back to article MS products just too cool to comprehend, say MS geeks

When the product sucks but you can't bring yourself to admit the horrible truth, what's the next logical step? Blame the message, the messenger or the recipient of the message. Simple. Microsoft's normally bombastic marketing has begun blaming Windows Vista's poor uptake on the modesty of its own message, while exaggerating …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Alien

We are Borg...

Resistence is futile. ...Surrender your kernel!

Microsoft - an Alien in Open Source.

0
0
Flame

"<xxx> should have had stable hardware drivers"

Mostly, hardware vendors did have perfectly acceptable drivers.

Mostly, those stable drivers were for Windows XP.

Mostly, users and vendors would have been quite happy with Windows XP, especially if (as you seem to argue) Vista seems to need twice as much memory.

Only MS and its MS-dependent partners cared about Vista selling in volume (and selling the extra hardware it needs).

Mostly, folks who don't remember the Windows ME disaster don't see Vista as a problem.

Mostly, anyone except a pillock (or an MS manager) could see that Vista has the problems ME had (eg no drivers), but far far worse, and with no visible and realistic fallback strategy yet.

0
0
Thumb Down

See what habitual drug use causes?

I’m sorry, but for anybody to stand there with a straight face and say Microsoft failed to deliver on Vista because they didn’t market enough, either they are hallucinating from some really good drugs, they have no concept of reality or they’re clinically insane. In some instances, Vista is OK (at best) but it’s certainly nothing to write home about, and when it behaves badly it really leads one to question who is actually in control of the computer? Microsoft is actually capable of doing some amazing things, given the number of bodies of fallen industry giants they’ve stepped over to get to the “top”. However, Microsoft does nothing innovative or revolutionary; at best maybe average… But to say Vista was just misunderstood; are they all on crack?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Mike

I've gotten the newest version of Ubuntu to run on my 10 or so year old computer without it being horrendously slow. (As in, it's faster than Win95 or Win98 or whatever was on it before.) The thing couldn't even handle XP, let alone Vista. Food for thought.

If MS is worried about having its OS being given a bad name by lazy hardware manufacturers, perhaps they should go the Apple route and only let Windows be on their own hardware. Then companies like Dell and HP will end up selling only Linux.

0
0

What need?

What are the advantages to me of Vista? The ability to buy more RAM?

I have a working OS - why would I need another?

I think MS have been fooled by their past success into thinking that there's a massive market for another OS. I don't think there is.

Simple as that really. If the OS you have suits your needs, why change?

0
0
Happy

Nice quote on the other end of the LIE link...

At the bottom of the c-net article...

"People feel guilty (about Vista). It's wrong."

Yep - it's wrong OK, so sure you people feel guilty...

..oh that's not what you meant? Shame.

0
0
Gates Halo

@Mike

So which hardware OEM do we blame for the infamous 'Long Goodbye' bug then? When people with 4gig of RAM, quad-core processors and TechNet subscriptions can't get simple file operations like copy or delete to work reliably, one has to suspect that perhaps the world is not as simple as you like to make out.

Bill and his golden ring, since I think that's what you are kissing

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Vista'sa bit like OSX

In that you need the right hardware/drivers to run it successfully...

I've been developing using MS products for over 10 years, and their primary problem is an inability to provide consistent, fully functional software of the level expected for the price you're stumping up.

It's got a lot better - back in the NT4 days, installing something like Commerce Server was a game of Service Pack Roulette, at least that's pretty much out of the way now.

But when you've shelled out for Visual Studio 2008 only to discover it's XAML support is broken at the build/deploy stage (you have to delete the bin and obj folders along with several files for it to work) or when you try running a .NET app you're working on from inside VS2008, you have to go and rename a temporary file for it to work due to piss-poor file garbage collection, you start feeling no small amount of anger.

MS perpetually screw up - they make something useful and powerful, and then proceed to hamstring it, then hope marketing will somehow fix that. They really are the Sirius Cybernetic Company made real.

0
0
Flame

@Stef

> I'm not going to say "I've had less problems with Vista than I did with XP" because it isn't true.

No, you're not going to say it because it's grammatically wrong. If I'm correct about what you really weren't going to say, it should be: "I've had fewer problems with Vista than I did with XP".

Problems are discrete units, i.e. they can be counted. Hence, "fewer". If you meant that, generically, the collection of problems that you experienced, as a subset of the set of all possible problems, was less significant or challenging than a differing collection of problems, then you could say: "I've had lesser problems with Vista than I did with XP". But I don't think that the latter phrase represents the concept that you wanted to communicate to Register readers.

Language is a tool that we use to impart meaning to others, leading to understanding. It can be ambiguous or even meaningless if not used correctly. So, use it correctly.

Grammar Nazi

0
0
Unhappy

2 GB just for the Operating System!

Feel like a rant.....

What does Vista do differently to XP (or any other OS) that requires all this ram just to do the fundamentals that an operating is expected to do without being outpaced by a snail? Or is Vista actually behind the times and every other OS out there on the market demanding 2GB or more as well? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. How long before you will need 20GB of Ram just to have a 'pretty' desktop just sitting there chewing through ram while it thinks about doing what you asked it to do - or are we already there with Vista? Yes, a 'pretty' desktop can be nice to look at (novelty factor) but when it gets in the way of getting work done, what's the point?

Why do faster processors never mean a faster computer when the new and 'improved' OS comes along? Could you imagine the car industry following this model...

Buy a new BMW, at its next service, the man at the garage offers to 'upgrade' the computer management software for £xxx, it's what BMW recommends is in your car, it makes its look more 'pretty' and comes with a load of things you never knew you wanted. End result, yes the screens look more pretty, but your car comes to a spluttering halt every time you change screens or attempt to use the sat nav. Back to the man at the garage to complain - sorry mate, need to buy a new engine/magic beans to make it work faster, but for a few quid more you could get a new car....

What I am saying is that the main purpose of the car is to get you from A-B, if it comes with 1000 other functions but can't do the fundamental ones well would you buy it? No - so why is it OK for operating systems (and software in general)?

Nonsensical rant ends.....

0
0
Paris Hilton

@hammarbtyp

2 - 3 years ago?? more like 7 - 10 years ago (assuming you're talking about someone who just wants to email, look at pictures, web browse, word process etc.) BBC iPlayer is probably the most demanding thing a light user would try and that is pretty good on a 700MHz P3 (watchable on a 500) Youtube works fine on my 10 year old Mac.

(Paris - do I need to say why? ;) )

0
0
Linux

blastphomy!

o id love to sit here and justify how windows is cool and what not... sad thing is... ITS NOT! its like when people go out to do something and someone says the Simpsons did it first. It is just the same in the linux/unix/microsoft world too! the funny thing about all the eye candy is that linux did it first WAY before windows did... with ALOT less power. i ran that eye candy under linux with a old 800 mhz processor no problem! sure open source isent for everyone but it sure beats the heck out of closed source software.

0
0
Linux

@MIKE

Why do I need such a big system?

I have a 586 with 64MB of ram that works quite nicely. Damn Small Linux only takes up 24MB of RAM when it runs!!

Internet works fine (and safely), email no probs, OpenOffice for the documents, terminal to connect to 8-core 3GHz machines in the racks...

0
0
Thumb Up

Yes, yes, and yes

Finally Microsoft admit that its over, finally!

Why are people defending Vista? you cant even run group policies on it, no business can use it!!!!!

HHEELLOOOOO!

0
0
Paris Hilton

...Microsoft!!!

Typical, bloody typical!!!

Excuse after excuse. Buy more memory, buy a faster processor, buy a bigger hard drive. Purchase more expensive hardware to perform the same task it's predecessor did on a quarter of the specification.

Hello people, wake up!!!

Public perception is not the problem. The fact that Vista stinks worse than dead corpse decomposing in the middle of a heatwave is. This was not exactly Microsoft's finest hour and no amount of spin and bull is going to help.

What do you mean 'throw more resources at it'? The usual refrain ad nauseum up until Windows 7 appears on the scene then the cycle starts again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And for the record, yes I bought Vista, yes all my hardware and software is supported, yes it is fully patched with the latest drivers. Also yes to following the various tweak guides available on the internet including Microsoft's own.

Why should I be surprised? I never thought any OS on a clean install could bring a quad-core with eight gigs of ram to it's knees 'till I saw Vista in action.

Paris? A more desirable icon than messrs Gates or Ballmer.

0
0

@Mike

The problem with Vista isn’t that it’s buggy and unstable. All MS OS are buggy and unstable when they are first released. They mature.

The problem with Vista isn’t that it’s a hardware hog. All MS OS are hardware hogs when they are first released. Hardware gets faster.

The problem with Vista isn’t that compatible software and drivers aren’t available. The same thing happened with XP when it was first released.

The problem with Vista isn’t that it’s over-hyped by MS. They over-hype everything. People learn not to believe them.

The fundamental problem with Vista is that it just isn’t a sufficient improvement over XP for anyone to make an effort upgrading to it. After eight years of patches and bug exorcisms, XP is the closest thing to a perfect OS (I said the CLOSEST thing) MS has ever produced. Why change? What does the average home (or even corporate) user actually gain?

0
0
Boffin

Be Green - Recycle!

Why buy a new computer just to run Vista when <<insert Linux distro of choice here>> will run on hardware that is 5 years old? Think of the environmental damage caused by forcing users to buy new hardware just so they can run the latest operating system with see-through (tm) window technology!

This is the angle the Linux supporters need to take to win the public over away from Vista... Being green is *the* big thing to be at the moment and people will do almost anything/pay any tax to get there. I hereby dub this effect as the 'nice warm green feeling'.

You simply wont convince the Microsoft fans that Linux is better just because it is 'faster', 'more stable', 'less expensive', 'more innovative', 'more secure' etc. These reasons are simply not good enough for them to move away from a product they have used for the past 10 years and love.... Remember, these are the same morons who buy a new car every year but still feel they are 'helping the environment' because it produces 0.1% less emissions etc. they also equate the cost of a product with quality, so the more expensive something is the better it is, anything that is free is s**t.

Please find more emotive and less relevant reasons to convince these muppets to switch, they're so used to being fell bulls**t by Microsoft that this is all they can now digest. They are so accustomed to being raped from behind (and paying for it) that they have actually come to enjoy it (see Stockholm syndrome). These folks probably think its quite amusing that 'those cheeky chaps' at Microsoft took the time out from fixing bugs in Microsoft Word to install a hidden pinball game. Who gives a crap about code bloat when massive hard drives are so cheap? If it's full, just buy another one like you would with memory/video card/processor etc.

Anyway, if you can somehow suggest that as well as being 'green' Linux can also stop 'Islamic Terrorism' and 'Increase House Prices' then you are sorted! Microsoft are genius with their marketing and it sucks the fools in every time. We all know that Vista is a steaming pile of crap but Linux supporters need to be just as creative as Microsoft in their 'marketing', having a massively superior product just isn't good enough.

0
0
SB

Yawn - again...

sheesh another "Vista is great and has no problems if you have the right hardware" thread. Fact is MS'es marketing backfired this time. A history of crap OS'es meant that the new version was in fact better than the old. Then Win2K came along and after 6 (or maybe that should be 7) service packs it got to be pretty good. XP came along...was a bit buggy (surprise) but again, a couple of service packs and driver updates later and and it got to be OK too. Then...Vista...well MS said you gotta get the WOW factor...a lot of people religiously went for it 'cos MS said so...not knowing really why they were doing it. But uh oh, no-one was going "WOW". Even after Vista SP1 a lot of people find it slow and want to go back to XP. Not surprising when the average punter just wants to surf the web, read email and mess around with their digital photos without having to upgrade their hardware.

0
0

I don't think Vista sucks at all

It just doesn't really offer anything compelling to bother changing. If you're buying a new PC or OS then Vista is a fine choice, but if you're already running XP, there's no real need to upgrade.

0
0
Linux

Scale

This year I ran a lab in which I was able to observe XP, Vista and GNU/Linux running on a variety of hardware:

1)Vista sucked on AMD64 X2 5000 with 2 gB RAM

2)XP was OK on P4 with 512 MB

3)GNU/Linux on thin clients with 64 MB was the best.

I should explain the last item. I ran 24 users on thin clients from an old XEON server with 2.4 gHz clock and 2 gB RAM, 80 MB per user on the server and 64 MB on the client=144 MB and 100 MHz per user on the system. This means Vista is many times less efficient than GNU/Linux. Vista may be designed to maximize profits for M$ and Intel but it sucks bigtime for the customer/user.

A recent server by KACE found that 11% of IT professionals were in the process of switching from M$ this year, more next year and a bunch after that. In two years the M$ monopoly will be down the drain, thanks to Vista and M$'s contempt for users. M$ could fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

M$ should invest its billions re-inventing itself and not the OS. If they do not they will be a dinosaur within five years. Once the monopoly is broken, they will have to compete on price/performance and Vista-like OS will not make the cut. It's time to change to a UNIX-like OS be it MacOS, openSolaris, FreeBSD, or GNU/Linux. I recommend GNU/Linux because it has been doing the job for ten years or more, has fantastic (and still improving) device support, is modular and configurable, and is lean when you need it to run on anything built in the last ten years or more.

In 2006, I built a complete IT system for a school using GNU/Linux. They were able to afford twice as many seats plus toys for the price of a system running M$. M$ makes no sense to anyone who cares about price/performance and who is not locked in. Emerging markets are not locked-in and M$ will be irrelevant soon. Get used to it, Mike.

0
0
Gates Horns

@ Stephen

"In a year and a half, I’ve rebooted (as opposed to sleep or hibernate) twice"

So you haven't installed any security updates other than SP1, good luck with that one!

0
0

The answer is in the question

"So how come my girlfriend's dual core 2gb vaio pre-installed with vista runs as if it only had 256gb of Ram?"

Laptop + pre-installed OS = a metric shitload of crappy OEM utilities.

I've used XP on my 2-year-old machine, and I've used Vista, and vista performs better for a user perspective, imo. I'm quite sure intensive benchmarking may show it is worse for certain classes of intense number crunching, but what I want from my computer is for the UI to respond fast. Vista does this*. It's also more stable, has a better security model (even if you don't _use_ UAC the fact of its existence will force companies to write software properly), and a lot more intuitive. I wonder how much of the perception of bloat in vista is due to people misunderstanding memory metrics...

*So does gnu-linux-ubuntu-KDE, but I don't have to grovel in text files to get 3d-accelerated desktop with multiple monitors in vista.

0
0
Alert

@Dan puuleeease

10.5 runs like a absolute pig on 512 and only a little better on 1 gig. By all means enjoy your OS but enough of the BS.

0
0
Joe
Alert

@ Sven & Co.

"...the laptop is not up to the job, with its single core CPU and 1GB of RAM.

If the general public are installing Vista on pieces of rubbish like this, then they are going to have problems."

You're getting it the wrong way round - the OS is meant to run the hardware, not vice-versa. (Remember, it's an Operating System, not an Operated System.)

So if Vista can't operate most people's hardware then it's no good for them, is it? I know that computer technology marches onwards and upwards, but Vista requires a Great Leap Forward in terms of power and cost which most people aren't prepared to pay.

Microsoft fumbled - they wanted people to buy Vista but XP running on an old PC with 512meg of RAM does everything most people want. Why pay good money for no obvious benefit?

Vista is the wrong OS for your laptop, obviously, but MS offer no suitable OS for sale. If Microsoft is wanting to sell a niche OS for high-end gear then that's their choice, but I don't think that was their plan.

0
0
Thumb Up

@ Andy Farley

"If the OS you have suits your needs, why change?"

Indeed.

For a couple of work machines, I needed to. For one of my home machines I needed to. For the rest, why change when XP works just fine?

(Of course, the MS pricing strategy of "Buy Vista now or any subsequent OS from us will cost you 50 times more" is clearly open to criticism.)

0
0
Stop

Mac vs PC vs Linux

Bored, Bored, Bored come on it's getting silly now.

We have all had a drink, let's all go home and call it a night!

0
0
Gates Horns

The *2* people supporting Vista at the time of writing...

Are Mike and Stef, who both built their own high-end systems (according to their posts) in order to ensure the hardware was able to handle Vista.

Which is great for them, but not for the less proficient user who buys an off-the-shelf desktop from PC World brand new, and doesn't know/care how to upgrade it and change all the settings to make it more efficient, which is the primary home market.

From a more technical-user side, you can call me a luddite if you like - XP & Ubuntu work well for what I require, and I have no compulsion to spend the money on extra kit, and the time putting it together, just to get frustrated at the lousy file manipulation and endless succession of dialogs that get in my way, no matter how "pretty" it is, and no matter how much MS tell me that I only think it's shite because of their poor marketing.

0
0
Linux

@Pierre & Anonymous Coward

By Pierre: "Well, it worked with at least one (1) fanboi. Who, unsurprisingly, focussed on self-made desktop kit while the MS PR stunt highlighted in the article was mainly directed at servers. Go figure..."

Congratulations on not bothering to actually read what I said. I clearly stated that Joe Public shouldn't have to be building super power machines just to use an OS that is supposed to run household systems. You "unsurprisingly, focussed" on one aspect of my post to support your arguement. "Go figure..."

So I am a MS fanboy for not having problems with Vista and saying MS need to get their act together. Go figure.

By Anonymous Coward

"> I'm not going to say "I've had less problems with Vista than I did with XP" because it isn't true.

No, you're not going to say it because it's grammatically wrong. If I'm correct about what you really weren't going to say, it should be: "I've had fewer problems with Vista than I did with XP".

Problems are discrete units, i.e. they can be counted. Hence, "fewer". If you meant that, generically, the collection of problems that you experienced, as a subset of the set of all possible problems, was less significant or challenging than a differing collection of problems, then you could say: "I've had lesser problems with Vista than I did with XP". But I don't think that the latter phrase represents the concept that you wanted to communicate to Register readers.

Language is a tool that we use to impart meaning to others, leading to understanding. It can be ambiguous or even meaningless if not used correctly. So, use it correctly.

Grammar Nazi

"

My God, I'll bet you are fun at parties. Picking apart people's grammar on internet forums really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. At least you spelled 'grammar' correctly which is more than most grammar Nazis manage.

I put that part of my text in quotes to indicate that it was the number 1 thing that Vista fanboys say when supporting Vista. I CLEARLY TYPED THAT I WASN'T GOING TO SAY THAT, you even quoted it. So it is not my grammar you are correcting you small minded. Feel free to rip apart the grammar in this posting too. I am sure it will make you feel vastly superior as you polish you Buffy or Xena figurines (Or whatever figurines it is you guys polish these days).

To suggest that perfect grammar is required in a format such is this is beyond ludicrous. But as you did suggest it, I'll return the favour in kind:

1) You've used several contractions which you really shouldn't in such a formal posting. It does not help our foreign readers either. As you said "Language is a tool that we use to impart meaning to others, leading to understanding. It can be ambiguous or even meaningless if not used correctly."

2) Your use of "i.e." should really have a comma after it. I realise this rule has faded somewhat in recent years, but as you said: "use it correctly."

I realise those are very minor points, but as you seem to expect perfection on a blog perhaps you could take more care? Next you'll be claiming that online petitions actually mean something.

Penguin, because I've finally got this box to dual boot Linux/XP

0
0
Gates Horns

Mine turn to berate Mike...

My namebrand laptop was sold with Vista installed and with decently large specs - dual core 2.0Ghz w. 4 GB memory and 256 MB or dedicated video memory. Vista is slower than the dual bootable Ubuntu w. Compiz effects enabled. Boot time is slower, trivial graphics are jerky to the point where I have turned off several effects under Vista trying to boost performance.

So my next system is going to be home built - basic box for email and web access for my dear old auntie. Modern atom based, mini-ITX mobo with 2.5" HD (or maybe flash) aiming for an idle state power consumption < 4W so she doesn't have to worry about how to turn it on and off. I worried all the clutter and confusion and issues of Vista would freak her out. (un)Fortunately Vista won't run worth a damn on these spec's and I will be forced (relieved) to install the Ubuntu MID edition which has an uber-clean UI delivering only what the old bird will understand without all sorts of unnecessary panic inducing crap.

Ironic isn't it that I can buy new yet a horrendously underpowered (for VIsta) mobo from Intel in this day and age. Stupid Intel, don't they know to kowtow to MS. Or maybe the times they are a changing...

0
0

Stef Hits Nail On Head

"But the average person on the street shouldn't have to build their own machine just to run Vista.. ...Lets be clear: Vista Home is a piece of crap."

I've also had a specially built and tweaked Vista machine running sweetly. But it took just as much work to get into that state as Linux desktops were taking 5 years ago.

We now have a strange situation where "consumer" Linuxes like Ubuntu "just work" on most everyday machines, and the flagship Microsoft OS needs TLC for it to be usable.

I'd be interested to know whether anyone has bought an OEM machine (Dell, HP, whatever) where Vista runs wonderfully "out of the box" and hasn't needed any tweaking. If not, Microsoft is in really serious trouble.

0
0

Innovation: you gotta walk the walk as well as talking the talk

"Those leading Microsoft labs and its software architecture are blaming poor communications for the fact the company is now widely disregarded as a force for innovation."

When are they going to figure it out: you can have your marketers claim that you're an innovator until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.

You have to innovate to be seen as an innovator. Microsoft have a pretty poor track record there, and they're being judged on their actions.

BASIC on microprocessors: nice idea, well executed, but they weren't the first to do it.

DOS: they bought that one (QDOS - not the Sinclair one, the CP/M cloned "Quick and Dirty Operating System") when they realized there was no hope in hell of delivering it in-house in time.

Windows: Beaten to the consumer GUI by Mac OS, AmigaOS, GEM, and probably some other more obscure ones too. Oh, and of course Xerox, the grandaddy of the GUI. Spun it out of their work on OS/2 after stabbing IBM in the back and pulling out of their partnership.

Windows CE: beaten to it by Psion and others. Pretty lame effort even then.

Office: A reliable workhorse for sure, but nothing new.

The Internet: "it'll never matter". *BZZZT*. Sorry, that was the *wrong* answer.

Web browsers: Late to the party, again, but got to #1 by throwing lots of developers at it and bundling it into their monopoly OS. Then they let it stagnate horribly for several years before Firefox came along and shook them out of their stupor.

Exchange server: a reinvented wheel, designed only to fit Outlook clients.

Product lock-in: The big iron boys were doing that when Bill was still in elementary school.

Internet search: Late again, resulting in being third place in a one horse race. Throwing furniture around isn't going to change that. Google really innovated to get their number one position from a standing start. Imagine what Microsoft could have achieved from their established position, if only they KNEW how to innovate!

Whining about people pirating their software: OK, this was a new concept back in the day. Way to go guys! :)

Xbox: Hey, these guys who sell consoles are making a killing! Why don't we do that?

Sync: Hmm. Maybe? At the very least they might have been first to market with something new for once. They could probably make a comfortable living just doing this for FoMoCo. There's hope for the old dog yet I suppose. :)

0
0

re: the notes haters

Notes/Domino is still the best document management platform there is

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Sure the client may be a pita at times, but the flexability and capabilities of a Notes Application far outweigh anything you could do with sharepoint or any open source offering.

Email is a fucking joke, anyone still relying on it for internal communication should be shot.

As for all the vista vs xp stuff, I think vista got a load of shit because they changed so much of the UI when the didn't need to. That plus the "OMG ITS USING SO MUCH RAM!!!!" complaints from users too stupid to undestand caching are probably what caused its downfall. Theres nothing wrong with it and it ran fine when I used it on my old workstation. I had a pos 64MB vid card too. Our parent company nixed my vista use because they're security nazis, or i'd be using it right now.

Vistas failure comes down to 3 things:

1. Morons who do shit like disable superfetch BECAUSE IT EATS SO MUCH RAM OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! and then post about it on their blogs.

2. Morons who take the blogosphere as gospel

3. Its not much of an improvement over xp/2k3 (both of which are excellent).

oh, and lol at all the lunix on the desktop guys. You're always good for a laugh. "I DONT NEED SOFTWARE I HAVE TEH WEB!"

0
0
D
Paris Hilton

M4 are screwed

@Mike

I've got to join the chorus. I'm on XP SP3 and have yet to hear a single argument for moving to Vista. I've got the processing power and the memory on the machine, but don't see the rational in devoting all those resources to the operating system when I don't have to. I'll be with XP for a long time and after that I think me and M$ will be parting company Ubuntu gets nicer each time I look at it.

I've also recently moved over to open office. It's excellent, and gives me everything that I need in an office package. It's much easier to install and update because it's free. Once the public and small businesses catch on to this the only people who'll be buying office will be businesses with workflow systems built around M$. For everyone else there is no argument for spending money on an inferior product. I think M$ are screwed and the death of Vista is the beginning of the end.

Paris, because like Microsoft she's rapidly approaching he "best before" date.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Stef

You need to chill a bit mate, I was referring to Mike's comment, which was the first and only fanboi's one at the time I typed mine.

0
0
Thumb Down

@ Eric

"oh, and lol at all the lunix on the desktop guys. You're always good for a laugh. "I DONT NEED SOFTWARE I HAVE TEH WEB!"

Care to explain that one????? (yes, a link to your blog where you presumably explain it in great lenght would do).

0
0
Ed
Linux

The best way to do what I do

"... they [open source community] will be a bit perplexed when they see the best way to run what they do is on our infrastructure"

Actually, when that happens, I'll be more than a bit perplexed.

I mean, don't get me wrong: My hardware consists of an 1.3GHz Mac with 512M RAM and an 800MHz Via Eden with 256M RAM running Linux. Microsoft, on the other hand, has thousands of servers far beefier. Of course it would be faster for me to run my stuff on their infrastructure.

However, my problem is that he's saying it's the 'best' way, and, as I understand it, breaking into Microsoft and installing my Linux image on one of their servers has *got* to be illegal. At least, in my book, being illegal makes it right out for being the 'best' way.

Oh, wait. Sorry. Wrong frame of mind. Yeah, with Microsoft's attitudes to legal compliance, I'm sure they'd think that the best way for me to get my work done would be to install my stuff on their boxes on the sly.

Nice try, Microsoft, but I'm not going there.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Frymaster

"Laptop + pre-installed OS = a metric shitload of crappy OEM utilities.

I've used XP on my 2-year-old machine, and I've used Vista, and vista performs better for a user perspective, imo. I'm quite sure intensive benchmarking may show it is worse for certain classes of intense number crunching, but what I want from my computer is for the UI to respond fast. Vista does this*"

Sorry but I already removed all of the OEM bollocks and shut down a bunch of unecessary processes - it is still slower than the old desktop she had with XP on it. I also have machines with Linux (Mandriva + Ubuntu) and old XP pro + XP 64 ( on 4gb quad core beastie) obviously the quad runs mega fast, but the 2gb dual core vista machine shouldn't be slower than the 1gb AMD 6800 with xp pro on it - straight out of the box or post tweaking. This is why vista is smelly pooh.

I have however sucessfully trained my 68yr old Mum in using mandriva and it runs great on her 5 year old machine and I haven't had a support call for months.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

@Mike

You may be right that the latest drivers are not up to scratch. The question then is this: Why aren't manufacturers pulling their digits out to get up to speed? Afterall, MS and the OEMs have been in cahoots for decades forcing users to go through perpetual upgrade cycles. Both parties made a lot of money at the expense of users.

Maybe the OEMs have wised-up that Vista is one OS too far and thus won't invest money in driver upgrades. Maybe users realise this too and refuse to shell out money every few years for the latest system that doesn't deliver extra functionality or performance. Either way I think this cosy cartel is coming to an end.

What I'd actually like to see is MS going it alone in the future by developing performant OSs that don't require new or upgraded hardware. Just buy whatever new OS they release and install it on your old hardware. That would bring a smile to OEM faces, not.

0
0
Alien

For something completely different...

and at the risk of shooting at my feet:

i installed Vista on my ASUS UMPC (R2H? don't remember..).

(900 Mhz, 1G Ram, 40G harddrive)

it (and Microsoft Origami) seem to work and play well together.

of course, now when i go home tonight, it will be flopping around on the floor with smoke coming out of it...

And yet another plea to the unhearing...

Can't we all just get along?

Isn't everyone tired yet of:

Less filling!!!

Tastes great!!!

Well my system..

Oh Yeah!

Yeah!

Well, my dad can beat up your dad!

0
0

@Mark Honman

Reggy reported only recently that a couple of the OEMs were selling their PCs as a new package (one called it "Vista bonus" or "Vista advantage" or something) - the bonus of the package is they automatically use the downgrade license, and simply sell you an XP PC.

MS still get to flag it as a Vista sale, though.

0
0
Silver badge

@Kevin Bailey

If MS was any good why don't THEY produce a PC. Cos they know the support costs would bust them that's why..

Blink, did you hit your head or some thing. IF MS made computers they would be hit with anti trust law suits faster then people here can say F vista

0
0

Vista is a white elephant

I am still trying to work out why the girl over in accounting needs a computer with a 3D graphics card and 2 Gigs of RAM to run Excel.

0
0

Kain about monopoly. +drivers.

"IF MS made computers they would be hit with anti trust law suits faster then people here can say F vista"

Which would be fast indeed. But that's not true. All the big iron guys have been doing that for ages, not to mention Apple. MS have problems -less than they desserve IMVHO- because they use less-than-glorious techniques to force their OSes on *external* companies' hardware. If they did that on their own kits, I bet no-one would have anything to object. But when the infamous Zune is your flagship piece of hardware, you don't want to get anywhere near conceiving real machines.

While I'm at it, about the drivers. Last time I checked, the OS was meant to keep your hardware spinning, not the other way round. So writing drivers _should_ be the OS vendor's job. Now I reckon that it would be easier if hardware makers didn't feel like they had to design the most complicated interface they can. And if they released their protocols. Still, I'm using various *NIX-like OSes (a couple different GNU-Linuxes, a couple BSDs. PLus BlueBottle, but that hardly counts) and most of my drivers are kindly provided by my OSes' "vendors". Not by the hardware maker. So if a couple of freetards with no money can do it, I don't really see why the gazillionaire corp that is MS can't.

0
0
IT Angle

"the girl in accounting needs <a supercomputer> for Excel"

"trying to work out why the girl over in accounting needs a computer with a 3D graphics card and 2 Gigs of RAM to run Excel."

Because Bill and his mates (the PC vendors, the IT-department PC-jockeys and their managing empire-builders in the CIO's office) say so?

There is no clearly need for it, and definitely no business justification for it.

Fortunately for Bill (for now), those in the CIOs offices largely can't admit it to their bosses that Vista is pointless, because if they did admit they'd been led up the garden path and wasted millions of dollars (and a small fortune in staff-hours) on unnecessary software, hardware, training, services, etc, they'd look a bit daft, wouldn't they.

Whereas the ones who are admitting Vista is a dead end, and in particular those who are putting together a Vista-independent business plan with demonstrable financial savings and other business benefits, will be the ones getting bonuses in due course.

'Course if the CEO susses all this before the CIO spots the CEO coming with the tricky questions about return on investment in Vista, and that CEO kind of thing, that's when the interesting conversations happen, *that*'s what MS and their fanbois need to be afraid of.

Fact: if you want to buy a Dell with XP, you still can (eg on the "Customise and Buy" page for Optiplex). Dell can even get away with charging an extra £27 for XP instead of Vista. That wouldn't be happening if there wasn't sufficient demand for it.

Wake up fanbois, you better learn to understand your leaders' weak spots, and start thinking about your very own salary preservation plan, because the opposition are in the house (hell, Redmond are their own worst opposition!).

0
0

Consider this

Let me explain a little bit about how processors and memory work together. Newer, faster processors are capable of feeding more memory in a given time period, and require more and faster memory in order to run at their full performance. A 64-bit processor can also address twice the memory in a single operation as an equivalent 32-bit processor.

So, what do we actually have here? We have a situation where OEMs should have been increasing their memory to match their CPUs, but they did not. Even with XP, it's going to be choking the performance; it's a simple matter of mismatched hardware. It may seem blazing fast, but you're not taking full advantage of your processor. With multiple cores, we are also reaching the stage where having more than 4 gigabytes of memory can be beneficial in some rare instances, but in order to do this you need a 64-bit OS. A 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor, what a novel idea? XP only lets you use 50% of your processor, and is only capable of addressing half as much memory per operation as your processor is capable of.

Vista will run just fine on 1 gig of RAM as long as you're using Office products or very low-level gaming. It will run very nicely with no noticeable speed decrease, unlike XP where running with marginal memory results in massive performance degradation. For gaming, you should have 2 gigs. You may choose to go above 2 gigs, although I have yet to encounter a program that would benefit from it. I'm sure some games such as Crysis might, although nothing I use does.

As for the interface, well, that's personal preference. Yes, it's different. I find it to be more efficient to use, however, much like how Windows 2000 was more efficient than Windows 98. I consider myself a power user, though, and use all aspects of the system. Yes, it's different, but most things are simpler.

So really, in all practicality, what are you expecting? I first tested Vista on a 1.4 ghz Athlon Thunderbird with a gig of RAM. It ran just fine and performed about the same as XP. I can build a system for $550 or less that'll run Vista perfectly. Incidentally, that's what I have always considered bare-minimum to build ANY PC correctly, and is about the same price as these budget POSes OEMs sell you with some minor upgrades. Decide who your real enemy is here: Microsoft who built an OS for modern systems, or OEMs who are milking you for every last dollar and selling you stuff they know is inadequate, yet could do it right for only a few dollars more. They create systems that are less than the sum of their parts.

0
0

Vista...

...is to operating systems what SUV's are to personal transportation.

They both work fine, and they both demand enormous resources.

0
0
JC

@ Mike

You're basically telling us you spent a few hundred dollars to end up where the rest of us already are running XP, except you now have a more intrusive, annoying, slug of an OS that like all MS OS, will become even more bloated over time.

We all know a fresh clean XP install runs faster than one well worn over time. Come back and tell us how that Vista slug box does when it's in the same shape.

Yes XP was buggy at first. Nobody is trying to compare that, we're comparing what OS we can actually use today to run a computer, the reality of the situation.

The funny part is you seem to think you have some special insight on building a computer "right" but if that were the case you wouldn't have had any sigificant issues with XP today.

0
0

Mike must be a MS geek (or a MS employee)

I find it funny that the article was is 'MS products just too cool to comprehend, say MS geeks' and then you get a comment from the MS geek.

But in a way I agree with you, it's the vendors fault for not supplying the right software for the machine. but however, Microsoft has an agreement with the vendors that specify that they must sell Windows on their systems. so it is still Microsoft's fault for forcing us to use a half-baked, half-OS X/Linux.

I don't say the above lightly, I very recently had a problem with a component of my HP computer, I asked the tech support for a replacement component. The girl on the other side of the phone, never asked me what operating system I was using (and I was in a playing type mood). After 30 mins of 'Press F8 to get into Safe mode', I gave up, and said I wasn't using Vista, I was using Linux. The very next thing she said was 'Sorry, your warranty is now void' (the reaction to that wasn't quite a happy reaction). I then asked why, she said that Linux doesn't have the drivers for the component (BTW it was a keyboard, yes a keyboard, no really a keyboard (also considering that all keys worked (including the multimedia keys), I doubted it was the drivers)), getting more angry, I then had a go at her for about 30 mins. after that, I then said how to get my warranty back, she said that I must install Windows Vista. After 2 hours of install Vista (luckily I backup my data a day before). the problem with the component still existed.

The truth is we are as users (or should I say sheep), forced to use Windows, and only Windows because of Microsoft and no one else. you can't blame vendors because they are there for the money, and if Microsoft bribes them with a percentage of the sale. they will always go for Microsoft. The reality is until Microsoft runs out of money, we are stuck using Windows in at work and at home (unless you know something about computers and can install Ubuntu yourself, which I can thank god). Also the majority of sheep, are to scared to tried something new, which benefits Microsoft.

That is why I like the idea that http://linuxmadeeasy.org is doing. to help the scared sheep know more about their computer and suggest an alternative for their current solution.

The only thing left to say is we need to change before it's too late, and Microsoft destroys the internet with Silverlight, and in that case, OS X will also fall and we are then stuck with Windows for the rest of history.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018