Print 108 comment(s) - last by Etern205.. on Dec 10 at 5:35 PM

Microsoft internal metrics show Vista piracy rate about half that of XP

Windows with all its faults and problems is still the most popular computer operating system around. That also means it is one of the most pirated operating systems around.

Piracy of the Windows operating system is so rampant that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announced in February of this year that piracy was to blame for slow Vista sales. Ironically, a month after the piracy is to blame for slow sales announcement; Microsoft came back touting its brisk sales figures for Windows Vista.

By July of 2007, Microsoft had sold 60 million copies of Windows Vista and proudly proclaimed it intended to ship 1 billion copies by 2008. In an effort to stop pirates from selling illegal copies of Vista, Microsoft introduced a reduced functionality mode in September of 2007. The same month Microsoft announced it would downgrade Vista haters to Windows XP.

This week Microsoft announced that its Vista SP1 would directly target users running illegal copies of Vista. Microsoft Corporate vice president of Windows product marketing Michael Sievert said in an interview this week, “While piracy rates are hard to measure precisely, we’re seeing indications from internal metrics, like WGA validation failures, that the Windows Vista piracy rate is less than half that of Windows XP today.”

Armchair analysts claim the reason the Vista piracy rate is half that of XP is that even pirates expect a stable operating system. Microsoft however attributes this reduction in piracy to the increased security measures in Windows Vista.

The company claims to date it has pursued legal action against more than 1,000 dealers of counterfeit Microsoft products. Microsoft also says that Vista SP1 will directly address hacks enabling counterfeiters to activate illegal copies of Vista.

Sievert, a realist, has an easy explanation for the lack of piracy on Windows Vista. "We know that Windows Vista is a lot harder to counterfeit than Windows XP, but we also know that pirates will keep trying," he closes.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Typical Naysayers
By Master Kenobi on 12/5/2007 6:25:18 PM , Rating: 3
Same bashing Vista is taking, is the same bashing I saw Win98 get subjected to when Win95 was dominant. It's the same bashing that WinXP took when Win2000 was dominant.... "Requires more resources, its just eye candy, it has driver problems, it has this bug, it has that bug, etc... etc...."

Give it a rest guys. Overall, the majority of Vista users (Who actually use it, not those that touched it for 15-20 minutes and then got rid of it) are pleased with the product, myself included. XP was not the end all be all when it launched, and it took 3 years for most people to migrate to it from 98SE and 2000.

Vista is just fine. If you want to whine about hardware requirements, look at the difference between 2000 and XP, XP is exactly double what 2000 was. Vista is exactly double what XP was, notice a pattern?

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Xonoahbin on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Naysayers
By Nekrik on 12/5/2007 7:50:39 PM , Rating: 5
it'so strange, a lot of other costs have increased too :), it's a bad software industry. Minimum wage, the cost of milk, houses, movie tickets, beer, air travel, etc... have all gone up. I think one reason software gets percieved as a rip-off is because the once astronomical cost of hardware seems to have dropped, 650MB drives no longer cost in the thousands. Then again, you can easily drop $600 bucks on a soon to be outdated video card and no one bitches the way they do about software that they'll run for the next 4-5 years. Way back when the entry cost of any machine was ~$3500 and there was no $300 machines available. Now days you can get Dell dirt cheap but you can also still drop $4000 - $6000 on one as well.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 4:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but compare prices of OEM XP products and their Vista equivalents and there is very little difference. It's another one of those myths. People go on about how Ultimate costs about 3 billion dollars in retail form but fail to realise that you can have the OEM version for much less and all you need to do is call Microsoft if you want to move it to a new PC.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By therealnickdanger on 12/6/2007 7:33:58 AM , Rating: 3
Again, with the exception of Ultimate, OEM and retail prices of Vista are completely in line with XP and 2000 before it. If my memory serves me properly, I would even wager that Vista Basic launched $20-30 cheaper than XP Home did when it launched, but I may be confusing XPH retail to VB OEM.

The Vista-hate is reminiscent of XP-hate. During the beta, I had my doubts as well, but even then I knew that I liked it more than XP. After tweaking it the same way I tweaked XP, Vista impressed me more. I may or may not have lost some performance in my games (115fps instead of 120fps? OMG call the National Guard!), but for all the in-between times and general use, Vista is quicker and more stable than XP was. I'll likely never go back. Good job, Microsoft.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Drexial on 12/6/2007 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 5
the difference between vista and XP, is with XP it was rushed to market to replace ME, one year after ME hit the market to be precise. With vista, they took 5 years to make it suck. I don't hate vista as much as i'm disappointed with it. If it was everything they promised in longhorn, then i would have been very pleased with it, even if it was a little buggy at first. But at least it would have been a new better idea. Instead they repackage XP and rearrange everything thats been there since 95 to make things easier for the end user to break and harder for the experienced used to fix.

And its not really right to compare 2000 to XP because no one really used 2000 for home use in the general market.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By kalak on 12/6/2007 11:52:30 AM , Rating: 1
Vista is quicker and more stable than XP was. I'll likely never go back. Good job, Microsoft.

Oh, my, OH MY !Really.... TODAY, Vista is NOT quicker and NOWAY much stable than XP. I have Vista installed on my two computers. It's very buggy indeed, but, of course, Microsoft will launch SP1, SP2, etc. And I believe that Vista will become stable , but actually, it's not.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 11:54:56 AM , Rating: 1

I like the other "OMFG it's using all my ram!!!1111 when XP only uses half or a quarter" Vista myth.

If these people knew anything they'd realise that Vista is making use of that RAM that's just sitting there rather than let it sit and do nothing until you fire up a game. Perfect way to illustrate it is with a G15 showing the performance monitor on the LCD. Sometimes my PC will sit at idle using 60% of the RAM (1.2gb of 2gb) and when I start Team Fortress 2 the ram usage suddenly drops to about 30% and then as TF2 loads it goes up again. Basically Vista uses your RAM to speed up everyday programs rather than just using it on demand as XP would have done. Much more intelligent use of RAM and it does speed things up.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By amanojaku on 12/5/2007 6:35:36 PM , Rating: 4
That's true enough. It's just fun to see some of the more creative bashings. Hell, if you ask me none of the operating systems (Windows, Linux, MacOS, UNIX) are really all they're cracked up to be. But then again, I'm the same guy who didn't like "The Matrix." *ducks the slings and arrows*

RE: Typical Naysayers
By MatthewAC on 12/5/2007 6:36:43 PM , Rating: 1
The Matrix sucked, and I agree, with Kenobi, been running Vista since early june, no problems since then.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By murphyslabrat on 12/5/2007 9:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
I've been running Vista since I got several copies for free through the MSDN Academic Alliance. I have had only one problem: driver incompatibility. This gets to be a real pain when most people that use it (my family) have virtually no computer-foo, no matter how hard I try to teach them.

Like has been said, just wait.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By xsilver on 12/6/2007 7:33:19 AM , Rating: 4
While there is nothing really "wrong" with vista
Maybe it has to do with how much of an improvement there has been over xp?
eg. win98/me to winxp = huge jump
win 3.11 to win 95 = huge jump
win 95 to win 98 = moderate jump?
win xp to vista = small jump??????

and not to forget win 98 to win me = new sticker - SOS...
All its going to take is for that one great app that doesnt work in xp and only works in vista and a lot of people migrate. DX10 games is a start, not sure if it could be the finish though.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By TomZ on 12/6/2007 9:48:26 AM , Rating: 1
All the operating system releases have been evolutionary upgrades - relatively small jumps. But also remember that a lot of the evolution of the OS happens after its release. For example, XP has changed a lot since it was released - a lot of security enhancements were made and a lot of other features added that Microsoft gave away for free (in a sense). I expect that Vista will be no different.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By noirsoft on 12/6/2007 6:15:33 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot Windows 2000, which was the real predecessor to XP, not 98. It's really more like

3.1 to 95 -> big jump
95 to 98 -> small to moderate jump
98 to 2000 -> big jump
2000 to XP -> moderate jump
XP to Vista -> moderate to big jump

Just because you skipped a step doesn't make your comparisons right. I could just as easily say that going from Windows 3.1 to XP was a huge gap, and that there's something wrong with Vista because it wasn't as big a jump...

RE: Typical Naysayers
By SmokeRngs on 12/7/2007 4:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 2000 was the predecessor to XP, but it was not the follow up to Windows 98.

Win2k was the follow up to WinNT4. It was made as a business oriented OS as NT4 was before it.

However, 2k had the side effect of being a hell of a lot more stable with better memory management than 98 as well as the removal of 16 bit code from the OS. This spurred consumer sales of the operating system which was meant for businesses.

WinXP isn't much more than 2k with a facelift and some added features for the home user as well as higher system requirements.

For myself, the advantages for going to 2k over 98 were enormous. The better memory management, NTFS and other things for the most part negated any slowdowns associated with a newer operating system running the same hardware with both. XP did not offer those same advantages over 2k while increasing the need for faster hardware. While I eventually ended up going with XP, it wasn't much of an advantage over 2k when it was first released.

I find the same thing with Vista now. There are few things which I find to be advantages over Vista and a lot of negatives. I hate the way many of the things have been shuffled around yet again. Don't even get me started on the pain in the ass Vista's network management is.

Before you accuse me of being an uneducated Vista basher, I have it installed as part of a triple boot setup along with XP and openSUSE 10.3. I use openSUSE as my daily OS and rarely do anything outside of it. For games I want to play which don't have native Linux ports or I can't get to run properly under Wine, I boot into XP. I keep Vista around as I need to learn it to fix problems with computers brought to me with that OS installed. I boot into it every few weeks to mess around with it just to try and learn a bit more about it but that's all. I have also been using it off and on since the RC1 days so I have a decent amount of experience with it.

Vista is not a huge change in usability compared to XP for most people. The shuffling around of many options yet again is a pain for most people who are accustomed to MS's previous OSes. The additional hardware requirements for just the basic OS are not acceptable to me at this time compared to any advancements over XP. As I said, this was the same situation with 2k and XP.

My personal thought is that Vista is not a very good product considering the amount of time and resources put into it over the years. For my uses it has not increased my production at all. Considering the Vista performance metric has my 7600GT as the lowest factor at a 5.0, I would say my hardware is more than sufficient to run it optimally.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By EntreHoras on 12/6/2007 11:12:01 AM , Rating: 4
The Matrix sucked, and I agree

Aghhh... ahhhg... air, I need air...

The Matrix doesn't suck; you suck!!!! </babycrying>

RE: Typical Naysayers
By PandaBear on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Naysayers
By bangmal on 12/5/2007 7:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
Vista improved a lot too, much more than aero, much more improvement than 95 to 98.
You use whatever you like, but just dont make things up to prove your point.

If why MS was was allowed to intergrate IE is still beyond your understanding, then you have some serious brain problems. It was not clear 10 years ago, it should be perfectly clear now: Internet Browser is an essential part of any Operating System.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By hughlle on 12/5/2007 7:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
and if M$ don't include IE pre-installed, just how the fuck do you plan on downloading firefox eh? seems a bit of a stupid argument..

RE: Typical Naysayers
By amanojaku on 12/5/2007 7:37:48 PM , Rating: 3
I may be naive, but anyone who uses FireFox is likely to know how to get it. FTP, CD, etc... If all else fails, ask a friend "can you gimme that?"

RE: Typical Naysayers
By leexgx on 12/6/2007 8:34:59 AM , Rating: 3
i just ask my gran to download firefox via FTP then

RE: Typical Naysayers
By JoeBanana on 12/6/2007 9:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
The ftp part can be hidden from the user. You would had a shortcut on desktop(eg web browser) you click it and the chosen browser is downloaded and installed.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Silverel on 12/7/2007 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wow would that totally screw up the current market share of the browsers.

How many users would have no idea the difference between them? Of course, show the current market share/usage. Look! One of them says Apple! They could be cool!

Welcome to Vista. Please choose your internet browser.

# Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 (83%)
# Mozilla Firefox (13.5%)
# Apple Safari 3.3 (3%)
# Opera 9.24 (0.6%)
# Netscape Navigator (0.06)

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ImSpartacus on 12/5/2007 8:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I guess that makes sense. Good point.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By SmokeRngs on 12/7/2007 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
and if M$ don't include IE pre-installed, just how the .... do you plan on downloading firefox eh?

So, no one had an internet browser before MS put IE into Windows? How did I get on the internet back in the Win 3.1 days? How could there have been anyone on the internet before IE was around?

It's simple. Almost every ISP provided you with at least one if not more browsers to be installed on the system. Even with installation of cable internet the techs that come by with the modem to do the hook up have browsers on disk in case one needs to be installed.

There are a myriad of ways to get a browser without having to use IE. I probably have three or four install files for other browsers stored on one of my hard drives as well as who knows how many backups on CD somewhere.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By hughlle on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Naysayers
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2007 7:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
My complaints are about software compatibility problems where there are OS features in XP that are missing in Vista. They may have added them in since launch, I haven't checked, but some of the whining is a lot more strongly based (and I don't mean new drivers, I mean things like direct-x being missing (but not that)). I've been an early bleeding edge upgrader since about DOS 5.0 or so (even still have my box of Windows 1.03 around somewhere I think) but have not gone to Vista and won't until the promised compatibility issues are fixed (as they had promised, btw).

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2007 7:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - Some of the previous updates (like XP) had BIG reasons to update to it. Big gains. Still don't see that for Vista. I don't feel insecure now to the point I'd get it for that, and the pretty graphics is just that -- my apps will be looking much the same and they are what I look at 99% of the time. True, I've only a 6600 Conroe and a 7600GT video card, but I don't think that's the reason I don't upgrade.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ElFenix on 12/5/2007 8:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
i agree. there is no reason that IE should just disappear without warning and without a trade when doing nothing but keeping open my gmail inbox. and yet it does so in vista. i don't know why.

to address the OP of this thread, usually when you upgraded from one version of dos/windows to the next you gained stability. yes, the new version usually took more power to run, so i can't fault vista for that. but why is IE just up and disappearing all the time? why is firefox crashing a lot? i don't have these problems in XP, but i do in vista.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By darkpaw on 12/6/2007 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
I actually have not seen either of these issues. I leave my system up for weeks at a time (usually only reboots on patch tuesday). For the most part, IE and Firefox are both open the entire time and I've never had either one just disappear.

Sounds like there is either a configuration or hardware issue with your system.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/5/2007 7:46:10 PM , Rating: 5
I would have stayed with and used Vista had MS not neglected the "Classic style" skin, which looks completely fugly and far worse than Classic mode in XP.

Aero doesn't do anything useful for me. It's just a pretty resource hog.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By retrospooty on 12/5/2007 11:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Aero itself is not a resource hog. Some other aspects of Vista are bloated, but Aero is not.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/6/2007 11:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe so. But it sure is fugly. ;)

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/6/2007 11:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
The classic skin, that is.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the Aero Basic skin right? The Windows Classic skin looks like Win2k to me...

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/6/2007 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
The Windows Classic skin. It looks like ass compared to the Classic skin in XP.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 5:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Typical Naysayers
By noirsoft on 12/6/2007 6:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
Don't use logic and evidence on the vista haters. They've been watching too many Apple commercials to be able to interact with reality any more.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/6/2007 10:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that must be it, as one who hasn't used a Mac regularly since BASIC 201 in high school over a decade ago. Clearly this experience has biased me into trolling for Apple and signing their praises because of monotonous commercials.

You were saying again about logic and reality...?

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/6/2007 11:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
You have to use 'em. The example Vista/Windows Classic menus below still have Vista UI elements that I think are fugly. Such as unwanted toolbars and big empty white gaps down the left that can't be removed, AFAIK.

So as I said, I'm sticking with XP until they come up with an attractive Classic skin.

XP Control Panel:

XP Explorer:

Vista CP:

Vista Explorer:

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/7/2007 1:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, that's what you meant.

Still, Classic mode in Vista isn't 2D accelerated anymore. Even if it were, given a GMA950 or higher video chipset, you're reducing the system load by USING Aero as opposed to not using it.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By nowayout99 on 12/7/2007 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
All true, but my primary issue is that it's ugly. :) I can always get better RAM/CPU/GPU, and I will, but I can't clean up their UI for them anymore than I've tried. Heh.

I likes what I likes, I guess.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Master Kenobi on 12/7/2007 6:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Try modifying the appearance settings. Stop using defaults if you are intelligent enough to know how to switch it to classic in the first place.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By SmokeRngs on 12/7/2007 5:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really want all the "pretty" stuff Aero does. I just want my GPU to take over the task of rendering the desktop even if it still looks like the Classic Win2k style. That has been my preferred OS look for MS since I started using Win2k. Every nLite disc I make for XP is set to the Windows classic theme by default. It has a clean look without much in the way of frills or need for resources.

I'm more interested in a clean and spartan look over anything else as I usually find that to be the most productive for me.

I currently have Aero at it's default settings just to try and get used to it and I don't care for it. To me it's a bunch of fluff with little to no substance. I'm not saying Aero should be taken out but I would love an option for the classic Win2k look.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/7/2007 5:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Turn off everything in Advanced System Settings, Performance, Settings, Visual Effects under Computer Properties except for:

1. "Enable desktop composition"
2. "Use visual styles on windows and buttons"

Leave Aero on. Turn off Transparency.

The default Aero interface is fairly clean and usually takes up less space than the default XP one did and being accelerated, you offload the CPU.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ATC on 12/5/2007 8:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with MK.

I hated Vista at first but I didn't give it a chance till much later. I cannot count how many times I went from Vista to XP and then back to Vista. The pattern was very clear; I always ended up going back to Vista.

I just really liked many things about it. Sure it has bugs, and it ran somewhat slow on my ageing hardware but it also ran certain applications better and faster than XP ever did.

I remember having gone through a lot more hassles and bugs when I migrated to XP than I ever went through with Vista. All my software and hardware that I ran in XP ran fine under Vista. The same could not be said about XP in its early days.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Comdrpopnfresh on 12/5/2007 8:33:14 PM , Rating: 3
You still can't deny that there isn't the mass appeal with vista that there currently is with XP. I don't care to dwell on why either, but for microsoft to rant about how the piracy levels are so low- well so are the sales levels...

It is simply obnoxious when they take credit where it isn't due- especially for the people who don't care for the os. I whole-heartedly agree with many people that instead of adding over-the-top piracy issues in sp1, maybe they should focus on better solutions to current problems instead of patches that cause new ones- or perhaps add the functionality that was promised when the os was called longhorn. If the current piracy levels are so low... Why are they ramping up counter-measures in sp1?

Microsoft only seems to deal with things when they are in the press. Like the fairuse4wm program. They went on about how they were gonna stomp it out- yet it took more time for them to create patches than it did for the developer to rebuttal. And now there is still a working version out there for wm11, and there is a strong movement to remove drm from music. Are they talking about it now? No- it's not in the media. Are they talking about security issues? No- they are preying and smear-campaigning leopard and firefox.

Don't get me wrong- I have xp, and given a new build would probably adopt vista premium. But I mean, people have favorite sports teams- they can support them and hate the coach, or what they view as stupid plays. Doesn't make them any less of a fan...

There was also valid reason for people to dislike 98, 2000, and xp when they came out. When 98 was fist displayed, with its updated driver handling- it blue-screened (we've all seen the video). Maybe someone who really likes a challenge or the color blue would get it... Others would rather wait. And at the time 95 wasn't issued an eol tag when people weren't hopping onto 98. I liked 98se. I didn't see much of a reason to get 2000. I don't know how buggy it was, but I believe it was a regurgitated nt... Funny how you didn't mention ME! I think there is hands-down no contest on that front. What a pos. XP was fairly buggy when it came out, and security vulnerabilities were running a muck. But people did adopt it when it became mature. Were people forced into adopting it because 2000 was suddenly deemed to be @ eol? No- they adopted it because of the improvements, expanded functionality, and ease of use. You can't blame people for not wanting something because those attributes aren't there in the levels they were promised.

I think most of the griping about hardware requirements is that the expectations thrown out with the requirements don't deliver. Its one thing to admit things will load slower, etc. But it is completely different to tell people to add on-board flash, set up a rating system for flash drives, and spend exorbitant amounts of money on hybrid drives- none of which delivered! In fact, most reviews found a decrease in performance.
The other main source of griping is the shades of grey categorization. Vista ready, Vista capable. The average person in best buy doesn't know the difference, and as the educated computer-people in this world we see the problems it is causing others. It is stupid to come up with another promise of a rating system that doesn't quite align with real-world performance and ability.

Are you also going to say that people should just support an elected official because they made it into office? What if campaign pledges were not delivered upon? You'd do all you can in the situation, which is openly relay your dissatisfaction until a change comes about. The situation with vista is no different- people will not get it until there is, what they view as, sufficient reason to. And until that reasoning appears out of the ether, there will be complaints about something that didn't live up to the hype- especially when moves are made to strong-arm people into early adoption of a product they feel is inferior to what they already have.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Etern205 on 12/5/2007 8:50:49 PM , Rating: 1
Agree, Vista works fine, been running on the 64bit version since the customer beta days and it works great.

Seriously if all of these Vista bashers was to truly compare XP to Vista then compare it like this.

XP with no service pack
Vista witn no service pack and see which one is actually better.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By kalak on 12/6/2007 12:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
XP with no service pack
Vista witn no service pack and see which one is actually better.

Are you joking or what ? XP without service pack is fine. Only SECURITY holes... But the system IS stable. Vista is NOT. I don't care if it is a "driver" problem. Average Joe don't even know what is a "driver". Vista requires more resources over XP for virtually NO REASON... Please, someone... what is BETTER in Vista ? I really want to know....

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Etern205 on 12/10/2007 5:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is stable been using since the beta days running 64bit and so far there we're no crashes. Got a HP scanner and printer it's 8 years old already. My printer automatically detects, but for my scanner it does not so I've went to the HP's website and it says my printer isn't support in Vista 64bit. Without giving up hope I've tried Windows update method same thing no driver support, but it gave me an option to send in a report (similar to a windows error reporting service) and I've did that. A week later a message pop up informing me Windows has found the driver for your scanner, click here to install. So I've installed and now my scanner also works under Vista 64bit.

So what is this unstability your talking about, care to explain?

RE: Typical Naysayers
By BansheeX on 12/5/2007 9:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
... and the same bashing Windows Me took when 98 was dominant?

Look, it's not the fact that it requires more resources over XP. It's the fact that it requires more resources over XP for virtually no reason. Continuing to intentionally slow down a 2D interface makes no sense. If anything, it should be getting optimized and performing faster with each new iteration. There isn't so much improvement going on anymore as there is marketing an aesthetic and forcing obsolescence. MS wants to keep selling operating systems at short intervals, and they will add pointless design quirks that don't even improve performance to do it. It doesn't matter that they could keep improving XP for much longer because that isn't the most profitable model. People need to realize that we are beginning to see the drawbacks to their API control and monopoly on PC gaming. They can effectively force you now to upgrade to a new operating system to play the latest games, and it really hasn't got much to do with hardware.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Master Kenobi on 12/6/2007 12:24:58 AM , Rating: 5
I'm tired but will go ahead and bite here.

It's the fact that it requires more resources over XP for virtually no reason.

Plenty of reason. The memory management, pre-fretching, page file size increase, new diagnostics applications running in the background, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, new security sub-systems, many new services and objects that now require a little more from the hardware to perform comparable to XP while still adding in all of the new features and functionality.

Continuing to intentionally slow down a 2D interface makes no sense. If anything, it should be getting optimized and performing faster with each new iteration. There isn't so much improvement going on anymore as there is marketing an aesthetic and forcing obsolescence.

Not true. As the interface and features of an operating system get more complex, so must the trade off between performance and functionality. Take a look at Smart Phones, iPhone, or any other PDA style device. Some respond much faster than others, but they are generally lacking in the feature set. Newer devices use better hardware to compensate. As the functions and features become more advanced and more complex, they will place greater stress on the hardware of the system. If your theory was even remotely plausible, Linux, Unix, and other servers would be able to handle modern features on old i386 or 100MHz machines. We know this not to be the case. It would be really awesome if it was, simply upgrade to newer more effecient software every few years and never need to upgrade the hardware, since it's the softwares job to make it work more effecient. Doesn't seem to work that way though, and there are various reasons for this.

MS wants to keep selling operating systems at short intervals, and they will add pointless design quirks that don't even improve performance to do it.

People complained to high hell that Windows XP is a security nightmare, its easy to hack, easy to infect with virii, and is typical microsoft garbage. Microsoft answered your whining with Vista, which has more security than you can shake a stick at, and so far seems to be doing extremely well on the security front, a big thanks to IE7's Protected Mode here.

It doesn't matter that they could keep improving XP for much longer because that isn't the most profitable model.

Tell this to Symantec, McAfee, Cisco, Apple, etc..... Tell them, just improve the existing thing, it's ok. We don't care if you aren't making a profit as a company, because as a company it's all about us little consumers... Yea, not really. Companies are in business to make money, make no mistake. People whine about Microsoft because they are the defacto IT success company (Although Google seems to be elbowing its way into second place). Reality is that Microsoft's business model is not very different from most other companies. Get over it.

People need to realize that we are beginning to see the drawbacks to their API control and monopoly on PC gaming. They can effectively force you now to upgrade to a new operating system to play the latest games, and it really hasn't got much to do with hardware.

It has some part in the hardware. DX10 is what you are specifically complaining about here. For DX10 to work, you should check out the hardware. They had to switch from using specialist execution units for Shaders, Vertexes, and other units that were very effecient, and very fast, but could only perform that specific function. Now they use more generalized units that can perform almost any type of calculation on the fly, simply by the DX10 API telling it what type of calculation it is, and the unit reconfigures on the fly to do it. The massive overhaul to the driver sub-system, the DX10 system, the API library, and the hardware from the vendors was not exactly a walk in the park. To do this on XP they would have had to basically remove and rewrite the entire Driver handler, which would have been difficult to upgrade. I don't know if you noticed or not, but "Changing the driver sub-system and how drivers interact with the OS, API's, and Hardware" never happens in updates. Once you throw that down on an OS, you can not simply remove it and install a new one, nobody in Linux, Windows, Unix, or Mac have ever successfully done it to my knowledge. It's just not something you can do in a service pack. Microsoft would have to release a new revision called XP2 and would require a fresh install.... oh wait, call it Vista. Now I gave you a pretty simple explanation for it, I'm sure one of the engineers could give you an extremely detailed book sized breakdown of all the changes under the hood of Vista that differs radically from XP.

Ok, now time for sleep.

Case in point, Vista might just look prettier, but under the hood, very little is the same as it was in XP.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By kalak on 12/6/2007 1:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
now require a little more from the hardware

"little more" ? 2X is little more ?

all of the new features and functionality.

The memory management, pre-fretching, page file size increase, new diagnostics applications running in the background, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, new security sub-systems, many new services and objects

So... and we have a better, faster and secure SO, right ? No ? Oh, dear....

As the interface and features of an operating system get more complex, so must the trade off between performance and functionality.

OK. Vista performance is worse than XP, period. New, REALLY new functionalities ? A few... So, 2X resources, but a little estheticall improvement, eh ? This "trade" is not so good....

Microsoft would have to release a new revision called XP2 and would require a fresh install....

Not true. DX10 works on XP. In fact that's not the first time it happens. W95 >> W98 was the same bullshit about DX.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By kalak on 12/6/2007 1:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Go, go M$ fanboys... rate me down...

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 4:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's slower, period eh?

Gee, I wonder why Firefox and Office 2007 starts up quicker than in XP on the same machine.

I wonder why if I leave my computer alone for 24 hours and come back to it, it doesn't take a ton of hard drive grinding before my open programs are responsive again.

I wonder why there were a few games (using ATi cards) that actually ran at the same speed as on XP (HardOCP tests).

It's definitely true that Vista uses more resources and is often slower, but you still shouldn't be making blind blanket statements.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By kalak on 12/7/2007 12:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Gee, I wonder why Firefox and Office 2007 starts up quicker than in XP on the same machine.

I wonder why if I leave my computer alone for 24 hours and come back to it, it doesn't take a ton of hard drive grinding before my open programs are responsive again.

Err... because you need a machine with MORE memory AND a FASTER processor, only for the "new and better" VISTA to run ?

I wonder why there were a few games (using ATi cards) that actually ran at the same speed as on XP (HardOCP tests).

"a few", running at the SAME speed... I really need to say something ?

making blind blanket statements.

I have TWO machines running VISTA. I know what I'm talking about.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/7/2007 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Key Word: Same machine. Dual boot allows for that.

Some games run at the same speed and even a few faster. Others run a little slower. Contrast that to what YOU said "Vista performance is worse than XP, period."

You have TWO whole machines running Vista. Wow. I've installed countless instances of Vista all the way from Beta. That wouldn't make me any more correct if not for the fact you said "Vista performance is worse than XP, period." when there are clearly cases where Vista is faster or more responsive.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By BansheeX on 12/7/2007 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. As the interface and features of an operating system get more complex, so must the trade off between performance and functionality.

You're not questioning whether or not that added complexity is warranted, though. Oftentimes, concepts are near perfect and require little overhaul. Trying to make a circle more round only regresses it. I think the 2D Windows interface reached that point fairly early on. It makes no sense in Vista for a 3ghz processor to take three seconds to open a folder. You can sit here and use blanket words with inherently positive connotations like "features" in an attempt to justify it, but it just doesn't explain how badly simple processes got slowed down. What happened was that so many of these "features" which, perhaps, by themselves added a negligable amount of overhead, collectively began evolving and expanding far past the point of being worth it.

Tell this to Symantec, McAfee, Cisco, Apple, etc..... Tell them, just improve the existing thing, it's ok. We don't care if you aren't making a profit as a company, because as a company it's all about us little consumers... Yea, not really. Companies are in business to make money,

The desire for more money does not justify what you're doing, nor does it mean that customers like myself have to go along with what's being done. I never said I didn't want those companies to make a profit. But I'm not for them releasing frequent, insubstantial and often inferior updates and restricting their API in order to make more than they should be making. That's the criticism being made here, the profit being made from marketing trickery and monopolistic advantage rather than actual technical improvement or worth. And that's not to say that Vista doesn't have it's improvements, it's just to say that it inexplicably made many things worse. And christ, do we really need a new word processor every year? I mean, it's nuts.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By ChronoReverse on 12/7/2007 2:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, it takes 3 seconds to open a folder in Vista? It doesn't seem to take any longer on my 1.6GHz C2D Vista laptop compared to my 2.0GHz Athlon X2 desktop.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By OddTSi on 12/5/2007 11:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6 rating.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By spluurfg on 12/6/2007 12:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Why? The article was about piracy rates on Vista being lower than XP, and he pontificated about how users were unjustly complaining about Vista's minimum requirements out of nowhere.

Personally, if I were to guess, I'd say that a lower piracy rate on Vista is probably due as much to general ambivalence as it is to increased security measures. While not making any negative statements about Vista, for now, customers and pirates alike probably don't feel tremendously compelled to adopt Vista since XP works just fine. I'm sure that'll change and piracy of Vista will invariably overtake that of XP.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Master Kenobi on 12/7/2007 6:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you would check the time stamps you would realize I was countering the string of whiners below that are complaining that "Vista is trash, the next ME, and not worth pirating".

RE: Typical Naysayers
By jtemplin on 12/6/2007 12:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Regarding the requirements being linear. This is a great thing because the rate of increase in computational power of hardware is increasing exponentially. Transistor counts are doubling ~24 months, and this doesn't even address efficiency. In other words using the transistor count as a metric of computational power is a conservative estimate as this does not address the increasing efficiency that newer chips have. Netburst<K8<C2D and all the while the transistor counts and densities have been climbing too.

Considering this it is somewhat ironic with my 3.8 Ghz processor that I don't want to move to Vista over concerns of performance loss. I'll be using it hurry for me : )

RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 4:17:40 AM , Rating: 1
Give this man a 6!

It's very rare that you'll actually speak to someone who's bought Vista and used it for a while and doesn't like it. In 4 or 5 years time when the next version of Windows comes out everyone will bitch and moan about it again and about how it sucks and Vista rules.

I'd love to see someone doing an article debunking the myths that people seem to spread about Vista.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Quiescent on 12/6/2007 7:40:02 AM , Rating: 1
I used it for a whole two weeks. The only thing I was pleased with was that I didn't need to install all of Creative's software to enjoy my Vision:M.

Frankly, if I want Eye candy, I'll use Windowsblinds. I'm not about to use a piece of software like that until they iron out a GOOD percentage of the bugs. A lot of people say that all these kids are talking crap about Vista and they never used it, yes this is true for A LOT of them. However, I used it for two weeks and then some.

What I am afraid of is my school thinking about using Vista. Their computers can't even run XP all that well because of the buildup of user files and shit like that. I will definitely be happy to graduate before this happens.

Now, when XP came out, I'm sure it was just like Vista when it came out. However, I can say I enjoy XP 64bit currently. And like I said before, perhaps Windows Server 2008 will be better than Vista.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 8:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
Your mileage on Vista will also depend on what hardware you're running it on. I work in tech support and a lot of the people we deal with who are running Vista are running on the bare minimum and they all generally think it's a dog. But when I go home and run it on my e4300 with 2gb of ram and an X1950 it runs smoothly. Now you don't need something quite that powerful (not that it's top of the range...) but something that's not a Celeron M with 512mb of ram might help.

As a product to own and run myself I think it's great but as a product to support I don't really like it much.

I have no problem with people who've genuinely used Vista and it's not worked out for them but the people who jump on the whole DRM, price (it's no more expensive than XP!!!!) and hardware requirements just get on my nerves because you know in 3 or 4 years time they'll be saying "OMFG Vista FTW! Vista pwns MS 2010" or whatever.

The only problems with Vista for me is the fact that IE7 shuts down for no real reason, Flash has issues and it can make installshield patches appear to hang which creates support issues for me at work.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Quiescent on 12/6/2007 4:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
It was ran on a laptop with a dual core 1.8Ghz processor, 64mb of vram, and 2GBs of faster RAM then the default dell laptop runs with. It's plenty enough for Vista, however Vista still has it's childish tendacies, as I like to call it.

So yes, I have experience on it with a decent laptop. I just think that Vista is not ready. It will probably be a couple of years before it is.

Not only that, but I hear a lot of people having issues with games as well as other programs running on Vista.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Quiescent on 12/6/2007 9:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
And this is Vista stripped down with just 34 processes. That's it. Now tell me, I run that many on my dad's business XP 64bit machine. It runs EXTREMELY smooth, even with a very graphical GUI like Vista's. How is it that it runs so slow on Vista.

The Vista installation wasn't setup to use any anti-virus or firewall software. Only very computer-illiterate people need these types of software.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Arribajuan on 12/6/2007 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think that some of the whining now comes from the fact that laptops are much more popular.

Changing from win2k to winxp probably required more ram or a new video card, or more disk or even a slightly faster cpu for your old rig. All this is relatively simple and cheap on a desktop computer.

Now, you might have bought a regular laptop last year and surprise! No good vista performance and no way to go. You can only add more ram, but that is pretty much it.

By the way, I use vista on a small laptop (core duo, 2gb ram, intel graphics) and it runs very good. I do not see why people get such "slow" performance. Maybe they are running norton antivirus all day long...

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Screwballl on 12/6/2007 11:14:45 AM , Rating: 2
Counterfeiting Vista is like doing it to Windows ME, just no point... there may be some but the hackers/crackers know it is just not worth it with a sucky OS.

Maybe after Vista settles down, gains more of the market share and becomes a part of households like XP has, I am sure the numbers will rise at that time but until then it is just not worth it. The hackers that do this go after what works and what works well (with or without a pirated version) and Vista just doesn't work well as an official OS release so no use pirating it.
So what if it works for you? It doesn't work well for a large number of people currently using it. It is not hardware or user error as some claim, it is simply a sucky OS that should still be in beta testing.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 11:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but that's completely inaccurate. Vista works fine for a lot of people. The thing is on a tech forum you're not going to have people posting "Hi Vista works fine for me. Thanks for listening"

People only post or pipe up when something goes wrong or when they're wanting to stroke their e-peenie like when they're running 40 8800 Ultra's in crossquadfire-SLI.

I was a beta tester for Vista and even in Beta 2 it was probably close to XP when XP was released.

RE: Typical Naysayers
By Screwballl on 12/6/2007 1:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
How about my 15+ years tech experience and hundreds of Vista installs and thousands of XP installs? The local computer shop (largest and best in the area) I worked for previously had a recorded 76% problem rate with Vista through early Oct 2007. This did not include user error problems but did include incompatible hardware, software, OS bugs, among other issues with Vista. If you subtract the easy stuff like software incompatibility it was very easily still over 50%.
Also on some higher scale no-brats allowed forums I am a part of, we do see some saying vista works fine but there are many more asking about the problems with it rather than the good of it. That can be expected with any online community but the computer shop experience showed that this is a Vista problem, not a e-penis problem.

I Believe It...
By AstroCreep on 12/5/2007 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 5
...who in the Hell would want to steal Vista? :/

RE: I Believe It...
By TheStuck on 12/5/2007 5:25:12 PM , Rating: 2

RE: I Believe It...
By psyph3r on 12/5/2007 5:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
how much your material is "stolen" is usually a direct result of how much people want it. The first 50% told the other 50% not to bother :). I give you a five.

RE: I Believe It...
By catalysts17az on 12/5/2007 5:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO !!!!!!! i agree, the reason why Vista has a lot less pirated copies out there is because a LOT of people don't like it. as for me i think i will wait for vienna and see if we can get 64 bit computing with that OS. also i am starting to love using Linux (Ubunto)more and more. And now that ATI is opening up its drivers for Linux i can see the day where maybe just maybe people will go Linux for gaming.......but thats a big maybe.....either way its going to get better for Linux gamers..


RE: I Believe It...
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 12:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
You can always wait for the next version. The next version will always be better. But if you always wait for the next version you will never actually have an operating system.....

RE: I Believe It...
By amanojaku on 12/5/2007 5:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
The same people who steal Yugos and Le Cars?

RE: I Believe It...
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2007 6:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yugo's may be collectible by now. If it runs, it may be the only one in the world! :-)

RE: I Believe It...
By RaisedinUS on 12/5/2007 6:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Friend of mines grandfather used to say: "yugo but you don't get back" or "where yugo, the wrecker follows". He's gone now but what a hoot he was.

RE: I Believe It...
By 3kliksphilip on 12/5/2007 6:09:07 PM , Rating: 2

1) Did you buy your version of Windows Vista?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]

Thank you for your time. Please remember to include your name, address and a signature, confirming it was definately you who did this questionnaire. We will send you your 'prize' shortly.

RE: I Believe It...
By bangmal on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: I Believe It...
By tdktank59 on 12/5/2007 7:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it...

More people are still stealing XP Pro lol...

i had vista the day it came out (downloaded it and did 30 day trial... just to see if i liked it,..)

well screw that i uninstalled it 4 days later (took me 4 days to finaly it down and do it... before that i just let it sit on my laptop turned off and eveything i hate it...

RE: I Believe It...
By Polynikes on 12/5/2007 11:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Someone who thinks, quite rightly, that it is ridiculously overpriced.

The reason for the 50% number is this: A lot of people haven't migrated over to it yet, and pirates are smart. They've got completely working, activated (but pirated) Vista installs running, and even passing WGA checks. THAT'S why MS thinks piracy is 50% less; their stupid too-many-false-positives software doesn't do what it's supposed to.

RE: I Believe It...
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 4:40:07 AM , Rating: 2

Have you compared the price of OEM versions of Vista to their equivalents in XP? There is very little difference!

By KazenoKoe on 12/6/2007 12:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
The move from each version of Windows to the next seems to bring more restrictions, DRM, useless copy protection and other garbage. By the time Vista came along I had already abandoned Windows and moved to Linux, but when I received a free copy of Vista Ultimate from a promotion, I decided to give it a try. Vista was more of the same crap I had seen on XP, and Windows Update was broken out of the box; needless to say I got rid of it immediately. I wouldn't use Vista even if it was free, I imagine a lot of other people are coming to the same conclusion.

RE: Worthless
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 9:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
I will be rated down for this but personally I feel Microsoft have the right to protect their software. How they do that is important however. Tbh I've never had a problem with WGA and have found when I have had an issue with installing an OS too many times calling Microsoft up each time sorts it out nice and easy. People make this out to be some great injustice but lets be honest. If Microsoft used an honour system how many of you would have paid for your OS? If you were a business owner would you be using an honour system or would you try and actively discourage piracy to protect your revenue stream

DRM? Wtf? DRM is the fault of the record and movie companies. But then again if they didn't have it piracy would probably be a lot worse than it is. But I think the issue is cost. I paid about £70 for Home Premium which I will use for 3 or 4 years and I see this as acceptable. Whereas a DVD movie costs £15 or so and I might watch it a few times at most. An OS is good value. A DVD is not and that's why people pirate them so much. Microsoft is covering their butts by putting it in.

I'm sure sure how Windows update is "broken out of the box"...... Many people will testify that it works just fine including myself!

RE: Worthless
By KazenoKoe on 12/6/2007 10:24:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sure they have a right to protect their software, but WGA simply goes to far IMO. How many times do I need to prove that I'm not a criminal? I very much doubt that systems like WGA prevent piracy, but instead am inclined to believe that they simply punish honest users. Pirates have no trouble circumventing these restrictions while paying customers are stuck dealing with them.

Microsoft is a big player in the DRM market (PlaysForSure, WMDRM, etc) DRM is useless in preventing piracy and just punishes honest users, just like WGA. Why people put up with this abuse is beyond me.

Trying to update Windows Vista on a clean install simply gave me an error message, which was finally resolved by manually removing and reinstalling Windows Update. I don't know why this happened, but it didn't work for me and I had had enough.

RE: Worthless
By 306maxi on 12/6/2007 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously though.... WGA makes you click a few times more? Big deal. Nothing's ever painless!!!!! Perhaps something that runs in the background and does an automatic WGA check each week or month would be less painless but I still feel that MS has the right to protect their software and WGA isn't that bad in my experience at least.

Sure Microsoft is a big player in the DRM market. But who choses to lumber movies and music with DRM? It's the record labels and big Hollywood studios that choose to do it and Microsoft is simply going out and making some money from it. It makes good business sense for them. I'd prefer a life free of DRM but alas the labels and studios have a right to protect their product. I don't like it but it's not Microsoft's choice whether DRM is going to be on the discs.

You had 1 install of Vista and it went bad. Doesn't mean everyone had the same issue. I for one did not!

Personally I find not being able to play my games on Linux or getting predictable behaviour from Open Office more of a problem than minor annoyances with Vista.

RE: Worthless
By KazenoKoe on 12/6/2007 12:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
First it was a Product Key, then it was Activation, now you've got to check in with WGA every time you want an update or Microsoft software package. These technologies place ever increasing control of your computer in the hands of a remote party, Microsoft. Microsoft makes it clear that they don't trust their end users, why should we trust them with these programs?

Microsoft's Zune doesn't even play their own 'PlaysForSure' DRM'd media, they are far from innocent. I am sure Microsoft is out there trying to peddle their DRM schemes to every media company that will listen, actively trying to get DRM on those products.

I only gave my personal account, I never said anyone else would experience the same thing.

Personally I find being treated as a criminal who has to perpetually prove his innocence on Windows or not getting predictable behavior from Windows Update more of a problem than minor annoyances with Linux.

RE: Worthless
By noirsoft on 12/6/2007 6:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Minor annoyanced with Linux? Like telling the installer to automatically update to the latest patches and having it render the system unbootable?

Or like applying the patches after a base install, and having it lose graphical login functionality?

Hey, I'm just giving my personal accounts. They are just as valid as yours, and probably more true. I tried Linux off and on from 1995 until 2006. I finally decided it was better to have my old machines used as doorstops than to run Linux on them.

RE: Worthless
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 4:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
I like how you said you had to uninstall and reinstall Windows Update in VISTA as if it were like XP where it was basically an addon to Internet Explorer.

Mostly because Windows Update is now a component of Windows now that you can't just go and "install" (not to mention "uninstall").

RE: Worthless
By KazenoKoe on 12/6/2007 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
The fix was to remove select files and reinstall 'Windows Update Agent 3.0," if I was too vague.

RE: Worthless
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 4:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that means you're using WSUS then. Did you install SP1 for WSUS?

RE: Worthless
By KazenoKoe on 12/6/2007 7:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not using Windows at all, why would I need WSUS?

RE: Worthless
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 8:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Because you don't need to use Windows Update Agent in Vista otherwise

self promotion
By Verran on 12/6/2007 11:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
I sincerely understand the desire to refer readers to other articles within your realm here at DT, but I'm really getting bored with reading through the filler.

The entire first half of this article (literally) is nothing but semi-related back-story laden with links to the last five Vista articles here at DT. All of these stories are already linked in the "Related Articles" section. It'd be great to not have to read all this stuff all over again just to get to the "meat" of the story (of which, in actuality, there is about three and a half short paragraphs). It seems like an ongoing trend here lately.

Save the self-promotion, keep the "related articles", and get on with the story, please. I don't mind a link or two to DT articles that directly relate, but five links is just shameless.

RE: self promotion
By TomZ on 12/6/2007 12:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why the links would offend you. Regular readers can easily just read past them, while less regular readers can "drill down" if they want.

RE: self promotion
By Verran on 12/6/2007 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
They don't offend me, they bore me. That's the word I used.

Three and a half paragraphs of back-story for three and a half paragraphs of actual story is out of balance, especially when most of the back-story seems to be there just as a medium to hold other DT links. It just seems like they're trying to too hard to promote themselves, especially when all the links are already on the page. Wading and skimming through all the filler up front just subtracts from the overall quality of the articles.

Not like it brought the price down any
By FXi on 12/5/2007 10:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Way back when activation was introduced it was supposed to lower piracy and thus keep costs down. Any of you saving money on Vista?

Of course no one's pirating Vista because no one WANTS Vista, hehe.

RE: Not like it brought the price down any
By intogamer on 12/5/2007 10:30:41 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft should keep continuing to give it away for FREE.

I got Vista Business, XP Pro SP2, Office from a promotion. Plus students can get academic software for cheap. Intel is bundling Vista for their Retail program.

Teh MS is stepping up and filling in the people who are most likely to pirate with legit software.

Gates said something along the lines of "if people were to pirate, we would rather it be our product" In regards to piracy in China.

By mondo1234 on 12/7/2007 4:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
M$ has been touting for 20 years that if they could reduce piracy, they could drop the price of software. What a farce.

solution for Vista piracy
By SoBizarre on 12/6/2007 4:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Let’s say Microsoft makes huge mistake and releases DX10 for Windows XP. What do you think would happen to Vista? I say they would solve the Vista piracy problem once and for all. No need for SP1.

RE: solution for Vista piracy
By ChronoReverse on 12/6/2007 4:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
That would be quite a huge mistake to rip out an entire driver subsystem and replace it with something new.

PR Spin, gotta love dishonesty
By mindless1 on 12/6/2007 12:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
'nuff said

By Emryse on 12/6/2007 6:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just couldn't resist. I use both Vista and XP; legally purchased.

I'm all for MS and they make an excellent product - most everyone CHOOSES to use their OS, and if they don't like it they can use any other OS they want, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Microsoft has stated they consider piracy of their OS to be the equivalent of a compliment; yet they've also a hard-on for pirates.

Duplicity is a luxury for companies with the lion's share of any market - why are we surprised here? I don't believe their statistics for a minute, because there's just simply no way to know. But what are they going to say; "Our software is compromised more now than ever"?

By redeem4god on 12/7/2007 1:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wow...Let me try that again WOW these postings (with the exception of a couple) as usual have absolutely NOTHING to do with this article. First of all if you have any IT education (sorry B.S. and above boys and girls) along with the ability to do proper homework through multiple sources, not just a single source you would have followed Vista from point of white paper inception to now.

The fact is that piracy for Vista is down because not even torrent surfers want a free copy of it. The question of whether or not it is stable is irrelevant. Moreover, while I am at it, let us remember that MS counts sales to OEM Vendors such as Dell and HP as part of their sales figures for the OS. Now if you were to count just retail boxed versions you would get a much sourer picture. I cannot stand bloated figures.

ANY OS can be made to be stable especially when it is specifically paired with specific peripherals and internal hardware for OEM Vendor PC's and pre-installed. It has to be stable going out the door. Let's not forget the crappy ME, which worked fine when pre-installed on specially designed systems but only one out of every 10 retail copies actually got past the install without crashing. I know, I bought it and when I returned it to best buy, they didn't even ask me for a reason. They already knew and said that day I was the 25th person to return a copy. The fact of the matter is that it is a poor design at best. C’mon, who needs to read a word document at an angle? The Aero glass is nice in theory but it is still a horrible take on Mac's OS desktop interface. OS X (Linux) is simply a cleaner better design period. Do I own one, no I own a PC. Have I used OS X? yes extensively. You see you are nothing more than an ignorant lemming if you classify your loyalty based on brand name. A true IT professional can remain abstract from brand name and purchase their technology based on the best well-built design. I had AMD for the longest time and yes for a few years; they were superior to Intel based on design performance and not speed, who cares about that anymore. Now Intel’s duo2 and quad are a better build so I switched to them. In the end, competition benefits the consumer. However, the consumer needs to open their eyes and let the company buy you with a great product, not a name. Personally, I agree with the posting on here that mentioned Longhorn its preface name. I got excited at the potential that it had, then Microsoft yanked the best features because it just could not complete it as scheduled. Could this change? of course. They could still bring back many of those features in future service packs, but for now it is an inferior product as a whole.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki