Windows Vista

[Colonel Ingus]

"In half a year, Windows Vista has outsold Apple's entire installed base."

...and the next four words in that story are " That's according to Microsoft..." LOL

 

Microsoft was found to artificially be inflating their sales figures, so it's not surprising that they'd lie in that article.

 

Just something to chew on

 

BTW- I can't stand fanaticism either so maybe you should educate yourself and read this article. Just a thought

 

And it's even worse in China where only 244 copies of vista have been sold.

[Numberzz]

244 legal copies sold. I mean, it may suck, but it is better than XP. Even the $1 copies sold must count for something.

[Ayanami]

A big problem with Vista is that most people are running applications written for XP on it. Applications written for Vista don't run into UAC all the time. The same things happen when you run Tiger apps on Leo. Some function, many don't. Look at iLife '08 on any build of Leo minus the GM. It needed an installed update to run. XP sales are still booming because many colleges function off of XP, and haven't had the time to move to Vista yet. And for the majority of places with large amounts of computers (we're talking 500+), it's cheaper to buy these computers with whatever OS comes pre-installed, and wipe it off and install whatever OS the company wants.

For example....

My college uses MPC computers. They came pre-installed with XP Home Edition. All the comps. run XP Pro. There's close to a thousand computers in that school with XP Home product keys on the back that aren't being used. I asked in the IT department, and they confirmed what I said above. I would have cost them thousands more to get clean HDs versus pre-formatted ones that they come with.

[Azurael]

I don't like Vista very much... It seems to bog down everything I've run such that it affects my productivity, while at the same time, I've not really noticed any beneficial features which make using a computer easier/faster/better. I only use it on my desktop because I have a DX10 graphics card (and I'm not sure it's even worth it for that...)

 

Anyway, don't you think the Leopard wallpapers look nice on Vista?

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Anyway, don't you think the Leopard wallpapers look nice on Vista?

Agreed. Leopard grass is deadly underneath an Aero window.

 

Anyways, don't expect Leopard to be a flawless launch, either. Apple Care's hotline is going to be swamped on launch day with bug reports, errors, etc etc.

 

Damnit, and I have to work that day.

[Ayanami]

Hmm...I'll have to try the Leo Grass on Vista. Seems like it'd work out pretty well.

[Conroe Mac]

Vista is a great release that is vastly underappreciated. Although it's fashionable to hate Microsoft and worship Apple upon a pedestal, I believe they are both basically evil corporations at heart. One is just bigger and so it's easier to hate. If Apple had more marketshare, we'd all say Apple was more evil than Microsoft for charging us money for proprietary software and forcing DRM restrictions upon us. The truth is Vista is just fine. Leopard is just fine. Neither one is a real knockout. They both do what they do well and they both have strengths and weaknesses which are beneficial to different types of users.

[Colonel Ingus]

Vista is just fine.

You hold on to that dream

[SDRacer48]

You hold on to that dream

 

Another typical MyMacStompedOnMyPC response...

 

[Colonel Ingus]

...and another typical sddisgracer48 knee-Jerk reaction...

 

[Azurael]

Apple? DRM? wtf? Haven't you seen this:

 

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

Haha... Vista IS DRM

[nagal]

Apple? DRM? wtf? Haven't you seen this:

 

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

Haha... Vista IS DRM

 

It is true. For some reason I can no longer play DVDs through WMP in Vista because it tells me the digital copy protection between my video card and dvd decoder does not match and I should try updating my video card driver which is already at the lastest version because this same problem has happened before. This was sort of the last straw for me on Vista and why I am looking back to OSx86 again.

[Azurael]

I can't manipulate folders any more on my desktop...

 

If I create a new folder and try to change the name, Vista claims the folder doesn't exist, even though I can happily put files in said folder, so I have to create new folders explicitly giving them a name with mkdir from the command prompt. I also can't move folders around using drag'n'drop or copy/cut'n'paste. I have to create a new folder in the destination, move the files from the target folder to the destination folder, then delete the original folder.

 

Wierd... You'd think Microsoft would have had time to sort Vista out by now.

 

I'm also somewhat miffed that I can no longer disable driver validation since a recent bunch of updates, without pressing F8 at boot and manually disabling it. But thank goodness, my computer is now safe from malicious unsigned drivers... What? you mean the ones which make lots of useful software, like Daemon Tools, PeerGuardian, VMWare server, etc work. Thanks Microsoft.

 

Anybody want a 2900XT? That way I wouldn't have to fool myself into believing DX10 is a good reason to keep using this awful OS.

[robotskip]

Apple? DRM? wtf? Haven't you seen this:

 

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

Haha... Vista IS DRM

There's several thins wrong with that report:

 

- Gutmamn outright lies

- He has never used Vista (Or hadn't at the time of writing)

- He simply makes things up

- When he is rebutted he insults the person instead of replying with facts, etc

 

If you link to that, I pity you.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=304

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=309

 

There, this guy uses facts, logic, etc. Read it, like, actually read it since I doubt you've even read Gutmamn's joke.

[Azurael]

I have read Gutmann's report from start to finish, though it was around the time of Vista's release so it's probably longer now, and yes, I did notice some factual errors (like his claim regarding DVI not being HDCP compatible.)

 

However, it's the sentiment that matters. At the end of the day, a lot of people are going to have trouble playing back DRM content in Vista because it has been badly implemented. I've even seen people with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drives who can't play content to their HDCP-enabled monitor using an HDCP-enabled graphics card. Sorry, Vista's implementation of DRM sucks, and frankly, I'd never by a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive with the current climate of content protection. Although the DRM itself is not Microsoft's fault, why they decided to implement it in such as way as to be blatantly obstructive to a lot of users is. All I care about is that I (note the emphasis) have those sodding DRM processes running, hogging RAM on my machine, and I have seen them hit 100% CPU usage, while playing unencrypted files, through non Microsoft software, for no good reason.

 

That sucks, and it doesn't really matter what arguments a Windows evangelist supplies in favour of Vista's DRM infestation because an OS shouldn't do that. Needless to say, I have moved them out of the Windows directory. Now WMP doesn't work, but at least I don't have rogue processes using all my CPU time.

 

And as for falsehoods:

"If you choose not to play back premium content, you’ll never be affected."

 

That's clearly not true in light of my previous paragraph, is it? I'm not the only one. Just do a search for audiodg. You can't write a document supposedly destroying someone else's falsehoods then have a glaring one of your own.

 

From the link you provided with reference to driver signing:

"I found a suitable certificate for $229."

 

That's still $229 a 3rd party developer of software like Daemon tools shouldn't have to and probably can't afford. Why the f**k should all drivers have to be signed? The fact that they don't have to be WHQL certified makes this LESS worthwhile because as he pointed out, ANYBODY can sign a driver. That makes Microsoft's argument that it prevents the installations of dubious drivers which might be malware utterly false. Why on Earth must we have signed drivers in AMD64 Vista then? (and presumably at some point in the future this will apply to 32-bit versions too, even if we're talking post-Vista here.)

 

That fact also remains that the moving of Vista's audio subsystem into user space has made lots of very expensive sound cards, with very powerful audio processing features useless as anything but a higher quality version of the audio codec built into the mobo, using the CPU to do all the dirty work. ASIO does work, but my experience is that you have to double the latency to get glitch-free playback with my X-Fi versus the same setup under XP. This is progress?

 

Now tell me what Vista does that XP doesn't or can't. Nothing useful, that's for sure.

[robotskip]

Sorry, did you really just say it's the sentiment that matters? That's a really poor way reply and if you knew his report was inaccurate, why did you link to it? If you know it's inaccurate, don't promote it, there's just so many things wrong with doing so. Also, they implemented it as they had to, the companies who's DRM they implemented are the ones pushing HDCP, etc.

 

Explain to me how I'm being affected even though I don't play any DRM content, please. Oh, and you whine about having to sign drivers than you claim anyone can sign them.. hmm..

 

With Vista I can or has improvements XP can't:

 

- A decent GUI, XP is lacking this and a hacked UXTheme with skins only goes so far

- A decent Explorer with threaded improvements, etc

- My videocard drivers can crash not causing a whole system crash, instead they'll reset in 1 second

- I can use Stacks, metadata and other improvements in regards to my files

- Search, sure, you can do this on XP but in XP it sucks compared to search in Vista even if you use Microsoft's Desktop Search, Google's or whatever

- Have a decent calendar provided with the OS, in XP you can use third-party programs but if you don't want to.. ?

- Protected Mode with IE7

- New Media Centre

- I can use good built-in speech recognition

- I can benefit from a new network/audio/print stack/architecture

- I can have my CPU free from having to worry about GUI and similar related things, instead it's left to my GPU

- I can play DX10 games

- I can benefit from the [new] Windows Colour System

- I can install Windows and be on the desktop within 15 minutes

- I can customise my ISO with much more ease and options, I'm talking about deployment changes

- I can benefit from the rewritten logging subsystem and diagnostic/repair features

- I can use Windows Update more easily

- Security, there's too much cover in a single point but some good things like UAC, Parental Controls, ASLR, app isolation, service hardening, etc

- I can have my memory used well and other memory management improvements

- I/O additions and improvements

- ReadyDrive, ReadyBoost, SuperFetch

 

.. and so on.

 

And it's not so much as what you can/can't do, I mean sure, there's probably an equivalent to the Snipping Tool on XP but I doubt it works as well, looks as good and comes with the OS. Another example is, there's Media Centre for XP but Vista's is a hundred times better (I actually like it, now), but if you foster the idea of "But I can do that on a 5 year old OS, not as well, as easily or anything but hey, I can claim I can do it!" what the hell is the point of upgrading to almost anything, the majority of the time an upgrade (Whether it be software, hardware, an appliance, etc) isn't going to be some huge, revolutionary upgrade.

 

I'd rather have a complete, polished OS rather than a 5+ year old system with severe technical limitations when compared to Vista. See, that's what new things do, they improve upon what the previous thing can do or you can have some silly attitude like "But I can do that on a 5 year old OS, not as well, as easily or anything but hey, I can claim I can do it!"

[Numberzz]

A lot of those are not really that big of features. Just look at Leopard's 300 features and compare. Also, no Vista install can take 15 minutes.

[Azurael]

Sorry, did you really just say it's the sentiment that matters? That's a really poor way reply and if you knew his report was inaccurate, why did you link to it? If you know it's inaccurate, don't promote it, there's just so many things wrong with doing so. Also, they implemented it as they had to, the companies who's DRM they implemented are the ones pushing HDCP, etc.

 

You didn't read my post, did you, I acknowledge that DRM features are an evil which the computer industry has to accept, but Microsoft's implementation in Vista is {censored}-poor and seriously affects user experience. That's not based on the inaccurate report I posted, or the inaccurate report rebuking the one I posted, it's based on ACTUALLY USING THE OS.

 

Explain to me how I'm being affected even though I don't play any DRM content, please.

I answered that question. Please read the post above yours.

 

Oh, and you whine about having to sign drivers than you claim anyone can sign them.. hmm..

 

Again, you didn't actually take the time to read why that's a problem, did you?

 

- A decent GUI, XP is lacking this and a hacked UXTheme with skins only goes so far

Computers are functional tools most of the time, and while I'm playing games I couldn't care less what the OS looks like. Frankly if OS X and Compiz manage to look pretty without making a top of the range system perform slowly, I can live without the pretty looks in Windows to have a functional OS. Beside that, Vista still uses the hideously ugly Cleartype sub-pixel hinting anti-aliasing. Funny how just about every other modern OS has a mechanism that is more accurate to the original font's form, better looking and more legible.

 

- A decent Explorer with threaded improvements, etc

'Threaded improvements'? What does that mean? Frankly, XP's 'explore' view is much better than Vista's illogical POS.

 

- My videocard drivers can crash not causing a whole system crash, instead they'll reset in 1 second

So because your video drivers are badly written and crash, Vista is better? Plus, I'm sure the ATI drivers have had GPU recover since the day the 9700 was released, maybe even before that, and it's worked. That's not a new thing, mate. Keep up. Unlike ATI's feature, Vista's doesn't work properly and invariably results in one being dumped to the desktop with a lovely 16-colour 640x480 VESA driver.

 

- Search, sure, you can do this on XP but in XP it sucks compared to search in Vista even if you use Microsoft's Desktop Search, Google's or whatever

Yeah... The search indexing service is disabled on my machines because it was causing constant hard drive thrashing. Strange how with Spotlight, it's all over in 1/2 hour or so and never becomes an irritation again. I wouldn't call such a half assed implementation as MS' a worthwhile reason to upgrade.

 

- Protected Mode with IE7

It's still easier not to use IE to maintain a secure system. Even now IE has tabbed browsing and some vague attempts at locking it down, Firefox still has a wide range of useful plugins and several other things IE can't match. Plus, you get a proper, standards complaint, ActiveX vulnerability-free browser that doesn't make web developers' (like me) lives a headache.

 

- I can use good built-in speech recognition

Quite what the point of speech recogntition is when it's so hideously innacurate, I don't know. Still, Mac OS has had working speech recognition for years... Since OS 9, I believe?

 

- I can benefit from a new network/audio/print stack/architecture

The new user mode audio stack is hopelessly awful and makes audio production a pain in the neck. As I said before, latency is doubled to avoid skip-free ASIO playback in Vista on my system. Whether or not that's Creative's fault, I cant see why the change which caused them to have to write new drivers was necesary or what the benefits are other than the hardware acceleration features on most modern SPUs being a waste of space. I don't know about the benefits of NDIS6 or the new print stack, but I do know wireless zeroconf in Vista is a PITA. It's not much worse than XP, but why they can't adopt a nice system like Apple's or Network Manager under Gnome, I don't know.

 

- I can have my CPU free from having to worry about GUI and similar related things, instead it's left to my GPU

It's a nice thought, isn't it, but in reality, the CPU overheads are MUCH higher for Vista.

 

- I can play DX10 games

All of which are unplayably slow on current GPUs at resolutions over 1024x768 and don't look noticably better. This is really the token Microsoft are trying to get people to upgrade with, by refusing to provide DX10 for XP.

 

- I can customise my ISO with much more ease and options, I'm talking about deployment changes

That's been possible for years in XP with nLite.

 

- I can benefit from the rewritten logging subsystem and diagnostic/repair features

Wow... Finally, something we agree on. Perfmon, for example, is much better in Vista.

 

- I can use Windows Update more easily

No, it frequently fails to download updates on my machines. The old Windows Update sucked, but windizupdate.62nds.com is a good alternative.

 

- Security, there's too much cover in a single point but some good things like UAC, Parental Controls, ASLR, app isolation, service hardening, etc

All patches to cover a fundementally insecure OS core. UAC is just a PITA, nowhere near as unintrusive as it's alternatives in other OSes. I ended up disabling it because practically every other thing I do in Vista results in a 'Cancel or Allow' dialogue.

 

- I can have my memory used well and other memory management improvements

The only real change is Superfestch, and frankly I'm not sure it's worth it for the tiny improvement. It's dreadfully bad at giving back RAM to apps when they need it, resulting in games running really slowly for the first few minutes, on a machine with 2GB, that's poor.

 

 

And it's not so much as what you can/can't do, I mean sure, there's probably an equivalent to the Snipping Tool on XP but I doubt it works as well, looks as good and comes with the OS. Another example is, there's Media Centre for XP but Vista's is a hundred times better (I actually like it, now), but if you foster the idea of "But I can do that on a 5 year old OS, not as well, as easily or anything but hey, I can claim I can do it!" what the hell is the point of upgrading to almost anything, the majority of the time an upgrade (Whether it be software, hardware, an appliance, etc) isn't going to be some huge, revolutionary upgrade.

When I upgrade my hardware, my computer gets faster. When I upgraded my Ubuntu install to 7.10 and my Macs to Leo, they didn't get SLOWER and more glitchy, yet they got new features.

 

I'd rather have a complete, polished OS rather than a 5+ year old system with severe technical limitations when compared to Vista. See, that's what new things do, they improve upon what the previous thing can do or you can have some silly attitude like "But I can do that on a 5 year old OS, not as well, as easily or anything but hey, I can claim I can do it!"

 

Vista isn't polished. It's buggy, most of it's 'new' features are ripped off from better implementations by 3rd party apps under XP, and not being able to use Apps I've regularly used for years without manually diabling driver signing enforcement at boot is ridiculous.

 

Anyway, you probably won't read this post before jumping out with an MS-evangelising rant, so I probably won't bother replying again. It's not so much that I have a problem with Vista, and actually, for a pre-SP1 release of MS', it's quite impressive - it's stable and relatively free of usage-imparing ineptitude. However, I still don't see the point in upgrading, and a large proportion of the computer press agrees with me, along with consumers. And it's just as possible to play back DRM HD content (i.e. if you have the right hardware and you're lucky) under XP, yet it doesn't have things like audiodg the CPU-time thief. Is this really progress?

[Colonel Ingus]

no Vista install can take 15 minutes.

Rebooting a windows machine alone can take that long

[Azurael]

Not unless something is seriously wrong...

 

Running Vista on a P100, maybe.

[.aero]

15 minutes? Yeah, I bet I can get an apple computer from the dark ages to load leopard in that time frame. Seriously, computers nowadays don't take 15 minutes to boot up.

[mhbas0001]

As a computer user with what could only be considered slightly above-average computer skills, I feel I should point out the absolute pointlessness and irrelevance of the Apple v Microsoft debate to the average user. The truth is that the only thing the vast majority of PC users (I.e. at least 90%) want from their operating systems is the ability to perform basic tasks such as internet browsing, word processing, printing, and to the ability to play their music and DVDs. Most of all, they want to be able to walk into the store and pick up a computer that will work with all the programmes they are used to running (e.g. Microsoft Office), and will be compatible with almost any piece of hardware they pick up off the shelf.

 

For most people, that operating system is Microsoft Windows. They don't care about Linux, they don't care about Unix, they don't care about BeOS, and they don't care about Mac OS, period. They don't care that *nix operating systems may be more secure. They don't care that they might offer new functionality or a different way of doing things, because for most of people, it just takes time and effort to relearn how to perform simple tasks as basic as finding and opening their files, maximising, minimising and resizing their windows, or altering their programme settings.

 

They want to be able to buy new software off the shelf, without having to worry about whether it will work on their computer when they bring it home. They want simplicity, and efficiency, and for most people, efficiency is familiarity.

 

Most people will only ever change or upgrade their OS when they buy a new computer, and even then, only the most tech-savvy users would bother to take the time and effort to relearn how to perform tasks they have been performing under their old os for years just the sake of something new, or for the sake of participating in some pointless power struggle between two large, faceless, money-hungry corporations.

 

Microsoft Windows is the dominant operating system, because it offers ease of use, compatibility, familiarity and simplicity, and that's not about to change anytime in the foreseeable future.

[scj312]

A lot of those are not really that big of features. Just look at Leopard's 300 features and compare. Also, no Vista install can take 15 minutes.

Mine took 25minutes to install Vista.

 

Couple hours for Leo.

[apowerr]

Mine took 25minutes to install Vista.

Yep, my Vista installed quick too. I can't wait for SP1 to come out, apparently there's a lot of performance optimization.

[Numberzz]

Couple hours for Leo.

That can happen, when you allow it to check the DVD! Just in case you scratched it or something.