This item text has been erased.

203 responses total.

Last night I stopped by the big Compusa store on fifth avenue here 
in Manhattan where Microsoft was holding a roll-out party to mark the 
debut of its new O/S, Vista, which went on sale at midnight. I got to 
try a laptop with Vista on it and it has some nice new bells and 
whistles, and looks nice enough, but I was underwhelmed.  Microsoft has 
to have some good spindoctors just to push the idea that you 
necessarily need to upgrade your O/S everytime they put out a new 
version.  Yet some people buy into it.  There were in fact people lined 
up last night outside Compusa in the cold waiting for the strike of 
midnight so they could buy Vista and run home and stay up all night 
installing it.  Microsoft Geeks who think Bill Gates is god evidently. 
Word is Vista is not even compatible at this time with Ipod, which 
might have been news to not a few in line who I saw wearing Ipods.

Has anyone else seen Vista?  Even if I wanted a new microsoft O/S, 
which I don't, I didn't see much that told me this would have been 
worth the money.  

Microsoft Flight Simulator X, one of the most advanced Flight Simulation
games available does not run very well in Windows XP because it was
developed for DirectX 10. DirectX 10 is only available in Windows Vista.

I know quite a few people who were disappointed by FSX's performance
under XP and were eagerly waiting for the public release of Vista.

By the way, I've been playing with Vista since November when we received
our volume license codes and downloaded the ISOs. It's not spectacular,
but still a lot better than XP. One major feature I liked is that
storage drivers no longer need to be loaded on a floppy disk during the
OS load. There is a GUI installer and it will let you load the drivers
from a USB drive or CD.

This response has been erased.

Re: #1. The consensus on Vista seems to be that it's a waste of time. Nice
for journalistic opinion to gel with reality where Windows is concerned, for
once.

In other news, Gates claims Vista is the most secure operating system ever
released.

Maybe he means it this time.

It's secure in terms of parental controls. Heard it doesn't relly work woith
business applications like Siebel and SAP.

The piece I just read about Vista says you have to load iTunes and then your
iPod will do just fine.

Huh?

You snuck in, that was for richard.

Re #1:

mostly agree with Re #2: Vista is nice, better than XP for users
spending time on graphic intensive stuff, and agree too with Re #4: a
waste of time if the goal is to get work done with a computer.
I played with Vista since beginning dec., was lazy and downloaded the
leaked MSDN dvd image from some binary news server.
It's better than XP and the Aero look can be pleasant, if you have a
recent hardware.A silly gadget is the 3D flipping windows.
Contrary to the requirements on the MS site, I got it to install on
533mhz+512ram and one can sill trim it down to a "classic" look
(95/NT/2K). The filesystem tree is different for the users (home
folders, documents and settings, ...) with stronger authorizations. But
the default conf. is very annoying, whatever network move you do and
installation of software, you get a warning window while the whole
desktop fades away, and the finding of the tuning parameter in the
control panel is cumbersome. The control panel is really a pain in the
ass to walk through. The Outlook Express replacement seems to be more
secure, but I guess it will catch as much virii as the previous
versions.The default IE7 setting keeps warning that internet is a wild
place, and it's just a rip-off of Firefox with a less intuitive main
bar. The needed disk space is insane because the mail/calendar stuff,
media player/moviemaker , all the desktop visuals and the huge drivers
base. Best is to install it, get vlite.net and re-author a tuned dvd
image. I know, people do not care because hard disk these days are 120
or 250 Gb, but I still find insane to waste space with junk.

The Vista default desktop is somewhat closer to the idea of something
like OSX, so for users allergic to the unix paradigm, I think it's
better, for the comfort and useability to get a Mac.

When I need to use Windows, I'm on NT4 or 2K.If I had to choose between
XP and Vista, I'll take the latter.

An important point: it's not possible to use Vista more than few weeks
without internet connection, because it keeps doing hand-shake
validation of the license with MS servers on a regular basis. Kind of:
you computer belongs to MS... (of course there's a hack, but non
trivial).

Verdict: interesting, but not worth the money for most users.Get a
pirate version to install and test drive.

 An important point: it's not possible to use Vista more than few weeks
 without internet connection, because it keeps doing hand-shake
 validation of the license with MS servers on a regular basis. Kind of:
 you computer belongs to MS... (of course there's a hack, but non
 trivial).

Well that just ensures that not only will I never install a copy of Vista on
my machines, but I will also recommend to anyone who will listen that they
follow suit.

I can get a more pleasing (to my eyes) near-as-dammit-OSX-look on my KDE
desktop too. I don't get drop shadows or that silly rubik's cube thing, but
who wants them except to play around with for a few minutes?

Given that those bsrtds expect the premium crap to run on a 1Gig processor
with 1 GB RAM it's not likely i'll be updating my Win-2K any time soon.
I hate their lousy GUI and i sincerely hope that all software companies don't
start designing only Vista compatible software!

I doubt it'll happen. Especially since Vista doesn't work well with a lot of
business applications.

so, to sum it up:
- you can provide drivers during setup on media other than floppy (what? no
ftp, pxe, http...???) hmmm exciting
- have transparent windows, 3d flicking and funky effects. give up enough
power to run a decent desktop just for some annoying eye candy? hmm (tried
that sort of things in gnome and found them a waste of just about everything)
- can use usb sticks as virtual memory. oohh that's a clever way to kill flash
memory...that's ok it's cheap now.... 
- all the *really* funky stuff they were selling vista on has been left out...
- you have to sign off your arse and your soul

now, I've just last week started using XP (for work, and had the company get
me a laptop for it 'cos I refused to install on any of mine) and I'm not
impressed already. is there any *good* reason for one to switch???

ah btw, the email thingie, they've swapped out the html rendering engine from
IE in favour of that of Word. presumably to stop all the known exploits for
IE, but how much real-life usage has the word engine had on the 'net? how long
before it's taken apart?

I'll stick with Fedora. So far it's worked on everything out of the box, and
there's nothing in Windows that I've missed... well apart from the shockwave
plugin for my 6yo daughter's online games. Adobe! FFS!

FC6 already gives me more than Vista. By the time SP1 is out fixing all the
major fuckups, I'll be way ahead on FC7.

All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is 
to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set 
number of years.  He could force you to upgrade.  If he wanted to.  

> He could force you to upgrade.

No he couldn't.

Regarding #14; And then people would switch to Linux and it's like in droves.
The remaining usability issues would be quickly fixed (due to demand and
economic incentive) and Microsoft would be totally screwed.

Re: #14

 All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is
 to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set
 number of years.  He could force you to upgrade.  If he wanted to.

No, all Bill Gates really has to do o really push his new OS systems is say
to the vendors "well, if you REALLY want to sell that nasty communist Linux
thing, maybe we'll just not supply you with Windows anymore!" - Just like he
has been doing for the last however-many years.

All Bill Gates has to do to push his new OS is make it cheap. Like, $20
cheap. Then there wouldn't be a reason NOT to buy it. Leave the business
versions priced at $150 to $200. 

So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.

Thanks for the info.

You guys can quibble all you want, but MS OSs are still the leading OSs
worldwide. 

> So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.

That doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't be selling anything.

Actually I was surprised the government never broke Microsoft up.  Bill 
Gates has a monopoly among PC's.  Almost any PC computer you buy 
anywhere in the world is going to have his software on it, his o/s and 
his browser and his apps.  The courts broke up AT&T years ago when you 
basically had to have an AT&T phone to have a phone.  But the same 
rules don't apply to microsoft.

Re: #20. Completely irrelevant, since they are foisted on most people. Most
people choose a PC supplier, but a lot of them don't even understand the
concept of "an OS", so of course they don't choose between them. Added to that
the fact that not only are suppliers who will sell you a computer pre-loaded
with anything but Windows (or MacOS) rare, but you would probably have to hold
the majority of them at gunpoint to get one without Windows on request.

Re #22: You don't have to have a Windows computer to have a computer.

Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
or something else intervene. They decided to take on a model that in the end
left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their business
so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.

Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms - well
too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip it
off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
too ingrained in them. 

So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.

Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.

Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
 or something else intervene.

What?

 They decided to take on a model that in the end
 left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
 but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their
business
 so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
 managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.

So how do you propose to break this monopoly if most people are blackmailed
into running Windows?

 Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
 Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
 to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms -

How did you get this idea?
well
 too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
 you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip
it
 off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
 too ingrained in them.

Of course you can - but then you've still paid for Windows.

 So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.

 Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.

I think you should endeavour to understand the issues before you patronise
people.

"Blackmailed" into using Windows - care to elaborate?

This response has been erased.

I already did elaborate, in #23.

My gut?  It doesn't really matter.  Microsoft has almost run its course:
they're going to implode under their own weight.  It's just the way of the
world.  It happened to Bell, it happened to GM, it happened to GE, it happened
to IBM, it happened to everybody who was on top for too long.

Why isn't Linux the dominant OS?  Well, it certainly came on the scene *after*
Windows did, so it would have had to overturn an already entrenched installed
base.  Initial versions required more resources than DOS/Windows 3.11 or
whatever.  Why didn't Unix before it take over the world?  Much because of
the inept business practices of AT&T (after the breakup of Ma Bell), larger
resource requirements than what one could get out of an original IBM PC, and
an arrogant attitude of not wanting to deal with `toy' computers.

Yeah, you're right; Billy G is laughing all the way to the bank.

And quite frankly it ain't about the O/S, it's about all the app's people have
learned to use proficiently and the data they've created with them.

Getting a PC pre-loaded with Windows is not being "blackmailed" inot using
Windows. 

Maybe it's too late to break the monopoly. The rest of the OS world should
have woken up earlier and done something way back when instead of quibbling
about it now. It wasn't user friendly then, and they didn't market to the
average schmoe - because they didn't expect the average schmoe to be using
computers on such a scale as it turned out they would. Maybe they should have
had a little more foresight than they did. But I'm not blaming them -
sometimes things just explode in unexpected ways .Hell - M$ nearly missed the
internet revolution and they haven't caught up yet.

You can make that argument, but if (a) people don't NEED the gazillion apps
on one platform, and are perfectly happy with the million apps on another,
and (b) the OS is so unstable it makes Manson look like a marriage counsellor,
you got to wonder why it doesn't end up in the trash.

Mynxcat slipped.

Getting a PC pre-loaded with Windows is not being "blackmailed" inot using
 Windows.

It is if it's next to impossible to get one without it, as I've now pointed
out for the THIRD time.


 Maybe it's too late to break the monopoly. The rest of the OS world should
 have woken up earlier and done something way back when instead of quibbling
 about it now. It wasn't user friendly then, and they didn't market to the
 average schmoe - because they didn't expect the average schmoe to be using
 computers on such a scale as it turned out they would. Maybe they should have
 had a little more foresight than they did. But I'm not blaming them -
 sometimes things just explode in unexpected ways .Hell - M$ nearly missed
the
 internet revolution and they haven't caught up yet.

I wouldn't be doing this if I thought it was "too late". And no, I don't blame
them, I blame MS for illegal business practices and the DOJ for not doing
something about it. MS should probably have been prevented from being the sole
distributor of the OS, if nothing else.

Besides, another point you're enjoying missing is that Linux came LATER than
Unix, so it's not like they couldn't see what mistakes were made. To dat, they
haven't repeated those mistakes, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone who's
actually USED linux that if the developers really WERE "elitist", as they are
often accused of being, then half of the improvements that have been made in
the last 8 years would not have been made at all.

Maybe because people WANT the gazillion apps o one platform even if they don't
NEED them, and so far the instability isn't of enough proportion to trash the
product yet. 

It's really an economics issue in the end - the geek-communtiy can yell about
the security leaks and the blue screen crashes that is associated with
Windows, but the large percentage of teh user base doesn't see it as
sufficiently affecting their needs. 

I'm not defending Microsoft's products. I'm just pointing out a market
reality. Dan could well be right, M$ could be setting themselves up for an
implosion. But as long a sa majority of the user base is still using Windows,
it may be some time comig.

On the question of Linux's elitism - I've used computers a long time - hell
worked with them even. Installing and configuring Linux is not a piece of
cake, at least it wasn't abut 6 years ago, when I was gung ho about it. Too
many tweaks and changes needed to be made. compared to a Windows installation
which usually just meant popping in hte CD and almost everything works - not
everything, I'll admit.

I don't know if Linux has changed enough to make it easier to install, I gave
up trying - but expecting a lay person to be a "geek" to use your application
isn't going to help you. If they've made changes in the last 8 years to make
things easier, well more power to them, but maybe they just missed the boat.
Linux may not be elitist anymore, but maybe too little too late.

Simple lesson - give the user what he wants and in a manner he can use it.
The easier the better. Ease of use is appreciated over functionality most
times.

Re: #35.

Maybe because people WANT the gazillion apps o one platform even if they don't
 NEED them, and so far the instability isn't of enough proportion to trash
the
 product yet.

Well if people want to use an operating system because it has a gazillion apps
they don't need, that's just retarded. Not that it wouldn't gel with my
impression of the vast majority of the human race. As for instability, it's
getting better, but when you take into account that it was once even MORE
laughable...


 I'm not defending Microsoft's products. I'm just pointing out a market
 reality. Dan could well be right, M$ could be setting themselves up for an
 implosion. But as long a sa majority of the user base is still using Windows,
 it may be some time comig.

Not necessarily. I can see their control-freakishness ending  up where they
will force all users to pay up, so in a world where 1 out of every 5 copies
of Windows is pirated (and some estimates say up to 90% of copies in the
developing world), that will force those who can't or won't pay or who will
junk the OS on principle because of it to move to other platforms.

Wouldn't that be a shame.

Don't think it can happen? It happened before, when DEC dropped all its
various operating systems on the PDP-11, and its entire PDP-10 platform, in
favour of VMS on the VAX. Of course, people who felt betrayed by this marched
straight into Unix without passing go or collecting UKP200.

Linux has become a lot easier to install thanks to the people at Ubuntu.
This is making Linux a greater and greater threat to Windows.

On the question of Linux's elitism - I've used computers a long time - hell
 worked with them even. Installing and configuring Linux is not a piece of
 cake, at least it wasn't abut 6 years ago, when I was gung ho about it. 

Are you serious? That's like me having an opinion of India based on reports
about it from the British East India Company. And then you walk into Delhi and
people have got cars, omg.

Too
 many tweaks and changes needed to be made. compared to a Windows installation
 which usually just meant popping in hte CD and almost everything works - not
 everything, I'll admit.

Actually I find it's usually Windows that needs to be punched and kicked into a
usable state, but maybe that's just me. And the reason why "everything works"
in Windows is because (a) everyone writes drivers for it and (b)  Windows
developers just LOVE the kitchen sink.

 I don't know if Linux has changed enough to make it easier to install, I gave
 up trying - but expecting a lay person to be a "geek" to use your application
 isn't going to help you. If they've made changes in the last 8 years to make
 things easier, well more power to them, but maybe they just missed the boat.
 Linux may not be elitist anymore, but maybe too little too late.

And you keep missing the point that the Windows (or at least Microsoft)
monopoly existed BEFORE Linux came along.

 Simple lesson - give the user what he wants and in a manner he can use it.
 The easier the better. Ease of use is appreciated over functionality most
 times.                              

Which is exactly why I refuse to be patronised by Microsoft crap. "Do you want
to put this in the trash?" "No, I just moved the pointer over to the icon,
clicked on it, dragged it over to the recycle bin and let go FOR A LAUGH!"

For fuck's sake.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss