backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 213 comment(s) - last by fabarati.. on Nov 22 at 6:08 PM

InfoWorld claims early Windows 7 benchmarking show it to be virtually identical to Windows Vista in terms of bloat and to have several noticeable compatibility hang-ups.  (Source: New Line Cinema)
If early testing holds true, so much for running Windows 7 reliably on a netbook

One key Windows 7 feature driven home again and again by Microsoft's Windows team is the superior system performance with respect to Vista.  The team, at the recent Professional Developers Conference (PDC), showed off a netbook apparently running the OS smoothly, leading many to hope that their prayers of a smaller-footprint Microsoft OS had been answered.

Unfortunately, it seems the rosy picture painted by the development team at the WinHEC and PDC conferences might have been a bit overly optimistic.  InfoWorld has done some extensive early testing on the pre-beta of Windows 7 and the results aren't very impressive in terms of improvement over Vista.

According to InfoWorld, in terms of basic system design, Windows 7 is shaping up to be a OS X like release, in that it is only a minor iteration over Windows Vista, with little change in performance.

Looking first at the kernel, both Vista and Windows 7 M3 (Milestone 3, the other name for the pre-beta) featured 97 to 100 processes.  The system process also consumes a similar amount of memory to Vista, according to the writer.  He states, "This was not "MinWin," the mythical, streamlined new Windows kernel that promised a clean break with the bloated Vista... In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities."

He continues to reinforce this assertion by pointing to key subsystems such as Desktop Window Manager (dwm) and Client/Server Runtime (csrss), which were virtually identical in Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Using a test suite composed of Clarity Studio's ADO (ActiveX Data Objects), in particular, the MAPI (Messaging Application Programming Interface), and WMP (Windows Media Player) Stress workload objects, InfoWorld set to stress testing the system after examining the kernel.  Windows Vista had been shown in March to be 40 percent slower under load than Windows XP, using this test suite, so how would Windows 7 fare?

The results were that Windows Vista actually beat Windows 7's pre-beta by 5 percent in database tasks, while Windows 7 scraped by with a 2 percent win in workflow tasks.

The memory usage during testing was remarkably similar -- 637MB for Vista and 658MB for Windows 7.  The thread count was also very close -- 712 for Windows 7 versus 810 for Vista.  InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy sums up his conclusions, stating, "In a nutshell, Windows 7 M3 is a virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance. The few minor variations I observed during comparative testing are easily explained away by slight tweaks to the kernel (such as the aforementioned MDAC changes); they certainly don't indicate a significant performance overhaul."

The reviewer praised the updated UI, stating it was far more than an OS X clone.  He argues this is the key feature of the new version of Windows, not improved performance.

However, he also points out numerous frustrating software compatibility issues that he ran across, which could indicate a repeat of Windows Vista's early problems.  The Daemon Tools suite, an ISO image-mounting utility, installable under Windows XP and Vista, would not install.  When the author tried to use the compatibility tab, he found himself stuck in an "endless loop of failed installations and mandatory reboots".

Additionally, Skype 3.8 would randomly crash with no apparent cause.  Also, VMware Workstation would not launch virtual machines, though the exact cause of this problem was not able to be determined.

So has Microsoft tried to pull a fast one on the audience, preparing a Vista-twin with similar problems to its sibling, while deceptively promising a lean fully-compatible fresh OS?  It remains to be seen if this is the case, as many changes remain in upcoming beta releases.  However, with only a year to go, initial testing is indeed showing a troublesome resemblance to Vista in terms of performance and compatibility problems, a stark departure from the cheery picture painted at Microsoft's PDC.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How far have we gone...
By Lugaidster on 11/11/2008 10:33:24 AM , Rating: 5
that we already judge software performance from pre-beta releases. If the software was ready then they'd release it now, wouldn't they? People this days just attack windows whenever they have a chance...




RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 10:37:27 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. Are we supposed to judge programs based on alpha versions now?

This is just one more example of Jason Mick's poor journalism skills. I can picture him scouring the Web to find something new to make an MS-bashing "article".

And anyway, the version running on the netbook at PDC ("PDC build") was NOT the same version that was given to developers (Milestone 3), and will not be the version that is given to the public early next year (Beta 1).


RE: How far have we gone...
By fleshconsumed on 11/11/2008 11:06:02 AM , Rating: 5
The thing is however, Microsoft confirmed Windows 7 release to 2009, only 6-9 months from now. It may be called alpha/beta/bravo/whatever now, but if Microsoft is to stick with 2009 schedule what you see now is pretty much what you will get later. There is just no way to significantly cut down on the bloat with the project this big and still go through full testing/bugfixing cycle. If Microsoft is smart, it will cease feature development 6 months prior to release, meaning 3 months from now, and will do just testing and fixing what's still broken. In the end Windows 7 will be Vista with different taskbar. I hope that Microsoft at least will improve Vista usability and finally fix the damn explorer.


RE: How far have we gone...
By AntDX316 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:55:16 AM , Rating: 4
Please do yourself a favor and learn about how computers, OSes, drivers, and applications work.

To address your main concern with Aero taking GPU cycles from games, Aero disables itself when you are running a full-screen DirectX application.

Vista's game performance is at least on par with XP and in some cases faster. There was a time period after Vista's release where ATi's and nVidia's Vista graphics drivers were not performance tuned, and this resulted in slower game performance.

Since MS completely rewrote the graphics driver model for Vista, it took some time for the GPU makers to tune their drivers for optimal performance.


RE: How far have we gone...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/11/2008 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately Intel still haven't gotten there act together regarding Vista drivers, it's still got it's performance issues in casual games, which is sad considering Intel sell more Graphics Solutions than nVidia or ATI, and yet they have drivers which are just plain bad, It's not Vista's fault however it's the driver teams.

I mean look at the entire debacle between Creative disabling features on certain sound cards under Vista when they work in XP? And then someone goes to modify and fix the issue and Creative jumps up and down, and then the community jumps up and down and they are forced to apologies!

What a funny world we live in... I just feel some Manufacturers don't care about making good drivers for Vista, probably why the operating system ended up being hit with so much crap. - I just hope we don't have the same issues all over again with Windows 7. (Although I'll be sticking to XP).


RE: How far have we gone...
By BansheeX on 11/11/2008 4:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
I will agree that the driver situation isn't MS's fault. I like the changes they made to directsound, etc.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand why the desktop environment requires so many more resources than XP despite the similar functionality. Maybe MS can find ways to cut down on the amount of background fluff that few people use.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By BansheeX on 11/12/2008 1:27:48 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, for what, though? Most people really don't care about the sidebar and aero and extra background programs, they just want quickness and battery life. It doesn't affect me much, because I always upgrade my comp and I'm nerdy enough to know how to disable them if I want. But for people with netbooks, or schools with low budgets, or businesses with low budgets, you can't be increasing requirements 4x over XP for these kinds of things. Previous OS changes were major and made improvements like going from 256 to 32-bit colorspace, midi to wav audio. This is entirely different, and I'm considerate enough to understand it.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Silver2k7 on 11/16/2008 2:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately Intel still haven't gotten there act together regarding Vista drivers,"

Everyone knows that intel integrated graphics are weak, if you make plans for gaming on your computer, you buy a standalone video card.


RE: How far have we gone...
By eldakka on 11/12/2008 3:09:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
To address your main concern with Aero taking GPU cycles from games, Aero disables itself when you are running a full-screen DirectX application.


And what if I want to run a game in windowed mode? On an MMO it is likely I will be running multiple simultaneous instances of the client.

Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.

Don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've been doing this since Vista first came out, and I upgraded my media center from XP MCE.
The only issue I know of was that some had difficulties outputing sound over HDMI, since it required video hardware that would mix sound in, but that was completely irrespective of Vista.
Perhaps it is just your hardware or personal skill that is causing the limitation.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.
Or perhaps you just don't know what you are doing? Vista works perfectly with HDMI video cards, and it has no problem outputting sound via SPDIF. In fact the audio API in Vista is leaps and bounds ahead of what XP has to offer. It was the one of the changes under the hood that was a night and day comparison. Sound under XP was one of its major flaws of the OS as it ran basically every stream through a DSP, not to mention it wanting to convert everything to 16 bit, but thats another story...


RE: How far have we gone...
By Griswold on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:57:39 AM , Rating: 3
MS has stated that Windows 7 will be released in time for OEMs to put it on machines for Christmas 2009.

9 months from now is the beginning of September 2009, plenty of time for OEMs to design and test machines and to get them shipped to retailers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By tastyratz on 11/11/2008 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 1
oh of course, because Microsoft has SUCH a good track record on keeping their release dates.
Sorry I will believe it when I see it.

I am starting to think at this point nobody will be happy with windows 7. It has been so hyped up and pumped up by the media that when its released... it will not meet expectations. The bar is REALLY set high on this one.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 12:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
So far they're a bit ahead of schedule, so I can believe the Christmas 09 release.

Public beta should be available in about two months, so we can see if there is any substance behind the hype.


RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/2008 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 1
You just can't deal with the fact your guy lost. Get over it. We can finally have a country to be proud of again! My life is going to get so much better now! I can't wait for my first check!


RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By winterspan on 11/11/2008 11:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words you voted for John McCain of 2000. He definitely had some guy ideas for the country at the time, and was well liked. Then 2006 rolls around and the guy totally lost it pandering to the far right-wing and religious nutcases and went totally off the rocker.

Thank god we had an intelligent, thoughtful, curious, and highly-educated Obama to defeat "McCain 2008" aka the curmudgeon lunatic!


RE: How far have we gone...
By haukionkannel on 11/11/2008 2:53:19 PM , Rating: 4
You are quite right in here. The core is there and as most people has predicted, this is Vista SE, nothing less, nothing more... Not anything bad in that. Ofcource people hope for more, but it's too early to get anything better.
The bugs will be ironed out, or guite many of them, so that is a thing that will be better in next release versions.

Most people who really have looked behind the MS-curtains says that Windows 8 or what ever it's called is the first that can change the things from Vista. We can only hope that it will be released only as an 64bit version. It allows MS to start from more cleaner board. But anyhting about Win8 is just speculations. It can even be more bloated than Vista and Win7 will be, but we can allways hope :-)

I still have somewhat positive feeling about Win7. If it can improve some things that are not so solid in Vista, it will be good upgrade, even though it will not be the "miracle" os that someone hopes for.


RE: How far have we gone...
By VaultDweller on 11/12/2008 7:53:47 AM , Rating: 3
You can't judge performance based on pre-release builds, and that is that. It doesn't matter whether it's a month or a week before the code is locked. Unless it's a beta specifically meant for performance testing, beta builds probably still have instrumentation code enabled that will hurt performance considerably.


RE: How far have we gone...
By dagamer34 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 5
So you can't go back and optimize code? It's not possible to rework things to make code run faster? Come on ... it's not that hard.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/11/2008 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 5
When new betas of the likes of Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion are released for the Mac they always come with lots of logging turned on that decreases performance but helps the developers find out what triggered any bugs that the beta tester encounters. It is possible that similar sorts of logging are in place in the Windows 7 beta and that simply disabling them will boost performance.

Basically, it is quite possible for the finished product to be faster (how much is up for debate) but you're going to have to wait for it in order to know. Personally, I don't tend to read too much into betas.


RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:29:58 AM , Rating: 5
This is one terrible article based off of another terrible article. Benchmarks of a pre-beta OS. Just brilliant. Geez, I thought Dailytech was better than this.

First, this is pre-beta. Second, it isn't even the newest build. Third, many of the features are specifically turned off in the 6801 build because they were still buggy at the time of that build (given the pre-beta state). The build shown off at PDC (6933) was newer and more stable than the build given to attendees (6801). The build attendees got was several weeks old at the time, per some MS employees at the conference. Apparently it takes time to prepare and dupe several thousand hard drives given out to attendees. It's not a gold release. It's not a release candidate. It's not even beta.

If this was the final release candidate, that'd be one thing. Your not going to make major changes for performance changes at that point. But making snap judgements off a pre-beta build. Lame. I wouldn't make performance judgements this early against any OS, including OS X and Linux distros.


RE: How far have we gone...
By peteh425 on 11/11/2008 3:19:14 PM , Rating: 5
Milestone 3 means "code complete" in MS jargon. It means that no new major feature will be added and no architectural change will be made. So comments on this build about architecture will remains true in the final release. The next year will be used to stabilize the code and address compatibility issues.
In other words, with a Milestone 3 build it is fair to:
- Evaluate the performance: The released product performance will be overall similar to this one.
- Evaluate the Architecture: The architecture won't change a bit
- Evaluate the UI. This should not change.

However, it is unfair and useless to:
- evaluate stability and compatibility, as those will progress significantly over the coming year.
- evaluate non-core components (i.e. drivers...)
- evaluate the setup: A test build might install and run apps and services that will not be ran by default in the release build.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, it looks like the OS didn't really grow - it's not more bloated (yet). So given that it will be 2.5 years later when 7 gets released, Moore's Law would say that things should be at least incrementally better when 7 comes out than Vista upon release. Combine that with similar driver needs (since this is only an incremental change, and not a complete overhaul), and 7 could work pretty good out of the gate. And so 7 won't be plagued by bad press at release that would discourage upgrading. It's a great strategy for turning Vista into a 'new', reliable, responsive product in the eyes of the average consumer.

Hardware has caught up with the OS by now - except for those pesky netbooks. MS is going to have to do something for those. Is there any possibility they've developed a mini-kernel for netbook editions, or is it just a matter of having non-essential processes disabled that allowed them to run 7 on a netbook?


RE: How far have we gone...
By Cogman on 11/11/2008 5:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, in almost everything Windows 7 is really just vista with a few polished features and an updated UI. (The reason it is Win 6.1 and not Win 7...). So saying it is completely "Incompatible" and slower is just retarded. It is vista with a new UI. Drivers in Windows 7 will be just as compatible as they are with vista, programs will be just as compatible as they are on vista.

I've seen some reports saying that Windows 7 feels much faster then vista, yet when benchmarked, everything came out the same. So what will have changed? MS removed artificial delays from 7 to make it appear faster. (IE animating an Icon when it is clicked, and waiting for that animation to finish)

But whatever, people will bash MS no matter what they do because its the "cool thing" to do.


RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the iPhone does all sorts of tricks to make the UI feel responsive despite a lack of power to back it up.

I'm betting MS also worked on speeding up start up - I know they already have a program where they're working with manufacturers to improve Vista's startup times.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/2008 7:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm betting MS also worked on speeding up start up - I know they already have a program where they're working with manufacturers to improve Vista's startup times.


It's already faster than XP starting up.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Silver2k7 on 11/16/2008 2:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
"It's already faster than XP starting up."

might depend on wich features you turn off etc..
might even depend on how much ram you got installed..
if more it has to read more from the hdd into ram wich might slow down the startup.

atleast i can say for sure that my moms old crappy celeron with xp atleast boots faster than my core2 does with vista. once its up and running of course the faster computer will run rings around the slower one.


RE: How far have we gone...
By winterspan on 11/11/2008 11:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Um... no. I don't think you understand software development. The iPhone doesn't use "tricks" to appear responsive.. it IS responsive. It has a *very* lean kernel and system configuration, which only requires 128MB of RAM and a 400mhz ARM to actually be responsive.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Cogman on 11/12/2008 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't either.

lean programs have nothing to do with how fast they are. Why do you think that GCC has a -Os option for smallest size possible and -O3 option for the most speed optimizations possible? Its because the speed optimizations cause the file to grow bigger.

Every time you add a feature to you program, it gets bigger. Does that mean it gets slower? Not at all. Microsoft could have totally revamped their help system so that it can read your mind and automatically fix whats wrong, with a huge increase to the OS size. Does that mean that your bootup time will slow down? not at all (unless they are loading the help system). Or does it mean that your games will slowdown? Again, no.

If there is anything that Microsoft and the rest of the developers out there should have learned from Vista, its that perceived speed is just as important as real speed.

The IPhone does use "Tricks" to appear responsive. Why do you think Icons flash up before an application load? Its not just to look pretty, its to make the IPhone appear like its working (and it is). Nothing is more frustrating to a user then to tell the computer to do something and then have it apparently just sit there. Why do you think your mouse changes when you tell any computer to do something? Or why do you think many programs create a splash screen? It is all the same reason, to give the illusion that something is happening. If you do more like slowly fade in the splash screen, then the user feels like even less time was spent loading the program because in their minds "The splash screen had to fade in first, then the program was loaded." when in reality the program was loading the entire time.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:41:51 AM , Rating: 1
Nice post, I fully agree with what you are saying. The iPhone is not this super powerful device everyone makes it out to be, the way it is programmed is just pure genius. You are dead on with your perceived speed theory, my WinMo has the same speed ARM processor, but since it has little to no animation upon pressing a button, and it takes a second to load the program, it just seems like it is running slower. A simple animation, can make the difference between a user seeing a perfect transition, and the belief that their device is running slow.


RE: How far have we gone...
By robinthakur on 11/13/2008 6:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would say that the iPhone uses animations to appear more fluid and "futuristic", not to distract users for a fraction of a second while application fires up (in most instances outside of App Store Stuff, they start instantaneously) Then there are the times where you do still get lulls (like the contacts slowdown before they fixed it in 2.1) but most people would call them bugs in the Apple Firmware rather than somewhere that they have yet to put a decent animation in.

Nobody really claims the iPhone is uber powerful, they just use the technology much efficiently than your average HTC phone which has a nice architecture with WiMo shoe-horned into it and a mini-skin on top designed by a gap-year student (and they wonder why they are a poor cousin of the iPhone...)

I must say I forgot how slow Vista felt when I first started using it 2 years ago, until i recently put XP onto a Netbook for my parents. XP feels alot more responsive, but yer, I believe its a perceptual difference more than anything and overall, i love using Vista (and Leopard)


RE: How far have we gone...
By Smilin on 11/11/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's not what Milestone 3 means at all. By that logic how would you explain Milestone 12? (the milestone of a separate product that is currently running slightly ahead of schedule...not 9 milestones behind).

The number is arbitrary depending on what goals have been set for particular stages of product development.

You're just making crap up or quoting someone else who did.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
You have a contradiction in your post.

quote:
- Evaluate the performance: The released product performance will be overall similar to this one.

and
quote:
- evaluate the setup: A test build might install and run apps and services that will not be ran by default in the release build.


So would it be fair to say that you cannot accurately asses performance.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Milestone does not mean complete code.. And the UI is disabled in the ML3 release, how can you say it is completed? They don't even have a stable release of it yet..

A milestone is just a completion of a set of goals, it in no way means that all major features have been added, perhaps the base code is there, but that does not mean they are complete and ready for testing.

There will be two more builds before Windows 7 reaches Beta , at that point I think it will be safe to say all the major features have been added have entered widespread testing.

And for the record, milestone 3 was build 6780, Microsoft also previewed (at the same show) build 6933, which should be the final build before the beta, it is this release and not the milestone (which is 2 builds prior) that should have all major features added.


RE: How far have we gone...
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 5
Only thing you constantly paint a picture of with your comments and articles is how attached your lips are to steve job's ass.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Garreye on 11/11/2008 11:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
What!? No 6 rating on that one?


RE: How far have we gone...
By hemmy on 11/11/2008 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am running it as my main OS(build 6801) on my laptop and it is faster than Vista and the only compatibility issue I have encountered is there is no flash player for IE8, which I don't care because I use Firefox anyway.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Griswold on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By lco45 on 11/12/2008 1:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
How rude!
This article was perfectly reasonable and nicely written.
Jason is not submitting work to some English Lit professor for criticism, merely writing a topical tech article for the light entertainment of the masses.
You are the one coming to this (free) website and then complaining what you're offered doesn't come up to your standards.

Luke


RE: How far have we gone...
By Tim Thorpe on 11/11/2008 2:41:46 PM , Rating: 4
Since when has DailyTech staff had to come in and defend their articles...better yet when did it become okay to do so?

My how the mighty have fallen.

I took pride in having worked for this publication. I now feel ashamed :(. Of all the topics on all of the internet this is the low ball journalism you decide to embrace? You're scamming Kris and Co. out of a good deal of money as you drag DailyTech through the dirt.


RE: How far have we gone...
By excelsium on 11/11/2008 5:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
This article irritates me..it seems like mindless FUD.


RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Both Mick and Asher will get involved in the debates in their articles' comments. But that's usually because both suffer from strings of personal attacks by the commenters.

I hope to see Mick continue to post articles on this subject, by the way. Especially if he keeps his word and posts the good news as well as the bad. Or maybe if somebody else posts the good news, that's good enough. Like how Mick and Asher balance each other out on the environment. They're like the Maddow and Limbaugh of DailyTech.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 10:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Other authors here seem to post as well. I for one like it. Journalists in newspapers are unaccountable and entirely unquestioned in comparison. Their defense and the following discussion can some times be more interesting than the article itself.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Steve Guilliot on 11/11/2008 10:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, who's the lucky one that gets to be Rush?


RE: How far have we gone...
By DigitalFreak on 11/11/2008 8:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
ROFLMAO when the article author gets modded down..


RE: How far have we gone...
By mikefarinha on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By KingViper on 11/11/2008 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Since when did Microsoft force you to use their OS at all? You realize you don't HAVE to use Windows Vista. Use XP if you don't like it. Or, if the reason you don't like it is because you can't properly operate a computer, maybe you should move over to the Mac camp, I'm sure they'd take you in with open arms.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By chick0n on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/12/2008 3:41:58 AM , Rating: 1
I hate replying to my own comment but I'm honestly stunned that it still has a 0 rating yet no one has had the decency to dispute what is obviously true. Anyone who thinks that you should need to know about computing in order to use a computer is nothing more than a computing snob. Computing is universal and a modern computer should (and usually is) accessible to anyone of any age and ability. If customers don't like a product then they aren't the problem, or you need to find new customers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, can you tell me a single thing about Vista that annoys users?
The casual user will find Vista easy to use (far easier than XP), and will virtally never get a UAC message. Add auxillary programs in the OS make it more feature rich than XP. I've yet to find anyone that can't navigate thier way through Vista, and studies on new OS learning curves are definately in Vista's favor.

It is only Power users that can get somewhat annoyed by Vista. The restrictions it places for system configuration, incompatibility issues, and system actions (UAC messages) are only caused by those who "know computers".

So I disagree with your assertion that the "casual don't know crap about computers" user is somehow dismayed by Vista. It's those users, the ones who buy a complete system at BestBuy, that Vista was designed for and dumbed down for the rest of us, the power users.

While XP was good, Vista has been hands down better.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely nuts! Explain why SO MANY people are "downgrading" back to XP and LOVING it then.

Vista sucks crap, ADMIT IT.


RE: How far have we gone...
By SuperFly03 on 11/12/2008 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Could it be all the BS Mac vs. PC Ads? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be the reviews more than a year old? Nah, that's too easy.

Could it be people having been using a variation on XP since 2000 and don't want to change "because change is bad"? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be that they are buying $200 systems never meant to meet the minimum Vista requirements because they are cheap? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be people "upgrading" to Vista on PCs that are 3-4 years old and are too slow? Nah, again too easy.

Vista is the best OS to date.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is the best OS to date.


Vista is the best Windows OS to date. Let's not go nuts here - it still can't manage ICC color profiles properly.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I can't since I have not upgraded beyond XP. My comment is based on the suggestion that if you can't use Vista or don't like it that you're an idiot, as made to a previous commenter. I see an annoying trend in comments on software design that seems to suggest that if the user doesn't "get it" that they are the problem. Ultimately, the end-user is the customer and if you can't satisfy your customer with your product then your product is bad.

Please note that my comment about Vista being bad is based on the following If statement:

quote:
if Vista annoys users then it is a bad product


I do not know if this situation is true, personally. The point that I was trying to make is that IF the customer doesn't like it then it's a bad product. You'll have to ask such a customer to know if the statement is true or false.


RE: How far have we gone...
By mars777 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 5
Wow, then how do all those other people switch? From Apple's commercials, they'd have you believe that the world is leaving Windows en masse for OS X. Why is there even a reason to run Windows anymore?

On a side note, Vista, while not a complete flop, has a black eye because MS messed up the release. SP1 is extremely solid and hardware compat is very good at this point.


RE: How far have we gone...
By xti on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/2008 11:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for MS's "evil empire" pc's would be years behind right now. Their "monopoly" created a standard, and this standard allowed progress. I'll clue you in on a little secret, i can think of several companies off the top of my head that tried and would be in the same dominant role MS is in right now. Just happens that Bill Gates was smarter and more conniving than other CEO's/companies.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By drzoo2 on 11/11/2008 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their "monopoly" created a standard, and this standard allowed progress.


Ok, Like most others I'm just as sick of the Vista rocks, sucks crap that always ends up flying on these threads whenever there is an MS story but....
You can't use the words "Monopoly" and "Standards" in the same sentence. You can't. And then to top it off, you also through in "progress". The whole point of a Monopoly is vendor lock-in in which MS is King. The reason Monopolies are Illegal is the stifling of progress. I can't use Vista. Let me take that back. I could use it. Since I had to learn a new OS why Microsoft? Also I don't understand all of the MS fanboi'ism. The ones doing the attacking in support of Vista are the ones who should understand why alternatives are needed. Be it Mac, Linux, BSD ect, it seems that YOU attack that in which you don't understand. It comes down to this. Either you support competition or you will eventually lose "Control" of your PC.
z


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 8:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to break it to you, but Monopolies are not illegal. Only using your monopolistic position in anti competitive behavior is.

Until Linux actually "standardizes", you'll never see it take any signifigant marketshare.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/12/2008 12:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
You mean how MS did?


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you shouldn't be running Vista on your old 386. 30 seconds for a context menu to show? Do you honestly expect us to believe that?


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By inighthawki on 11/11/2008 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 3
Thats not even necessary to say. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4400, 2GB of ram,and vista runs very smoothly for me. A large majority of my friends who have vista have almost the same setup, a few have worse, a few have better, and nobody has issues with speed. Im gonna say your doing something wrong or complaining for no reasons, or trolling us. (@kalak)


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 12:53:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista is really painfull slow... I click the right button and wait 20, 30 seconds to open a menu !!!???


Yet you don't have a "speed issue"?

I have Vista on an E6600, 2GB RAM desktop and a T5000 series, 1GB RAM laptop, and I have no issues with slowness.

Either you're lying, or you have some serious problems setting up computers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 1
Can't we all just agree the tech minded will have no issues making Vista run properly. The problem is the non-tech people who have no fanboy in them (I know, it is hard to grasp Apple and MS lovers) are having problems with Vista. It is just how it is, you can deny it all day, but the average Joe is having real problems.

Example, girlfriend has a year old laptop with Vista. Runs decently well, has 2GB of RAM, AMD dual core 1.7 if I remember right and a ATI 2600 in it. She hates Vista cause she encounters problems with her programs. I haven't had any issues making it work just fine, but if I wasn't there to take care of things, she would be up a creek.

Jesus, you people live in a fantasy land.


RE: How far have we gone...
By inighthawki on 11/11/2008 1:34:12 PM , Rating: 3
A LOT of people i know have vista who arent tech people and arent fanboys and run the OS just fine, no problems at all. (Besides the usually "how do i do this" or "this doesnt work" with all versions of windows including xp)


RE: How far have we gone...
By snownpaint on 11/11/2008 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.. Some find it fun to tinker and make the OS work.. But when I want my computer to run this SW program or render a video, I just want it to work.. I don't want to adjust .dat files, change registries, or any of that junk. I can do it, but I shouldn't have to.