Vista to be discontinued in 2008?

[LstBrunnenG]

Just to make it clear from my ORIGINAL post, one of the replies here is correct in the TWIT podcast this week had a verbal mistake when Leo meant to say XP would be discontinued now in June instead of early next year like they first said NOT Vista. It wasn't until I listed to that portion 3 times that I was sure it was just a verbal mistake and he interchanged the two.

Okay, so you're saying Vista won't be discontinued in 2008, but XP will. This thread and its title are thefore very misleading.

Personally, I have a high-end PC very capable of running Vista and have indeed tried it myself. I hated the darn thing so much that I can see where, why and how it's being compared to ME.

ME was notorious for crashing without rhyme or reason. A glitch in IE could bring down the whole system.

It was also the last OS based on the Win9x kernel.

I'll grab some popcorn while you prove to me how Vista is notorious for crashing, and is the last OS to be based on the NT kernel.

As TWIT pointed out this week, SOME of this is due to the way Microsoft is letting 3rd parties use their OS for installing and integrating with the OS. I thought the same thing Leo did in that Microsoft should be MUCH more controlling with the 3rd parties in terms of how it installs on Vista. A lot of the install issues stem from the 3rd parties NOT taking advantage of Vista and creating LOTS of problems for the end user.

What?

Are you saying OEMs are improperly installing Vista, or software companies such as AV firms hav been allowed to integrate too closely with the OS?

Much of this is the CONSTANT barrage of clicking for security to install something. It should be like on Linux and Apple OS, you run in user mode for all use, Admin mode to install stuff and simply input your Admin password once to confirm WITHOUT all the pop-ups.

If I go to install a program on Vista, I get a popup asking me to confirm the elevated privelige that the installer is requesting. If I had a user account, I would be asked to enter the username and password of an administrator.

If I go to use System Update on Ubuntu, I get a popup asking for the root password.

What's the difference?

Anyone will tell you that logging into a GUI like GNOME as root is a BAD idea - you can open a CLI wndow and type su and then your password and be granted the same effect.

Guess what? You can do the same thing on Windows! Go to your command prompt shortcut, right-click and click "Run as Administrator." Confirm the elevated privelages, and now any programs you launch from this prompt will have administrative rights.

The other problems stem from the underlying kernal. If you listen to Steve Gibson, he is very knowledgeable on security and is a Windows lover but HATES Vista for the way they have made it a living nightmare for end users with how they use security in Vista. Him, Leo, Chris Perillo (spelling?) have all sent reports to Microsoft and think they need to change the OS quickly next year to save it.

Of what import are the words of your experts when my own end-user experience has been anything but a nightmare?

They may not scrap it, but a big overhaul at least for how they handle security is almost a must. Maybe SP2 in 2008? I can see Vista as having maybe a 4 year shelf life at most with at least 4 SPs released. Don't think for one second Microsoft doesn't know Vista is a clunker and they are starting over having learned from their Vista mistakes.

Wait, so now they are scrapping Vista? I'm confused

MANY users with high-end PCs even like myself went back to XP SP2 and are quite happy. Essentially, if you read the technical details, basically Vista is just a much nicer GUI interface and implements security more than XP at a much worse expense to the end user.

Let's completely ignore the fact that Microsoft completely rewrote the majority of the operating syste since XP. It looks like XP on the outside because that's the OS paradigm that people are used to. That's the OS paradigm that Microsoft's focus groups found made users most productive.

If it looked completely different from any previous Windows release, but under the hood was simply bloat tacked onto XP, would that be more attractive to you?

All the tech guys are saying the same thing, Steve Gibson, Leo, Chris, etc. and I know MANY users and most PC companies such as Dell are telling Microsoft they are using XP no matter what until some of the Vista junk is better next year.

Continuing to offer XP != "using XP no matter what."

I had no idea people were so FANATICAL over defending Microsoft or any OS for that matter.

No, but FUD and unsubstantiated opinions just generally tend to piss people off.

Anyway, I have made my points and pointed out the details and info coming from the podcasts mentioned and on various web sites. Bottom line is if you are happy great no one cares but you what OS you use because that's your choice and money. All I said was what the best people around are saying about it and from my own use. Unless you are gaming high-end on the PC then there really isn't much use in Vista due to all the issues outlined on the above posts I made.

I'm running low on popcorn. I'm still waiting for these issues.

While the security issues as mentioned are the worst issue with the annoying pop-ups over how Linux or Max OS does it with their Admin rules, it goes MUCH deeper. Again, all of this is documented by Gibson very nicely and you do NOT have the added security that Vista so highly taunts at this point.

What? Vista taunts security?

Grammatical errors aside, I just read this. It's your experts, Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte, talking about the security in Vista. From what you said, I expected to see them saying there were some easily-exploited holes, or the kernel was written poorly, etc etc. Instead, I saw them praising Vista's security! I saw them saying that, in a version or two, Windows could end up being the most secure OS in the world!

Has this sunk in yet? Let me directly quote them:

Well, now, this will break some things. Microsoft is unable, as we’ve seen, for example, with the kernel patch protection, they’re unable to simply shut down all kernel modification in 32-bit Windows as they have for 64. So they’re saying, look, we’re going to be really resistant to this kind of behavior and sort of try to moderate how much they push back. But what’s very clear as you look at what Microsoft has done throughout Windows Vista is there is finally some real pushback from the OS onto applications, saying, look, it’s time for us all to clean up our act. It’s time for us to start behaving ourselves. And you can read the handwriting on the wall that this is going to be increasingly enforced over time until eventually, Leo, I can say, I can foresee the time when Windows ends up being the most secure operating system around.

What they criticize is software out there today that requires administrative rights. They say that lazy programmers have for too long assumed admin rights, and now that they don't have them, these older programs get broken. New software won't have these problems.

I don't see any signs of these people predicting Vista's doom, nor do I see them sending messages to Microsoft outlining all of Vista's faults. I see them praising Vista for what they perceive as stronger security.

Rather or not it will ever be secure like the other OSs is anyones guess until SP1 comes out to test what they have done. But Gibson is certainly on his mark and can go up with the any name you want to throw out there in terms of his technical AND security knowledge. Vista is a failure in those terms so far.

No, look up. Gibson likes Vista.

All the other issues will have to wait until SP1 to know more, but every expert agrees that Vista as it is is ME all over again and a bad waste of money with all their package levels.

Every expert? Since when is there consensus in the tech community? Your own experts don't even support this consensus, so I'm not going to put much stock in it.

My final say is that I'm siding with the expert tech guys of Leo, Gibson, Perillo (spelling ?) and others in that Vista is junk as it is until a MAJOR overhaul is done (SP1?) to know more.

More self-contradiction.

For now, XP SP2 is the best and most stable OS available for the PC and perhaps even until after Vista just like ME.

Incomprehensible.

I wanted to clarify this before closing it out in this post. What I meant by "Dell trashing Vista for XP" was that Dell doesn't like Vista at all due to all of its issues, but still offer it of course since it's still being made by Microsoft. Again though, if you listen to the podcasts they give the impression that Dell and others are pushing Microsoft to abandon that piece of junk and start over.

On the other hand, I see OEMs embracing technologies which Vista supports. My X61t had an option for Intel TurboMemory, which is used for ReadyBoost in Vista. Asus is offering notebooks with SideShow.

Notice that Dell initially dropped XP support, and only added it agian because customers asked for it. If what you say is true, it would have to be the other way around. Dell would have been hesitant to offer Vista, and customers would have had to press for it.

You asked what I had against it, see my all my posts in this thread and read all the tech reviews and updates on the various web sites (Locker Knome, Leo, etc.) and combine with my own experience and it matches what all the experts have and are saying about it being ME junk so far. I'm NOT talking 3rd party fault here, Steve Gibson has outlined some SERIOUS issues and if you follow all this about Vista you will know it's the OS itself at this time.

I'd love you to point me at a transcript where it sounds like Gibson is trashing Vista. Either you or he completely contradicts themselves.

As I said, SP1 may change things some, but everyone thinks it's ME over again and Microsoft is already starting to abandon it with more info to come in 2008.

Again with the everyone. If everyone thought it was ME, nobody would be in this thread contradicting you.

Also, you again say that MS is ditching Vista in 2008. Which is it? Is it XP or Vista?

That's all I have to say on the matter, I've told you where to read and go for all the details over the past year and in the end it's up to you to decide. Hope things work out for you too.

I did! Said details and commentary contradicted every word you said!

And thank god for it tooo... That is the day we should all be looking forward to,.... Pray for it, and it'll come.

Tell me, Duby, how would an open-source-only world be better? Right now I have the choice between closed-source Windows, closed-source OS X, and open-source Linux. Your utopia would rob me of two of those options, and thus of choice.

 

[calebb]

...Leo and some others this week are saying Microsoft may be admitting defeat in the next year. Companies are DEMANDING to use XP Pro SP2 over anything Vista as it has been a HUGE nightmare for them....

[calebb] here is correct in the TWIT podcast this week had a verbal mistake when Leo meant to say XP would be discontinued now in June instead of early next year like they first said NOT Vista.

Now wait a second! You come in here, you write an entire commentary based around a simple "verbal mistake." I call you on it, and you admit that there was a verbal mistake... but you don't edit the original post or even come up with a replacement source.

So, people continue to call you on it, and what do you do?

I had no idea people were so FANATICAL over defending Microsoft or any OS for that matter.

That, my friend, is the phrase of desperation. You are attacking the posters instead of their posts. Not only is it a 'logical fallacy,' (ad hominem) but it shows that even you realize that your opinions are just that - subjective opinions and not backed up by anything. Incidentally, name calling is against the [H] rules.

This post here is exactly why so many people feel the need to defend Microsoft, or atleast inject some rational, logical thinking into the discussion. What's scary, is that you posted this full believing it, and expecting others to agree, simply because of what you've heard.

QFT!!

 

[Met-AL]

Wow LstOfTheBrunnenG, that was one hell of a post.

 

[Shottah_king]

Wow another one of these threads.. Don't really see the point. Vista works perfect for me, its actually more stable than XP. I love the new features, and everything just works fine.. Don't see the real argument people have with Vista.

 

[metril]

I used Vista during its second beta stage, RC1, and RC2. During beta, I liked the OS, but it wasn't as stable. It did not have support for a lot of the applications I use. So, I switched back to XP Pro. RC1 was better, but not as stable as I thought it should be. The installation was very sensitive. It took me about 3 tries to get RC1 installed and running. RC2 was AMAZING!!! When I installed RC2, it took 25 minutes to format, install, and setup. Even when the system crashed, due to my fiddling, I was able to revert to a working configuration. Finally, I have been using the release version of Vista since 2 months before its public release. Thank you MSDN. I am amazed with Vista and even after so long, I am still amazed. XP Pro was good, but it was not fast enough on an AMD Athlon 2.39 Ghz processor, 1 Gig Ram, 60 GB and 160 GB hard drives, ASUS A8V Deluxe motherboard, and a 7800GS.

Vista actually uses my RAM more efficiently and doesn't let it go to waste. It keeps track of my usage and preloads programs for me. Also, I noticed that explorer starts up faster and is able to open files faster than in XP.

I have been trying to get my dad to switch from XP to Vista, but he is a software developer and uses XP as a test platform.


I highly doubt MS will drop Vista.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Don't see the real argument people have with Vista.

I can summarize, based on many of these like threads:

1) It's Microsoft, let's hate it
2) It's new
3) It's Microsoft, let's hate it
4) The person complaining has never really used it
5) It's Microsoft, let's hate it
6) The person complaining doesn't have the technical knowledge to load/setup a new OS
7) It's Microsoft, let's hate it
8) The person complaining doesn't have a system capable of running Vista (actually a legitimate complaint)
9) It's Microsoft, let's hate it
10) RARE: The person complaining has a real software incompatibility with a critical app, and can't make the switch.
11) It's Microsoft, let's hate it

 

[Finn]

Fanboyerism at best. Vista is great for a casual home user who browses internet etc. and doesn't use any specialized software but it's an absolute nightmare in business world.

The extended XP availability cries spawned from this fact and this fact only.

Anyone who touts 'I don't have a problem in my limited field of interest so how could anyone else' is just that, limited to his views.

 

[Azhar]

12. Microsoft sucks because MacOS and Linux never get viruses.



I kid!

 

[DrDoU]

there's absolutely nothing wrong with vista,it's just having growing pains.i just updated the hardware and it runs like a screeming sum bitch.this is bacically what i had to do for xp.now,as for drivers the companies need to get their act together and put out drivers that will increase the performance of vista instead of dragging ass

 

[Ethug]

I run Vista with absolutely no problems. People are stupid. This same crap happens every time theres an OS upgrade. People did this same shit talking about XP back in the day.

 

[duby229]

Tell me, Duby, how would an open-source-only world be better? Right now I have the choice between closed-source Windows, closed-source OS X, and open-source Linux. Your utopia would rob me of two of those options, and thus of choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_operating_systems

That seems to be a pretty good chioce to me, and pretty much all of them better then Windows for what they do.....

 

[markt435]

sigh....

 

[LstBrunnenG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_operating_systems

That seems to be a pretty good chioce to me, and pretty much all of them better then Windows for what they do.....

Right...

I actually thought of acknowledging that there were other open source OSes out there, but I thought, "Surely Duby can't be that petty!" I was apparently wrong.

Yes, Duby, there are other open source operating systems. The only one anyone uses is Linux, followed distantly by the flavors of BSD.

But my point is this: Why is a monopoly by open source software inherently better than the current state of things, where we have three OSes vying for a common userbase? If you eliminate Mac and Windows, all you have, at least for now, is Linux. The BSDs don't have anywhere near the driver support necessary to be serious contenders for the desktop. Yes, it's always possible someone new could come along and write their own OS, but look at how many years and man-hours it's taken for Linux to become a viable contender.

 

[duby229]

Right...

I actually thought of acknowledging that there were other open source OSes out there, but I thought, "Surely Duby can't be that petty!" I was apparently wrong.

Yes, Duby, there are other open source operating systems. The only one anyone uses is Linux, followed distantly by the flavors of BSD.

But my point is this: Why is a monopoly by open source software inherently better than the current state of things, where we have three OSes vying for a common userbase? If you eliminate Mac and Windows, all you have, at least for now, is Linux. The BSDs don't have anywhere near the driver support necessary to be serious contenders for the desktop. Yes, it's always possible someone new could come along and write their own OS, but look at how many years and man-hours it's taken for Linux to become a viable contender.

http://distrowatch.com/

I didnt realize that this much choice could be considered a monopoly.... If this is a monopoly, then just imagine the monopoly that MS has.... Geez thanbks for opening my mind... I thought I knew just how big MS monopoly really was, but you really opened my eyes to the truth...

If Linux is a monopoly with all of it's chioce, then shit... MS is monopoly god.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Right...

I actually thought of acknowledging that there were other open source OSes out there, but I thought, "Surely Duby can't be that petty!" I was apparently wrong.

Yes, Duby, there are other open source operating systems. The only one anyone uses is Linux, followed distantly by the flavors of BSD.

But my point is this: Why is a monopoly by open source software inherently better than the current state of things, where we have three OSes vying for a common userbase? If you eliminate Mac and Windows, all you have, at least for now, is Linux. The BSDs don't have anywhere near the driver support necessary to be serious contenders for the desktop. Yes, it's always possible someone new could come along and write their own OS, but look at how many years and man-hours it's taken for Linux to become a viable contender.

OK lets get this straight!
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A COMPANY BEING A MONOPOLY!
look at ARM they pretty much dominate the RISC market (with MIPS just taking a few % off them) and they are a monopoly in that market

HOEVER... ARM do NOT abuse their position as a monopoly or use Anti-competitive businesses to 1) get to said position and 2) hold it. Unlike MS who are a convicted anti-competitive company on the OS market by both the US and the EU law-courts AND they are not getting any better! (they are still in violation of the last EU case they lost and if they don't do as they are requested in the next month a load more fines and a load more restrictions)

 

[Cyrilix]

Essentially, if you read the technical details, basically Vista is just a much nicer GUI interface and implements security more than XP at a much worse expense to the end user.

Oh really? Maybe you should read this in-depth article: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vista-under-the-hood.ars

That is part 2 of a 2-part series. Reading the first one as well will be useful.

 

[digital_exhaust]

Anybody testing Gusty with Compiz Fusion?

I'm only curious because, for the first time, I think there is an open source OS out there that any Microsoft user with a reasonable amount of computer skills can use on a daily basis as their primary desktop OS... and I think the open source folks around here are missing that...

I have been a big Vista supporter on these boards since the early betas were out, and I still am..... but, and I can't believe I'm saying this... I really think that Ubuntu may, in the (possibly distant) future actually offer a little competition for Microsoft.. It's usable, and it works... and if eye candy is what your after.... there is no competition for Compiz Fusion... Aero doesn't even come close. I have it running on an old P4 2g 512m ram with an ATI Radeon 7000 and it simply blows Aero away..... seriously.

Now, I also realize that a lot of open source guys hate Ubuntu for some (arrogant) reasons, but it's a step in the right direction for the open source community. The more users (or tinkerers) that switch to Ubuntu will ultimately lead to fewer Microsoft users... if that's what you want to see happen.....

I don't really see why it matters if Microsoft abandons Vista or not... if they do, you can be sure there will be a new OS there to take it's place. Rather Microsoft is a monopoly or not isn't really the point... The point is rather Vista is a suitable replacement for XP... and I think the answer to that question is up to the individual user... and open source users should understand better than anyone else the growing pains involved in changing their OS of choice... I just started fucking around with Fedora and... yeah, it's a lot different than Ubuntu.. just as Vista is a lot different than XP...... but calling Vista the next ME is just admitting that you don't know what the hell your talking about.....

Again, just my opinions... that's all......

 

[Menelmarar]

His open source utopia would also unemployed 79,000 people.

Support for Linux is a LONG way off before it's ready for the casual users desktop. Still WAY to many developers not distributing Linux compatible applications, period. And that is noones fault but them.

Mozilla and Opera pull it off.
Web browsing covered.

Sun and IBM pull it off with their free Office suites.
Desktop publishing mostly covered.

ID software, Bioware, Epic, and Croteam pull it off.
Gaming, small percentage covered. Unacceptable, large number of casual home users... play games!
But that's not many game devs in the overall scheme of things. When you can say every Activision, THQ, Ubisoft, and EA game works natively in Linux, that will be a good start.

So if these guys and more out there are able to do it, the 1,000's that aren't doing it have no excuse. They are the ones you should have your beef with.

I used to run linux on my laptop, until X randomly corrupted itself and I went back to Windows for stability. Was great for awhile, had document writing tools, web browsing, music libraries, instant messengers. I was all set, everything I needed for basic laptop mobile needs. Linux is still too limited.

 

[Cyrilix]

http://distrowatch.com/

I didnt realize that this much choice could be considered a monopoly.... If this is a monopoly, then just imagine the monopoly that MS has.... Geez thanbks for opening my mind... I thought I knew just how big MS monopoly really was, but you really opened my eyes to the truth...

If Linux is a monopoly with all of it's chioce, then shit... MS is monopoly god.

You fail to understand his point. What he's saying that if you advocate choice, then don't advocate selective choice (i.e., Linux flavors only and a few other open source operating systems). If you truly advocate choice, then everyone (including Microsoft and Apple, who sell operating systems for money), should be able to compete. There are some people that are extremists on the Windows end. You're just an extremist on the opposite end.

 

[zacdl]

People fear change. It's just that simple.

That is 100% correct. I've said that over and over again- and it is fact.
Applies to almost every portion in life, not just technology!

His open source utopia would also unemployed 79,000 people.

These folks fail to understand the effects it would have...

I also do not know where they would find enough people willing to work for free or next to nothing to write this software.
*nix has been in the oven YEARS now, and is only now starting to ever so slightly touch the relm of "usable for home users". IMO Ubuntu is the best distro out there right now, and I still feel it has a ways to go before ever contending in the Windows world.


What some people also don't see, I think, is that Vista is meerly a "transitional" OS.
This means- although Vista does offer plenty of new FEATURES- it is just the groundwork for a coming OS. It is just STARTING to move us in the right direction. It has to lay the groundwork for the advances still to come! This is why some folks fail to see what Vista offers over XP, at first glance.

 

[morningreis]

Vista is good, but is still has a way to go.

It's buggy, uses RECYCLED CODE from god knows when and Microsoft didn't deliver on what they promised.

Oh yeah, and the prices SUCK.

All that aside, I like it much more than XP.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

You fail to understand his point. What he's saying that if you advocate choice, then don't advocate selective choice (i.e., Linux flavors only and a few other open source operating systems). If you truly advocate choice, then everyone (including Microsoft and Apple, who sell operating systems for money), should be able to compete. There are some people that are extremists on the Windows end. You're just an extremist on the opposite end.

Better than I could have said it.

If I said that the whole open source movement was stupid, and advocated its dissolution in favor of a Windows-only world, you would flame me out of the forum. Why, then, should you be allowed to say that only open source software has a right to exist?

I prefer the choice I have now. I can use Windows for some of my needs, and Linux for others. I really wouldn't want to give up either.

 

[milkweg]

XP is really really painful to use after you've been using Vista

How so? I've been using Vista since beta but XP is still my gaming OS of choice. Linux is my internet OS of choice as I don't have to screw around with spending more time on security apps instead of actually using it. Vista isn't used for much at all right now, maybe later when there are some must have DFX10 games and I have a DX10 video card. But in what way is XP a pain to use compared to Vista? I just don't see it.

 

[Justintoxicated]

Any XP haters ever tried to load a new theme that make sit look like vista or better? I'm assuming no because everyone says when they go back to XP they ealize what they are missing (Stock GUI theme for Xp blows) Thats what I did and I like my theme I chose on XP Way better than the Vista themes.

I have Vista at work and Xp at home and what I can't stand with vista is the sudden slowdowns etc. Like it will run real snappy compared to XP then I launch a new amp and Bam I have to wait like 30-40 seconds for it to come up for no particular reason. I really don't like vista but will be forced to switch to it for DX 10 and 4Gb memory limitations on XP.

It does seem to me that vista is more stable but my PC at home overclocked and has 100 times more software installed on it that could be causing issues.

I used to like Linux but these days it seems way to bloated just like windows! I have have been unsuccessful on the last 4 times I tried to install various flavors of linux as well. Linux is a PITA to install on a raid-0, and I have had a number of driver issues when using new versions with old hardware. With Linux you used to be able to put a nice small copy on old harware and get usable speeds, these days I'm lucky to even be able to install it on old hardware! I wasted like 20 CD's burning different copies none of which I was able to install from Suse to Ubuntu to other small distros I have nothing but problems. But hell throw in Xp or 98 or 2000 and it installs on the first try even on my old Celleron 350a

 

[milkweg]

I run Vista with absolutely no problems. People are stupid. This same crap happens every time theres an OS upgrade. People did this same shit talking about XP back in the day.

Only for a very short period. After a few months of positive reports about XP most people jumped on it. I don't see that happening with Vista at all. Vista only has about 3% of the current market share.

 

[duby229]

You fail to understand his point. What he's saying that if you advocate choice, then don't advocate selective choice (i.e., Linux flavors only and a few other open source operating systems). If you truly advocate choice, then everyone (including Microsoft and Apple, who sell operating systems for money), should be able to compete. There are some people that are extremists on the Windows end. You're just an extremist on the opposite end.

I undestand his point perfectly well, I was simply being sarcastic. What I take from it is that we should all be perfectly happy with what we have today, and shut the fuck up --now-- becouse none of us have the right to want something better.

His view is that we have what we have and that is the best were gonna get. I disagree.

 

[Justintoxicated]

I also suspect that people think vista is snappy because they just installed it,a nd are coming off an old XP install from years ago. I know my XP is no where near as fast as when I first installed it and nothing was loaded at startup.

 

[DeaconFrost]

But in what way is XP a pain to use compared to Vista? I just don't see it.

Well, I can give you my experiences, considering I use both throughout the day. I use the search feature in Vista quite a bit. On identical systems, once Vista does it's week or so of optimizing, apps load faster, and when under a load, Vista is much more responsive than XP. Also, aside from Tiger Woods 2008, my gaming is identical in Vista and XP. I'm sure I could probably benchmark a difference between the two, but as long as I can't tell a difference, it doesn't matter to me. I'll turn the question back around. What is it about XP that's supposed to pull me back to it? What's your bias against Vista that I should ignore it and stick with an older OS?

I also suspect that people think vista is snappy because they just installed it,a nd are coming off an old XP install from years ago. I know my XP is no where near as fast as when I first installed it and nothing was loaded at startup.

Just the opposite. Vista will be faster after it fine-tunes itself, as opposed to a right, immediately after it is installed.

 

[duby229]

Better than I could have said it.

If I said that the whole open source movement was stupid, and advocated its dissolution in favor of a Windows-only world, you would flame me out of the forum. Why, then, should you be allowed to say that only open source software has a right to exist?

I prefer the choice I have now. I can use Windows for some of my needs, and Linux for others. I really wouldn't want to give up either.

But then on the other hand fair competition can only happen on equal footing. Equal footing is impossible given todays market conditions. The day that I can run DX10 on Linux legally and stably, is the day that I'll forgive MS for the way they treat there customers. Until then OSS projects are the only way to compete fairly. Anybody can create an alsa competitor that is compatible with alsa. It is the only way to compete fairly.

In the end what it all biols down to is your opinion. My opinion is that OSS ideals are superior, and produce superior products across the board. If you thing that several thousand of MS hand picked developers can compete with a global collaborative development movement consisting of millions of individuals, then I'd argue that you are sadly mistaken.

When the first OSS operating systems started being developed Linux, and to some extent minix, the 4.4BSD derivatives, and others, MS had a 15 year head start. They had a 15 year advantage. I'd be willing to argue based on technical merits that the lead is no more then two years right now. So in just 15 years the lead dropped from 15 years to 2... In another 15 years where will MS be?

OSS simply develops faster. Period. MS will not be able to keep pace for much longer. Survival of the fittest. If they arent capable of competing then thy --should-- die. And god willing that wont take too much longer.

 

[DeaconFrost]

My opinion is that OSS ideals are superior, and produce superior products across the board. If you thing that several thousand of MS hand picked developers can compete with a global collaborative development movement consisting of millions of individuals, then I'd argue that you are sadly mistaken.

If what you say is true, why isn't Linux as user-friendly as Windows? Wouldn't Linux have more software available, more games available, more drivers available for hardware than Windows? Open source software has plenty of drawbacks as well. Don't blame Microsoft 100% for market conditions, or else you'd be proving yourself to be blinded by bias.

As for DX10, if you want to blame someone, start blaming the game developers. The only people stopping them from writing games for Linux, is themselves. Again, all you are doing is picking on your favorite target, instead of using common sense to examine reality. Imagine if the game developers stopped writing games for PS3. Would that me Microsoft's (Xbox360) fault? There are some, albeit a few, game companies creating games for Linux, so it's not impossible, nor is any entity preventing them. If you want something done about the gaming situation, stop firing at MS blindly, and start writing to each of the major gamehouse, requesting Linux titles. Be productive, rather than sitting on the "bias couch".

Keep in mind, I'm not bashing Linux. I have Ubuntu running on a PC at work to try and learn some of the network management utilities. I'm all for competition, but you have to be fair in considering ALL the reasons why Microsoft has the dominance....all of them, not just ones that are convenient for a specific viewpoint.

 

[JC634]

What some people also don't see, I think, is that Vista is meerly a "transitional" OS. This means- although Vista does offer plenty of new FEATURES- it is just the groundwork for a coming OS. It is just STARTING to move us in the right direction. It has to lay the groundwork for the advances still to come!

I tend to agree with this. Some (several?) features were dropped from Vista before release; the one feature that comes to mind is a replacement file system to NTFS. I gut feeling is that all the security holes that kept cropping up in XP forced MS to focus on security in Vista, at the expense of other features.

So, imo, Vista = OS SECURITY. Hopefully, the next OS will focus on an improved file system, a replacement to the woefully outdated registry, and other(?) features.

 

[Gorankar]

MS is discontinuing Vista in 2008? Yea, sure, and I'm discontinuing the use of alcohol, the chasing of women, and the playing of video games.. I have decided to discontinue eating and breathing as well..
If you really believe me, or that Vista is being discontinued in 2008, then there is a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell you.. After words I'll take you on a snipe hunt, and introduce you to an honest politician..

 

[Penrow]

just built a new computer and purchased vista and after 2 days was formatting hard drive
and installing xp (media center edition) One obstacle vista faces is that xp is a mature OS
with all the bugs worked out and its been out so long that all the software and hardware is basically designed to work with xp, and microsoft stated that they would never wait so long
to release a new OS. so before vista has all the bugs worked out and becomes a MATURE OS microsoft will be cramming another OS down our throats

 

[digital_exhaust]

If what you say is true, (1)why isn't Linux as user-friendly as Windows? (2)Wouldn't Linux have more software available, (3)more games available, (4)more drivers available for hardware than Windows?

Wasn't someone just quoted for saying that "People are afraid of change".... It seems that most here avidly defending Vista are doing nothing more than pointing out that many of the "problems" with Vista are largely due to the fact that it's different.. aka less user friendly than XP..... How many complaints have we all seen that follow the lines of "Why did they move this... or, why did they change that???"

It's a new, and different OS, and it takes time to learn and understand how it works... and in most cases, those saying that "it sucks" haven't taken the time to learn how to use it...is that what "user friendly" is all about?

(1)Define user friendly.....

(2)Browse through the Synaptic Package Manager.. and that's just a "drop in the bucket" as far as OSS goes.....

(3)There could be, but game developers would have to accept the fact that some OSS users would rather not "pay" for the software that those developers are writing. And then of course there is always wine.. not all that great, but it's a start...

(4)I think that what ATI has recently done is a BIG step in the right direction, and hopefully other hardware manufacturers will follow in their footsteps soon....

It's apples and oranges.. both fruit, but they grow on a different tree... corny, yes... but still applicable here....

 

[DeaconFrost]

1) User-friendly is when it's available to the masses to use and understand. When my in-laws and grandmother's could use it, then it's user-friendly.
2) The package manager is great, honestly. However, I've had a number of issues installing certain packages, especially my Nvidia drivers, and never was able to get support for it. The people in the support forums for Ubuntu were very friendly, but nothing seemed to work.
3) I think people would be willing to pay for games, especially, if available. Anytime a new console comes out, people pay for it. I'm still blown away at how much people spend on games for their cell phones.
4) I'm sure they are making strides with drivers, as I've heard in the past ATI was lagging behind Nvidia in driver development. I'm always in favor of anything that's going to build competition, because in the end, consumers will win each and everytime. I'd love to see Macs come down in price, and even go so far as to release a version of OSX that I could buy off the shelf and run on my PC.

 

[duby229]

1) User-friendly is when it's available to the masses to use and understand. When my in-laws and grandmother's could use it, then it's user-friendly.
2) The package manager is great, honestly. However, I've had a number of issues installing certain packages, especially my Nvidia drivers, and never was able to get support for it. The people in the support forums for Ubuntu were very friendly, but nothing seemed to work.
3) I think people would be willing to pay for games, especially, if available. Anytime a new console comes out, people pay for it. I'm still blown away at how much people spend on games for their cell phones.
4) I'm sure they are making strides with drivers, as I've heard in the past ATI was lagging behind Nvidia in driver development. I'm always in favor of anything that's going to build competition, because in the end, consumers will win each and everytime. I'd love to see Macs come down in price, and even go so far as to release a version of OSX that I could buy off the shelf and run on my PC.

1: been there done that almost 10 years now...

2: We in the IT industry call that a problem between the keyboard and the chair.... The keyboard doesnt work on it own, and the chair just sits there... So it must be something in between. Process of elimination ya know...

3: Not many OSS advocates are going to be willing to pay for the software they use. Not even games. We already know what happened to Loki. I dont mind that companies develop there games for Windows. Thats where the money. Cant blame them for that. But you --can-- blame MS for not opening the specifications to the appropriate API's for compatibility. That's just one example of many of MS abusing there market position to maintain there monopoly.

4: MacOSX will never be available in a stand alone distribution. As far ads Device Drivers ATi has recently started work on a new OSS driver that will make a huge difference. That's just one more example of OSS providing solutions that proprietary cant.

 

[digital_exhaust]

1) User-friendly is when it's available to the masses to use and understand. When my in-laws and grandmother's could use it, then it's user-friendly.
2) The package manager is great, honestly. However, I've had a number of issues installing certain packages, especially my Nvidia drivers, and never was able to get support for it. The people in the support forums for Ubuntu were very friendly, but nothing seemed to work.
3) I think people would be willing to pay for games, especially, if available. Anytime a new console comes out, people pay for it. I'm still blown away at how much people spend on games for their cell phones.
4) I'm sure they are making strides with drivers, as I've heard in the past ATI was lagging behind Nvidia in driver development. I'm always in favor of anything that's going to build competition, because in the end, consumers will win each and everytime. I'd love to see Macs come down in price, and even go so far as to release a version of OSX that I could buy off the shelf and run on my PC.

All good points.. but...

Can you move your grandmother to Vista without having her ask how to uninstall a program? How to install a program without having UAC pop up every time she launches it? And any OSS is available for anyone to use... but you know that....

Yeah, some of the available packages can be a bitch to get working, but with a little research, you can find the answers... and yes, I know not everyone is willing to do the research... but, just as an example, I just dumped Quickbooks for GNUCash and it works really well.... and... yep... it's free...

Yeah, people are willing to pay, but until the demand for them are voiced... it's not going to happen.... which leads up to AMD/ATI....

They have recently released much of the information needed to write an open source driver for their cards... knowing well that nvidia likely has God only knows how many people trying to reverse engineer their code... purportedly in an honest effort to help the open source community write drivers for their hardware.... and that was done due in large part to the open source community asking them to do so...

And if you want to get your nvidia drivers installed and working under Linux, give Envy a try.. works for me...

 

[DeaconFrost]

2: We in the IT industry call that a problem between the keyboard and the chair.... Process of elimination ya know...

If you want to have any credibility and be taken serious, keep the flames and veiled flames aside. Don't give me the "we in the IT field" lines, because I am in the IT field, and have been for over a decade. The title on the door to my office says Director, so let's keep the blind, unneccessary assumptions out of this, okay?

If you want to keep this a civil discussion, we can do so. If you're going to drag it down into a ridiculous flame war, this topic won't be going anywhere, and surely will be locked soon.

 

[duby229]

If you want to have any credibility and be taken serious, keep the flames and veiled flames aside. Don't give me the "we in the IT field" lines, because I am in the IT field, and have been for over a decade. The title on the door to my office says Director, so let's keep the blind, unneccessary assumptions out of this, okay?

If you want to keep this a civil discussion, we can do so. If you're going to drag it down into a ridiculous flame war, this topic won't be going anywhere, and surely will be locked soon.

As it always does....

You say that it was a problem with the package manager... Or at least you vaguely seem to suggest that without saying so..... You provide no evidence what the problem was, or the steps taken to correct them. It's like one of my users calling me telling me that there program crashed, so I remote control, and find out that it works perfect. They just didnt know what they were doing.

If you want me to leave the vague assumptions on the side then please feel free to do the same. Your not special. Your not better. Now that we've got that outta the way....

If you can explain to me why you think the package manager has problems, and why MS software distribution model is better, then please feel free to contribute.

 

[Jordan1]

I also suspect that people think vista is snappy because they just installed it,a nd are coming off an old XP install from years ago. I know my XP is no where near as fast as when I first installed it and nothing was loaded at startup.

I've went back and forth from XP to Vista and like Vista better. Vista seems more responsive than XP, and I am comparing fresh installs of both, on the same computer.

The thing that had me going back to XP was the lack of support for software and hardware (drivers), which is not Vista's problem.