backtop


Print 219 comment(s) - last by LexGoyle.. on Jul 30 at 4:06 PM


The PC/Mac ads from Apple have become a pop culture image well known across the country, even creating acting careers for the two actors. They portray PC, with his Windows Vista as porcine and gauche, while portraying Mac as young and suave. Microsoft hopes to destroy this image with a new campaign.  (Source: Apple)
Microsoft is fighting back against certain pesky unnamed competitors with ads and a creative app to pass the blame

Apple enjoys a rather fortunate position in the computer business and operating system business in some respects.  On the one hand it has such small OS and hardware marketshare that large leaders like Microsoft are unlikely to take it too seriously, allowing it to wage a clever campaign of attack ads, swaying public opinion.  On the other hand, its marketing campaign allows it to vigorously grow without substantially changing its offerings, which it hopes will catapult it to the status of a serious competitor.

Leading the attack are Apple's “Mac Guy, PC Guy" ads which depict Windows/PC as a chubby overweight maladroit businessman, while OS X/Mac is a hip, suave younger man.  The ads offer up criticism of Windows -- be it real or made up -- fueling popular criticism of Windows Vista.  The ads have lead to public misconceptions such as Windows being less secure, when in fact most security experts believe Macs to be far easier to hack, due to poor patching.

Microsoft has long sat and watched these attacks with a sort of resigned indignation.  Bill Gates once remarked, "I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?"

Now Microsoft is fed up enough that it is vowing not to take Apple's tongue-lashing anymore.  Brad Brooks, Corporate Vice President of Windows Consumer Product at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in Houston announced during his keynote address July 8 that Microsoft is launching a $300M USD advertising counteroffensive against certain unnamed competitors.

He stated, "We know our story is very different from what our competitors want us to think.  Today we are drawing a line and are going to start telling the real story (about Vista)."

Mr. Brooks decline to specifically call Apple out, instead alluding to a "pretty noisy competitor out there".  He says, however, that Microsoft will strike back at noise makers with a pricey ad campaign being designed by marketing gurus Crispin Porter +Bogusky.

The problems with Windows Vista, Mr. Brooks accuses were due to hardware manufacturers negligently expecting Windows Vista not to be delivered on time, and then being left unprepared when it was.  He did acknowledge that security changes and other changes broke numerous hardware and software apps.  However, he says Microsoft fixed virtually all these problems and continues to hone Vista.

Warnings to hardware partners to prepare for Windows 7, previously delivered by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, were reiterated by Mr. Brooks.  If partners don't act, they risk losing support from Microsoft according to Ballmer's previous remarks.  Windows 7 is the successor to Windows Vista, due in 2009 by latest reports.

In an attempt to tout how compatible Vista has become, Mr. Brooks unveiled the new portal site "Windows Vista Compatibility Center".  The site currently lists 9,000 devices and software products (3,500 apps and 5,500 devices) compatible with Vista.  Microsoft hopes to up this list soon based on feedback.

Microsoft is also preparing a secret weapon; it has developed a new system tool called Windows Advisor, which some are calling the "Don't Blame Vista" tool.  The new tool assesses system problems and tries to convince users that they are not Vista's fault.  It assigns blame to everything from user impatience to virus and spyware.

Also announced by Mr. Brooks was a new business ad campaign titled "Move to Windows Vista with Confidence".  Vista adoption by businesses has been painfully poor, with even longtime "Wintel" partner Intel forsaking the OS, deigning it not worth the costs.  The new campaign is aimed mainly at small businesses, a possible growth area.

In its campaign Microsoft states, "Risks are a part of every small business. Making the move to Windows Vista isn’t one of them. Buy a new PC with genuine Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate and receive free coaching and support from Microsoft to help you get the most out of Windows."

Microsoft will offer goodies to participants -- free phone support; tips and tricks via a new Vista Small Business Assurance Web site; and access to existing online tools and guidance.

Mr. Brooks concluded his pro-Windows rally stating, "Windows Vista is a good product.  The quiet majority of millions and millions of Windows Vista users out there are going to have a great experience.  The message is ‘Move to Vista. The time of worry is over.’"

It should be interesting how Microsoft's new more aggressive methods pan out.  Will they help repair Vista's tarnished consumer image, which has become somewhat of a pop culture humor piece?  Will they convince some stubborn users to finally move from XP?  Only time will tell, but it’s definitely a new tactic from Microsoft.



Comments     Threshold


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

Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe they should show that Windows is the more exciting OS because of gaming. Oh wait, they've given PC gamers the shaft in favor of the Xbox.




RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SeanMI on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Kefner on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 5
Look at their Vista exclusive, Halo 2. A three year old game for a five year old DX7 console. That's the best they could do for all their loyal Windows gamers who bought Vista.

In case you hadn't noticed they've gotten many of their Xbox exclusives from PC game developers. They bought Bungie Studios, and they've also made deals to get what would have been PC exclusive to be Xbox exclusives. More games for the Xbox has ended up meaning less games for Windows, and Xbox ports instead of PC exclusives. Not to mention completely dropping PC franchises like Mechwarrior, Combat Flight Simulator, etc.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SeanMI on 7/9/2008 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
Alright, I'll give you that. MS is dedicating less to the development of PC games than it did previously. Ultimately though, this doesn't detract from the PC as a platform for gaming. I would argue that they are still putting just as much into the development of the PC as a gaming platform than ever. A lot of this is because of the ability to port the successes over to the next xbox console.

Let's face it, Windows is THE platform for gaming if you want something other than a console. Would you prefer gaming on a Mac? No? I didn't think so.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 3:03:52 PM , Rating: 5
MechWarrior was one of the best, if not THE best, series that Microsoft ever had. MechCommander was pretty close to the top as well.

Why would they kill off such a great series?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By DASQ on 7/10/2008 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 3
I heard something about how they tossed around a few ideas, but ultimately felt they weren't bringing anything new to the series.

Which is a load of crap, because even a brand new engine for MechWarrior 4 would make it a fantastic game. I'd buy it again.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By leexgx on 7/10/2008 9:03:21 PM , Rating: 1
thay turnd the last MechWarrior 4 into doom 1
trees that are 2d and turn on the spot when you get close to them, and you be in one of the big mecs and an simple bush would stop the mec dead, one way to send an game out with an bang


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By omnicronx on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Nik00117 on 7/9/2008 4:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrading every 6 months? IDK PC gaming means more to me then just fragging out. It means me building a computer the way I want it. And quite frankly I enjoy it. I also don't "upgrade my PC every 6 months" In fact I intend on going 2 years without upgradding. Currently running a E6600, 8800GTS, 4 GIGs ram, ASUS P5B MOBO. I can play mass effect, COD4, AOC, all on fairly high settings and i imagine I could play next gen titles close to that as well. My next PC upgrade will prob be a GPU upgrade costing me 250 bucks or so and go into a 10 series GPU.

Now I do buy HDDs every 3-4 months, this because i'm a movie fanaic, and music as well and after a few months I fill up a HDD and need another one. But i don't consider that an upgrade.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By StevoLincolnite on 7/9/2008 11:07:30 PM , Rating: 1
I only upgrade once every several years, heck my desktop machine is Still an Athlon XP 2600+ @2.4ghz, 2gb of DDR400 ram, and a Radeon x800GTO modded into an X850XT PE, and it runs crysis on Medium Quality just fine. (And everyone worries about it running on there Geforce 8800?)


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By EricMartello on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By EricMartello on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By FaceMaster on 7/10/2008 5:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
No, no... you THINK it runs okay, in which case, well done! You've saved some money. Just don't watch it on a Geforce 8800 because... ohh... I don't know, you could, like, DIE from the shock of how AMAZING it looks.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 4:34:11 PM , Rating: 5
You don't need to upgrade every six months unless you're overcompensating for something. My 9700 Pro played every game that came out for more than 3 years.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SlyNine on 7/9/2008 8:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
And still plays alot of games. I've played Gears of war on a 9700 pro at meduim to low settings at 800x600.

The myth that every thing needs to be turned on to very high is complexing to me.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Jedi2155 on 7/10/2008 12:34:25 AM , Rating: 4
Well call me Mr. Complex then :).

But honestly I think it has to do that people like eye candy. When they see the possibility of running at better looking settings then they will try to.

If we didn't appreciate or want such things then many things in life would stop making sense.

Better graphics in Crysis is like having a hotter girlfriend/wife. You know you want it, and you know want it badly. But in the end we all can't afford and for those of us who do, wishes they didn't blow all that cash for a one night stand.....not talking about personal experience or anything....


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Masked on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By ZaethDekar on 7/9/2008 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
I spend maybe 400 every 2-3 years to upgrade my computer.
I usually spend more on the MB, CPU, and memory then I spend on the GPU. Its not top of the line... but I can still play Crysis perfectly fine haha.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SlyNine on 7/9/2008 8:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
And you have stat of the art graphics every other year at least, and you never fall that far behind.

If you built a computer with a 800XT you can play any game out except BIOSHOCK, witch is a shame.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Cheapshot on 7/10/2008 1:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't rate you any higher so...

Here Here!


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Schadenfroh on 7/9/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
They give PC gamers the shaft by not releasing many of their 1st / 2nd party titles on the PC at the same time as the 360.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jvillaro on 7/9/2008 7:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure it's Microsoft's fault or the 1st/2nd party's fault?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jajig on 7/9/2008 8:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Who's at fault?

quote:
In the video game industry, a first-party developer is a developer who is part of a company that actually manufactures a video game console. First-party developers may either use the name of the company itself (like Nintendo), or have a specific division name (like Sony's Polyphony Digital). Unlike second-party developers, however, the first-party developer is considered part of the manufacturer, not a separate entity, and is fully owned by the console manufacturer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-party_developer

quote:
In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-party_develope...


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Simmo on 7/10/2008 1:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, Well done.
Its not 100% fair to go crook about games on the Xbox instead though. I mean looking at it from a business point of view, it makes you buy a console. With most people also having a computer, why not get on both sides through selling an OS as well! Besides that, consoles are a locked configuration for years, PC's change every 6 months or so. Even the developers of Crysis have said they won't just develop for the PC next time. Sorry I don't have a sight to refer you to. Its just alot harder to keep people happy on a PC over a console


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Targon on 7/10/2008 11:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
Computers do NOT change every six months. There are newer faster components that come out, but the overall platform does not change. Just because new faster/better parts become available does not mean that everyone is forced to upgrade.

Having the option to upgrade has always been a strength of the PC market, and it is one thing that Microsoft could really push, that you have choices on a PC/Windows platform, where an Apple based system is a clone of every other Apple based system. Make all the Mac people look like a bunch of clones or lemmings that follow their leader off a cliff or something. Or compare them to people in the Church of Scientology if you want to upset some people.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Simmo on 7/11/2008 12:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to get technical, 32bit X86 CPU's have been around for a long time, and the current CPU is an evolution of that. A hell of a lot faster these days, but still using the same basic technology deep inside.

What I meant is that an Xbox 360 runs at 3.2GHz from the day it comes out, through the 7 years or so of its life time, till the day it dies. If you already have a game engine for it, you just base your games on it. Nothing changes. Development tools will still be the same, games will play with 5.1 sound and 1080P graphics. Who know exactly what a pc will be able to do in 5 years time, and how many times you will have to make big modifications to your engine, or even replace it. I won't argue of a pc's capabilities. They far exceed a consoles. Hell I sell and build computers. I even have a AU$9500 PC sitting on the bench I just built for a customer running SLI 280GTX amongst other things. As much fun as it was to build and test it, I would prefer a nice 60' plasma, my Xbox 360 and a 2000W RMS sound system, and I think that it will still do games just as well for the next 5 years! Actually I have all those things (TVs only 42' though).


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 1:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
First Halo was stolen from us, and ever since MS has done nothing to tout Windows gaming. Their Games for Windows "campaign" has done nothing to help bolster PC gaming.

They should have an ad that shows all the awesome games on Windows, then show that the only good games coming out on Mac for the rest of forever are Blizzard games. Which are also gonna be on PC, of course.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By ZaethDekar on 7/9/2008 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 3
Actually Bungie was planning to release Halo on Mac before PC....

quote:
Bungie remains a legend for many Mac gamers for their development of Marathon, a first person shooter franchise that appeared on the Mac first (though Marathon itself was preceded by another Bungie FPS, Pathways Into Darkness). Their equal-handed treatment of the Mac through the Marathon games and later with their strategy game series Myth solidified in many gamers’ minds Bungie’s position as a premier developer of Mac games — especially after Bungie introduced its monster hit first person shooter game Halo on the keynote stage with Steve Jobs at Macworld Expo in New York.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 7:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
At the time MS bought Bungie, it was a PC game as well. Which is the timeframe I was talking about.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Parhel on 7/9/2008 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 3
Two words - Mass Effect.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jvillaro on 7/9/2008 8:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Two more... Dragon Age

Mass effect was always a console project and dragon age is for pc (first at least). If there are ports it's fine in my book, just if they do them right


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 3
MS isn't the only one... look at EA... exclusive contracts with the NFL and NASCAR and then they don't even bring their next offerings to the PC...


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 3:06:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I think part of that stems from the fact they know they wouldn't get away with bringing out a "new" game that's little more than an updated roster every year and expecting people to pay full price. The consolians might take that, but we PC gamers sure as hell won't.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 7:03:11 PM , Rating: 3
That's understandable, but EA only makes games. Part of the reason MS is so successful is because the PC has always been such a great gaming platform. For them to now give PC gamers the cold shoulder and focus so much on the XBox is unfair.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By silversound on 7/9/2008 3:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
The reason for increasing demand for Macs are because of the poplarity of iPods and the ability of Mac computer to install windows OS, so now Macs take advantage of using both OS while regular PC cannot.

Therefor play game is no problem for Macs


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By TennesseeTony on 7/9/2008 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
"Therefor play game is no problem for Macs"

Oh really? You consider a Radeon 2400XT, or a Radeon HD2600 gaming cards? LOL. Oh, stop the press, the top of the line iMac comes with a Nvidia 8800GS!!! Not TOO bad, but not too good either.

Therefor, play game is problem for Macs.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Peredun on 7/9/2008 4:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Therefor, play game is problem for Macs

I can't help but picture the Heavy from Team Fortress 2 when I read this.

"Engineer is credit to team!"


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By walk2k on 7/9/2008 7:08:33 PM , Rating: 5
but gaming on the Mac is so simple! because there's only like 6 games! and you know which ones are good, because all your friends with PCs played them 2 years ago!


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By rudolphna on 7/9/2008 10:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
while for the hardcore gamer a 2600XT will not be good- For the average, mainstream gamer a 2600 will do fine. I have one, i can play WoW, FEAR, FSX, Bioshock, and NFS on high (except for bioshock) at 1280x1024 with very playable framerates.


By xxsk8er101xx on 7/9/2008 7:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
Bad bad statement. Borderline ignorant.

Most games out today are DX 10 OR DX 9. If you have windows xp you won't get the dx 10 option. If you don't have dx 10 video card it doesn't show the option. There have been patches to add dx10 to certain MMO's and games too.

If you don't have a dx 10 video card or you have windows xp wtf are you complaining about it in the first place?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By slickr on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By aguilpa1 on 7/9/2008 1:25:10 PM , Rating: 5
Considering that goofy nerd Mac guy (not suave or cool) spouts nothing but outright lies.




RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By PhreakyMike on 7/9/2008 1:37:51 PM , Rating: 5
Yea I find it the opposite. The PC guy's the successful business man with a nice suit, and the young hippie looks like he has no fashion sense, needs a hair cut, and lives with his mom at 32.

Well done Apple....well done.


By MonkeyPaw on 7/9/2008 5:54:16 PM , Rating: 4
MS should just make a commercial where the Mac guy gets kicked in the groin. Sure, that would say nothing about which platform is better for your needs, but it's not like the commercials do that now anyway.


By EntreHoras on 7/9/2008 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is that you and I know that those are lies. For the average TV viewer, is valuable info presented in a ingenious way.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the junkware is a manufacturer thing and not all PC makers do it.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By mezman on 7/9/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
But Microsoft doesn't install that crap, and that's the point. If Apple had third party manufacturers building computers with MacOS on them, they'd have just as many POS programs installed too.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/2008 6:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Still, from an end user's perspective, if you walk out of Best Buy with a Dell, you get crapware. If you walk out of Best Buy with a Mac, you don't.

Maybe Microsoft could cut a deal, save $10 in license fees if an OEM doesn't install crapware. Regardless, to an end user evaluating boxed OEM systems, the Apple system wins.


By kelmon on 7/10/2008 3:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
DING! You, sir, win a cookie!

When it comes to crapware, Microsoft has almost no control over what it is that the customers buy. In fact, they don't have much control at all over what the customer buys because it is the individual hardware manufacturer that decides what hardware/software is provided - Windows is just another application in the box. What this means is that Microsoft can't really fight the "Mac vs. PC" adverts because they are not in control of the PC. As they have already demonstrated, they can make a perfectly fine OS but that can be completely buggered in the market if the dependencies fail. The only way to really combat this is for something like "Mac vs. HP" where HP demonstrates how their product is superior to a Mac because this is what the customer will actually go home with.

The only alternative to this is that Microsoft makes changes to the license agreement that gives them control over the hardware and software that is sold to the customer in the box. At that point Microsoft practically turns into Apple and I don't think people will like that.


By rollakid on 7/15/2008 8:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
And it will cost less.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By Pottervilla on 7/9/2008 5:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why do three of the four things you mention depend on Microsoft? :)


By MonkeyPaw on 7/9/2008 6:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's where the Bill Gates comment "What are they trying to say?" comes from. Apple attacks Vista, but really most of their actual "issues" come from non-MS problems, be it poor drivers, crappy apps, or OEM bloatware.

Apple just wants people to be confused about buying a "PC," even though the only things that keep OSX "safe and secure" are its obscurity and lack of hardware and software variety. With PCs, you have options; with Apple, you get one option--Apple's. Naturally, they have to make you feel good about that one choice, since it's the only choice you get from then on. From there, you're gouged for every bit of decent software and hardware out there.

I owned a Dual G5 at one point. It was an okay experience, except when it would BSOD (black screen of death) or get the spinning beach ball of death. The fans would start to scream, and all I could do was unplug and reboot. I wasn't even doing anything stressful, it would just crash at random, and a fresh OSX install didn't help. After a while, I ditched the machine and have gone "PC guy" ever since.


By therealnickdanger on 7/9/2008 1:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the same crowd that waited until XP SP2 to upgrade from 2K. I shouted XP's praise from the height of the mountains. I tweaked the crap out of my OSs, scrapping for every last bit of performance. But you know what? I tried the Vista Beta and was hooked immediately. There was an initial learning curve to find some things, sure, but Vista Beta even had drivers for my older laptop that XP never got correct on its own. Now I'm running Vista Ultimate and a few copies of Home Premium. My systems are more stable, operate quicker, and look better than they ever did with XP without really doing anything else to them.

The only flaw that Vista has isn't a flaw of Vista, but a flaw by system builders that load up bloatware. I've bought a couple $400 laptops (y'know, the ones on sale) and the performance was atrocious - but a clean install later and they are snappy and smooth operaters. The same problem existed with XP years ago.

Let's not even start with UAC... sheesh, just turn it off if you can't handle two extra mouse-clicks.




RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
I'm split on UCA... I love the idea of running users at a lower level and only elevating when required, but Vista kind of blankets certain tasks for elevation when it really shouldn't... Software installs for instance, that shouldn't be a blanket elevation IMHO, I think that should stricktly run at your user level unless you tell it to elevate, the reason? This would actually guard users against "browse by" installs of malware and email viruses.

Since you run Vista with UCA, do you know if you can run at "User Level" and still allow for useres at this level to right click and execute an installer as admin only when absolutly required? If that's the case I might toy with "disabling" UAC as a possiblit solution to get what I want.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Spivonious on 7/9/2008 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 5
Vista only elevates when the application requires it. If the software wants to write things into the system area, that's not Vista's fault, nor can they alter the code of the software to work in the user space instead.


By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 1:45:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, any and all installer will elevate period basically... This is due in part to the fact that writing to Program Files requires elevation.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, and on a related subject, some software publishers need to get their act together an update their software to get rid of these sorts of bad behavior:

1. By default, installing to a new directory in the root of C:\

2. Refusing to install to a user-specified path that contains a space (like C:\Program Files\...)

3. Storing their configuration data within their installation directory

I mean, geez, these practices have been discouraged for probably 10 years now, but some companies don't seem to have got the memo.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By djdjohnson on 7/9/2008 9:15:41 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that files shouldn't be stored in those locations, but MS hasn't really given developers a proper alternative.

Sometimes developers (like myself) want users with standard permissions to be able to configure some global settings. There just isn't anywhere in Windows that that can be done. The All Users\Application Data (C:\ProgramData under Vista) folder doesn't have permissions setup properly to allow any user to modify/delete files (though they can create them, go figure...), and writing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is totally off limits for standard users too. In the past most users run as administrators, and Program Files is therefore writable, so that is what has gotten used.

In addition, older versions of Windows don't really have an equivalent of All Users\Application Data, so if you're trying to write an app that targets multiple versions of Windows and you need a central place to store files, Program Files or a folder in the root was about your only option.

I couldn't even begin to describe all of the problems my users have had with configuration/log files in the "proper" folders on XP/Vista. Things like "a configuration file was created under the admin account, and isn't readable or writable by any other user." I can kind of understand why developers haven't followed MS' recommendations for file locations.


By TomZ on 7/10/2008 7:47:40 AM , Rating: 1
I don't see what the problem is. The underlying principle, which is achieved by the existing design, is that is a user wants to change the state of the machine in a way that affects other potential users of the machine, then admin privileges are required.

Therefore, your app, if it requires a normal user to adjust settings for all users, should cause an elevation request (UAC prompt) to the user. This ensures that the user (a) is aware they are affecting other potential users of the machine, and (b) that they actually have the security rights to do so.

As far as the specific examples I gave, I can't think of any good reason to not follow Microsoft's recommendations. I think this is completely separate from the issue you describe.


By Spivonious on 7/10/2008 10:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
User config options should be stored in their user folder/appdata, or in the registry under HKCU.

Why do you want one user to control options for the entire machine?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:18:04 PM , Rating: 3
It's based on the installer. I noticed most older applications required elevation to install properly (or at all in some cases). But several newer applications will install and update without any elevation whatsoever.

quote:
Since you run Vista with UCA, do you know if you can run at "User Level" and still allow for useres at this level to right click and execute an installer as admin only when absolutly required?

You should check this link out http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/libr... It outlines what you can do with UAC in a domain environment. It's pretty flexible. I can have it allow "signed" applications that are listed as "allowed" and deny anything that isn't. (Software compliancy here we come).


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 2:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link, bookmarked... Hopefully there's a way to make UAC simulate a more *INX like elevation policy... IMHO that's all UAC needs to be "perfect".


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't tested too much of it in my test domain yet, still doing application testing and verrification, heh. We did decide to lock out installation from removeable media, and of course the ability to mount removeable media (Flash drives, etc..)


By Icepick on 7/9/2008 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I run Vista Home Premium 64bit on both my desktop PC (2GB RAM) and my Lenovo laptop (1GB RAM). Both are clean installs and I have not had any problems whatsoever. I've had no problems finding 64 bit drivers for any of my hardware including a three year old printer.

I upgraded from XP Pro after I realized that I liked the built-in media features and the looks of it. I also appreciate the security features because it makes it less likely that my less technical wife will allow spyware or malware to infect it. The included Internet access control list is nice too because now I can easily set up an account for the kids and strictly control their Internet access.


By fic2 on 7/9/2008 9:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a flaw by system builders that load up bloatware


http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/home


Windows has advantages, but...
By jbizzler on 7/9/2008 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Windows has it's advantages, but not the kind that you can target on a commercial.

- If you're a bargain hunter, getting a new PC can be much cheaper than a Mac.
- People can build their own PCs from scratch.
- More hardware/software options.
- Games! Though this has been slow lately, it's still far times greater than Mac games.

But how could any of those make the general public want a PC? Most people buy an over-priced computer filled with bloatware from Dell or Gateway. They don't bargain hunt. They don't build their own machines. They rarely buy new hardware and software (if they do, it's usually a poor buying decision). And today, most gamers are on consoles.

Macs are better for average users. PCs are better more informed home users.

But, the more research I do, the more I realize that Macs are great for especially advanced users. Mac OS X's UNIX roots, well-defined standards, increasingly powerful Mac Pro, and finally, the option to run Windows, make it a great platform for software developers, system administrators, and scientists.

I like Windows. I like building my own computers. But that has gotten boring. My next machine will be a Mac simply because I'm bored of the PC world.




RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By kelmon on 7/10/2008 4:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
When Linux gets a competitor to Apple's Aperture application, let me know.

I'd also disagree with the statement that a Mac is easier to crack than XP, Vista or Linux. We all know which event you are referring to, but bare in mind that the Mac was cracked by a Mac specialist who'd discovered the flaw months in advance. If the Mac was easier to crack in reality then I'd expect more threats to be "in the wild" than there are today, not least because Mac users are all supposed to be idiots and have too much money anyway. The "security through obscurity" argument is just bunk - it's widely publicised that the Mac market share is approaching 10% in the US and they certainly have more than 10% of the mindshare. The Mac cannot be considered obscure.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By paulpod on 7/9/2008 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
Therein lies the massive frustration and disapointment with Vista. It dramatically reduces the advantages you have listed.

Because management and configuration is completely different and key operations are obfuscated by several layers of unecessary fluff, building your own PC is no longer fun or economically feasible. When you learned how to do something in XP, you could easily remember it years later. With Vista, simple tasks are hard to reproduce the next day.

The built-in bloatware also makes it hard to get the PC to spend CPU cycles on what YOU want the PC to do.

Most importantly, however, is the death of: "more hardware/software options". My ATI USB TV tuners do not work at all on Vista and even if they did, the only control software would be the pathetic 10-ft Media Center interface. The concept of low cost and freeware DirectShow plugins is dead. Vista requires $120 of buggy, unmanageable Cyberlink bloatware to do what the $14 nVidia PureVideo decoder did for me in XP (on ATI cards!).

Fusion HDTV tuners come with a Vista software version but you have to DISABLE most UAC type protections to get it to work properly. Since all power users will come across the same type of incomplete software port, new security measures in Vista are useless to us.

Software choice in Vista seems to be dramatically reduced by the increased development complexity and overhead.

And most disgusting is that the response from MS provides no indication that they see and will fix the problems. Marketing has taken over the company. They spec'ed out a crappy OS from the start and now want to use marketing spin to hide that fact.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
So things are not located in the same place. On a MAC they wouldn't be located in the same place as Windows either but the learning curve would be less on a PC.

I fresh installed and there is no bloatware like AOL junk on my machine. Blame whomever sold you the PC or the government for their you must include competitor junk. Security layers are not bloatware although initially they could have made them less visible however I find UAC helpful and only requires you answer a few questions. I did find a few applications I did not know contacted outside my system.

My ATI Radeon HDTV tuner might not have a Vista driver on the websit but the XP drivers work perfectly fine. A quick google will even find you a patch to use analog and digital seperately. You need to try the XP drivers. By the way there are drivers to use the ATI remote on Vista Media Center too.
http://www.hdtvtunerinfo.com/vistahdtvinstall.html

You probably want to follow these instructions:
http://doteverything.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-me...

My scanner works using the XP drivers on Vista also something HP probably wouldn't want to admit and would prefer to sell me a new scanner.

Microsoft didn't made the hardware but its nice to see that Vista will support using XP drivers in a lot of cases.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
How many computer buyers actually know enough to remove that junk? Maybe 10-20%? The typical user thinks or says "I don't use it so it is harmless down there" in the taskbar... but as the computer ages and they continue this line of thought, before you know it they have all their own junk and tempoorary files and cookies and spyware and viruses ON TOP of the pre-installed bloatware.. and thats what fuels the computer sales on the consumer side... Microsoft is trying to make the computer a replaceable object rather than an upgradeable or fixable object...
but it is this very ideal is what is causing more waste and good parts going to the trash sites... plus this is how Dell can sell their system for $300 instead of $600... they get money everytime someone pays for Norton or AOL or the bloatware thats on there.


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 5:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
In general they don't however most are smart enough to buy and install an application that can do this for them. Norton products for the newbs and CCleaner/AntiGen/Spybot for the more advanced if they dont do it themselves or know better not to double click on files from people they don't know. I would dare to say that OneCare is halfway decent for a newb and offers a lot of these cleanup and maintenance items.

Not that you saif it but what makes anyone think using linux or a Mac would be any easier for an computer illiterate user? As if installing linux out of the box makes the PC impervious to exploits or buying a Mac means never getting a virus and both will solve their incompetent abilities. They messed up Windows surely they will mess up a MAC or well they wont be able to mess up Linux because I doubt most of them could figure out how to install anything beyond the OS.

On the front end the Mac might have a good front end but it lacks applications and if your a gamer forget it. Mac's crash but everyone doesn't use a MAC so you don't hear about it often. What is amazing is I know one person with a MAC and while they don't run leopard I hear about the nightmares people have with the OS.

Then there is the Linux side. The average user who doesn't know how to clear temp files or do add remove programs surely wont have a clue on how to secure a Linux box much less even get a Linux program installed if they didn't do it initially. If you want to torture a clueless Windows person make their life even worse by installing Linux. Linux is for people who want to know about their PC. Most people dont want to they just want it to work. Linux requires work and securing it for the average user is not an option.

If these people are clueless about how to uninstall a program on windows there is no hope for them on any OS. Give them an etch a sketch or throw a ball and watch them chase after it.

When people order thier PC they should tell the company they buy it from if I see an AOL icon on the machine anywhere I am returning it! Don't install spam on my machine!


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By jbizzler on 7/9/2008 5:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
I never looked at it that way...

Few things in life piss me off. But when a relative tells me their new computer is so much faster than their old one, I want to kill someone somewhere. I know it's actually faster, but all they do is browse the web! They don't even realize that their computer has slowed down over time.

My cousin wanted to THROW AWAY her laptop because something was messed up and she couldn't log in to any secure websites. She paid GeekSquad $100+ and they couldn't fix it. Took me 5 minutes to realize she had two antivirus programs running. She said she though it made her machine more secure! Even if it were an impossible to repair problem, it's cleary software-only, and the hardware was fine.

Windows and PCs don't suck. Bloatware sucks. Since Windows has the market share, crappy software companies target it. Only good software companies have the resources and PR to extend their products to Macs.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 5:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
This is a battle that MS really needs to fight. It can never compete with Apple in this regard because Apple owns their customers experience from cradle to grave.

PC builders insist on attacking their customers with crap-ware in the hopes of getting a few extra bucks pushing this junk.

Unfortunately if MS ever tried to do what Apple does they'd be sued into oblivion... and that would just be from the EU!


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 8:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
I would vote you up for that.

I certainly feel more consumers need to demand that machines come with nothing more than the OS and its appropriate drivers or you will return it. Your not paying for thier spam any more.

If they try to claim well that's how we keep costs low because they are paying for a potion tell them you will find someone else who is willing to sell a PC withouth the crapware on it.

Simply put your should be able to opt-out of a manufacturers spam/bloat/crapware.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 3:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
- PC with a stack of software showing which one gives you more then flash the price being the same. You can get a MAC or your can get a PC with all this software for the same price.

- Lan party with excited people gaming and the MAC guy playing Photoshop.

- Stack of hardware compatible for the PC and a iPod for the Mac. 5,500 devices supported on PC compared to 1. To add insult to injury show that the iPod works on the PC too.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
Can you imagine the utter failure the iPod would have been if it was restricted to Mac only? Apple knew they had to make iTunes and the iPod work on Windows or it wouldn't sell.


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yup that would limit your market share.

Are iPods/iPhones still hot? Seems like consumers should be past the hype by now?

I might bet the next big portable audio/video device will be a portable gaming console as long as they go with an open standard and don't force anyone to use alternative third party stuff to play a video or music file.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By kelmon on 7/10/2008 4:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
A more interesting question, frankly, is how much of an utter failure would the Mac be today if the iPod had been restricted to Mac only? Put another way, how much of an impact has the "iPod halo effect" had in reality?


Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 6:08:24 PM , Rating: 4
Arent the MAC commercials just modern day smear campaigns like the politicians use?

If I say your horrible in a commercial somehow that makes me better? The commercial only appeals to those who are problem Windows users to begin with. To which I say go ahead get a MAC. This is good because Apple is basically volunteering to take all the PC illiterate users out there for themselves. This makes supporting PC's easier without the problem people.

What the commercials fail to do is show how a MAC is actually superior. We don't see that. The consumer isnt even presented with the desktop of the OS doing anything at all. All we see is Apple down talk Windows yet we never see why or what makes the MAC a better choice? Isn't this the same as political smear campaigns?




RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2008 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macs are immune to PC spyware/malware


lmao. Funny.


RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/10/2008 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Name a PC spyware/malware program that runs on a Mac then and I'll laugh at myself.


By MatthiasF on 7/14/2008 12:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Joz on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, because a smear campaign attacks your opponent's reputation. Are you suggesting that Microsoft's reputation is damaged by Apple?


You dont feel trying to belittle Vista is not belittling Microsoft in the process?

quote:
Macs are immune to PC spyware/malware


Really?
Let us not forget how long it took a hacker to comprimise the MAC, iPhone, and Safari.

Mac owned on 2nd day of Pwn2Own hack contest
http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/03/mac-owned-on-2nd...

A brand-new MacBook Air running a fully patched version of Leopard was the first to fall in a contest that pitted the security of machines running OS X, Vista and Linux. The exploit took less than two minutes to pull off.

'I' Caramba! iPhone Hacked Already
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/iphone-unlocked...
It took a couple of days to finally get the iPhone service activated. But as soon at they got it working, it took researchers at Errata Security only a few minutes to find multiple security vulnerabilities in the iPhone.

Safari for Windows Hacked in Two Hours
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/06/safari_for_w...

Welcome to the real world sorry you cant hang.


RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/10/2008 1:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? Name a PC malware that runs on the Mac?

All the Mac vulnerabilities in the world mean nothing because PC malware cannot run in Mac OS X, unless you have both Parallels AND Windows XP installed.

I never said Macs are invulnerable, I said they were immune to PC spyware/malware.


RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Mitch101 on 7/10/2008 6:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Immune? Denial is not just a river.

Malware for MAC has been there since 2005.
http://news.cnet.com/Mac-malware-door-creaks-open/...

Mac Malware: Slow but Steady Evolution
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/55765.html

Nothing is immune.


By michael2k on 7/10/2008 6:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Are you intentionally misunderstanding me, or just in too much of a rush to read what I say?

Name a single XP, Vista, 2k3, or even IE vulnerability that affects the Mac. Not a single PC (and by PC I mean Microsoft Windows compatible) vulnerability works on a Mac.

Yes, as I have said, the Mac itself has issues, vulnerabilities, and even a handful of exploits. But not a single one of the thousands of PC exploits will work on a Mac.

So by that logic, twins, one using a Mac and one using a PC, doing the exact same things, opening the exact same attachments, visiting the exact same sites, the Mac-twin would suffer nothing where the PC-twin would.

The exception would be Mac vulnerabilities, but as far as I can tell there are only 5 out there that have been reported as "live".


By mikefarinha on 7/10/2008 7:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Excuse me? Name a PC malware that runs on the Mac?

Safari and QuickTime come to mind.


Should Be Interesting
By kelmon on 7/9/2008 1:56:50 PM , Rating: 5
This really is a case of attempting to shut the stable door before the horse bolts - this horse has not only bolted but it's over the horizon and still accelerating. With your wallet...

Let's face the facts here. Microsoft is up against 2 major problems:

1. Rightly or wrongly (debate that on your own time), Vista is a joke to people and trying to change an already formed opinion is damned difficult.

2. Microsoft couldn't market their way out of a paper bag these days ("The WOW starts now"?).

Vista has been out now for over 18-months, and now they are deciding to market it properly? The time to have done that was months before its release and continuously afterwards. Now, I'm sorry, is too late and it'll be a waste of money unless the job is done properly (i.e. fire whoever is responsible for marketing Vista today, and the Zune). If it wasn't for the fact that they've invested many years of work on the OS, I'd suggest just concentrating their marketing efforts on the next release and doing a proper job next time.

Still, I'm sure that it'll be thoroughly entertaining to see what they come up with.




RE: Should Be Interesting
By Mystery Meat on 7/9/2008 2:49:13 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft's new ad:

Vista- it doesn't suck as much as you think.


RE: Should Be Interesting
By walk2k on 7/9/2008 7:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
you mean old ad?

That was the Windows95 ad campaign. I still got the t-shirt around somewhere:

Windows 95
It doesn't suck as much!


Anyway I'm not sure how much "catching up" MS has to do, already Vista adoption is over twice what MacOS is (16.1% vs 7.9%).


RE: Should Be Interesting
By sliderule on 7/9/2008 8:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
lol sounds something like a GM ad


RE: Should Be Interesting
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 2:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you could say that Microsoft got "Swift boated".


Its about friggin' time
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 1:21:07 PM , Rating: 3
This is exactly what I've been saying that Microsoft should be doing. When XP launched they did it with a budget upwards of $200m. When Vista Launched all I heard were crickets and Mac ads.

I predict that after about 2-3 months from the launch of this ad campaign we will finally start to get some relief from the loud obnoxious anti-Vista circle-jerk herd.




RE: Its about friggin' time
By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think more direct marketing is requried now that much is for sure... As much as I do generally like macs, I fear the day they get enough market share to be of interest to hackers... Can we say hello windows 98 days (ok, that's a bit a of a stretch but still...).

I am curious about the "don't blame vista" tool, I'd like to try it out... My opinion of Vista is that it's generally a very solid OS, with only a few Weak Links (DRM, MC) which will rear their heads only to enthusiests who do things like upgrade their motherboard (DRM and MC failed to reset gracefully for me). It is more resource heavy than XP though, that much is for sure.... But from my perspective, if OEM's can build laptops in the $600 range that do a good job running vista then the situation can't be all that bad.


RE: Its about friggin' time
By Belard on 7/10/2008 4:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
Spending $200~300 million to promote vista won't change the facts that Vista isn't a great OS. It just the only choice you have if youre not buying a MAC or a PC with Linux.

You really thing 2-3 months is going to make peope go "OMG! Vista doesn't SUCK, I must of imagine those 5 minute shut downs and 20minute unzips" The ads are not going to change peoples minds on what is true.

That like saying if MS Advertise that you'll like being a homosexual (if your currently hetro)enough times, you'll learn to love butt-sex because its new & different. Note, if you happen to be gay/lesbian - flip the promotion.

Just like promoting vista... it won't make you like, just like watching Ellen won't make you into a lesbian, especially if you're a guy no matter how much you want to ;)

Wait, here is a preview of the new Vista promotion:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/KiLotr/tech...


RE: Its about friggin' time
By TomZ on 7/10/2008 7:50:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You really thing 2-3 months is going to make peope go "OMG! Vista doesn't SUCK, I must of imagine those 5 minute shut downs and 20minute unzips" The ads are not going to change peoples minds on what is true.

I use Vista, and I've never seen a 5-minute shutdown or a 20-minute unzip (unless I'm unzipping gigabytes of data). Spread FUD much?


RE: Its about friggin' time
By Belard on 7/28/2008 5:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice dear... Its great that you haven't. But I have, and so have others.

FUD can go both ways. If Vista was as great as its supposed to be, than it wouldn't be getting so much bad press.

Vista is still a weak skin-job "upgrade" of XP, nothing more.


RE: Its about friggin' time
By Belard on 7/10/2008 4:33:40 AM , Rating: 1
Spending $200~300 million to promote vista won't change the facts that Vista isn't a great OS. It just the only choice you have if youre not buying a MAC or a PC with Linux.

You really thing 2-3 months is going to make peope go "OMG! Vista doesn't SUCK, I must of imagine those 5 minute shut downs and 20minute unzips" The ads are not going to change peoples minds on what is true.

That like saying if MS Advertise that you'll like being a homosexual (if your currently hetro)enough times, you'll learn to love butt-sex because its new & different. Note, if you happen to be gay/lesbian - flip the promotion.

Just like promoting vista... it won't make you like, just like watching Ellen won't make you into a lesbian, especially if you're a guy no matter how much you want to ;)

Wait, here is a preview of the new Vista promotion:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/KiLotr/tech...


Microsoft's new Ad
By PhreakyMike on 7/9/2008 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 5
Mac guy "Hi I'm a Mac"
Bruce Willis "Yippie Kayay Motha F***aa!!"
[explosion sounds]




RE: Microsoft's new Ad
By XToneX on 7/9/2008 1:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
lawl, awesome.


RE: Microsoft's new Ad
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 1:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. +1.


RE: Microsoft's new Ad
By bpt8056 on 7/9/2008 7:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!! Thanks for making me laugh...I needed it.

OTOH, what took Microsoft so long? It's about time they respond back. I've had no issues with Vista despite being warned by several IT guys at work. Anyway, I'm all for the Bruce Willis act. :)


Too Expensive
By PWNettle on 7/9/2008 2:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
My main reason for not even trying Vista is that it's just too expensive. XP does everything I want or need. Maybe - maybe - Vista does some of it better, but not better enough to justifiy the cost of getting the ultimate edition to replace my XP Pro.

I can see why businesses would forgo Vista too. Business is about functionality and when XP or even previous versions of windows run your apps perfectly fine, why upgrade to something that'll almost certainly require more horsepower and that adds nothing vs the large upgrade cost?




RE: Too Expensive
By OPR8R on 7/9/2008 7:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your reason for staying on XP reads a lot better than the ones a lot of others give.

I think many share your reason but instead of being honest about it, they just spew the standard anti-Vista rhetoric.


RE: Too Expensive
By SharkManEXR on 7/10/2008 12:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
vista currently is cheaper than xp.


RE: Too Expensive
By JoshuaBuss on 7/10/2008 7:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
not if you already own XP.


RE: Too Expensive
By kelmon on 7/10/2008 4:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
This is my position as well. My primary computer is a MacBook Pro but I have XP installed on it as well because I need this at work. XP works fine for what I need Windows for today and I can't see anything particularly attractive in Vista that makes me think that I need to upgrade. Given this I can't justify the price of upgrading to Vista simply to see what it is like because that's money I can use for something else. There's just nothing compelling about it.

The comment about business is also correct. Unless you can quantify the benefits that Vista will deliver in your company such that they sufficiently outweigh all the costs of implementation, then you might as well stick with XP as long as it is supported by Microsoft.


I Like Vista64 too
By MrBowmore on 7/9/2008 5:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
I like my vista64, but have anyone of you got DOOM to work properly?

**Not a joke**
**Not trolling**

I´m serious, the only flaw I see with vista 64 is that my prcious DOOM cant be plyed anymore, that I know of.

Any of you bright techie-guys have any tips?




RE: I Like Vista64 too
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 6:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Download the free Virtual PC.

That will be $50 please.


RE: I Like Vista64 too
By mikefarinha on 7/10/2008 12:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm....

Why did I get modded down? You can install Virtual PC for free, install a prior version of Windows and run many old games that don't run on Vista! Including DOOM.


RE: I Like Vista64 too
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/10/2008 1:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
No idea, its a valid solution. I use a windows 2000 installation in Virtual PC 2007 to play old 16-bit games such as Doom, SW: Rebellion, and more.

I've managed to get Diablo 2, Starcraft, and even the original Command & Conquer to run on my Vista-64 natively :)


RE: I Like Vista64 too
By mackintire on 7/15/2008 11:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
Try using something like the zdoom loader.

http://zdoom.org/About


Macs are PC's!!!
By mrdeez on 7/9/2008 4:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
The only difference between a MAC and a PC is the operating system. Mac's hardware is the same as a PC. What is so hard to understand about a PC9Mac) thats sales are based on shiny products with gimmicky ads? I mean there is no way for the PC to really defend itself against these ads because anyone can build a pc. So, those Apple ads are mainly Vista against OSX and nothing more. In a few years OSX will be just as security flawed as Windows and maybe more. The only reason it isn't now is Apple PC's hold a small market share....




RE: Macs are PC's!!!
By clarkey01 on 7/9/2008 6:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, they are more open then windows

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11869

"Recently, a hacker conference showed just how vulnerable systems running Mac OS X are, due to their slow rate of patches. The Mac machine was hijacked within 10 minutes, while the Linux and Windows boxes survived the day."


RE: Macs are PC's!!!
By Belard on 7/10/2008 3:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
It was hacked through its Safari browser, not so much the OS.

And in the end, Vista still easily lost to Linux.

Apples aren't used as servers, most hackers seem hungry for the much larger base of Windows. Apple should fix its problems faster thou.


RE: Macs are PC's!!!
By PhreakyMike on 7/10/2008 9:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Safari is bundled with every OS X version. Windows gets a lot of bashing because of its browser so why can't macs?

They are used as servers. Google OS X Server. Obviously not as popular ask W2k3 but is still use none-the-less.


Apple and MS FUD
By Belard on 7/9/2008 4:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that Apple has recently moved from PowerPC to x86 hardware - their transistion wasn't as messy as the Vista nightmare, and Vista is nothing more than DRM filled XP with added Bloat, perhaps to make Intel happy for making people NEEDING to upgrade hardware for no good reason.

Microsoft said:
"Microsoft, however, recently warned users who decide to wait until the company releases Windows 7 in 2010 to upgrade their PCs from Windows XP that they are only forestalling compatibility headaches. That's because Windows 7 is being built on the same code base as Windows Vista, so applications and devices that had compatibility problems with Vista will likely encounter the same glitches with Windows 7."

Er... okay, XP works today, requires no major upgrades. So howabout we ALL just sit back and wait until you're done with the beta-version of Windows7 (AKA vista) and we'll get back to you. So why should those in the BUSINESS makert as well as home be forced to buy whole new computers so we can scroll through programs in fake-3D? In another 12months, those glitches with vista/Windows7 should be ironed out.

Oh yeah, thats why you want US to buy new Vista PCs today. To keep your hardware vendors from getting more angry at Microsoft. Buy the new slow VistaOS PC today, deal with it for another year - then spend $100~150 to buy the UPGRADE disc of Windows7 that Billy Gates promised will be smaller and faster than Vista!

Most of the industry sees through MS' FUD. And will not waste their time with vista. At least companies like Lenovo still sell computers that work just great with XP... even gives you a free XP disc!

About 6 months ago, I built and delivered 12 new computers for a client. All with nice XP setups. These computers JUST replaced 9 year Windows98 systems and the new computers will be in use for another 5-8 years. Had we gone with Vista, the cost would have been $2500~3500 extra for more memory, Faster CPUs, etc etc. Oh, and some software would not work and still does NOT work with Vista.

Even the very sucessful intel is REFUSING to install vista on their computers. Its not worth it, period.




RE: Apple and MS FUD
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 5:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
I swear... you people are so thick-headed!

quote:
Er... okay, XP works today, requires no major upgrades. So howabout we ALL just sit back and wait until you're done with the beta-version of Windows7 (AKA vista) and we'll get back to you.

Are you done foaming at the mouth yet?
quote:
So why should those in the BUSINESS makert as well as home be forced to buy whole new computers so we can scroll through programs in fake-3D?

I don't see any arm twisting by MS going on here. Just like any good decision businesses need to base their decisions on needs. Most businesses didn't rush out to replace all their Win98 and Win2k installs when XP came out. Most simply waited until they did a hardware refresh. That didn't mean that XP was awful, it just meant that there wasn't an overwhelming need to upgrade to XP.
quote:
Oh yeah, thats why you want US to buy new Vista PCs today.

If I were selling something I'd want you to buy it today too.
quote:
Had we gone with Vista, the cost would have been $2500~3500 extra for more memory, Faster CPUs, etc etc.

If you are getting ripped off that badly when purchasing hardware I would never, EVER, trust any business advice you have to give.


RE: Apple and MS FUD
By rudolphna on 7/9/2008 10:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
idiot, he had to buy quite a few pcs, not just one.


RE: Apple and MS FUD
By Belard on 7/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Apple and MS FUD
By mikefarinha on 7/10/2008 1:43:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

quote:
I swear... you people are so thick-headed!

Ever considered that it goes both ways?

Not really, I don't hate XP. In fact I think it is a fantastic OS, I always have. I simply don't believe that Vista deserves the shaft that everyone is ready and willing to dish out.

At home I run Vista and my wife runs XP. Am I more productive with Vista than with XP? Of course not. In fact I'm just as productive as I was with Win98. It's a friggin' OS.

Why do I have Vista? Because I'm a tech junkie and like to play with new shiny toys... I have to keep my geek card validated don't you know?

Why doesn't my wife have Vista? Because XP is just fine for her at this point in time. If I were to go out and buy her a new PC you can bet your socks that I'd make sure it had Vista x64 Home Premium on it.

quote:
Then again, I'd like some idiot explain to me why a new HP Printer driver (just a PRINTER) eats up 185mb of HD space.


The idiot you'd want to talk to works for HP, not Microsoft.

I have an HP LaserJet 3600n. The driver software for XP = 14.9MB and the driver software for Vista x64 = 7.5MB... That damn XP! I have to install a driver on my wifes PC that is 2x larger than what I need for Vista!! Boo-hoo!!

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/D...

I don't know what printer you have so I can't comment on your specifics... however I think you're exaggerating just a tiny little bit.

quote:
Lousy sloppy code that sucks up space, takes longer to load up and more likely to crash than a software a skilled programmer(s) make.


I don't know where to begin... Microsoft probably has more world class programmers than any other organization.... after all they paid good money for 'em :-)

quote:
To a degree - Intel's inability to upgrade their hardware to support Vista is a huge sign to other companies that Vista isn't worth it.


No. It is a sign that Intel's IGP sucks, it always has. My last gen ATI IGP can run Vista's Areo with out a hiccup.

quote:
Going from 700Mhz Celerons to 2Ghz dualcore AMDs (64/128mb > 1GB) was already a huge performance boost.

Well howdy-do! My PC, which runs Vista x64 Ultimate, is a dual core 2.0GHz (AMD 3800+ to be exact). I play Team Fortress 2 on it all the time! Of course I'm using a dedicated graphics card (ATI 3650) also. With or without Vista TF2 wont run on an IGP.

However I do have 4GB of RAM it was about $60 for 2x1GB around 4 months ago.

I agree that Vista needs at least 2GB to be run properly. So lets take your scenario and upgrade your 12 PCs with an extra 2GB and Vista installs, for a total of 3GB... not to shabby. That would cost your customer a grand total of $720 (Since you said that XP costs the same as Vista). He should be good to go for another 5+ years running business apps. You can cut that number down even more if you just give him 2GB of RAM.

Actually I think it's almost criminal to give someone PCs with less than 2GB (even for XP) considering the current price of RAM.

quote:
By all means, I wish Vista was worthwhile upgrade OS.

No you don't... you're a hater, pure and simple. Get over yourself.


hardware
By 4wardtristan on 7/9/2008 10:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
by the way, all you people saying that you gotta buy a whole new pc to run vista

you can purchase a 2.8ghz athlon x2, motherboard and 2gb of ram for under $200 AUD.

that will run aero and anything else u chuck at it(not really 3d games as such, but anything else vista throws at it).




RE: hardware
By rudolphna on 7/9/2008 11:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
oooh... When i can run windows XP on a Pentium II 400mhz with 256MB of PC100 and a Voodoo 3 on hacked drivers better than a 1.6Ghz Dual core with 1GB of memory can run vista.... does that seem right to you?


RE: hardware
By 4wardtristan on 7/9/2008 11:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
well....i dunno thats kinda a apples-oranges question isnt it?

not to mention the other multitude of variables involved with "running better than"

for all i know, this xp could be a fresh install whereas your vista install has been installed since day 1, no formatting, no maintenance, and you have been purpously loading malware onto it?

well, when i see it, ill beleive it tbh. until then, i wouldnt say thats the case at all.


About Time
By hrishi2das on 7/9/2008 2:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Payback's a bitch




RE: About Time
By hrishi2das on 7/9/2008 4:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ok rate me down, But I am sick of forwarding those Mac vs PC ads on TV.


My personal battle...
By clarkey01 on 7/9/2008 6:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.p...

I have been fighting the war for us...




RE: My personal battle...
By PhreakyMike on 7/10/2008 9:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
Added my comments under Mike M.


lol?
By 4wardtristan on 7/9/2008 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft is also preparing a secret weapon; it has developed a new system tool called Windows Advisor, which some are calling the "Don't Blame Vista" tool. The new tool assesses system problems and tries to convince users that they are not Vista's fault. It assigns blame to everything from user impatience to virus and spyware


anyone else laugh a fair bit at this?? mainly the last sentence




RE: lol?
By greylica on 7/9/2008 11:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
It´s the new advantage notification !

Now you willn´t need anymore stress therapies, your Windows will do it for you !


M$ Fails PC gamers
By Will14 on 7/9/2008 3:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
Gaming use to be one of the few reasons to use windows. Now 95% of my friends moved to linux as the only things for a PC these days are MMO's, and games such as WoW are easy to get to run on Linux. Part of this is due to blame on piracy but a large part of it also has to do with Microsoft buying out most PC game publishers, then either letting them rot or Pushing it all to XBOX.

I like how originally GTA 1-2 were on the computer. Now you can't even play them on one. It isn't just Microsoft, it is Sony as well who ensures games are on their platform only.

I don't want an X red ring of death.
Or to pay $600 for a P$3 when I could build a computer for the same price(yes even one to game on).

I want to use a keyboard and mouse when playing a game. Call me crazy but I haven't been a fan of console controllers the last 2 generations. Wii is neat but the graphics are a joke.

Back to Vista, I used the betas and it worked alright, I was able to get everything I had to work, then it got horribly slower the more I used it. Could get better speed with an SD card which was a neat feature. Built a brand new desktop figured I'd put Vista on it and no go. Unknown Error(From within XP) and Cannot find disk hurray(Windows setup)! Compatability advisor said everything would work and my components were listed as compatatible. I even posted on the M$ webforum thing and I just got a rude response calling me an idiot and to try something I mentioned in my post I had tried but didn't work. Then someone posted it was a known issue and my whole thread was deleted.

Now about DX10, not many games are DX10 and I'm not aware of any DX10 exclusives, I believe the minimal PC industry sees Vista as going nowhere as well. If M$ had been smart they wouldn't have pushed Dell and others to throw Vista on barebones $300 systems with 256 MB of RAM from the start. However they did, Vista performed horribly on them and instantly had a bad name it won't be able to erase.




hi im a mac
By omnicronx on 7/9/2008 4:10:48 PM , Rating: 3
Mac: Hi I'm a Mac
PC: And I'm a PC
Mac: Hi PC, have you heard? I can do everything PC's can do
PC: No!
Mac: PC! don't be jelous! What can you do that I cannot?
PC: GAMES!!!!!!
*machine guns the mac guy in the face*

I laughed for 10 minutes the first time I saw that video ;)




greeaaatttt
By judasmachine on 7/9/2008 2:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now you guys have done gone and pi$$ed em off.




Vista
By gener1c on 7/9/2008 2:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Most PC's are cheap on the market now. Dell, hp and gateway make more money on bloatware than they do selling the hardware. It is why vista and xp machines feel like they are completely filled with bloat ware. Just remember xp was bashed to hell and back when it came out just like vista is now. I have had no issues with Vista since I have installed it or XP.




Windows make MACs better
By silversound on 7/9/2008 3:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think reason for increasing demand for Macs are because of the poplarity of iPods and the ability of Mac computer to install windows OS, so now Macs take advantage of using both OS while regular PC cant.




By VoodooChicken on 7/9/2008 3:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
I really do think the campaign was played out prior to the Vista launch. Then when all these problems appeared and Vista got the blame, the Mac ads came SCREAMING. It's like Eli Whitney and the cotton gin (look up history yourself)




Problem with Vista
By Cunthor666 on 7/9/2008 4:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problems with Windows Vista, Mr. Brooks accuses were due to hardware manufacturers negligently expecting Windows Vista not to be delivered on time, and then being left unprepared when it was. He did acknowledge that security changes and other changes broke numerous hardware and software apps. However, he says Microsoft fixed virtually all these problems and continues to hone Vista.


But this won't make for a cool ad...




Why don't they spend that money...
By Jad77 on 7/9/2008 8:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, nevermind. a third of a billion probably wouldn't go very far towards fixing what's actually wrong with Vista. It's particularly true when they're in denial that there even is a problem.




By greylica on 7/9/2008 11:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]Microsoft is also preparing a secret weapon; it has developed a new system tool called Windows Advisor, which some are calling the "Don't Blame Vista" tool.[/quote]

WEW ! NOW The FOOBARD STARTS HERE !




Did you know?
By crystal clear on 7/10/2008 2:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In an attempt to tout how compatible Vista has become, Mr. Brooks unveiled the new portal site "Windows Vista Compatibility Center". The site currently lists 9,000 devices and software products (3,500 apps and 5,500 devices) compatible with Vista. Microsoft hopes to up this list soon based on feedback.


Did you bother to check up, if this site works ????

No, it does not.

The Windows Vista Compatibility Center will be launching soon, please check back.
Did you know?

The Windows Vista Compatibility Center will provide information on more than 9,000 products.
Of those products, there will be about 5,500 devices and 3,500 software programs.
There will be continual updates and additions to ensure accuracy.
If you are a small business customer and need immediate assistance with a compatibility issue, you can go to www.windows.com/assurance.


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/




Funny...
By Strunf on 7/10/2008 8:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
I thought it was the other way around executives and other folks on the upper echelon and/or with virtual no skills on hardware/software debugging would be getting a Mac whereas the folks that like to assemble their stuff piece by piece would get a PC.




By Rodney McNaggerton on 7/10/2008 10:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
I built a boat with Windows Vista
And sailed it down the Mississippi.




Your Missing the point :P
By Spectator on 7/11/2008 1:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
you need to think outside of the BOX. lol

Hardware is useless without the software to make it usefull. (/dreamscene that Ninja aint sht without all of their skills)

From a gaming Perspective.

Where is the logic in over supporting PC.

Just need to strike a balance of keeping(forcing) PC culture into new better faster hardware. (without making it obvious). Chukkle

Then when hardware is cheap. you make a console. then you controll 100% of the platform. Much better odds than PC market.

Or perhaps im wrong. im sure you will tel me if i am :).

Spectator.




By roadrun777 on 7/11/2008 1:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder why they don't use the $300M to write a new OS?; Or, at least, use it to add some features to Vista?
Maybe that would be a better alternative than trying to outwit them in advertising.
I would love to see kernel optimizing and the ability to alter driver parameters in the Vista system. The only real features you can control in Vista have to do mainly with the GUI and how it operates or looks.




VISTA sucks
By user78405 on 7/13/2008 4:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
i never like vista the first place i only use vista for gaming and linux for rest of everyday use. i don't trust microsoft they will lie about how good is vista but it is not true because it is built under win2k3 kernel. This kernel is wrong to use to built vista it has limit support. Since bill gates have retired, the company will be bought by under value price and linux will take over from there. They should have support NVIDIA NOT ATI/AMD DX10!!!




The Mac is simply better
By mgburroughs on 7/15/2008 8:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
The ads work because the Windows Vista OS is a warmed-over POS. It is a 32 bit version of DOS in a Tuxedo.
People hate all the Vista hassles with compatibility, code bloat, and lethargic responsiveness. So the ads resonate with them.
Steve Jobs is a visionary. The Mac OS is 64 bit native and Unix at the core. It has a friendly interface and seldom crashes. It is NOT easy to hack, contrary to the writers opinion above.
And it has features that users love.
Every Mac CPU built in over a year is capable of running the Vista OS. Wanna guess how many do? less than 4%.
Vista will be fixed eventually. Just in time for the next pile of garbage from Microsoft.




Heh
By LexGoyle on 7/30/2008 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I like is how not too many people seem to realize that why mac owners are under the illusion their OS is more "secure" is the fact that those who write malware do so to target as many computers as possible... Remember back in the late 80's early 90's virii for Mac were FAR more common then virii for PC. But as the market size of PC and Mac traded places.. so did the platform virii were written for.

But one thing I hate most about mac users is the snobby attitude I find most of them have. I'm sorry, I don't like an OS that doesn't give me command over it ;) Which is why I favor Linux, then Windows. And I can build a pc of higher spec for the cost of a low end Mac. Hmmm! Tough choice o_O

And notice how Apple is bending over to the PC hardware market? Having an OS based on freeBSD/Linux? Which run fine on pc hardware natively. I believe the only reason Apple is still around is marketing gimmicks and taking advantage of simpletons with their iPOD and iMacs. Afterall in my own experience with people (customers) i've dealt with in pc repair.. they're too lazy or "can't be bothered with" or "don't have the time" to learn how to do more then point and click on Windows.

Problem isn't so much the OS's as much as it is computer illiterate people not bothering to put in the effort to learn the basics. I mean you buy a car, you learn to drive it. You don't have to know how to fix it. But people are buying the computer with wanting it to do everything FOR them rather then put in any effort.




This is yet another joke from Redmond, no?
By Jeremy W on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 2:22:21 PM , Rating: 4
If it took you half a day to copy 15 folders times 125 files in XP, then I think you are the clueless one. As a software developer, I do tons of file management, which I previously did in XP and now do in Vista. There are no significant usability problems there to speak of.

Actually, that Mac might actually be a good fit for you, come to think of it.

Seriously, though, if you think that Apple has somehow found a silver bullet to usability, reliability, etc. that nobody else in the software industry has figured out, then you are fooling yourself.


RE: This is yet another joke from Redmond, no?
By BikeDude on 7/9/2008 3:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a MacBook Pro last October and installed Vista x64 right away.

Vista runs just fine. I haven't even bothered installing AV. It just works. Nice platform for software developers. Startup takes about a minute or two.

But my MBP has been a bit of a disappointment. Lately it powers down suddenly, when the battery indicator shows it is only half empty (after approx 45 minutes). At this point it refuses to even complete POST, so it isn't Vista related. The LED indicators on the battery also show 50% power remaining, yet the darn thing refuses to boot until I connect the proprietary magsafe connector (which isn't supported by any of the DC adapters that I can use in my car).

My first and last Mac I'm afraid. It looks nice, but I am used to diagnosing hardware issues myself. I tried emailing one of their authorized service points, but one week has passed without an answer.


By Zandros on 7/9/2008 6:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, Apple does not deal with service issues through email. Use the Support section of the website or call them. A phone call is far faster than using email.


By kelmon on 7/10/2008 7:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
Might be worth trying to recalibrate the battery since that sounds like the source of your problem. Charge the system up to a full charge (MagSafe adaptor shows a green light) and leave it connected for a good few minutes (an hour would be good but you probably don't need that), then disconnect the power and let the charge in the battery run out (i.e. computer goes to sleep). You need to let all the charge out of the battery so leave the computer until the sleep light on the front has stopped pulsing (usually takes about 3-hours after it has gone to sleep). Once that is done, recharge the battery to full power again.

I honestly doubt that this will work but might be worth trying. However, it sounds like the battery is faulty and therefore you should get it exchanged if your laptop is still under warranty.


RE: This is yet another joke from Redmond, no?
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 3:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As an almost twenty year former Windows user, this strikes me as a joke.
...
So, about a year ago, I looked seriously at switching to a Mac. Eight months ago, I did.


It's ok... sometimes people do need to go back to training wheels.


RE: This is yet another joke from Redmond, no?
By sprockkets on 7/9/2008 4:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!

And, uh, WinXP doesn't ask when you drag folders what to do with them. It moves if you do it in the same drive, and copies if you move it from one drive to another drive.

If you mean it needs to ask about hidden files, craps out if one file did not work, I'll give you that. KDE did not have that limitation even back in 2003.

I'll give it to Mac people that at least at one point, they had reasons to feel superior. But, feel superior when you tap your touchpad and nothing happens. If you do not know what that means, try it on a XP/Vista/Linux machine and see how intuitive that is and ask me why OSX does not have that, by default. And no, XP/Vista/Linux need no special configuring or software to do that.


By sprockkets on 7/9/2008 5:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
OK, we'll give the new multi touch in the LATEST mac books the edge. What took ya so long?


By kelmon on 7/10/2008 7:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll give it to Mac people that at least at one point, they had reasons to feel superior. But, feel superior when you tap your touchpad and nothing happens. If you do not know what that means, try it on a XP/Vista/Linux machine and see how intuitive that is and ask me why OSX does not have that, by default. And no, XP/Vista/Linux need no special configuring or software to do that.


Assuming that you are referring to tap-clicking, the reason (I think) why Mac trackpads don't do this is because it is annoying as hell. This is subjective since I know my sister looks for this feature when she uses my MacBook Pro, but it drives me nuts when I use a PC laptop.


why?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By MScrip on 7/9/2008 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 5
That's the beauty of software... it will continue to run until you decide to stop using it. But, you do understand that Microsoft cannot keep selling old versions of software. If I want to buy a new Windows 98SE disc, I'm outta luck.

Here's the rub... Vista might not be the best thing ever... but, if Microsoft hadn't made Vista, and they just sat on their hands for the last 7 years stroking XP, people would bitch about them not creating anything new!

So, Microsoft was hard at work producing Vista, and now they will continue to work on Windows 7. Progress.

Nobody is uninstalling XP from your machine.


RE: why?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 5:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't worried about them doing so, and I *really* don't know why I got the negative point dings for professing my genuine ignorance as to the question I posed (and which the many follow-ons don't answer other than "it's new").

Going to XP, there was very clear improvements in stability (no need for frequent reboots) and getting rid of the stupid running out of "resources". Both major problems of the 9x series of OS's.

For vista,the professed advantages are the fancier look to screens and protection from viruses and such. I already said I really didn't have major problems with either of those (and magazine columnists, etc have said these same things, so it's not something I alone invented). I was hoping someone would actually tell me a reason that I *need* Vista. I love new things and have rebuilt my PC's a zillon times since my original PC XT, including buying the new wonderful Windows 1.03! But previously I've seen some driving force each time that I couldn't live without and I'm actually disappointed that I don't see that now.


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 4
XP versus Vista is like the difference between driving an old car and a new car. Both will get you where you want to go for the most part, but the new one will give you a better, more comfortable ride and will look better getting there.


RE: why?
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 2:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
only a lucky few can actually get Vista to work well

Yes, if you define "lucky few" to be somewhere in the 150-200 million range.

Do you actually believe your own lies?


RE: why?
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 2:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
And the "at least 30-40%" figure, I assume, comes from the same place as your other "facts"?


RE: why?
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 2:50:42 PM , Rating: 1
http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=...

Just some terms from headlines all over the place that correspond to this story and others about how Vista really is starting to fail massively:
Vista woes: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=...
save XP: http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/...
Vista to blame for Mac success: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/5-0&fp=...
Apple sales up thanks to Vista: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/8-0&fp=...
Vista fiasco: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=...
75% of people downgrade back to XP: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-old-but-reliable-xp...

I can go on and on but most of the stories out there all pretty much say the same thing: Vista is crap and the sales figures are supporting it. People are sick of getting a buggy beta product for more money.


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any 30-40% figures in any of those links. Even your 75% assertion is bogus - you must have poor reading comprehension.

You're welcome to your opinion, but just understand that you are justifying it with FUD and lies. Why can't you just be a man and say you don't like it?


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 3:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Here, you might find this trend interesting. It shows the marketshare by OS/Version:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

If what you believe to be true was actually true, you would see the Vista trend decreasing and XP increasing. But instead, you see the Vista marketshare continuing to increase each and every month since its release.

You can argue that the slope could/should have been steeper, but your argument that most people think Vista is crap and are switching back to XP is clearly contradicted by the data.


RE: why?
By MScrip on 7/9/2008 4:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
You may think Vista is crap... but look at all those machines walking out of Best Buy and Circuit City with Vista... and it's not gonna slow down. You will never see XP being promoted like it was in 2001. XP as a retail OS is dead. Vista is now Microsoft's current OS.

You forget that the average consumer who buys computers don't read tech blogs. They don't know any better. Millions and millions of computers are sold in the retail channel to people who don't know any different. Joe Six Pack just bought an HP from Best Buy and thinks Vista looks pretty good.

You may think Vista is a failure... but tell me any company that sells 200 million copies software, and it's still considered a failure. No, it isn't Microsoft in this case.


RE: why?
By Flunk on 7/9/2008 2:32:23 PM , Rating: 5
You remind me of the people I used to argue with who asserted that Windows 98 was far superior to XP. Just because you do not want to upgrade does not mean the whole world agrees with you.


RE: why?
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 3:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
nope, I look at reality... not false stereotypes...

I knew Win2000 was better than anything prior as soon as they hit SP2. I knew Win95 was crap, I knew Win98 was crap, I knew WinMe was the biggest load of crap to date. the problem was at that time, we had the choice of Apple which was not much more than a glorified linux shell or Windows.
Once Win2000 hit SP2, I switched everything I had immediately and never looked back. Then XP was released albeit a little buggy at first and I stuck with Win2000 for the most part until XP-SP1.

The main point is that since XP was based on Win2000 NT kernel, it was much more stable and less problems than any previous version of Windows. the people that said 98 was superior were the ones stuck on these 16 bit apps from the DOS days...
Now fast forward to today and we have Windows ME version 2 aka Vista. It is a piece of crap money grubbing resource pig stopgap until they can release a decent OS such as Windows 7 or 8.

Remember, a portion of people thought Windows ME was the greatest thing to ever hit a PC at the time... and we all know how that crap of an OS really was. It was not until XP that people really started realizing what a piece of crap WinME was.. and the same will be said for Vista...


RE: why?
By killerroach on 7/9/2008 3:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
Your analogy holds only so long as Microsoft supplants Vista with a new microkernel. People saw ME as crap mainly because it was patently inferior to Win2000, an OS that came out several months before it.

People's opinions of Vista also depend on their feelings toward XP. People who prefer XP usually upgraded to it from 98 and ME, saw that it was vastly better, and see anything that deviates from that formula as a step backward. I didn't use XP much, upgrading from 98 to 2000, saw XP as an ugly, bloated abomination of an operating system, and saw Vista therefore as a pleasant change (although one that was rough around the edges for the first six months or so due to crap video drivers and spotty support for it from third-party application makers).


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 3:35:43 PM , Rating: 4
I see it differently. There are a lot of people out there who don't cope well with change. Give them something new, and they complain like crazy. And there are people out there that seek perfection in everything out there, and complain when something fails to meet their unrealistically high standards. I figure you probably are in one of these two categories, or maybe both.

While I don't think Vista is perfect, I do think it is pretty good. Certainly better than all Windows versions before it. And I think there is no chance that Vista will get marginalized like Windows ME. The main problem with Windows ME was that Windows XP, which was designed from the ground up to be a consumer and business OS, and which was based on the much more solid NT core, was released only a year after ME. Sure ME had bugs, but its main problem was that it didn't make sense strategically.

Finally, I'll add this: I don't think you'll be happy with Windows 7 (or 8), not because of the software, but because of how you see the world, regardless of how great (or not) it is when it comes out.


RE: why?
By BikeDude on 7/9/2008 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 3
Why do you think Windows 7 will be all that different? I've spoken with people who think e.g. UAC is the worst idea ever and that "MS are sure to remove it from Windows 7!".

But I doubt that very much. They are not going to remove any features from Windows 7. MS are waiting for the hardware to mature. They are waiting for broader hardware support and better quality drivers. I doubt they're e.g. "fixing" UAC, because UAC pretty much does what it is supposed to do: Bully people into running as non-admins and not use software that requires elevation.

Maybe UAC will disappear once all Windows third-party apps behave the way they were supposed to, but at that point nobody will notice that UAC is annoying... (of course, some software will always require elevation, but most users won't deal directly with that anyway)

Personally I have disabled UAC. Pretty much the first thing I did after installing Vista. Next to go was SuperFetch. SuperFetch is brilliant if you never power down your computer. MS wants us to hibernate rather than shut down. I'm old-school and believe hibernation is the devil's way of sleeping. Indexing is also disabled. I can keep track of stuff myself. I regularly remove stuff that installs itself as autorun, like Adobe Reader's "speed launcher". The only thing "speed launcher" does is to slow down my windows startup. I don't feel I can blame MS for other companies silly mistakes.

But long story short: MS isn't going to remove features. Vista is heavy on features, and if you run with everything activated, you're going to get slowed down no matter what. Windows 7 is not going to change that, unless they complicate the installer by asking the user what the user might think of such and such feature. They're never going to do that again. If you're into only installing stuff you actually use, check out the server versions of Windows. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!


RE: why?
By rcc on 7/9/2008 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgeting the pirated copies.


RE: why?
By mondo1234 on 7/9/2008 3:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your not seriously implying that "all" of Vista licenses are working well? I dont know anyone who runs Vista that considers themselves as the "Lucky Few".
Time for a reality check TomZ.


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say there were no problems. But I doubt there are more problems than XP, and I'd be willing to bet, based on my experience, that there are comparitively fewer problems once you factor out compatibility issues due to hardware and software vendors failing to update their software.


RE: why?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
I was hesitant about installing Vista on my primary machine, but I've had no problems whatsoever since doing so. Some driver issues I had with XP are no longer present. I can finally do Wake On Lan.

Thanks to more efficient utilization of system memory, general multi-tasking is faster. When applications are minimized for a while and I bring them into view, they come up almost instantly, unlike XP.

The sound system is better with support for adjusting the active output and doing direct digital output. Handling of network connections is better. The update tool is better. Search features are better. Hybrid sleep is nice. I could go on.

Overall, Vista may not be an amazing improvement over XP, but sheesh, I simply do not understand the hate. I'll admit, I added an extra GB of memory so it would perform better with my laptop, but it cost like $15. Yeah, it has higher system requirements, but it can also better take advantage of that extra hardware.

Vista is nothing like ME and some of the earlier versions. I made the mistake of installing Windows 2000 when it first came out only to find nothing ran and drivers were sorely lacking. The experience there was much worse than with Vista. And let's not forget the fun days pre-NT kernel, where you had to reboot every other day or so to ensure stability.


RE: why?
By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 3:13:43 PM , Rating: 1
$15 for a GB of RAM for a laptop. I call bullsh!t on that one.


RE: why?
By mikecel79 on 7/9/2008 3:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not $15 but pretty close. If you look around I'm sure you can find memory cheaper. I only payed $25 to add another 1GB to my laptop when I installed Vista on it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


RE: why?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Closer to $20 now that I recall. I got a good deal on it.


RE: why?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 5:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
XP versus Vista is like the difference between driving an old car and a new car. Both will get you where you want to go for the most part, but the new one will give you a better, more comfortable ride and will look better getting there.


But what does that mean? If I've a full-screen firefox running on a XP screen right next to firefox running full-screen on a Vista screen, will I have a significantly better more comfortable ride around the web on the Vista screen? If so, could you describe what it is that's better other than "more comfortable"?

In a car one spends a lot of time in the car "proper", on a PC I spend very little time with the OS itself 9which is something I think should be the case if it does its job right) and spend my time in apps. So if I'm in firefox, thunderbird, LTspice, Sony Vegas, or whatever, will the difference there be enough to buy a new OS and rebuild my system (which I *have* done before many times) that's currently XP?

I'm not saying Vista is bad, I just can't figure out what's so much better that makes it an entirely new thing (rather than just an XP SP4 "feature-wise"). I'm also not saying that it isn't -- I just can't seem to find out what it is that's so majorly good (other than "new"). Maybe the new MS campaign will bring things to light.


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 5:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
For FireFox, probably you won't notice much difference, except that Vista will probably launch it quicker initially than XP (SuperFetch), and of course the cosmetic Aero when you're not maximized.

The benefit of Vista is really the sum total of a lot of small improvements. For example, finding things in control panel, explorer, and the start menu are a little easier because of the live search. A small improvement that saves a tiny bit of time each time you use them. There are lots of things in Vista like that.

I also like some of the self-diagnostic features in Vista, like how the networking troubleshooter can resolve many kinds of networking problems. Or the built-in memory test that saves you from having to load a separate utility.

The list goes on, but as I said earlier, it is the sum total of a lot of small improvements. Will it change your world? No. But it makes the hours spent in front of the computer a little nicer and helps you get your job done a little faster, that's all.

BTW, I'm also a fellow LTSpice user...


RE: why?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 5:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
XP versus Vista is like the difference between driving an old car and a new car. Both will get you where you want to go for the most part, but the new one will give you a better, more comfortable ride and will look better getting there.


But what does that mean? If I've a full-screen firefox running on a XP screen right next to firefox running full-screen on a Vista screen, will I have a significantly better more comfortable ride around the web on the Vista screen? If so, could you describe what it is that's better other than "more comfortable"?

In a car one spends a lot of time in the car "proper", on a PC I spend very little time with the OS itself 9which is something I think should be the case if it does its job right) and spend my time in apps. So if I'm in firefox, thunderbird, LTspice, Sony Vegas, or whatever, will the difference there be enough to buy a new OS and rebuild my system (which I *have* done before many times) that's currently XP?

I'm not saying Vista is bad, I just can't figure out what's so much better that makes it an entirely new thing (rather than just an XP SP4 "feature-wise"). I'm also not saying that it isn't -- I just can't seem to find out what it is that's so majorly good (other than "new"). Maybe the new MS campaign will bring things to light.


RE: why?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 5:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
XP versus Vista is like the difference between driving an old car and a new car. Both will get you where you want to go for the most part, but the new one will give you a better, more comfortable ride and will look better getting there.


But what does that mean? If I've a full-screen firefox running on a XP screen right next to firefox running full-screen on a Vista screen, will I have a significantly better more comfortable ride around the web on the Vista screen? If so, could you describe what it is that's better other than "more comfortable"?

In a car one spends a lot of time in the car "proper", on a PC I spend very little time with the OS itself 9which is something I think should be the case if it does its job right) and spend my time in apps. So if I'm in firefox, thunderbird, LTspice, Sony Vegas, or whatever, will the difference there be enough to buy a new OS and rebuild my system (which I *have* done before many times) that's currently XP?

I'm not saying Vista is bad, I just can't figure out what's so much better that makes it an entirely new thing (rather than just an XP SP4 "feature-wise"). I'm also not saying that it isn't -- I just can't seem to find out what it is that's so majorly good (other than "new"). Maybe the new MS campaign will bring things to light.


RE: why?
By jeromekwok on 7/9/2008 9:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
A new car supposes to be more fuel efficient. Vista seems to be an old car with manual transmission known as UAC.


RE: why?
By rtrski on 7/9/2008 2:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
...and I think your statement is the 'real' reason for lack of adoption, not all the FUD about it not working, bugs, or hardware compatibility. You've got a working system, and don't need to upgrade. Simple.

Those building (or buying) new systems are already in the population 'opting in' to a change of some sort. And some of them will choose Mac OS over Vista. Some will choose Linux too. But while there are a lot of behind-the-scenes changes to the kernel functionality and structure in Vista, some vast majority of users (and IT departments, for which install base and thus inertia against change are even larger) are served well enough right now and see no need.

While news reports make much ado about downgrade availability and new HW purchasers wanting XP, and the MS extension of support for XP...I've never seen any statistics that says outside of the IT industry performing maintenance system purchases for existing networks the rejection of Vista is truly significant. Anyone point me in the right direction?


RE: why?
By Belard on 7/9/2008 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Vista is so great - Intel is refusing to install it onto their computers. It'd be too expensive to upgrade their PCs to do the same thing they are doing now. Work.

Vista would be fine if it were more like XP-MCE, a skin job, added tools. But after 7 years, its DRM with a new skin job and incompatible with XP drivers for no good reason... and slower too.

The Mac ADS are FUNNY, they are not 100% accurate - but in spirit, yeah. My issues with Vista have nothing to do with Apple Advertising.

Microsoft can blame everyone, it doesn't change the facts that vista did nothing exciting and only required people to get more hardware to open a web-browser.

With PS3 and Xbox360 getting the games and most people use a compuer to access the internet and maybe type up some letters on a wordproccessor, then WHO needs a microsoft OS for the home?

The statements from MS from this article are funny. With their "dont blame Vista tool" and "9,000 devices and software products (3,500 apps and 5,500 devices) compatible with Vista", okay - Vista works with 500 mice, 500 keyboards, 1000 monitors, 500 printers (most new ones), floppy drives, DVD-burners.... whoopie.

BTW, as of this typing, going to their "compatiblity center" gives you this message: The Windows Vista Compatibility Center will be launching soon, please check back! Wow, full steam ahead Monkey boy!

I guess if Microsoft is going to show how COOL it is over Apple, they should show thier best video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, Vista is so great - Intel is refusing to install it onto their computers. It'd be too expensive to upgrade their PCs to do the same thing they are doing now. Work.

This is a good propaganda piece for you naysayers. But the reality is that most large corporations don't run the latest-and-greatest OS (or most any other software for that matter).

Corporate IT workers have a large challenge in dealing with legacy hardware and software compatibility, and the result of this is a very cautious, conservative, slow rollout of something like a new OS version.

In reality, companies like Intel, GM, etc. will probably upgrade to Vista, but probably not until Windows 7 is out. Heck, lots of folks in these companies only just recently got upgraded off of Win2K to WinXP, and how long has WinXP been out?

So, bottom line, Intel's decision to not upgrade to Vista now is not any kind of indictment against Vista. It's more or less the standard operating procedure of large company IT.


RE: why?
By jbizzler on 7/9/2008 5:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If Vista isn't much better than XP, then don't UPGRADE to it. Windows XP does these companies' tasks just fine. If XP does what you use it for, why go for Vista?

But if you're getting a new computer, Windows Vista may have only a few more features than XP, but it only costs a few more dollars.

I think that's where most of Vista's bad PR comes from, people trying to install Windows Vista on old machines. I built my current computer when Vista came out for Windows Vista.


RE: why?
By Belard on 7/10/2008 4:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
Its interesting propaganda for Vista-is-god sayers.

There is a difference in going through a 6-12months certification proccess and out-right refusing to bother upgrading software/OS.

Here is the quote:
quote:
However, times have changed and suddenly, according to inside reports Intel has shockingly snubbed Microsoft's flagship product, Windows Vista. Intel, which has over 80,000 employees with workstations, will not change its computers over to Vista. This marks the first time that Intel would have bypassed a major Windows generation, if the reports from the key inside source hold true. While Intel's acceptance or rejection may be a largely symbolic blow, it is part of a far broader trend of companies refusing to adopt Windows Vista, discussed previously here at DailyTech. While consumer adoption has languished slightly due to some complaints about compatibility, features, and resource consumption, these problems are exponentially greater in the business world, which operates largely on somewhat antiquated hardware.


Keys words "First time ever" Going from Windows3 > Windows95 or WIn98 > Xp wasn't viewed as a major issue as it is today, considering HOW CHEAP hardware is. In 1995, a typical desktop was $1500 (486-66/4mb(megabytes)/500mb HD (not GB)/ CD-ROM drive and 1mb video card with MS-DOS and fake-OS Windows3.11) Today, $500 gets you dual core 2ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, DVD-Burner, etc.

quote:
In reality, companies like Intel, GM, etc. will probably upgrade to Vista, but probably not until Windows 7 is out.
Doubt it, considering that Windows7 is a supposed to be a major bug-fix version of Vista. The big companis will start certification of Windows7 and buy new hardware. Or if they don't need MS-Office compatiblity, just go Linux.

If Microsoft has any brains, Windows7 will only be 64bit and come in two flavors. Like Home and Business. But I guess 17 versions of Vista wasn't enough. Perhaps Home Basic, Home Standard, Home Pro, Home Ultimate, Business basic, Business standard, Business Super Pro, Business Ultimate Pro with 3D Fish tank. Then have OEM,Retail, Upgrade and Enterprise sub-versions. Who knows?

The GREAT thing about Vista is that it makes it SO much cheaper and easier to build a kick-ass WindowsXP box.


RE: why?
By TomZ on 7/10/2008 8:01:45 AM , Rating: 1
A couple of questions for you:

1. Did Intel say they were skipping Vista and planning to adopt Windows 7 instead?

2. What problems does adopting Windows 7 instead of Vista solve for Intel, if the main issue is they have to run on a lot of antiquated hardware?

3. Do you think Windows 7 will have lower hardware requirements than Vista?

Intel might skip to Windows 7 if Microsoft were to add some very compelling management features into Win7 that don't exist in Vista (which already adds a lot in that area). But what I think is more likely is that Intel will wait a couple of years until more of their hardware gets upgraded.


By BikeDude on 7/9/2008 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
I played Civ IV on my laptop last weekend. No artifacts. I did have to download DX9 after applying the latest patch for Civ IV, but the game ran prior to the patch as well...

A lot of software does weird things. MS goes to great lengths to ensure compatibility. If something stops working, then you can be pretty sure the designers of said software did something really stupid. Civ IV gives me that feeling. A beautiful game, but when it stopped working after installing the patch, I couldn't help but think "hmm, has this thing been tested at all?".

Video artifacts sounds like a typical nVidia issue. Upgrade your display driver mate... I've seen a lot of instability these past 12 months with nVidia's drivers, and not only in Vista.

A 64-bit OS "made from scratch" would mean no backward compatibility at all. You can't flame Vista for lack of backward compatibility, and then advocate coughing up a whole new OS. That makes absolutely no sense. And given the huge problems caused my minor changes in the Vista's driver model, imagine what problems an entirely new OS would cause. There would be practically no hardware support at all for the first ten years! Face it: We're walled in, unless MS are able to expand their generic drivers even further.

FWIW: Visual Studio 2008 on Vista is no problem. Yes, Vista seemingly uses lots of memory, but most of it is cached stuff. Most things run just fine. Or spend $100 on more memory and you'll be flying high like a kite.


By rtrski on 7/9/2008 3:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about Civ, but played both NWNII and GalCiv II - recently - on my Vista x64 Home Premium system. No problems in either, although NWNII really pissed me off with that whole "rocks fall, everyone dies" ending.

Even reloaded the original Homeworld and got it to run just fine. On Vista. x64. And that was written for what, Windows 98???? Hell I found a repackaged free port of Bungie's original Marathon series that works on Vista. Not perfectly, and in a window at 640x480 vs. fullscreen, but frankly I don't see the application incompatibility issue. Well, there was that one Win 3.1-era questionaire application I had to run for work that wouldn't install....oh, wait, it wouldn't install on my Win XP x64 Pro workstation at work, or my Vista x64 HP desktop, but DID on my 32-bit Vista Home Premium laptop.

Not that I'm saying everyone should run out and get Vista. If XP works, stick with it. I see no reason to change. I just see no reason to flee in terror when someone says "Vista" either.

BTW, out of a desire to be helpful since you probably think I'm calling you an idiot for not getting them to work, please check out the Windows game compatibility listing...one of the greatest Excel offerings ever compiled. DOSFreak is a god:

http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopic.php?t=8784


By dgovmntwrkr on 7/9/2008 4:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the reply rtrski! I've never tried the 64 bit version of vista! Maybe memory management is a lot better there. I have only 2GB of memory; with the Vostro 1500 it's a pain to get at the DIMM slot underneath the keyboard. Now that I think of it though; I don't think there is a 64 bit device driver for the 8600GS in the DELL support page. (Lord knows I've tried to get drivers from NVIDIA; but the only notebook drivers you can download there are for the 8700.) Will have to snag some 64 bit 8600 drivers somewhere's else (or hope that winodws update will have one waiting for me.)

Maybe microsoft did make a semi "new" 64 bit O\S from scratch? Just had a descent virtual environment \ O\S layer for the old 32 bit stuff?

All I know is that the 32 bit Vista version was a complete incompatibility let down :( I'm still sad......


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Go get the omega drivers, you will be pleased with them I think.
http://www.omegadrivers.net/


By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 3:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you have some faulty hardware... Possibly cheap PSU or RAM, or perhaps a dying/corrupted hard drive.

But you're right, lets DAMN THE MAN!!!!


By Chaotic42 on 7/9/2008 4:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you're just not good at building a working system? My Core2 system with an Intel motherboard has had no problems since I got it in the fall of 2006. I put Vista Ultimate on it right after Vista was released and I have had zero crashes that were in anyway OS related. Vista has actually only died once, and that's because I did something stupid in VB.

It still runs quickly here 16 months later. I am very happy with Vista. I don't understand why they moved things around like they did, but it's not a big deal.

Oh, and seriously, if you've worked on countless home and business computers and you can't get anything to work properly, maybe you're in the wrong field. A 0% success rate over 15 years is kind of a bad sign.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds more like a faulty system board to me. Could also be memory related.


By emboss on 7/9/2008 5:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Vista x64 has been a headache for me stability wise as well. I've got a completely vanilla install, with just Visual Studio 2005 installed on top, ant it bluescreens on average about once every 10 days (Core2Duo/P35/8600GT). Explorer crashes somewhat around once every 3 to 5 days. I'm not exactly sure, since I don't log in too often and Explorer crashing doesn't interfere with the usual operation of the machine. However, it's frequent enough that I often have to hit the "restart Explorer" button when I connect. It's a test box that's left on permanently, and spends a lot of time throwing things around the network and compiling.

When the machine was first put together, it ran XP 64 and its uptime was limited by power cuts only (it was on an effectively isolated network, so updates didn't happen). I moved it over to Vista about a year ago, and have had trouble ever since. I've tried replacing every single bit of hardware in the machine without any success, and rebooting back into XP64 results in indefinite uptimes.

My main box (Q6600/P35/8800GTX) was also Vista x64 for a bit over a year, up until about a month ago. It bluescreened a bit more often, which was possibly due to nVidia's drivers - I do a fair bit of GPGPU work, so was tickling the drivers in ways that games probably wouldn't. The crashes never happened during actual tests though. I might be reading a webpage and then bang - bluescreen. Or sometimes it'd bluescreen overnight. Though the Explorer crashes were often quite soon after a graphics-intensive application exiting. It was more or less random, and again, no amount of swapping components fixed it.

I finally got fed up and went back to XP 64 about a month ago. Since then, Explorer hasn't crashed, and it hasn't bluescreened either. And, it feels more responsive. For example, under Vista programs would sometimes stop responding for a second or two. No swapping or anything, just completely unresponsive. Opera, Visual Studio, IE, notepad even.

On the topic of swapping, Vista was far too aggressive in paging things out to disk for me. I'd leave a big-ish application in the background for an hour or two (for example MS Document Explorer) and Vista would have paged the whole thing to disk. When I alt-tabbled back to it, I'd have to wait around for 5 seconds while Vista got it all back off the disk again. This never happens under XP. It appeared to be related to SuperFetch, since disabling it improved the behavior of Vista, though XP was still noticably better.

Additionally, the network performance just wasn't there, even after SP1. No matter how I tweaked it, it couldn't get above about 25 MB/sec, compared with XP saturating the gigabit link. When you're transferring around many gigabytes of data, this quickly gets tiresome.

Finally, Supreme Commander runs much better on XP x64 than Vista x64. I have to crank the settings way down under Vista or it'll crash at about the 60 to 90 minute mark. I've never had it crash under XP, and that's even with epic 81x81 map, 1000 unit cap, 1v7 comp stomps. Even when it's not crashing under Vista, there's about a 15% frame rate hit, and when you zoom in it'll often freeze for 5-10 seconds while it pulls things off the disk.

Was Vista a complete writeoff? No - it did have some interesting features (like the new alt-tab interface, which would have been perfect if they hadn't futzed with the ordering), and DX10 did help with some GPGPU things. But for my situation, the productivity hit was simply too high. And this is from a usage, not an administration, point of view.


By MrJustin5 on 7/15/2008 6:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
0% Success rate over 15 years? Faulty RAM, bad mobo, hard drive? Mother of pearl!! All of you guys must think I am some sort of drooling idiot!

Yes!! I have been over ALLLLL of that! Its called "troubleshooting"

You see, its not my hardware... its the software. After installing all these programs on it - you get whats known as "Software conflicts"! You heard of THOSE, right?

I remember using Windows 3.1 where you'd print something and then it'd get stuck in the print buffer. You'd right click, cancel the job... delete the print job, etc. Nothing would happen. Reboot the system, its still there. You cant print because the old print job is still sitting in the printer queue. Fast-forward to windows XP - over a DECADE later many different operating systems later (Windows NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Windows 95, 98, 98se, Windows Millenium, Windows 2000, Windows XP SP1 & SP2)...

I called microsoft in 2004 after having given up on my OWN methods of solving a problem with PowerPoint being unable to play videos inside of a presentation that ONCE played correctly. Well, instead of really FIXING the problem, they just said "Its vegas video... you need to uninstall that... its causing a problem." Sure enough, I uninstall it and now PowerPoint works... but then... I am stuck with a system without my clients favorite video editing software. I cant have BOTH POWERPOINT and Vegas video on the system? RIDICULOUS!

Thank you Mickey$oft for creating a superior product... and thank YOU GUYS here on DailyTech comments for calling me an IDIOT (in "so many fancy words") and then BRAGGING about your cute little Core 2 Duo systems and oh how FLAWLESS all your computers run.

I guarantee you... I can take your spiffy little slick running machines... install the usual array of software on it that I use all the time.. and after 1 or 2 months - YOU TOO will be having the same problems!!

Facts are... there are a lot of doofuses on here that want to prove their metal by bashing me and saying I cant build a linkin'-log-house. Fine... "be that way" as the playground saying goes... because, well, you guys still act like your in Jr. High... maybe you still are... but I am disappointed in all the responses I get.

Instead of addressing the REAL ISSUES I brought up about STABLE software being a requirement in this world... you attack me... personally...

I dont get it... what did I ever do to you guys? Did I step on your favorite action figure breaking it into pieces? Did I snap your favorite XBOX DVD game in half? What did I do to deserve this? Why dont you go back and read my message again and address the real problem subjects I brought up...

Do you know anyone ELSE who's fed-up with Mickey$oftware or all of you just swallowing everything microsoft shovels out without even chewing?


By dgovmntwrkr on 7/9/2008 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Guy,

Not that you probably haven't "done the following".

- When the computer said "reboot" did you? Or did you just keep on proceeding with the installs? There is really only one "spot" that will store in the registry all processes that need to be changed and can only be done during boot up. If you do not reboot your machine when asked you are essentially rewritting this spot......

- The HD was erased from scratch? Or did you try and install the O\S over the proceeding code that was there? (If it can; a windows O\S will try and utilize an old registry if you install to a location that already houses an old O\S...)


commence Vista bashing
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: commence Vista bashing
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 1:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Here, I corrected that for you:
quote:
Commence down voting for spreading FUD about Vista and MS


RE: commence Vista bashing
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: commence Vista bashing
By Cosworth on 7/9/2008 2:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... I built a quad core system with a 8800 and 4GB of RAM for around $1000 just last week, and it works flawlessly with Vista Ultimate... Where are you going where you're spending $2000, and you still can't do anything with it?


RE: commence Vista bashing
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 2:25:23 PM , Rating: 3
its called a Mac /laugh/


RE: commence Vista bashing
By Flunk on 7/9/2008 2:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a cheapy notebook (1.6 Turion, Geforce Go 6100 Integrated, 1GB RAM) with Vista preinstalled last year for $500 and it runs Vista perfectly. It's not exactly like you need a super computer.


RE: commence Vista bashing
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 2:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I was wondering the same thing, I just built a system and have vista and like it better than xp. I'm wondering if they were using really old hardware or a beta/pirated vista.