Slashdot Mirror
Mossberg - Vista Is Worthy, Largely Unexciting
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walter S. Mossberg says Vista is the best version of Windows yet, but doesn't represent a major step forward: 'Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP.' More from the review: 'Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system, called Mac OS X, which came out in 2001 and received its last major upgrade in 2005. ... in my tests, some elements of Vista could be maddeningly slow even on new, well-configured computers. Also, despite Vista's claimed security improvements, you will still have to run, and keep updating, security programs, which can be annoying and burdensome. Microsoft has thrown in one such program free, but you will have to buy at least one more. That means that, while Vista has eased some of the burden on users imposed by the Windows security crisis, it will still force you to spend more time managing the computer than I believe people should have to devote.'"
Have you ever felt that sometimes people go out of their way to put down Microsoft.
Basically the article says:
Vista is the best version of Windows ever...But its not.
Vista is very secure...But only if secure it.
You get a free Antivirus program...Buts its not as good as the ones you have to pay for.
Vista is very easy to use...But I still had to click on stuff, so it sucks
Vista has a cool search feature...But Apple had it first.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
Does his mother make his bed for him still?
I use a Mac, I have no need for third-party spyware hunters or virus protection. Windows users have accepted this whole battle-against-spyware thing as an integral part of the computing experience. While I believe that this is unavoidable given Windows' market share, a hassle-free virus-free zero-paranoia computing environment is possible.
I'm glad that you can be welcomed to the world of the-rest-of-us, with Operating System features we've had since 2005 or so.
Now, I can only hope that Microsoft got this security "issue" fixed, so that you PC users will stop spamming me with sexually explicit crap and drug sales, and maybe my shared cable modem speeds will go up, with the worms circulating the internet being fixed in Vista.
Hopefully, in time, I can welcome you all to the world of computing with minimal/no time spent on security and maintenance. Either way, I'm glad the world is catching up.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Uhh...
Unix users don't really worry about these things. As an admin, I occasionally poke around to make sure everything is okay (verify checksums once in a while), but invariably, everything is fine.
I ran a virus scan for fun, once. (ClamAV).
Once you setup a Unix-y network, you just leave it, and things tend to keep working until the machines rust. I'm including Apple in this category, but we've got plenty of Linux machines around, too.
It's not so much a mother still makes the bed for me, as it is a I enjoy city-provided water and natural gas supply. I don't like lugging propane cyclinders, I hate chopping wood, and I wouldn't stand for no-running-water.
Why should you spend ANY of your computing time. If you're going to waste your time, at least waste it on Slashdot, not Norton Anti-virus.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I don't think that's fair to compare the transition from XP to Vista to OS X 10.3 to 10.4. That's basically comparing one year worth of Mac improvements to 5 of Windows'.
The requirements for Vista will be the most annoying thing to consumers. Unlike XP, the basic sub $500 computer is not good enough to run most versions. The requirements difference between XP Home and Pro was not as large as it is between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. Most of the hardware requirement differences were based on the applications that the user would run. If the consumer was a gamer or edited home movies, he or she would need a better video card and more RAM. But with Vista these requirement differences are on the OS. This applies to businesses too where the modus operandi is to buy the cheapest solution as possible. So a business getting the lowest price computer finds that it is dramatically slower than XP on the same hardware is not likely to upgrade anytime soon.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Honestly, I have software assurance, and therefore free upgrades to Vista, but I'm not budging from Windows XP. And I'm not just saying that I need time to test it, or I'll wait for SP1. I'm saying I don't fricken want the thing. I've tried it out on a couple systems, in some cases having a harder time getting it to work that I've had with XP. It won't run some old Windows software, or at least not properly, so I'd have to buy a whole bunch of new software. The new interface is annoying. UAC is annoying. The whole thing is just maddening to use.
It doesn't seem to me that I'll be missing out on anything if I choose not to upgrade, either. None of the new features are particularly helpful. Not one. I'm just not going to run Vista until Windows XP won't run on new hardware being manufactured.
This has nothing to do with fanboyism. The difference is, OS X from 10.0 to 10.1 (faster) to 10.2 (smoother looking) to 10.3 (expose) to 10.4 (dashboard, spotlight) has had lots of improvements, and each previous release was only a year or so apart, and 10.4 came out over a year ago, while Vista took the largest software company in the world 5 years to come up, stripping features the whole time, which is is just coming out now. (Where by "now" I mean "soon.") So of course the differences in each version of OS X are smaller, and of course it's more impressive to have had a product with most of the same features out sooner, and of course MS looks like crap for taking so long to deliver so little.
:-)
Add to that the system requirements, the many different versions, and Microsoft's abysmal security record--their response to which is mostly to ask users "Are you sure you want to do this?" before every trivial operation, AND NOT EVEN REQUIRING AN ADMIN PASSWORD TO SAY 'YES'--and you can see why people aren't getting excited about it.
On a related note, I think it would be the funniest thing in the world if Apple announced tomorrow that 10.5 would be released on Monday the 29th.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The DRM in Vista will simply obey the restrictions placed on the media by the supplier of that media, it won't magically add new DRM restrictions.
Instead of obeying the instructions of the OWNER of the media.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I've heard this before somewhere. Wait, replace Vista with XP and XP with 2000 and it's like I'm back in 2001.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Does anyone know why Vista is such a resource hog? I don't mean the fancy UI/eye candy. I mean basic OS functionality: even Vista's most basic mode without the fancy features has a bare minimum RAM requirement of a half gig. At home, I have a Linux/KDE box with Windows 2000 running in a VMWare image -- hardly a minimal environment -- all with 384M of RAM. Apart from the exotic graphics stuff turned off, what is it about Vista that is hogging all that RAM? Can that junk be turned off?
Most of the time, I want an OS to boot up and get out of my way so I can open up my applications where I do my real work. I'm not sure I'm too excited about an OS that wants most of my RAM just to wake up, leaving me with little room to do real work.
In any other venue, hundreds of millions of dollars spent and YEARS late, and functionality stripped out of it left and right would be called a failure. How MS and its minions can spin a great big fat yawn into success is mindboggling. We here seem to be moderately happy that it doesn't suck like cancer. Ok it doesn't suck like cancer. Does that make it good?
In Chronological order:
:)
"There are 2 Windows Vista users." = +2 Funny
"There are less than 2 Linux users." = -1 Troll
"There are less than 2 Linux + Mac users." = +1 Funny
Go figure.