Slashdot Mirror
Ten Reasons to Buy Windows Vista
pennconservative writes "Michael Desmond, writing for PCWorld.com, gives us ten reasons to buy the next version of Microsoft Windows. Some of his reasons sound compelling, and it definitely sounds like Microsoft has found yet another way to ensure market dominance for a few more years. Desmond also gives a few reasons not to buy Vista, but the most compelling of those is the hardware required to run it. Since Vista will likely ship on every new computer anyone buys, I don't see that being a major roadblock."
DRM. Why would you pay for your own shackles?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
what feature will I get that I don't already have in Mac OS X 10.4?
I skimmed the list rapidly and I'm already using the equivalents to at least half of them, probably more (I wrote "skimmed"). Some of the features I have even used for several years...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Those are 10 reasons to buy vista IF you are currently running XP. As a Linux user who has always the option to open a maconlinux OSX window, the only reason would be the collaborative environment. All the other reasons were available to me on linux osx or both, since at least two years ago. Heh, the two way firewall :)
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
According to Microsoft, the requirements for Vista are almost as low of Windows XP, you just can't have all the pretty effects and such.
I was reading about Vista last night and it's including features like a revamped sleep mode which is a cross between standby and hibernation. They have have SmartFetch or whatever it's called so it knows what applications you typically use and at what times so it'll preload them into memory making it seem snappier.
All in all, it sounds like Vista will be a pretty good release (at least, in my opinion).
Good luck MSFT - you've got a hell of a challenge ahead of you.
The age of the compelling application is mostly over because existing hardware (even systems several years old, and thus dirt cheap) fulfill almost all of the average person's computing needs. I'd wager that 90% (or more) of average household computer usage is spent in two applications: email and internet browser. (the other 10% is word processing, accounting/taxes, etc.)
And no, gamers aren't "average" computer users. They're always looking for state-of-the-art.
Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer? Mom & Pop don't understand/care about new video production, DVD ripping, file sharing, etc. They just want to occasionally look something up on the net, buy something off eBay, or get a photo of the grandkids. If they already have a system (and market saturation ##'s suggest that they do) convincing them to shell out a grand for a new box that doesn't offer them anything more than the old one is going to be a tough sell.
I actually read though the list, and other than the last three options. (backups, install times, live shared docs) the other 7 were options I've been using for years on Macs.
Granted, not that I'm not happy that Windows is catching up, but I thought it was funny that to me at least, the only new features were the last three listed. All of which sounded very interesting.
Cupertino, start your copiers!
So the top reason to buy Vista is "you have to".
--
make install -not war
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1. new firewall almost as good as ZoneAlarm
2. new IE almost as good as Firefox
3. new eye-candy almost as good as OS X
4. new desktop search almost as good as Google Desktop
5. new update program almost as good as Mac Software Update
6. new media programs almost as good as iLife
7. new parental controls almost as good as proper parenting
8. new backups almost as good as things not breaking in the first place
9. new P2P almost as good as turning off your firewall
10. new quick install almost as good as all the other planned features that don't actually exist yet
Well, considering there are more and more new computers being shipped with Linux, and how far away Vista's release is, maybe this isn't 100% accurate.
Compared to the XP fisher-price look?
Just be grateful, OK.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
First of all new computers will come with it. And then it is quite likely that some applications will require Vista. Hasn't Halo 2 been anounced to be Vista only (even though I can't think of any feature Vista might have that would make it a better target than XP)? That will pull some of the gamers over. And the next version of Office?
1. Security, security, security: Good! Something we can all agree on. This is a great reason to upgrade!
.. This isn't a great reason. I can run IE7 on XP, or I can run Firefox - which is what IE is to be modeled after. Not a reason to upgrade.
.. gets a welcome update that turns the once-bloated player into an effective MP3 library I think it's spelled 'WMA DRM' not MP3. None the less, media is readily available for XP, OSX, and Linux. This is not a valid reason to upgrade.
2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover
3. Righteous eye candy: This could be a good improvement for those who want a showpiece. Your eye candy is hidden when running applications, and I don't see this as a sole reason in and of itself to upgrade.
4. Desktop search: Yeah, this is a very handy feature. See Google Desktop, Beagle etc. This is not a reason to upgrade.
5. Better updates: WinXP home's update service will be provided for 2 years after Vista has been released. WinXP Pro has approximately 5 years. This is a good reason to upgrade when your existing OS isn't supported.
6. More media:
7. Parental controls: From a technical standpoint, allowing you to block games by their rating could be good. The caveat to this is that parental controls should be done at a parental level NOT through technology. Good reason for certain parents to upgrade. Not a parent? Move along, nothing to see here.
8. Better backups: Working as a tech I found system restore to be only somewhat useful and really hidden. Average Joe user will still not know how to use it or be afraid to use it. Savvy users may employ other technologies to backup information such as Ghost. Products exist so you can store your backups in another location, if your HDD dies, this feature won't help. Not a reason to upgrade
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: Sounds like P2P, I have it and don't use it. Either way, this technology already exists on WinXP. No upgrade required.
10. Quick setup: Beta code alert: Quick setup vaporware. Not a reason unless it is actually released.
In conclusion, Vista will be a great security update. Most other features are already available for XP and are just now being integrated into the OS - could this lead to more anti-trust lawsuits? (IE and MediaPlayer are historical examples)
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Compatibility with more games. Other than WoW, what popular MMORPG runs on Mac OS X?
Compatibility with more vertical-market apps such as the one used by your employer.
Compatibility with more peripherals sold at retail stores.
Compatibility with web sites that are made exclusively for Microsoft Internet Explorer technology and for which there are no close substitutes.
But for the next 3-4 years, you'll get all of those things with Windows XP. So what motivation is there to "upgrade" to Windows Vista? If you wanted the 10 features listed in the article, you could get Mac OS X now. If you want the things you mentioned above, stick with the Windows box you have now and don't waste money on the upgrade.
So, you are saying that the main reason for buying Vista is compatibility with a proprietary but otherwise outdated standard.
Well, I'd say those are excellent reasons not to buy Vista, then: while running Windows for compatibility reasons may be be expedient in the short term, we have to pay for it dearly in the long term.
In fact, people have a simple choice: don't upgrade. Windows XP will keep running for many years to come, and in a few years, hopefully, your "compatibility" reasons will have disappeared, as even more apps are available for other platforms.
Windows 2000 - the all-business operating system for the new millenium.
That's intereting......I run XP on a celeron 433Mhz at work with 512MB RAM and a crappy intel video adapter built on to the motherboard. It sounds to me like it runs circles around your newish computer. Either you're a troll or a novice computer user. Apparently you can't be bothered to set any preferences for your applications (or is this something that you think you should only have to do in Linux)? Word and Outlook are customizable and scriptable via VBA, far more than most applications written for either *NIX-like or Windows platforms (Apple has got AppleScript, but it's a mixed bag). Go find a clue before opening your mouth next time.
It seems to me there is a downward trend with MS in every area, marketing, innovation, product design, and security. I think that it has reached a very noticeable level to even those who are die-hard MS fans. Maybe it was the marketing by hype practice that put MS on an inescapable treadmill of eroded credibility. It seems harder these days for tech writers to stick their necks out and jump on the MS bandwagon to fully hype the new products. That was a pretty wimpy review of Vista, and I expected more hype from the writer, otherwise why cover a beta that keeps loosing features just to meet a release date.
/.ers, they are the followers and not the leaders of the "top ten reasons to buy an OS". Of course, in shear volume of sales they beat all other OSs hands down and they are truly the top dog of the desktop computer market. Why, then does MS seem to have to make such an effort to try and steal the "innovation" credit when so many know the truth is far down another road?
;-)
While not seeming to overcome fear of innovating a new OS, MS asks us all to live in their imaginary world and believe that they are the innovators of all things new to desktop computing. This may be the way to go if MS were better at the art of illusion, but they are not that good at it. While David Copperfield can make a live crowd believe he just made an elephant disappear before their eyes, MS can't convince PC prospects that they are not following Mac and Linux in the desktop innovations Vista claims to offer, maybe, at some future date.
Clearly, from the posts here by savvy
Perhaps being on top so long breeds fear of innovating. It may be safer to wait and watch others do the innovating, fumble around at a knock-off and proclaim you have just innovated a whole new set of features that everyone needs, right now. It seems to work to a degree, but is that also failing to keep the giant of desktop OSs on top, as more markets slip away from MS.
I switched from MS Win to Mac and Linux over the last few years. First by getting comfortable with Mac OSX at work and a couple of years ago I discovered Linspire. I still love the Mac, especially for graphics work, but I never got use to seeing MS products for the Mac, like MS Office and IE. So, Firefox and Open Office have been my primary browser and office suit for a while. I tend to rely more on Linux as my primary desktop OS now and have cut all but a couple of old ties to third party Windows software, that I rarely boot into XP to use. One of those is Swish, a light weight flash movie developer package. I tried to get Swish running in Crossover Office, but no go there.
These days, I don't consider myself to be a MS product user to any noticeable degree, and I need not wonder why. MS has performed so poorly as at the corporate level, like a bully loosing his grip on the desktop playground, doing desperate things in response to the slightest threat from any new kid (or those already not cowering in the corner like Mac). I thought I switched primarily for security reasons, and would have said that if surveyed at the time, but now I think it goes further. As MS continues to disappoint me almost daily with their attitude towards their users and others in the market, I realize that this is the real driving force behind my switching from MS products.
So, with regards to Vista, I don't see any thing for me in this OS shell game MS seems to be playing. In fact I think it may be the worst direction MS has ever taken their marketing in. MS seems to be resorting to carny trickery to milk money out of anyone they can. I wonder if this is the big downward spiral of the software giant that has been predicted for several years. It certainly is interesting to watch...
Sorry for the long reply on this one
I lost my sig...
Security, Security, Security
...need... eye candy.
...just use Google and Yahoo like you do normally anyway since they're already here and better.
yeah, they're so good at this. The world's richest man wants to 'protect' you from people who will give him more money for the opportunity to sell you junk that you don't need, using commercials on your desktop, or 'jump-outs' in your application.
Plus since we're talking security here, what makes you think that you're going to get any from the guys who bend over backwards to put ordinary people in Chinese concentration-camp prisons. You can be assured that anything from Redmond is going to have plenty of backdoors for the Gitmo Gomers to read and monitor everything that you do on your PC. And Linux won't have this.
Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover...
So use just FireFox. 'nuff said.
Righteous eye candy...
Do like Steve Jobs and just drop some acid if you
Desktop search:
Better updates:
one word...sourceforge....next?
More media
more embedded DRM, you mean.
Parental controls
we are already grown-up, and we don't need any more excuses for library restrictions on web access. Like prohibiting 17-year-olds from getting information on effective birth control, just cause 'Jesus or Allah says no'.
Better backups
the application programmer's responsibility, not the OS.
Peer-to-peer collaboration
they seem to want to make that quite illegal if I recall correctly.
So how much money or honey did they give this guy for writing such a transparent puff-piece about an operation system that doesn't even exist yet?
Jumping Jesus man. OS X has had better drivers for all that stuff than windows for a long time. Most of the time you can just plug it in without installing anything.
I didn't see anything on that list that Mac OS X or your favorite Linux distro doesn't already have. I looked, point by point, and could think of a comparable feature on either Mac OS X or Linux or, usually, both. That's what I wish Windows users would understand, particularly home users. Microsoft, despite their dominance of the OS market, sells, by far, the least advanced operating system of the big three. Linux gets features as soon as someone contributes code, which happens all the time. And, if you're impatient like me, you can install Debian testing/unstable and always have the latest features as they come down the pike.
Let's review:
Security Every Linux distro I know of forces you to make a non-privileged user account. There are plenty of features built into GNOME and KDE now that let you do a graphical 'sudo' to do administrative tasks. On the Mac, this is the default. They have their own graphical 'sudo', which works incredibly well. And, aside from the occasional exploit, neither OS has the same kind of inherent security problems that Windows does. IE 7 One word: Firefox. OK, two: Safari. Both great browsers that already offer all the same featuers. Righteous Eye Candy The GNOME and KDE themes have improved dramatically over the past few years and they look pretty good. Maybe not "Aero Glass" good, but then again they don't require an outrageous graphics card to use. Mac OS X has Aqua. Very pretty indeed, and far less distracting than Aero Glass. Desktop Search On Linux, locate. On the Mac, Spotlight. And developers can write Spotlight importers that give those apps better control over how their files are indexed. Windows has nothing like this. Oh, and if you are using Windows, use Google Desktop Search. It works well. I like it. Better updates On Linux, set up a cron job to do an apt-get update && apt-get upgrade every now-and-then and you're set. On Mac OS X, Software Update already updates every piece of software Apple sells with about one or two clicks. And, it runs automatically. Done. More Media iTunes, QuickTime. And with Flip4Mac, you can play un-DRMed WMV files right in QuickTime. On Linux, there are too many media players to name. No, they won't work with Windows Media, usually, but there's definitely no lack of MP3 library apps. Parental Controls Now here, I don't know about Linux, but I'd find it hard to believe there isn't some way a person couldn't use PAM to control when and where his/her kids use the computer. On the Mac, parental controls are already built in, system-wide. Better Backups Sure, it costs $99/year, butGranted, Linux still has to do some catching up in terms of user-friendliness, but like all UNIX, all the pieces are there if you know how to assemble them. There are more and more graphical tools appearing everyday to put those pieces together for you. Mac OS X already has just about every feature the article describes and they're planning a new release about the same time as Vista appears.
And Microsoft would do well to drop certain features. The Windows Registry, I think, is one of the worst-conceived ideas ever. If Microsof
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Let's see. IE 7 will be more like Firefox and Vista will be more like OS X and Linux. So much for original thinking.
After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP ... I just can't afford Windows anymore.
Bullshit.
1) You'd never pay for both 98 and 98SE -- SE was a free upgrade.
2) You'd never pay for ME and 2000, since they were both released at the same time, and if you'd bought 2000, you'd never even consider installing the far-inferior ME on a second computer, you'd just use the same copy of 2000.
So you've paid for six OS revisions since roughly 1993. 6 in 13 years. Or once per two years. At $100 each, that's $600, or $46 a year -- twelve cents a day. Even at $150 a copy (I'm not sure what the exact costs are), you're up to a whopping 18 cents a day.
Considering that the cost of owning a car is somewhere on the order of $12-18 a day, 18 cents for the heart of your software system doesn't seem that unreasonable. That's 100 times cheaper than your car. Take the bus or train to work for one week straight, and the money you save in gas will pay for 6 months worth of operating system.
1. Security, security, security: New holes, new holes, new holes.
2. Internet Explorer 7: GetFirefox.
3. Righteous eye candy: Ooohhh shiny...
4. Desktop search: Learn to organize.
5. Better updates: Why update? Because it was broken in the first place!
6. More media: More DRM!
7. Parental controls: Real parents don't need an OS to babysit their kids.
8. Better backups: Already have that.
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: ???
10. Quick setup: Why am I running setup more than once anyways?
In short, 10 compelling reasons why you don't need to upgrade to Vista.
Does it strike anybody else as odd that all the features (maybe minus the eyecandy, although probably not) are not actual parts of the OS, but applications that should be completely separate from the OS. Doesn't microsoft have enough monopoly troubles without tieing more crap into the OS?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Remember that Bill Gates is the Dr. Death of software. HE decides when Microsoft's software is no longer usable, not the customers.
I decided their software wasn't usable a long time ago. Bill Gates didn't have to tell me that.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
2. I like freedom
3. I like freedom
4. I like freedom
5. I like freedom
6. I like freedom
7. I like freedom
8. I like freedom
9. I like freedom
10. I like freedom
Hence, I use a few different variations of Linux on my boxes. No MS. No Apple. Just open-source and freedom. I don't give a shit that I can't play the newest games. I don't give a shit that I can't run the latest and greatest commercial apps. I don't give a shit that I can't use every cheap off-the-shelf piece of hardware. I don't give a shit that I don't belong to a an elitist club with a superior GUI. I value freedom over all. Am I an idealist? You bet.
Meh.