backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 96 comment(s) - last by SilverBack.. on Feb 27 at 5:47 PM
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates lays praise on Windows Vista

Yesterday, DailyTech reported that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was cautious about "overly aggressive" forecasts for Windows Vista. Ballmer went on to say that Vista’s slow retail start can be attributed to piracy which has become increasingly popular in emerging markets.

It appears that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Ballmer haven't had much communication on the matter recently. Reuters asked Gates about any trepidation Microsoft might have about the outlook for Vista to which he responded "I don't know what you mean. Vista's had an incredible reception."

Gates deflected the questioning and instead decided to focus on what he sees as positive progress for Microsoft's newest consumer operating system. "The reviews have been fantastic. This is a big, big advance in the Windows platform. It's the world's most used piece of software... Overall, the reliability feedback has been well better than we expected," said Gates.

"People who sell PCs have seen a very nice lift in their sales. People have come in and wanted to buy Vista," Gates continued.

Gates is right about the lift in PC sales. According to NPD, PC unit shipments were up 67% the week Vista launched in comparison to the same period in 2006. That is a key measure for Microsoft as 80% of its OS revenue comes from PC OEMs. Vista's retail performance, however, was down 60% in comparison to Windows XP's opening week in 2001.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hehe
By sprockkets on 2/21/2007 10:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
I just received 17 retail copies of WinXP Pro from work, I do not need vista for now, but will get a copy to work with it for business purposes.

But if this site says it works well with 3GB of RAM, I'm 2 short. For that matter, it is kinda weird to have just three, don't ya need like 4, as in, needing to have 4x1GB DIMMS? Or can you just have 3 slots populated?

Funny, cause SuSE 10.2 has some Vista features, namely, the translucent window borders, the start menu style. Of course, they had a 3d desktop before vista.




RE: hehe
By bplewis24 on 2/21/2007 11:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if this site says it works well with 3GB of RAM, I'm 2 short. For that matter, it is kinda weird to have just three, don't ya need like 4, as in, needing to have 4x1GB DIMMS? Or can you just have 3 slots populated?


I believe that is specific to the Mobo you're using.

Brandon


RE: hehe
By bplewis24 on 2/21/2007 2:12:54 PM , Rating: 3
Am I being voted down because my answer is factually wrong or is it just on general principle because I don't always go with the flow on this site?

If I'm wrong any clarification will suffice. I was pretty sure that when I built my computer they only discourage odd-numbered dimms because of the lack of dual-channel memory feature. But I'd be genuinely interested in knowing if that's wrong.

Brandon


RE: hehe
By Myrandex on 2/21/2007 3:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
No reason to be voted down, but 3GB is easy for dual channel.

2 * 1GB and 2 * 512MB gives you 3GB

Its good to see my applied math degree go somewhere. There are also machiens that don't even support dual channel RAM that have 3 slots, so then the point doesn't matter either.

Jason


RE: hehe
By mindless1 on 2/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: hehe
By Scabies on 2/21/2007 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not the expert, but the general idea is that a 32bit OS can only address either 3gb or 3.5gb of ram, whereas a 64bit OS can do some double digit number I cant think of immediately (16 may be wrong)
If you are talking about XP, they are likely saying "it works well with three, but one is fine. Anything greater than three will cause issues" [holyhandgrenade, jk]
3 DIMMs will not do dual channel properly, since it is an odd number. To my knowledge, you can dual channel 2 and have to run single channel on the third.

If you are talking about Vista, I can say from personal experience that the deal is "the more the merrier." It works with one, it works better with two (where I stand) so maybe it works "well" with three. I will say that I went from (vista scoring) 4.5 with one DIMM DDR2-800 to 5.3 on 2 DIMMs of the same stuff (800) in single channel to 5.9 in dual channel. Currently, vista scoring puts that on par with my processor (overclocked conroe @3ghz) so adding more would be ineffective, as most cases call for a lowest denominator performance

a direct answer is "3 dimms populated is fine, you wont have data corruption or anything."


RE: hehe
By Orthogonal on 2/21/2007 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not the expert, but the general idea is that a 32bit OS can only address either 3gb or 3.5gb of ram, whereas a 64bit OS can do some double digit number I cant think of immediately (16 may be wrong)


FYI: 32 bits can address 2^32 bits of address space or 4 GB. A 64 bit OS can address 2^64 which is 1.844E19 bits of address space. MS has artificially limited the physical address space to 8, 16 and 128 GB's depending on the OS of choice.


RE: hehe
By Scabies on 2/21/2007 12:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I was referring to the issue where XP (32bit) would only recognize 3gb. This was caused by the HDD based page file (or swap space / virtual memory) plus physical RAM adding up to a number above 4gb. In most instances, this is overcome this by turing off their HDD based page file, but upon furter research you are correct, a 32bit processor and a 32bit OS CAN address 4gb maximum.
Another limitation is the motherboard, some dont work with more than 3gb.


RE: hehe
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 12:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
The 3GB limit is not due to page file, it is due to memory-mapped devices being allocated the top 1GB or so. But you are right, that the OS can address a 32-bit memory space - it's just that not all of it can be filled with RAM.


RE: hehe
By Orbs on 2/21/2007 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 1
I'm running Vista on a tablet with 1GB and it runs just fine.


RE: hehe
By alifbaa on 2/21/2007 8:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think your question has probably been answered by now, but I seem to remember MS recommending 2GB for 32bit and 4GB for 64. Those weren't minimum figures, I believe they were suggested as some sort of optimum performance number. If you've got a 3 slot board, I would assume you aren't trying to light up the world with performance, and are probably running 32bit. 2GB would probably work pretty well for you for the next couple of years.


RE: hehe
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 9:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm running Vista on a tablet with 1GB and it runs just fine.


I bet its not Vista Ultimate. 10 bucks says its the Basic version you're using.

Orbs, try Vista Ultimate on your tablet, and watch it grind to a halt with full time Hard Drive access.......


RE: hehe
By TomZ on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: hehe
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 10:27:57 PM , Rating: 3
Vista Ultimate with 512mb RAM?

Do you have Aero Glass going? I think not, Vista wont let you with poor specs

No FUD, but i think youre BS'ing


RE: hehe
By TomZ on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: hehe
By StevoLincolnite on 2/22/2007 1:03:53 AM , Rating: 1
I have Vista Ultimate running on my Pentium M 1.6Ghz, 1024Mb of ram, Radeon 9700pro 64Mb card, and a 40Gb 4200rpm HDD, Running Aero just fine, Infact if some on-boared Intel Solutions can handle it any Radeon or Geforce that has Pixel Shading or Vertex Shading could handle Aero Just fine, From what I have noticed On my old test box, That has an 800Mhz @ 1000Mhz Celeron, 512Mb of SDRAM, and a Geforce FX 5200 Aero runs flawlessly no hiccups no stutters, nothing of the sorts why? Because its all loaded into the graphics card.
You don't need INSANE hardware requirements to run vista, Unlike popular belief, Think about it, The minimum system requirements are the minimum requirements for games a year or more ago. And I was able to Run Oblivion on Vista Ultime running Aero at 800x600 with everything on medium quality, Not bad for a 64Mb card, And I was getting on average of 25fps outdoors and 40fps in doors. All in All I hardly if at all noticed a performance difference doing anything in Vista that I did in XP, It seems its memory management is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows XP.


RE: hehe
By StevoLincolnite on 2/22/2007 7:00:24 AM , Rating: 4
I got voted down for that? In fact all my posts EVER have been voted down, from just a few hours ago.


RE: hehe
By cheetah2k on 2/22/2007 1:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
hehehehe, not changing the subject..

I should have been more descriptive 1st off. I think if you intend to buy Vista Ultimate (ie, shelling out your had earned cash), you are buying it for a good reason (above all of the other versions).

You are buying it for nothing but the "whole" package - eg, you intend to run Aero, the annoying UAC, etc, etc. I have used Vista Ultimate for the last week, with all the "bells n whistles" running, and it has been a terribly time consuming, partially negative experience.

However, my experience with Vista Basic has been quite the opposite. With Vista Basic, i was able to run HL2 without getting any "out of memory" errors, etc. Infact Vista Basic was quite quick and felt very similar and responsive to XP Pro. Similarily, on my HP DV9005tx laptop with 2gb of DDR2, i have Vista Home Premium, and i have sinced removed this and installed Vista Basic with similar results. This is purely because Vista Basic only consumes about 500mb of memory, even with readyboost.

However, this isnt enough to convince me to leave XP Pro..

The bottom line, for me - My (test system) AMD FX-60 (cooled by Coolit Freezone TEC), Abit AN8-32X motherboard, with 2gb of Corsair XMS 3500LLPro DDR433 memory, 3 x WD160JS SATA II (drives in RAID 0) Gigabyte I-Ram with 4Gb of Corsair value, 2 x XFX 8800GTX video cards in SLi (fully cooled by EK8800 waterblocks and cooled by Coolit Quad TEC-modified for 8800GTX), 1000W Enermax SLi PSU - Running Vista Ultimate with all the bells n whistles turned on, had out of memory, and other issues running Half Life 2.

Of course, closing the DWM.exe (aeroglass) file in taskmanager freed up enough memory to run HL2, and to be honest, Vista Basic did it ok, and without the memory hogging black hole that Ultimate has.

My last 2 cents on this subject....


RE: hehe
By Nekrik on 2/21/2007 11:49:52 PM , Rating: 3
Have you done any perf comparisons using readyboost and different usb flash drives on the 512MB/850Mhz box? I want to try it but it's not really the highest priority so haven't gotten to yet.


RE: hehe
By TomZ on 2/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: hehe
By Nekrik on 2/22/2007 12:16:30 AM , Rating: 3
Oh well, it seems like a cool feature and maybe helpful to some of those who have perf issues here, it's also a feature I really hope to not rely on.


RE: hehe
By cheetah2k on 2/22/2007 1:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
Readyboost is quite a nifty function, however 1st time loading of software is still quite slow, especially on the older PC's. 2nd time loading (say for example, you run MS Word, close, then run it again) is very quick though. I would highly recommend having at least a 2gb flash. I personally use a 4gb Scandisk Ultra II flash card.

It really works as a L3 cache, when you think about it. At least it saves your HDD from working too hard.


RE: hehe
By mindless1 on 2/23/2007 5:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's not FUD, what is IMPLIED is someone isn't getting a hard-on just running the operating system, that they are also trying to DO something, the whole purpose of the OS. In that (continually relevant) context, 1GB is not enough memory to prevent sluggishness.


RE: hehe
By TomZ on 2/24/2007 3:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
Only an idiot would evaluate or comment on the performance of an operating system without running apps on it. So let me clarify: Of the several machines we have here with 1GB of RAM running Vista Ultimate, we don't see any performance slowdown running applications relative to Windows XP.


RE: hehe
By Korr on 2/22/2007 1:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
Actually...

I am using Vista Ultimate on a 3 year old computer, Pentium 4 2.8ghz with 1 GB of ram. I have Vista Ultimate with all of Aero's effects turned on, and my system is not noticeably slower than when I was running XP home.


lol at Bill Gates' picture
By ForumMaster on 2/21/2007 10:20:26 AM , Rating: 3
although Vista, may be a better product, it is not mature enough for most people. the success is more from OEM builders like Dell that give vista or the early adopters that buy Vista.

frankly, i had Vista RC2 and while it was ok, i'm perfectly happy with XP for now.




RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By supaflydaddyc on 2/21/2007 10:29:03 AM , Rating: 5
I agree! That's the first thing I noticed after the page loaded up. DailyTech is on the ball when it comes to mug shots, that is for sure.

Going back to the XP vs. Vista debate, which was talked extensively about yesterday in the Steve Ballmer story, there really are no serious compelling reasons to spend $150+ to "upgrade" your OS when it will probably cause you over $150 in lost productivity and time you can never get back due to time spent finding proper drivers, etc.

Therefore, it is no surprise that MS receives 80% of its revenue from OEM sales.

When you think about it though, hasn't it been this way with almost all Windows operating systems since, say, 95?


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By nineball9 on 2/21/2007 1:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Therefore, it is no surprise that MS receives 80% of its revenue from OEM sales.

DailyTech misquoted the article. It should read 80% of its OS revenue and not its [total] revenue.

Original: "Vista unit shipments were down 59%, but Microsoft gets approximately 80% of their OS revenue from the OEMs - PC manufacturers," Swenson reported.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2007 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
**Fixed**


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By Midas360 on 2/21/2007 10:45:02 AM , Rating: 4
Personally, I think Vista is much better than XP. I've was running RC2 since last October and just bought Vista Ultimate. The pricing is pretty much the same as XP. People get confused because there are more options. Ultimate is like having every version of Windows in one (Tablet, Media Center, Professional, etc.)

I don't think people will go out and buy the OS off the retail shelves. I do think people will go buy a new PC with Vista installed. Reason, well because it's the only choice now. The big pc manufacturers are selling pc's with Vista on it.

As you can already see, PC sales have gone up dramatically. Whether we like it or not, most of those pc's have Vista on it.


By supaflydaddyc on 2/21/2007 10:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
And I am one who has just bought a laptop with the new OS pre-installed on it (Vista Business in my case).


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By Frank M on 2/21/2007 11:44:21 AM , Rating: 3
Was there ever an XP version that cost as much as Ultimate?

I understand that Ultimate does everything, but that doesn't justify it costing twice as much as a particular version of XP, since it still only works on one computer. I don't know of anyone who uses their HTPC as their primary work PC, and I definitely don't know anyone who uses a tablet as their HTPC. I'd rather be able to afford two separate OS's, for two computers, than one mega OS for one computer.

Anyway, my problem is only with your justification. While I won't be upgrading my current computer, I'll be happy to install Vista into my next computer in a year or two.


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By Orbs on 2/21/2007 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'd rather be able to afford two separate OS's, for two computers


But you can Frank. Vist Ultimate is not the only SKU. It's the SKU for an enthusiast that wants to try bit locker encryption, join to a domain, record live TV and play games all on one machine. If you have three machines to do that, by Home Premium and Business (or whatever combination makes sense for your needs).

People seem to view Ultimate as the only choice, and for this crowd maybe that's accurate, but for the general user with specific needs, there are reasonably priced options.


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By sdsdv10 on 2/21/2007 2:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are reasonably priced options


" reasonably priced " is, of course, a relative term ;)


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By michal1980 on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By pseud0 on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vist Ultimate is not the only SKU. It's the SKU for an enthusiast that wants to try bit locker encryption, join to a domain, record live TV and play games all on one machine.


Games....? Did sonemone say games??

But you can't Orbs. How can you play games when Vista Ultimate takes up 1.2Gb of your precious 2Gb of RAM? How can you play games without proper driver support? There's only a hand full of games in the immediate pipeline that will support DX10, and Vista doesnt come with DX9 out of the box, so you have to go load that too.... Blah

XP is currently the best platform for games!

PS. It's also worthwhile to note that Vista 32bit still doesnt address over 3Gb of memory... I also spilled my hard earned mulah on a copy of Vista Ultimate (I also own an awesome Rig to go with it) and I found that the "Vista Sweet Spot" for running games was the Vista Basic version as it chews only about 500mb of memory while having a reduced draw down on the system resources - as compared Ultimate.

I have since gone back to XP...

Vista Ultimate = Bloatware


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:25:18 PM , Rating: 1
How did you figure that Vista Ultimate takes 1.2GB of RAM for itself? I am running that now on a 2GB machine, with about a dozen apps running, and current memory usage is about 1.1GB total. You may want to check your testing methodology.

FUD.....? Did someone say FUD?


RE: lol at Bill Gates' picture
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 10:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Tomz,

Ok, every system will vary depending on what drivers, additional software you are using (eg. Avast virus protection - oh yes, Vista doesnt have virus protection! - just a biatch nagging UAC), etc. But on average my system uses around 1 to 1.2Gb of memory, before I load any games. For FS, Aero hogs about 200 to 250Mb all by itself!

Compare XP's memory usage mate, and you will find the point i'm making...

FUD = Vista Ultimate (commonly known as "Bloatware")


Sorry Bill.
By Crazyeyeskillah on 2/21/2007 10:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
Less and less people are going to be buying New pc's - There's just no need for it. The only people purchasing new equipment are gamers, media junkies, and college students. The requirements for XP satisfy 90% of the worlds population with email, web browsing, and basic office productivity. I think we will see Microsoft floundering around in the next year trying to push Vistas usefullness on the world. Ballmers' comments sounded more like desperate Sony jargon then a true leader. I think Big Brother Bill will never get to enjoy retirement.




RE: Sorry Bill.
By Mitch101 on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sorry Bill.
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 11:24:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To me Vista is Windows ME. Short Lived and not the boost everyone expects it to be. There are probably more supported drivers for ME right now also.

I disagree - if Vista was just an aesthetic re-do of XP, that might be the case. But the real reason for Vista is to fundamentally change the design of the OS in order to make it more secure. This is important to both consumers and businesses, which is what makes it a must-have upgrade in the mid-term. This is because of the implications of security upon productivity, privacy, support costs, etc.

BTW, this is a design change that other OSs have not gone through yet. If any of them become popular on the desktop, they'll require the same treatment. For example, the classical "buffer overrun" is a symptom of typical programming in the C language that is common across all operating systems. OS X, Linux, Unix, etc. all fall into that category. So far, only Windows has been "fixed."


RE: Sorry Bill.
By SiN on 2/21/2007 12:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'd agree, so many are bashing MS because of their image of being M$, there is more to Vista than Aero graphics and DX10, although they are key points used in advertising.

DX10 along with Aero glass, early driver problems and a (what would seem to be) horde of people unwilling to invest in the system probaby due to money (they also point to linux in their bash's)is all i've came across.

Linux does not suit most Developed countrys business model, too much time and cash to invest in replacing the familliar + intuative Windows. All their business programs (most anyway) can be used on Vista as they were developed for XP.

I'm just tired of all the flak people throw at Vista Like XP, Vista will become the norm. People will be up in arms over it, because its new. They're also acting like XP is superior. Why? Becuase its non HDPC friendly? If Vista has cracks, time will tell, untill then prove me wrong on vista.

Let us remember DRM is a safety net, that doesn't mean it'll work forever.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By SiN on 2/21/2007 12:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Damn you DailyTech!
-HDPC *HTPC*
Edit Button Wanted, CV's to Dailytech.com


RE: Sorry Bill.
By mindless1 on 2/23/2007 5:53:51 AM , Rating: 3
If you're tired, quit reading. It is foolish to think others can't dislike a product, they are just as entitled to dislike as like. In fact, the complainers are actually the ones who serve the most useful purpose. What will ever get better about an OS if one only has their head in the clouds and claims whatever is shoveled into their mouth, tastes great?

It's really quite simple, either you were fully proficient using XP and have no legitimate reason to upgrade (except when it comes w/new PC), or are a handicapped user for inability to be productive with XP, and a questionable judge of Vista since one has to be fully versed in either to do a fair comparison.

In short, what a whiney child you are to think others don't have the right to disagree. Grow up, it has nothing to do with an OS when you can't grasp that your subjective needs <> entire world's needs.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By cochy on 2/21/2007 2:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
How has Vista fixed Buffer Overflow exploits?


RE: Sorry Bill.
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 2:40:06 PM , Rating: 3
Functions that write data into buffers were typically not told the size of the buffer, and so they had no way to determine whether they were writing too much data into the buffer. Newer security-enhanced versions of the same functions are now provided with the size of the buffer, and so they can be coded so that they guarantee to never write past the end of the buffer.

As an example, here is information on how the C run-time library functions were enhanced by Microsoft in this way: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8ef0s5kh(...

So, fixing an app (or OS like Windows) for this particular type of problem involves analyzing the entire codebase for these types of issues. You have to change all your functions that have "bad" signatures so that they accept and respect the size limit. You also have to change all the function call sites for all "bad" functions so that they provide the buffer size to the improved version. Lots and lots of testing on top of all that.

I don't have specific knowledge of Vista's internals, but I do know that Vista went through these types of security reviews and changes. It is also my belief that the changes you see referenced in the article above to the Visual C++ compiler and run-time libraries were originally developed for the Windows team. I don't know this for a fact; it is just an educated guess.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By emboss on 2/22/2007 2:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, a significant number of buffer overflows occur outside the CRT (I'd say over 50% going by memory, but can't be bothered trawling through CERT to try and get the exact numbers). So while length-protecting the usual suspects in the CRT helps, it certainly doesn't qualify Vista as being "fixed" against buffer overflows.

Nine "OOPS!"s in a row; I can't believe this still hasn't been fixed. DT must have THE most broken comment system on the net.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By TomZ on 2/22/2007 9:05:05 AM , Rating: 1
As I said in my comments (maybe not clearly enough), you would have to go through Vista and also fix functions within the OS that also have "bad" signatures. In other words, you're not just changing calls to the CRT functions - you're also changing internal OS function calls at every level of the OS. The CRT is just an example of how a particular set of functions were fixed for security.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By emboss on 2/23/2007 5:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, you can't reasonably detect "vulnerable" functions. You basically have to flag any function that accesses an array or does pointer arithmetic. This would be a vast majority of functions, expecially in the lower level of the OS. So you might as well just go through every single function and check/change it.

The much easier approach - and the approach MS has taken with Vista - is to prevent injected code from executing properly (while also dealing with the blatently obvious suspects like gets, sprintf, etc). This is done though DEP and ASLR, and enhancements in MSVC that detect problems at the application level and throws an exception.


RE: Sorry Bill.
By fk49 on 2/21/2007 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
"I think its called Luna and will be out in 2009."

Luna is the default visual theme for XP (blue and bubbly)

The next Windows OS is codenamed Vienna, to be released after the first Vista service pack, codename Fiji.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6053


LOL!!!!
By DEredita on 2/21/2007 10:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't it just yesterday that Steve Ballmer was crying about weak Vista sales due to piracy?




RE: LOL!!!!
By SiN on 2/21/2007 11:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
My understanding on this would be that retail sales of Vista and the retail of PC machines loaded vista would be kept seperate, for accounting reasons. I may be wrong...
...hmm!
All the same, it is funny how a MS who ware be such an icon for many other small business' looking up to them, let alone being the goliath they are in the business world, would release two condradicting press releases about what is the most important step for them yet (with the backlash encountered. PS3? anyone?).


RE: LOL!!!!
By SiN on 2/21/2007 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
The edit function members are crying out for could really help!


RE: LOL!!!!
By Chadder007 on 2/21/2007 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
What Piracy? I didn't know there was Piracy of Vista even yet. Ballmer is full of it.


RE: LOL!!!!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2007 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 4
Pirated Version of Windows Vista Selling for $8 in Iran
http://www.ciocentral.org/entry/pirated-version-of...

Vista pirated already
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/11/13/Vista__pir...

Malaysia Raids Retailers in Hunt for Pirated Vista
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55805.html

Pirated Vista dirt cheap on Latin American streets
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pirated-vist...


RE: LOL!!!!
By Tedtalker1 on 2/21/2007 2:03:05 PM , Rating: 1
How can there really be Vista piracy when everyone in the free world can use Vista for FREE until June 1 when the time bomb happens??? Can these really be considered pirated? If so,please explain because I'm missing it.After June 1st I believe all those "Pirated Copies" will become crippled OS's and 30 day demos at best.


RE: LOL!!!!
By Korvon on 2/21/2007 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
The full version of Vista (RTM) has been cracked and will not expire, and this is what is being sold. Beta versions (RC2 and prior that got their codes from MS) will expire 6 months after its release (Jan 30).


RE: LOL!!!!
By MrSmurf on 2/21/2007 1:48:25 PM , Rating: 1
And these comments from Bill Gates is the damage control.


Vista isn't the leap XP was
By MrTeal on 2/21/2007 10:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
While most people buying new systems these days are getting Vista on them, for someone who already has XP, there is little reason to switch. XP's a good operating system, and does what 99% of people need.

XP had the same or worse driver issues when it came out as Vista is having right now, but for the millions of people who were stuck with systems that had ME (or even 98) on them, even the initial release was a huge step up in stability, ease of use and features. No wonder XP did so well off the start.

*Note: I'm biased and loathe ME. Take my comments with a grain of salt.




RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By phatboye on 2/21/2007 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly! The reason why retail sales are down has nothing to do with piracy. In fact from what I remeber there were more people trying to pirate XP then they are Vista. And that's not all due to the fact that Vista has more anti-piracy features in it. I think (and I'm of coarse no expert) the reason why XP did so well is because it was so much better than win 95/98/ME. It's a hell of a lot more stable and secure than the previous windows versions (excluding 2000).

Vista on the other hand is nothing more than XP with a few bells and whistles. And while it might be better than XP to a lot of people, like myself, it's just not worth the $99-$250 it cost to buy a copy of Vista. Even though my computer is beefy enough to run vista quite well.

The only way I would ever buy Vista is if it came preinstalled on a computer. I believe a lot of people feel the same way on this issue.


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 9:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only way I would ever buy Vista is if it came preinstalled on a computer.


Yeah, but the problem with this is that (for example) Dell is now only selling laptops with Vista - and this is a real shame. I have just purchased a brand spankin new Dell Inspiron 6400 for my bro who is a teacher in Australia, and he was forced to have vista removed and XP installed, due to network incompatibility.

It is unfortunate that companies like Dell aren't giving the consumer any choice in the matter.

It is as if Vista is being forced on us like some communist regime!


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:30:11 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like more FUD - you're full of it today!

Please elaborate on the "network incompatibility" that Vista has that XP lacks. Before you answer, I'll tell you know ahead of time that I administer the domains and servers for my company, so please try to keep the BS to a minimum.


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 10:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Man, Tomz this aint the place for personal attacks.

You're in a company - you guys have the $$ and can do the ground work necessary to support/impliment Vista machines and network interoperability.

There's NO FUD about my comments regarding Dell selling laptops with Vista exclusively. Go to the Dell web site and look for yourself!

My bro is working in a public school mate.. The IT is state funded in Australia - Man i dont know which Rich arse school you went to, but i bet they're having the same dumb issues with Vista. In the end, i'm only telling you what he was told by their IT tech department. Chances are they are full of BS, or too lazy to get off their A$$es and work it out...

Three cheers - your a domain admin! Wooo Hoo


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 11:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a personal attack. You made the statement "he was forced to have vista removed and XP installed, due to network incompatibility." I challenged the "fact" you stated, that's all, because I never read about any such problems anywhere and it also contradicts the upgrade experience we had here. This ain't the place for making up facts.


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By cheetah2k on 2/22/2007 2:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
TomZ,

Mate, you're obviously into the IT tech side of things. Me, i'm just an engineer, working abroad in construction. While i've built systems since the old 386DX-25Mhz days, I'm not MCSE qualified, or have an IT degree. So, if an IT tech guy comes to me and says - "hey, Vista ain't welcome here - you're going to have issues on our XP network" - well mate, i listen.

My brother was told that he had to have XP on his laptop for "full" compatibility on their network, and to run the software requried (he runs CNC machine off the laptop)

I'm not making up facts, you IT guys are the ones who are supposed to be directing us dumb a$$es to the correct solution....

My own personal oppinion, Vista Basic (not Ultimate) suits me just fine (except for Nvidia Drivers, or lack of). I've had no network interoperability issues with both my laptop and desktop, on my wireless broadband network at home in Hong Kong and Macau - or on the wired connection in my office on site... Maybe you should contact these guys and ask em what dope they been smokin...


RE: Vista isn't the leap XP was
By mindless1 on 2/23/2007 6:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
What's so hard to understand? Vista was installed, there was a problem networking, prompting it's removal. I don't think he wrote that it was an impossible problem to solve, but most problems are not impossible, just beyond immediate or obvious solution.

You write that "I never read about such problems anywhere". That is obviously a mental block, because you JUST DID. Every single problem you would have to hear about somewhere first, if you merely think "I'm extra special so if I don't know something it must not exist", then you will be constantly denying every single truth in this world. It is ridiculous to think there is a burden on others to educate you against your will towards denial, while you claim lack of evidence is a proof of nonexistence.

That doesn't make your idea that there might've been a solution, wrong, but the reasoning behind it was.


Security
By BMFPitt on 2/21/2007 11:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
The irony with the new security features: If you really need them, you probably don't know what an operating system is to begin with. There are users that we all know who need to have their hand held and have their own PCs locked down for their own good. They typically don't ever upgrade an OS except when they go buy their new HP box from WalMart.

In my case, I have UAC turned off out of annoyance, but now that I'm done with my initial software installs and such, I might be inclined to turn it back on. I am strongly of the opinion that MS needs to allow you to select what you want to require confirmation for. I want it to ask me before it lets a program run at startup, I don't want it to complain if I run an unsigned executable.

I've been using Vista for a few months now as my primary OS, but I have other machines in the house. It is a nice step forward in many ways, but I certainly wouldn't label it a must-have until DX10-only games start to come out.




RE: Security
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree - Vista has significant internal design changes and has a lot of code re-written to improve its security. Most of that will be completely invisible to the end-user, whether they are sophisticated or naive. UAC is just a small GUI manifestation of one of a number of changes (LUA in this case). It is just the tip of the iceberg.


RE: Security
By Nekrik on 2/22/2007 12:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm kinda wondering why UAC bothers everyone so much, typically I turn it off to set a mahine up and configure it the way I want, then I re-enable it. Not a problem. If everyone here is constantly installing every little web app they come across or using their primary machines to test out new apps no wonder they have so many fricken problems with whatever OS they run. No one seems to mind OS X with it's password requesting everytime they try to make a config change or copy a file when not logged in as admin, seems pretty contradictory to me. Maybe they are all running as admin on their Macs cause they can get away with that right now. The day the first major Mac virus/worm/trojan is released is going to be pretty reminiscent of the day Apple announced they were switching from the so much faster (up until the day of the announcement) G5 procs to the now (the day after the announcement) faster Intel procs. :)


RE: Security
By livelouddiefast on 2/21/2007 1:40:17 PM , Rating: 1
What sucks about uac is in order to turn it on and off you have to restart your computer... it seems like there should be an easier fix for that, eh?


Microsofts Confusing Facts
By othercents on 2/21/2007 10:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think overall Vista is doing better than expected if you take the OEM and Retail together. However the Retail itself is not doing so well, but that has more to do with the hardware requirements. With XP most people were able to add some ram and upgrade, but with Vista a 4 year old and even some 2 year old machine won't run and you have to do a major upgrade. This is why OEM is doing way better. Some people even waited for Vista to release before they purchased their new machines.

I really wonder how Microsoft is counting the people who purchased new machines before the end of the year to get the upgrade coupon? If those coupons were not available some of those people might have waited until Vista was released.

Personally I am waiting for some DX10 video card choices before upgrading. This is mainly because I am not sure if I will purchase a new computer or just upgrade my video card again.

Other




RE: Microsofts Confusing Facts
By Midas360 on 2/21/2007 10:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
Good points othercents...

I think we need to wait until 2nd quarter to see how HP and Dell are doing with pc sales. That will be the real test to see how Vista is doing. Vista has only been out in retail for 3 weeks.

Let's give it a few months.


RE: Microsofts Confusing Facts
By VooDooAddict on 2/21/2007 11:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

New systems are the only place vista will shine.

The driver situation is sad and makes it pretty much impossible for many people to do the retail upgrade.


Microsoft expected worse reliability?
By Tyhr on 2/21/2007 11:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Overall, the reliability feedback has been well better than we expected," said Gates."

Uhm...you mean to tell me that M$ expected much worse reliability that what we're currently seeing, and yet still chose to put it on the market? Thumbs up for that <groan>.

And yes, most pre-made pc's come with Vista. In fact, most do not give you the choice - you are forced to used Vista initially. While this works great for M$'s wallet, it is not a good indicator of a particular OS's success.




RE: Microsoft expected worse reliability?
By Donkeyshins on 2/21/2007 3:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Overall, the reliability feedback has been well better than we expected," said Gates."

Uhm...you mean to tell me that M$ expected much worse reliability that what we're currently seeing, and yet still chose to put it on the market? Thumbs up for that <groan>.


Most likely he is referring to the stability of drivers from hardware providers. Keep in mind several companies (NVidia, HP, Creative Labs, RealTek) have not had stable drivers for Vista (even though Vista has been stable at a kernel level for at least a year), so that has caused issues for end users.

Personally, I'm running Vista Ultimate at home and am very happy with it (aside from the fact that I use NVidia, HP and Creative Labs hardware which have poor driver support at present - drivers for these are Beta, craptastic workaround using basic printer drivers and Beta respectively).


By Donkeyshins on 2/21/2007 4:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
I should point out that the blame for driver stability issues should not lie on MSFT, but rests on the shoulders of the hardware manufacturers since they have had plenty of time to develop and test Vista compatable drivers prior to Vista's release.


right hand and left hand having problems?
By Saist on 2/21/2007 10:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, so one day I see a story from Ballmer about how Vista is doing no where as well as expected, how pirates are at fault, and how Microsoft is going to have to implement even more User-Hostile features that Pirates will just bypass anyways, but home users will wind up crying over.

The next day I see a story about Bill Gates saying that Vista was well received.

Um.. there is this saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too

Either Vista is doing horribly, or it is doing well. It can't be both.




By Scabies on 2/21/2007 12:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well received, meaning its getting good ratings
Not as expected, meaning that fewer copies have sold than what they were planning (or hoping) for

The only inaccuracy I would see is that it is well received. I like it, having installed it on a new build, tried it out for a few days, then went back to XP, and now I'm back on Vista. The majority of the vocal community, however, is crying out things like "It performs like hell (thats your HW at fault)" or "It's just a reskin (which is incorrect for reasons the complainer wouldnt get)" and "It's expensive (which is true, but Doom 2 and Doom 3 cost a pretty penny's difference?)"
I say to these people, go live in your ignorance while I enjoy snappier browsing, multitasking, boot times, and will know how vista works by the time everyone else says "OK, it's time to change up, Vista looks appealing now / DX10 is a must, so I guess its Vista time"


Vista opinion
By restrada on 2/21/2007 4:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think novice users should stick to a pre-installed Vista machine rather than try to upgrade themselves.

If you notice most of the comments posted on these forums, they are novice users who gripe and complain about something that really has no valid points.

Sure the OS is not mature, but what OS has been at the same stage of its initial release? XP was no different at this time than Vista.

The pricing of Vista is what it is. If you think it's way expensive, then you should convert to Linux.

The comments about Vista are old and offer no real point. I'm sure we will be going through the same thing when Vienna comes out.




RE: Vista opinion
By msva124 on 2/21/2007 7:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
He's right. XP was a completely new operating system when it came out, nothing from either the 2000 or NT versions was kept.


Well Received?
By Brassbullet on 2/22/2007 12:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
Gates rational for Vista's debut is akin to saying a movie is well received just because Ebert liked it.

A lot of movies Ebert likes don't make squat at the box office.




RE: Well Received?
By Brassbullet on 2/22/2007 1:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me *rationale*


???
By Desslok on 2/21/2007 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 3
Wasn't there a report that the reason XP Pro gained traction so quickly was the fact that someone released that Corp activation code FCKGW? So in fact piracy actually helped.

Ballmer is just a sweaty blubbering dumb ass. Talk about failing upwards.

Desslok




Vista
By Treckin on 2/21/2007 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is a pointless debate. Anyone with any sense will tell you that due to the corner MS has the operating system market backed into, Vista will reign supreme. There is no way out, it will be the new standard.
To those of you who think that Vista is a mere reskin, such as ME, ne response in dignified. You dont belong on dailytech, or at least discussing Vista, if you arnt at least somewhat educated in the differences of the things your arguing. Like it or not, Vista is going to be the new standard os for perhaps 80% of the PC world.
Having to upgrade your hardware is a minor bitch: Did anyone seriously complain when we stoped using zip drives? or the 5 1/4 floppys? or when you had to buy a cd rom for all those new programs? Like it or not, the future of most of our computer expeirence lies in the hands of Microsoft. My advice? Buy Vista, stop crying, and educate yourself on the new platform early, while all the nincompoops are still debating whether or not ot buy the ram.




RE: Vista
By livelouddiefast on 2/21/2007 1:45:59 PM , Rating: 1
amen
though i stand by the fact it's unfortunate MS doesn't push things along more quickly, thanks to damn OEMs. That's the big plus, to me, in Apple's business model, they can make a 64 bit operating system work and have all the drivers for it in time because they use exactly the same thing in every computer.


RE: Vista
By Pirks on 2/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Vista
By ElJefe69 on 2/21/2007 7:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
are you fucking serious?

man what a lemming.

There is no reason to buy vista. There are countless reasons not to buy vista. every version of windows had some unique purpse over the previous version. ME was a small bump but had all the cab files on there, was more streamlined, and if it ran well, it was better than 98se and less annoying when you installed something new.

vista ='s oems paid off + threatened to use it only. dell, gateway whatever, you and other lemming consumers will buy their crap and be forced to use something that is not backwards compatible like xp is. xp has run anything and everything I ever had on dos, 95 or me.


screw this
By ElJefe69 on 2/21/2007 7:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
There is no fucking point to buying vista.

none.

fuck this.




RE: screw this
By SilverBack on 2/27/2007 5:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
There are many reasons to buy Vista, but only two I'm concerned about.
1. Vista will now become the focus of the MS machine. In just a few months updates or enhanced features will be a priority for Vista and the development team for previous OS's will be nearly non existent. You don't want more frequent updates stay with a previous OS..

2. DX10..... Games now? No , but there will be and I have a DX10 card. There won't be DX10 updates to XP....


BGRDF?
By kelmon on 2/21/2007 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
It has been widely publicised (and I agree with it) that there is a phenomenon in the IT world called the "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field" or SJRDF. Given Bill's statement can we assume that he's running his own version of the field since it seems to be contrary to both market reports and the current CEO of Microsoft?

For my part I'm very much in the "Vista can sod off camp". While a Mac is my normal computer and I prefer to stay under OS X as much as possible, when I do need to use Windows then XP is fine. I can't find anything of interest to me in Vista so I see no reason to upgrade to it and my experience with RC2 has put me off entirely (it might have been a bad release that has now been improved on but that's perception for you).




"Incredibly Well Received"
By Kishkumen on 2/21/2007 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's what George Lucas said about the new Star Wars films. And yet most people who told me they hated them still went to the theaters, bought the DVDs, and purchased toys for their children. So too is it with Windows Vista and the rest of the poor, powerless sheeple. My non-commercial OS fills my needs, but most cannot help but be told what to do with their time and money with regards to technology.




By cessation on 2/21/2007 2:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

"By Brandon Hill on 2/21/2007 12:31:44 PM ,
Pirated Version of Windows Vista Selling for $8 in Iran
http://www.ciocentral.org/entry/pirated-version-of...

Vista pirated already
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/11/13/Vista__pir...

Malaysia Raids Retailers in Hunt for Pirated Vista
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55805.html

Pirated Vista dirt cheap on Latin American streets
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pirated-vist..."


I would love to see all those average joe users buying cracked versions actually crack vista once it's installed. From what I've read it's nothing like any XP crack. It sounds even tougher for people trying to crack the 64 bit version.




By msva124 on 2/21/2007 6:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
* by the Mac community. XP users need not apply.




Vista
By Inepted on 2/23/2007 5:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
For those who complain about Balmer and Gates, they say what they say to make the foolish believe and the skeptics talk. Sony has used the same method, publicity is publicity. Anyway, every time I read about Vista's features it is always about either the aesthetics or the programs (not the actual core operating system) that are included with it. I have zero motivation to even try Vista out. Can anybody give me some reasons to switch from XP?




Ballmer is a moron
By Domicinator on 2/21/2007 5:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
How does Ballmer even still work for MS? Every time he opens his mouth he makes an ass out of himself. Remember his onstage antics when the Xbox 360 came out? Holy f%^&*!!

But anyway, I must chime in on the subject of Vista. I can't believe how many people crap all over it that haven't even used it yet. I'm using Vista on my main tower in my house, and I'm really liking it. It's not just XP with a Vista skin. That's nonsense. Anyone who says that hasn't even looked at anything in the start menu, and for that matter, probably never looked at anything in XP's start menu either. Not to mention what you find when you dig even deeper than that.

I do understand why people don't run out and buy it right this second, but I don't understand why people insult it without even having used it before. That's absurd. I love it so far.




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki