Microsoft Tricks Diehard XP Users Into Liking Vista with "Mojave" Ruse

Yes, we know. There's a 13 page debate on this in the News forum right now. Despite this experiment, there's still ignorant people posting there.
 
saw that a few days ago....quite the sensationalist title as usual by Jason Mick, but I'll be damned if I wasn't laughing at that. one can tell that those people obviously bought into the FUD surrounding vista
 
As mentioned this is a repost, but one I'm not complaining about. Aside from being absolutely hilarious, it is a simple test to expose the true ignorance of sheeple. Maybe part of that is human nature, but it is still classic. However, if people started learning how to think for themselves, and make their own minds up, our current political system would implode. I'm not holding out any hopes for that one. It's like a small child saying they won't eat broccoli because they don't like it, but they've never actually tried it.
 
I am glad they did this. People bash Vista without ever using it. Vista with SP1, a decent Dual Core cpu, 2GB ram, and a modern HD can run Vista perfectly. The OS after the initial learning phase is snappy, stable, and is a great OS.
 
Vista without SP1 was fine, too! I never had a problem other than being annoyed by (and uninformed of the awesome of) superfetch when I first installed.
 
My personal dislike of Vista doesn't come from the OS itself (I think it's fine). It's having it forced down our throats under the guise of improvements which were blatant lies (faster, more stable, more secure, etc.). If MS had just said "OK, here's our new OS, go get em" and let us choose, it would not have been a big issue. But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also. It's not the end-users fault that MS didn't get their revenue-refresh, I mean software-refresh out the door faster, but the end-users are the ones footing the bill.

Those I have spoken with who also dislike Vista have much the same feelings. There's a huge consumer resentment already in place over MS's sales techniques that place quantity over quality. I have not yet met one person who was not an MS employee who actually preferred Vista over XP when taking into account the cost of upgrading or switching when they didn't want to. Many others disliked Vista merely because it greatly reshaped the UI in several nonintuitive ways, thus breaking their workflow until they 'learned' Vista. Again, time wasted and expense incurred because you couldn't buy a PC with XP, for no better reason other than MS's bottom line and (again record-breaking) revenue.

I have shops that never would have touched a *nix server a year ago now asking what options there are to get off the Windows Server hamster wheel. Oddly enough, I actually kind of like WinServer now though. :)
 
The test system was a beowulf cluster with custom drivers so it works!
 
wildfire99 said:
My personal dislike of Vista doesn't come from the OS itself (I think it's fine). It's having it forced down our throats under the guise of improvements which were blatant lies (faster, more stable, more secure, etc.). If MS had just said "OK, here's our new OS, go get em" and let us choose, it would not have been a big issue. But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also. It's not the end-users fault that MS didn't get their revenue-refresh, I mean software-refresh out the door faster, but the end-users are the ones footing the bill.

Those I have spoken with who also dislike Vista have much the same feelings. There's a huge consumer resentment already in place over MS's sales techniques that place quantity over quality. I have not yet met one person who was not an MS employee who actually preferred Vista over XP when taking into account the cost of upgrading or switching when they didn't want to. Many others disliked Vista merely because it greatly reshaped the UI in several nonintuitive ways, thus breaking their workflow until they 'learned' Vista. Again, time wasted and expense incurred because you couldn't buy a PC with XP, for no better reason other than MS's bottom line and (again record-breaking) revenue.

I have shops that never would have touched a *nix server a year ago now asking what options there are to get off the Windows Server hamster wheel. Oddly enough, I actually kind of like WinServer now though. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, who is MS forcing to switch to Vista? It's on new computers, sure, but XP works just fine if you've already got it. And if you're upgrading several thousand computers that are running XP, I don't see why your new computers won't also run XP. MS sells a product, why should they continue selling the old one when they have a newer version? It like whining at GM because the C6 corvettes are ugly and they quit selling the C5's.
 
wildfire99 said:
My personal dislike of Vista doesn't come from the OS itself (I think it's fine). It's having it forced down our throats under the guise of improvements which were blatant lies (faster, more stable, more secure, etc.).
Click to expand...
Well, it isn't being shoved down your throat. If you were technical enough to have legitimate reasons for not wanting Vista, you'd easily have a copy of XP in hand to install on your computer. On top of that, it is definitely as stable, if not more stable than XP, especially after a year and a half of existence. On a mid to high end system, it is also snappier and more responsive,, especially under load.

I'm not a big fan of strawberry ice cream, but that's my own personal opinion, and that doesn't mean I'm going to blame Cold Stone Creamery for shoving it down my throat. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean the majority of people shopping there agree with me.
 
wildfire99 said:
If MS had just said "OK, here's our new OS, go get em" and let us choose, it would not have been a big issue. But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also.
Click to expand...
Vista is better. There is no reason to not have it available on new systems anyways. UAC makes it more secure. Rootkits can not be installed on it with UAC enabled, at least not yet. Why keep around inferior technology simply because people refuse to adapt? I hated XP when it came out because I was use to 95/98/NT, I dealt with it though and use classic mode. XP is still available on low end laptops, etc, that can't run Vista.

I think this article is hilarious. It reminds me of the kid in my class who doesn't like Vista x64 because it's 2 32 bit OS's running in parallel. ;)
 
wildfire99 said:
My personal dislike of Vista doesn't come from the OS itself (I think it's fine). It's having it forced down our throats under the guise of improvements which were blatant lies (faster, more stable, more secure, etc.). If MS had just said "OK, here's our new OS, go get em" and let us choose, it would not have been a big issue. But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also. It's not the end-users fault that MS didn't get their revenue-refresh, I mean software-refresh out the door faster, but the end-users are the ones footing the bill.

Those I have spoken with who also dislike Vista have much the same feelings. There's a huge consumer resentment already in place over MS's sales techniques that place quantity over quality. I have not yet met one person who was not an MS employee who actually preferred Vista over XP when taking into account the cost of upgrading or switching when they didn't want to. Many others disliked Vista merely because it greatly reshaped the UI in several nonintuitive ways, thus breaking their workflow until they 'learned' Vista. Again, time wasted and expense incurred because you couldn't buy a PC with XP, for no better reason other than MS's bottom line and (again record-breaking) revenue.

I have shops that never would have touched a *nix server a year ago now asking what options there are to get off the Windows Server hamster wheel. Oddly enough, I actually kind of like WinServer now though. :)
Click to expand...

Uh, Microsoft said that the OS is more secure, faster, etc because it is. I don't know what this "lie" you're talking about. And nobody's shoving anything down your throat. You see Dell selling laptops with Windows 98 on it? No. Why? Maybe it's something to do with it being a dated operating system, you know, like XP..

Might want to take that tin foil hat off. Microsoft isn't out to get you.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Well, it isn't being shoved down your throat. If you were technical enough to have legitimate reasons for not wanting Vista, you'd easily have a copy of XP in hand to install on your computer. On top of that, it is definitely as stable, if not more stable than XP, especially after a year and a half of existence. On a mid to high end system, it is also snappier and more responsive,, especially under load.

I'm not a big fan of strawberry ice cream, but that's my own personal opinion, and that doesn't mean I'm going to blame Cold Stone Creamery for shoving it down my throat. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean the majority of people shopping there agree with me.
Click to expand...

YOU'RE GONNA EAT IT, AND YOU'RE GONNA LIKE IT!
 
Microsoft is always working on the "next" OS. While XP was their bread and butter for many years, they still had to work on the next thing. Vista is it. Now that Vista is here, they are working on Windows 7. It never ends.

If Microsoft had done nothing between XP and Windows 7, you'd all be saying they are being lazy. Instead, they worked hard and produced Vista. And Windows 7 is next. Who wants to bet there will be a Windows 8 in the future?

While you may be in love with XP, and want to use XP for the rest of your life, Microsoft has to keep making improvements and new OSs to please shareholders. Would you be happy if Microsoft just left the OS business altogether and focused on Office and XBox? But maybe a few XP engineers would hang around to make XP service packs for the next 20 years? XP SP9, coming is 2028.

Microsoft is a software company. The version numbers must go up, even if you don't want them to. It's the same reason new cars come out each year.

You don't have to replace the OS on your existing computers. But, if you buy a new computer in the future, it will have Vista or above. It's just the way the software business works. Or you can provide your own copy of any legacy OS you want... including XP.
 
In other news...
"Microsoft takes a Macbook pro, modifies the case to look like a Dell, and hands it to Mac users giving the impressing this is a hidden beta product: next version of Windows. Mac users say it is the worse POS they ever seen in their lives."

But seriously, onto the posts...


wildfire99 said:
But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also.
Click to expand...
Holy. Freaking. Cow.
How stupid can one person be?

It's not like Microsoft changed tactics. The new products come in, they discontinue the old ones. How the hell can you not understand this? Most of the business world operates this way... You sell the stuff that makes you the most money. Microsoft is STILL a business, I know that is a hard concept to grasp...


wildfire99 said:
taking into account the cost of upgrading or switching when they didn't want to.
Click to expand...
Once more: you are a freaking moron. Who is forcing them to upgrade?? NOBODY.

wildfire99 said:
Many others disliked Vista merely because it greatly reshaped the UI in several nonintuitive ways, thus breaking their workflow until they 'learned' Vista. Again, time wasted and expense incurred because you couldn't buy a PC with XP, for no better reason other than MS's bottom line and (again record-breaking) revenue.
Click to expand...

My users (while none have used Vista- same idea applies here) HATE Office 2007 when they get it installed. Two weeks later? They can't stand going back to Office 2003 on another machine, because 2007 is so much easier to use.

That, and there are many companies out there saving big bucks on this stuff, because for NEW users: learning curves are alot smaller. Granted- existing users have a bit to learn- but new users: Vista/Office 2007 is alot easier.

MScrip said:
Microsoft is always working on the "next" OS. While XP was their bread and butter for many years, they still had to work on the next thing. Vista is it. Now that Vista is here, they are working on Windows 7. It never ends.
Click to expand...

They actually started Vista before XP was ever released. So Microsoft plans quite far ahead. It's just in Vista's instance- they scrapped a good chunk of the project and started over mid-way.
 
Well, I don't know about any body else, but Bill Gates himself came over to my house and threatened to kill 53 puppies if I didn't upgrade to Vista. For the sake of Karma, I reluctantly upgraded.

So saying Microsoft didn't force anyone to upgrade to Vista is pure BS...



 
TechieSooner said:
It's not like Microsoft changed tactics. The new products come in, they discontinue the old ones. How the hell can you not understand this?
Click to expand...
That's a good point which I should certainly clarify. I don't expect MS to never release an updated OS. I wanted them to, XP has a ton of problems. I like Vista. I'm not saying "Vista sucks, XP roXorz LOL". My issue was/is with how the Vista rollout was performed, and the amazing amount of propaganda coming out of Redmond about how it was amazing. I mean come on, they keep touting sales figures without disclosing that they pressured retailers into not selling computers with XP very, VERY quickly after Vista's much-delayed release. So, they're going to limit my choice, AND, if you don't want to use the word lie then we'll just say "creatively spin the truth", telling me that all my friends are doing it, so I better also. I'm sorry, I don't like that. If you do, then ok.

Who is forcing them to upgrade?? NOBODY.
Click to expand...

When I go to buy a replacement PC or a new one I cannot buy XP. Yes, I really do "get" the concept of software updating and moving on to the next new thing. At this point-- today--I don't expect to be able to. Again, it's not like I'm railing against the immovable mountain of progress here, it's that there was an amazing and IMO unprecedented push to limit consumer choice and dupe the masses here. I can still buy XP but I shouldn't have to turn to the hush-hush corners of the gray market or the used depths of eBay to do it. Don't forget that there are not an insignificant number of customers out there who are still begging their vendors for pre-installed XP sales.

If you don't believe me, then at least listen to industry analysis who say the same thing when reporting about the masses who are still choosing to downgrade to XP, a privilege that if I recall correctly was one that was given to us by MS only with great reservation. That's a lot of misguided people, isn't it?

If you still think I'm a moron, then consider the case of DirectX 10. Can you use that on XP? Is there a valid technical reason why? Is that not a forced upgrade for gamers? I mean, you have to look hard to not see the black crust on the underside of this piece of OS bread.

Lets consider the used car analogy that was presented. It would be like Dodge coming out with a new model Viper and immediately saying that all older Vipers must be wiped from the lots of America. There are no '07 closeout specials', the older models simply no longer exist. Now, we're going to press how much more the 08 model is selling over the 07, how it's so much more popular with customers, nobody test drives the 07, etc.

I'm sure I can make points and everyone else flaming me can make points all day. All I want to make a point of is that we need to watch what we're being fed, because our options are getting more and more limited, especially as acceptance of Genuine (Dis)Advantage becomes more universal. Your install can be deactivated at any time, possibly when Win7 comes out to replace a now 'vulnerable' and 'obsolete' Vista, or maybe just when MS's next fiscal quarter starts. We've seen that for Windows, money comes before the customer. We don't have any other options for OS vendor in many situations. That scares me. It should scare you too.

My users (while none have used Vista- same idea applies here) HATE Office 2007 when they get it installed. Two weeks later? They can't stand going back to Office 2003 on another machine, because 2007 is so much easier to use.
Click to expand...
No doubt. The ribbon is amazingly hated, and I have to say that my own first brush with 2k7 was frustrating but not as bad as I'd heard. I've thrown rocks at MS before for being hypocritical, telling devs to standardize the UI while changing it every product generation themselves. And the pain with Vista for my own users has subsided to a great degree but I don't exaggerate when I say that I still hear complaints (on our newer Dell boxes, which I don't believe came with the XP option at the time) almost daily about some Vista "feature", usually hard drive thrashing and "where the heck did 'x' from XP go". I'm glad your users like the new software, mine don't. I won't lie and say I miss some of the mystery crashes of IE7 and some very crufty XP installs though. But that's getting away from my point, which was the way in which Vista was rolled out, not it's actual inherent technical merits.

That, and there are many companies out there saving big bucks on this stuff, because for NEW users: learning curves are alot smaller. Granted- existing users have a bit to learn- but new users: Vista/Office 2007 is alot easier.
Click to expand...
That might be a good point. I don't think I've ever seen a survey/study done on the ease of coming into Vista/2k7 straight on. XP has been so pervasive that such a thing would be hard.

They actually started Vista before XP was ever released. So Microsoft plans quite far ahead. It's just in Vista's instance- they scrapped a good chunk of the project and started over mid-way.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. I'm a developer. I know all about the pains of their R&D process, the ill-fated filesystem especially (something that I daily wish for Vista, since it's filesystem handling seems backwards). Again, it's not the customer's fault that they got overly ambitious and couldn't deliver. I don't want to have to pay to make up for their schedule. Lets be serious. They are a near monopoly and have to be held to much, MUCH higher standards than anyone else, because we can't just "buy a Mac" if there are problems with the OS that runs more than 90% of the world's computers.

I think all this flaming over my opinions is funny. Either I really am out of touch (which is certainly possible) or I hit a nerve. ;)
 
You call yourself a developer and yet you don't understand why DirectX10 is Vista-only and that Microsoft's programmers are as human as yourself and cannot perform magic?

I'm sorry, but I think you're asking for the flames. Your points are just downright silly and too conspiratorial.
 
wildfire99 said:
snip
Click to expand...

Nice try, but XP was sold for a year and a half after Vista was released. That's longer than previous OS's sold for after the launch of a new version. And you're car analogy is flawed. MS is not pulling all the " '07 models" off the lot, stores aren't being forced to send back their unsold copies of XP, although they have that option.

Even now, after XP's plug has been pulled, there is still limited access to new licenses. Dell, HP, and Gateway all had options to order systems with either XP or Vista on their websites for some time after Vista launched. Companies can make special arrangements and still get XP licenses for their new hardware if they need to.

Absolutely nothing about this launch is any different than MS's previous major OS releases. XP had just as much, or more, hype floating about that Vista did. So did Win95 before that.
 
I've had hands-on with Vista. My wife's Dell Vostro 1500 has it. I don't like the new UI which I feel is trying to hide folders and file structure, the shutdown time is pretty weak, and I don't simply don't like the new organization much.

I did get the RUN button back into the start menu though :) which solved one of my gripes.

I am simply not getting Vista, period. It offers me nothing I like better than XP and a few things I don't (like the hyperactive UAC). Hopefully the next Windows works out better.
 
I didn't mean that Microsoft is pulling back existing copies of XP. I'm saying that there comes a point where Microsoft will stop selling old software. It takes money to fix bugs, write service packs, etc. And Microsoft has chosen to move forward with Vista and the upcoming Windows 7. XP SP3 is the last service pack for XP, and there will only be bug fixes and continued support for a few more years.

My car analogy is this: I loved my 1990 Honda Accord. But I can no longer buy a new 1990 Accord. Honda is only selling 2008-2009 Accords now.
 
GreenMonkey said:
I've had hands-on with Vista. My wife's Dell Vostro 1500 has it. I don't like the new UI which I feel is trying to hide folders and file structure, the shutdown time is pretty weak, and I don't simply don't like the new organization much.

I did get the RUN button back into the start menu though :) which solved one of my gripes.

I am simply not getting Vista, period. It offers me nothing I like better than XP and a few things I don't (like the hyperactive UAC). Hopefully the next Windows works out better.
Click to expand...

The reason the RUN button is gone is because it's not needed anymore. Click start and type the name of the program you want to run. Windows will find it almost instantly. Want to run CMD.exe? Type CMD and it pops up. If you still needed the RUN box (maybe for command line options), then hit Winkey+R just like you've always been able to.
 
wildfire99, do you remember when XP came out? Everyone said the same shit then, and Microsoft was forced to offer downgrade licenses to 2000.
 
ryan_975 said:
The reason the RUN button is gone is because it's not needed anymore. Click start and type the name of the program you want to run. Windows will find it almost instantly. Want to run CMD.exe? Type CMD and it pops up. If you still needed the RUN box (maybe for command line options), then hit Winkey+R just like you've always been able to.
Click to expand...

the Single Greatest Addition to windows, i was stubborn and took a long time to convert over to using the searchs but now i don't know how i could live without it.. in the world of quick key shortcuts its a must have..

the problem is, most people hear a few FUD rumors about vista and then in every discussion about vista the FUD is just regurgitated. Which really doesn't suprise me that a few Vista FUD lemmins would get tricked into something like this, because for some reason, complaining about Vista is the cool thing to do.

Even on this board, you see it happen all the time
 
wildfire99 said:
My personal dislike of Vista doesn't come from the OS itself (I think it's fine). It's having it forced down our throats under the guise of improvements which were blatant lies (faster, more stable, more secure, etc.). If MS had just said "OK, here's our new OS, go get em" and let us choose, it would not have been a big issue. But no, not only did we get Vista forced on all new installs, but XP sales get dumped also. It's not the end-users fault that MS didn't get their revenue-refresh, I mean software-refresh out the door faster, but the end-users are the ones footing the bill.

Those I have spoken with who also dislike Vista have much the same feelings. There's a huge consumer resentment already in place over MS's sales techniques that place quantity over quality. I have not yet met one person who was not an MS employee who actually preferred Vista over XP when taking into account the cost of upgrading or switching when they didn't want to. Many others disliked Vista merely because it greatly reshaped the UI in several nonintuitive ways, thus breaking their workflow until they 'learned' Vista. Again, time wasted and expense incurred because you couldn't buy a PC with XP, for no better reason other than MS's bottom line and (again record-breaking) revenue.

I have shops that never would have touched a *nix server a year ago now asking what options there are to get off the Windows Server hamster wheel. Oddly enough, I actually kind of like WinServer now though. :)
Click to expand...

lol the shit is deep in this fud post

lol it took me, an average joe all of 3 seconds to learn to use vista.........
 
All I can say to this thread after reading more than a dozen pages of the other thread is...

notthisshitagainop8.jpg

url%5D
 
Vista with Sp1 is an awesome OS, it has a far better memoy controller, and so what for the system requirements, it has always gone up with every new OS.
 
wildfire99 said:
If you don't believe me, then at least listen to industry analysis who say the same thing when reporting about the masses who are still choosing to downgrade to XP, a privilege that if I recall correctly was one that was given to us by MS only with great reservation. That's a lot of misguided people, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Oh, after Infoworld's "Save XP" campaign, or other consumer demand, you mean? Unfortunately, that option has been present for years, and the right to do so was in the RTM Vista EULA. Users of Windows Server 2003, for example, were allowed to downgrade to Windows 2000 Server or Windows NT4 Server.

Some users have demanded XP, but I think the Mojave experiment supports that a lot of users don't want Vista because "they've heard it sucks", not because there's actually anything bad about it.

If you still think I'm a moron, then consider the case of DirectX 10. Can you use that on XP? Is there a valid technical reason why? Is that not a forced upgrade for gamers?
Click to expand...

If you want new features, then you need the newer version of the OS. Games that don't require DirectX 10 to run (ie, all of them, now and for the forseeable future) will still run fine on XP. Microsoft don't have any obligation to back-port it, something which while possible would not be trivial and involve significant reworking of the underlying architecture. They could do it, but there's no good reason for them to. It only forces gamers to upgrade if they want to use DirectX 10, in the same way that it forces people to upgrade if they want any other Vista feature.

Lets consider the used car analogy that was presented. It would be like Dodge coming out with a new model Viper and immediately saying that all older Vipers must be wiped from the lots of America. There are no '07 closeout specials', the older models simply no longer exist.
Click to expand...

So, the facts that they continued to sell XP for over a year after Vista came out (and it will remain available as a downgrade), and will continue support for XP until 2014, don't count? Sounds more like they keep selling the old models well after the new ones come on the market, and you can always trade in your new model for an old one if you really want to.

Basically, I think Vista is a good OS (albeit only somewhat better than XP), but if others disagree and want to continue using XP, that's fine. Existing XP installs will keep working and they'll keep getting security patches, and on a new machine you can use the downgrade rights (which are nothing new for Windows licensing). The only way anyone's being forced to use Vista is if they want to use new features in Vista, but that's kinda the purpose of bringing out a new version.
 
MScrip said:
While XP was their bread and butter for many years,
Click to expand...

Actually, Microsoft Office is their "bread and butter". Which I find a bit odd considering you can get OpenOffice for free and it does basically all the same things without any crap activation either.
 
milkweg said:
Actually, Microsoft Office is their "bread and butter". Which I find a bit odd considering you can get OpenOffice for free and it does basically all the same things without any crap activation either.
Click to expand...

Not versus 2007 it don't.
 
milkweg said:
Actually, Microsoft Office is their "bread and butter". Which I find a bit odd considering you can get OpenOffice for free and it does basically all the same things without any crap activation either.
Click to expand...

On the surface, sure OpenOffice has most of the built-in functionality of of MS Office. What many people fail to realize however is that MS Office is more than just a productivity suite, it's also an application platform. I work for a mega bank and I can't begin to tell you just how much stuff, mission critical stuff, that we have built on top of MS Office. Even migrating from Office 2003 to Office 2007 is difficult because of this.

For the person who just needs straight forward document creation and editing, OpenOffice is fine. When dealing with real world business, its just a toy. If it were easy just to get rid of MS Office and replace it with a free alternative, more people would have done it long ago. It's not easy, and in a lot of cases not even cost effective. It would take tens, possibly hundreds of millions to replace MS Office where I work.

That's not to say that something like OpenOffice can't work in certain business environments. But in an electronic document centric world, the cost of Office isn't has high as people think compared the amount of productivity gains that can be achieved with MS Office.
 
I was one of those Vista FUD spreaders after a bad experience with my friend's computer with Vista on it.

Unfortunately, it had 1 GB of RAM and it had a P4 in it.

Obviously, after building a few more computers lately and installing Vista 32 and 64 bit on all of them (with them either being e8400/e6x00s with 2GB+ RAM) and having the 3800/8x00+ series video cards, Vista is SNAPPY and a great improvement over XP. I love the ribbon in Office and the new search/run feature, UAC doesn't bother me that much, and overall I feel like everything is more stable and I have more control / knowledge over my hardware (instead of having to rely on other applications to monitor my software/hardware).

When I get the time I will definitely be buying Vista and installing it. School's right around the corner unforunately - never good to dive in to a new OS right before a new job or semester :p

edit: And I haven't had any activation issues like anyone has spread... I bet one of these days I'll get a phone call about it though, but so far the computer's Vistas/Offices that I've registered for people haven't come undone D:
 
heatlesssun said:
For the person who just needs straight forward document creation and editing, OpenOffice is fine.
Click to expand...

Well, OO does a lot more than that and is not just a toy. It can even read MSO format too. If all I needed was the above then I would only need Wordpad. But in the business world MSO is the standard and that is why it is so succesful. Lots of people buy Vista when about all they do is browse the web and check email. Freespire will do all that and more for free and again with no activation annoyance.

Personally, I like to use Pagemaker when I want to create professional looking documents because it is WYSIWYG and can do a lot more than any word processor.
 
milkweg said:
Well, OO does a lot more than that and is not just a toy. It can even read MSO format too. If all I needed was the above then I would only need Wordpad. But in the business world MSO is the standard and that is why it is so succesful. Lots of people buy Vista when about all they do is browse the web and check email. Freespire will do all that and more for free and again with no activation annoyance.

Personally, I like to use Pagemaker when I want to create professional looking documents because it is WYSIWYG and can do a lot more than any word processor.
Click to expand...
No, heatlesssun is right. Oo_Org is fine for most consumer users, but it doesn't have a tenth the functionality of MS Office. Even most "advanced" MSO users have no idea about half the things it's capable of. Part of that is MS's fault for not advertising and/or publicizing those features, but a lot of it is that most consumer users don't need most of the advanced functionality. A lot of businesses depend on it.
 
Arainach said:
No, heatlesssun is right. Oo_Org is fine for most consumer users, but it doesn't have a tenth the functionality of MS Office. Even most "advanced" MSO users have no idea about half the things it's capable of. Part of that is MS's fault for not advertising and/or publicizing those features, but a lot of it is that most consumer users don't need most of the advanced functionality. A lot of businesses depend on it.
Click to expand...

Correct. MS Office has features that users don't need to know about, but use anyways, such as tight integration with Windows Sharepoint Service and Microsoft Sharepoint Service. MS Office is also tightly synchronized with other Microsoft non-Office products.
 
Heh the video was great. Confirmed what I was saying all along. People just believe what they hear or saw on TV. Aka Mac adds and the boy next door runing his celeron and bitching his machine wasnt "snappy" with vista.

Also, to anyone who gets vista from an OEM like dell. The first thing you need to do is perform a clean install on that thing. OEM bloatware cripples a lot of the speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top