross-stitch forum" and "click the picture of the letter to write an e-mail to little suzy". Because they both use the same folder paradigm, granny can find her pictures and e-mail them. Both are arguably just as easy to use. In both cases you have no need for "mastery of the OS" to use the computer. In fact, the Linux computer will probably require even less mastery because it won't be susceptible to the multitudes of spyware and viruses out there for the windows world. Even if the user is totally ham-fisted, there is very little that they can do to the OS itself, since Linux runs by default as non-root.

Let's now compared oranges to oranges.

Installing each OS can be trivial or difficult depending upon your hardware. When I purchased my laptop, I wiped the drive and installed the copy of Windows XP that was included to eliminate any junk. That install took several hours. I had to install chipset drivers, ethernet and wireless drivers, four or five trips to the windows update site with multiple reboots, then download and install anti-virus, OpenOffice, iTunes, etc.

Installing Ubuntu 6.10 took about an hour total. I put in the Live CD, rebooted verified that stuff was working, double clicked the install icon on the desktop, answered the various questions about user accounts and time zone, etc. I had to install 915resolution (about equivalent to having to install the graphics drivers in windows,) which was automatically set up and all I had to was restart X instead of the whole computer. Then I installed NetworkManager, which is about equivalent to installing drivers for the wireless card, although is more like installing the WZC functionality. That didn't even require a reboot. I also used Automatix2 to install stuff that couldn't come with the base install for licensing reasons, such as closed source programs, but even there, all I had to do was select what I wanted with a checkbox, and hit install, and all the downloading and installation was handled automatically.

Granted, I think my Linux install experience is in the easy fifth percentile of the difficulty that can be involved, however, it was not all that different from the windows install, and took way less time and a single reboot. Yes it can be more difficult, but again, we were looking at the average computer user, and the average computer user will not install ANY operating system, Windows or otherwise. Given a level playing field by pre-installing and setting up both operating systems pre-purchase, Linux is easily as user-friendly as Windows.

 

I am wondering, will microsoft stop giving us XP users security upgrades?

 

Not for a long time ; they just discontinued support for win98 a few months ago.

 

Vista offers more "graphic" features, better security, a more stabler system and simplified controls for complicated tasks. I say, why not switch to Vista?
===
because yesterday at computer evolutions the computer that was running vista or a vista demo or w/e was using 512 megabytes and that was on idle?

 

Set aside the better graphics (for which anyway I don't care). I have seen no proof for any of the other claims. Yes I have seen MS advertisement about the other claims, but no proof.

No way I am going to install Vista on my present laptop. Not sure whether it even has the minimum requirements, but that is not the point; the point is that all sort of problems would crop up and all the customization would be lost.
I will get Vista pre-installed on my next laptop

 

I probably will stick with xp for the next 2 years or so.